Watching the Fox in the Henhouse

In a front-page story in today’s New York Times , the invaluable Andy Revkin shows exactly how the Bush adminstration White House treats news it doesn’t want to hear on climate change. Here’s a paragraph from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program’s report in late 2002:

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelyhood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrological events. Reducing the uncertainties in current understanding of the relationship between climate change and Artic hydrology is critical…

This became, two months later, after being rewritten by the White House:

Warming could also lead to changes in the water cycle in polar regions. Reducing the uncertainties…

Eight months later, when the report was released in July 2003, the paragraph was omitted.

Who was the fox in the henhouse? Philip Cooney, a lawyer. His credentials? He’s a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

The irony? When asked about climate change in a four-question "press conference" with Tony Blair, Bush took credit for the money being spent on the global climate research program…research his administration is doing everything possible to obscure, obfuscate, and deny.   

If an Oak Tree Falls in Your Yard, Will It Kill You? Or Damage Your Property?

A big oak tree — nearly three feet wide at the base, and about forty feet high — split and dropped three-quarters of its trunk in our yard last week. Our neighbor Chris Nottoli came out to look at the massive remains on the ground that night and shook his head. Just a day before he had planted a squash near the tree, under a screen to protect it from the dogs. He figured the squash was probably squashed under the debris, and warned me to watch out for it as I attempted to clean up with a chainsaw.

I told him I wasn’t so sure. Oak trees — as dominating, as massive, and as heavy as they are — don’t seem to cause as much damage as one might expect when they fall. I went Googling looking for examples and found only two deaths listed, and that was because two people in a car in Georgia ran into a tree that had just fallen in a storm. Of course a less scientific method of research could hardly be imagined, but according to a USDA Forest Service chart from l982, the live oak is among the varieties of trees most resistant to storm damage — only longlife pines fare better.

Later in the day Chris Wilson, who has worked with trees in Santa Paula and Ojai for years, and is widely admired among those around here who know about trees and wood-working, came out to look at our situation and our other trees. He pointed out that the oak that fell had been severely wounded decades ago. He looked at the numerous other oaks overhanging structures in our area and shrugged. Even though they towered directly over the buildings, he said they looked healthy.

"I’d live there," he said. "I’d let my kids live there." He added that in his experience, healthy oaks rarely fall, and even when oaks do fall, they tend to cause less damage than people expect.

"They might poke a hole or two in your roof," he said. "But their weight is well-distributed. I’ve never seen an oak bring down a bearing wall."

And when we looked around in the debris under our fallen oak, we found that all three of the plants that had been living on the fringes of its shade were fine, even though they lay directly in the path of the fallen tree. Branches were all around them, and the trunk lay heavily on the ground, but Chris’s little squash was untouched.

 

The Usefulness of Hypocrisy

"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue," said the witty La Rouchefoucauld, back in 1665.

In California in 2005, the governor — a former movie star who more than any other individual popularized the Humvee, an extreme emitter of the prime heat-trapping gas, CO2 — now declares his opposition to global warming.

Because another influential member of the governor’s party likes to pretend that the global climate isn’t changing, for a prominent fellow Republican to state the obvious is considered daring. But that says more about the pathetic state of discourse on the issue of climate change in this country than it does about Schwarzenegger. The fact that Schwarzenegger has no apparent interest in reducing his own energy consumption is immaterial; all he need do is call for others to cut where he will not, and he becomes an environmental hero.

"I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat, and the time for action is now."

That’s what he told a United Nations conference on the subject in San Francisco yesterday.

Nonetheless, as annoying as it is to have to give a prime contributor to global warming political credit for opposing it, the fact remains that California and Californians could make a major difference. As the story in the LA Times referenced above indicates, if we in California succeed in reducing its levels of heat-trapping gasses to year 2000 levels by 2010, an 11% reduction, and to 1990 levels by 2020, a 25% reduction, "it would cut more greenhouse gases than Japan, France, or the United Kingdom."

What’s more, Californians have already proven their ability to cut energy consumption. In 2001 — despite Vice-President Cheney’s scoffing at the time that conservation was of little practical use — we succeeded in reducing electrical energy consumption by between five and ten percent almost literally overnight, according to page forty-three of a 2002 report by the California Energy Commission.

(It’s difficult to exactly quantify electrical power consumption trends, because weather changes from year to year, and it’s necessary to calculate not just a reduction from the year before — about 5.4% from the year 2000 — but also an estimate of the potential energy usage, with population growth, business growth, and so on. Overall power consumption in California was estimated by the Commission to be down by over 9% in 2001, compared to 2000.)

Could California lead the way in a similar reduction of heat-trapping gasses? Why not? The Democrats are pushing an even tougher bill through the legislature, perhaps eager to take credit themselves…and we know leadership on this issue is not going to come from Washington, D.C.

What They Say about the Weather, and What They Don’t Say

In Yosemite, temperatures in the 80’s and rain on the snowpack threatens flooding.

In Colorado, similarly, temperatures fifteen and twenty degrees above normal are melting the snowpack: water levels haven’t been this high in twenty years, according to one kayaker.

And on the East Coast, it’s been a gloomy spring. The third coldest ever, according to a National Weather Service meteorologist.

The connection? All these facts can be seen as examples of a climatological trend predicted years ago by climatologists. For example, James Hansen, perhaps the best known climatologist in the country, has in more than one study argued that in a global warming scenario, the East Coast will actually get colder. Not enormously colder — about two degrees on the average — but measurably and noticeably.

Question: Why is this prediction never mentioned in newspaper stories about unusual weather? Wouldn’t it be worth at least a question to a climatologist once in a while? Then maybe we could have "a conversation" about the issue, as they say in newsrooms.

Just a thought.

“Too Boring for TV”

Nuclear energy is in the headlines again, because John McCain and Joseph Lieberman are soon to float a bill proposing massive subsidies to major corporations — notably General Electric — that want to build nuclear energy plants again. Some notable enviros, such as Steward Brand, support the idea. Others, such as the National Resources Defense Council do not.

Thomas B. Cochran, the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s nuclear program said in The New York Times  (registration required): "The issue isn’t: Do you support nuclear? The issue should be: Do you support massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars for nuclear power?" He said, "The answer is no."

One point often overlooked when it comes to nuclear power: the American insurance industry, back in l957, refused to insure these plants. Congress had to pass a law allowing the Federal government to insure the plants berfore they could be built (the Price-Anderson Act). This to me is argument enough against them, given that the insurance industry will, for a price, cover just about any other public activity under the sun.

But "The Onion," as usual, gets to the heart of the matter, with its hiliarious piece from the May 4th issue, entitled "Actual Expert Too Boring for TV."

They quote an expert from MIT thoughtfully discussing the issue, then a segment producer for MSNBC discussing the expert:

"[The expert] went on like that for six… long… minutes," Salters said. "Fact after mind-numbing fact. Then he started spewing all these statistics about megawatts and the nation’s current energy consumption and I don’t know what, because my mind just shut off. I tried to lead him in the right direction. I told him to address the fears that the average citizen might have about nuclear power, but he still utterly failed to mention meltdowns, radiation, or mushroom clouds."

Mine Plans Surprise Ventura County

In the last month, three different companies have announced plans to mine rock and gravel for development purposes near Ventura County. East of the county, Cemex Inc of Arizona announced plans to mine rock on Soledad Canyon Road. As discussed in the Santa Clarita edition of the "Daily News" from last Friday, "the project includes mining 150,000 tons per years of anorthosite ore, a rock mineral that is used to bind concrete for building."

Amazingly, according to Andy Fried, president of the Agua Dulce Town Council, the Forest Service asked for a response from local governing bodies within two weeks, even though it has known about the project for the last five years. Another company, Pacific Industrial Minerals, proposes to build a bridge across the Santa Clara River to mine rock ten miles east of Santa Clarita, generating as many as 25 truckloads a day, according to the proposal.

North of Ojai, on Highway 33, a "new sand and gravel mine threatens to turn Scenic Highway 33 into an industrial thoroughfare," according to the Keep the Sespe Wild newsletter. The Diamond Rock Mine, expected to be a 100-acre industrial site operating 24 hours a day, "would be capable of generating three times as much traffic as the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report suggests," director Alisdair Coyne points out.

Big News: Global Ocean Warming Proven. NASA Scientists call for action now.

If the on-the-ground news of melting ice and permafrost in the Artic wasn’t proof enough,
today a team of scientists led by James Hansen at NASA released a study comparing precise measurements of ocean temperatures against projections based on climatological models. The measurements, taken over a period of ten years, showed that the earth is now absorbing more solar energy than it radiates to space as heat.

The observations tracked with five climatological model runs from the Godard Institute for Space Studies models remarkably accurately. This obviates a great deal of the alleged controversy over global warming, because most of the complaints about global warming have focused on this or that aspect of “math worlds,” arguing that they did not accurately reflect what was happening in the real world. (Much of this alleged controversy was stirred up by papers from foundations backed by ExxonMobil, as Chris Mooney in Mother Jones showed this month, but that’s a topic for another time.)
However, although the study proves that additional global warming is “in the pipeline” already, due to excess heat stored in oceans around the world, the scientists concluded with a different message. As the fifteen scientists said in the study, which is available for free at ScienceExpress :

“This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.”

Scientists tend to speak in quiet understatements: This is the sound of scientists screaming.

Look at Mother Nature…and Neil

An Earth Day item that’s too enjoyable to let pass unnoticed…last Friday the US EPA’s administrator for the West, Wayne Nastri, presented thirty-seven individuals and organizations with an Environmental Achievement Awards for their efforts to preserve the environment in 2004. (The award doesn’t have a cute nickname yet.) Among the winners was a man who has been singing about the environment for decades, Neil Young.

In the words of the EPA: "In 2004 Neil Young launched a month-long concert tour to complement the theatrical release of “Greendale.” Young fueled his trucks and buses with biodiesel, a cleaner burning, alternative fuel made from renewable resources. His tour used B20, 20 percent biodiesel mixed with 80 percent diesel, the most common blend. Additionally, Young has 17 diesel vehicles that run on vegetable oil farmed by American farmers. He plans to continue to use this government approved and regulated fuel exclusively to prove that it is possible to deliver goods anywhere in North America without using foreign oil, while being environmentally responsible."

Young, still recovering from surgery for a brain aneurysm, couldn’t pick up the award personally, but a representative for the EPA press office in San Francisco said that he tried.

Changing Climates, Changing Minds

Environmental correspondent Judith Lewis points out that over on the right, Reason magazine’s science reporter Ronald Bailey’s "obdurate" see-no-global-warming, hear-no-global-warming, speak-no-global-warming stance is beginning to crack…while on the left, The Guardian‘s science reporter, Robin McKie, opens discussion of a innovative scheme to bury carbon dioxide emissions from English power plants, instead of releasing them into the air.

Under the scheme, carbon dioxide from power stations – instead of being vented into the atmosphere – would be liquefied, pumped back out to the North Sea via a disused gas pipeline and into the Miller field. Five million tonnes a year could be stored there for more then 10,000 years, say researchers.

BP would gain because the carbon dioxide pumped into the depleted field would help to flush out its last reserves of oil, while Britain would be provided with a sink for its fossil fuel emissions.

This "carbon sequestration" idea was brought forward by the Scientific American in l998. Subsequently other researchers have suggested more farfetched ideas to shield our planet from the sun, which were amusingly mocked in an issue of Sierra a while back. (Sorry, I can’t find the piece.) But few meaningful steps have been taken towards solutions of any sort in this country; societal, technological, you name it. What’s interesting is that publications on opposite ends of the political spectrum now show signs of an openness to a broader discussion of the issue than has been possible in recent years.

Given the flood of first-rate pieces recently from The New Yorker, Mother Jones, National Geographic, and even a fairly strong editorial from USA Today, is it possible that minds are opening to a real discussion of this crucial issue, despite a total lack of leadership from the White House?

Learning How to See

Here’s an excellent speech, which was given by Rick Ridgeway at the well-attended Earth Day festivities on Friday at Patagonia in Ventura. Ridgeway connects a lot of divergent strands: the enormous changes our landscape has seen, the cruciality of the individual, and the vitality of hope. But in the end, it’s all about one thing — learning how to see.

One of the most difficult challenges we all face, even though most of us don’t realize it, is learning how to see.

Learning to see the real impact we humans have had on our planet is a particularly difficult challenge.  We’re here for 70, 80, for a lucky few 90 or a 100 years.  The changes in our environment, the degradation -­ even though, as we all know, accelerating quickly, still takes place over
decades, over centuries, over millennia.  The challenge we now face has been likened to the parable of the frog that stays in the frying pan too long as the temperature is slowly raised:  most frogs remain unaware of what’s happening until it’s too late.

They fail to take action, and what I want to talk about today is how action by individuals -­ activism by activists ­- is the most effective course of change, and consequently the greatest hope we have for reversing the degradation of our environment. 

But before we get into that, let’s go
back to this idea of learning how to see.

Let’s pause and go back and try to see in our mind’s eye what it was like here in the Ventura River estuary not a hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago, or a thousand -­ but let’s go back 11,000 years to the period just
before human beings arrived in any significant numbers. 

What was it like?  If any of you have been lucky to visit the wild parklands of East Africa, you’ll have a better chance of imagining the Ventura River bottom because there were three species of elephants, large herds of stripped
horses that looked very much like zebras, tigers, three kinds of bears, huge packs of wolves, cheetahs, lions­yes, maned lions that looked just like lions in Africa, only they Leo Americanas was 30% larger.

Then we arrived, and within 400 years 80% of all the large mammals were extinct.  Disease?  Most of the small mammals survived, and other than 2 of the 11 species of vultures that used to fill the sky over Ventura, so did the birds.  Climate change?  We’ve seen today, with the first affects of global warming, that the amphibians are the most susceptible order of animals that start to lose species. 

Yet 11,000 years ago not a single reptile went extinct, and the only insects that didn’t make it were the
dung beetles that depended on the feces of the large mammals to complete their birth-and-life cycles.

The evidence is circumstantial, but it’s weighted conclusively towards us as the guilty party.  Through hunting with the powerful spear throwers we had when we arrived, and especially with the knowledge of how to burn down the landscape, we killed them off. 

Now let’s go forward a few millennia to when the first Spaniards sailed along the coast of Southern California, to
1602 when Sebastian Vizcaino sailed right by the Ventura River here and then a little further north when he saw on the beach the gargantuan carcass of a dead whale with some kind of strange black dots all over it.  Looking
through his spyglass revealed the mystery:  the black dots were dozens of huge grizzly bears ripping great hunks of blubber out of the beached carcass.

Just after the mission was built here in Ventura, in 1787, a Spaniard left from close to where we now stand to walk to Matilija Canyon, just above Ojai.  He covered the distance in one day, and in that single day, on the game trails paralleling the Ventura River, he counted approximately 100
grizzly bears.  The grizzlies in California were the largest south of Alaska, the Sespe backcountry was one of their richest habitats, and the Ventura River was their corridor to the beach where they came to forage for
clams, and also to catch the steelhead on their annual runs up the river.  Even as late as 1887 another Spaniard still spotted six grizzlies in Matilija in a single sweep of the eye.  In 1922 the last wild grizzly in California was shot.

But the salmon were still here­maybe even more, without the bears.

Some of you have probably seen the old black and white photos in the history archives of Ventura, of the men fishing from Main Street bridge just behind us here, holding long strings of large salmon.  And then the Matilija dam and Lake Casitas and the diversion of water — water increasingly polluted by sewage — and in our little history of this area we now move forward to the early 1970’s, and the Ventura city council is meeting to discuss the further channeling of the Ventura River to make room to protect further development.  It was going to affect one of the best surf breaks in town.

Yvon [Chouinard] and his friends went to the meeting to hear the proposal.  All the city engineers got up and talked about how it was an ecologically dead
river, and this channeling wouldn’t affect anything.  Once they had finished, a 19 year old got up and did a slide show of all the living plants and animals in and along the banks of the river.  This was the Ventura River that he knew.  The last slide he showed was of a small steelhead smolt and it just brought the house down.  This one guy had a huge impact.  Patagonia gave him a desk and a mailbox, and that was the beginning of Friends of the Ventura River.

At Patagonia we learned two important lessons from this experience.  The first is the wisdom of localism- of knowing what’s going on in your backyard, and speaking up to protect it.  The second is the power of direct
Action — of being an activist, of the idea that YOU have the power the make change.  We have a program here at Patagonia where we take 1% of our revenue — not our profits, our revenue — and give it back.  We call it our
Earth Tax because the money goes mostly to grassroots groups of individuals who realize the power they have, groups that in the majority are Davids fighting Goliaths to save their backyard rivers and forests and mountains
and beaches.

Let me tell you about one small group called Nevada Wilderness Coalition.  We’re particularly proud of them because the group started with a small coalition of employees at our warehouse in Reno who decided they’d
had enough of urban sprawl in Las Vegas and Reno, of mining and nuclear waste dumping, and they decided to do something about it.  We gave them a small amount of money, and they started a lobbying effort to protect Nevada wildlands by winning Wilderness Designation.  The results?  Since 1999,
just under two million acres have received permanent protection as wilderness areas.

"Never doubt a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world, Margaret Meade said.  ”Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

And what does this have to do with you?  How can you make a difference?

By exercising the power you have as individuals.  By speaking up at those city council meetings, by writing your legislators, your Congress men and women. Those letters make a difference.  By supporting the small grassroots
groups fighting the fight to save our wildlands, to clean up our beaches, to keep the thousand-plus species on the Endangered Species List from being removed because they’ve been removed from existence.  By exercising your
right to vote, and voting for candidates who have voting records that support environmental legislation -­ and if you want to know how to do that we can show you.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, more and more candidates of all political stripes are realizing this issue crosses political boundaries because at the root of it is whether or not you have a healthy planet to
bequeath to your kids and to their kids; liberals are realizing that when you push through the symptoms of nearly every social ill you get down to the core cause, and it’s environmental degradation; conservatives are remembering that the root of the word conservative is conserve, that it was their own patriarch Teddy Roosevelt who built the National Park system we have today, that it’s time for them to reclaim and champion the cause they started.

So go home today with an image in your mind of how this Ventura estuary has changed in the last 11,000 years.  In geological time, that’s nothing.  But when you build those images in your mind, resist the tendency to feel
despair.  Remember, YOU have the power to change it.

Remember what the outdoor writer David Quammon has to say about despair, that in addition to being useless, it’s not nearly as satisfying as hope.  Thank you.

And thanks to Paul Jenkin at Surfrider for sending it along.