The Unlikely Activist

Weed it and weep. Another sobering...(achoo)...byproduct of climate change.

Climate change comes in unexpected shapes and forms. Consider weeds. Those nasty little (or not so) things that trigger our allergies and resist our cleverest efforts to do them in. We love to hate 'em. But now I find out we're in for a big surprise, as weeds have begun acting "like ecology on amphetamines". 

These words, from a New York Times Magazine piece by Tom Christopher, should snap any but the most clueless of us to attention. In Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis? Christopher takes us through a frightful look at what weeds are, what they've become, and what's in store for us as the planet warms and CO2 concentrations continue to rise. Obviously I like learning stuff, and this article is as accessible as it is entertaining in chronicling the extensive study of these nasty critters and sometimes friends. 

Did you know...

That CO2 is one of the four essential resources for plant (and of course, weed) growth?

That weeds grown in CO2 enriched environments produce more pollen?

That plants like poison ivy grow much more vigorously at high levels of CO2--and they exhibit far more potency than they otherwise would?

Boy, can I relate to that, having recently tried to pull up the ever increasing amount of p.i. sprouting just yards from my home. 

And, too, I'm especially sobered by the implications of the notion that "coexistence with mankind has given rise to the sort of tough plants that flourish despite the worst we can do." Among other things, Christopher and the researchers he profiles force us to ask if we can muster the adaptability to deal with our new world order that these impressively opportunistic plants have. 

Of one thing I'm sure: I won't be able to look at a field of pretty, but invasively threatening purple loosestrife without my eConsciousness getting pinged. Thanks, Tom.

Meet a leading edge learning center that's turning eConsciousness into eMotion

It is only fitting that I end my posting sabbatical with a piece highlighting education--especially since I kicked off my break musing on the eco-inspiration I took from a recent college reunion. What makes this an especially encouraging entry is that it is about something very real, a slice of the proverbial pie in the sky that has landed right in front of us, today!

Just down the road, tucked away on a wooded campus within eyesight of the Boston skyline is the Cambridge School of Weston, justifiably proud creator of the new Garthwaite Center for Science and Art--proof living that not only do art and science belong together, but also that enlightened green design belongs, and fits seamlessly, in the progressive campus of tomorrow. The Garthwaite Center is a state of the art, 21,000 square foot LEED Platinum certified facility that appears to have left no stone unturned in its embrace of sustainable design and functionality.

Its passive solar design, wood pellet boiler system, composting toilets, and green roof enhance this remarkable building's efficiency and minimize its ecological footprint. It features an enthalpy heat recovery wheel that "captures and recycles up to at least 87 percent of the heat that would otherwise be lost". Storm water runoff is diverted to underground chambers and slowly returned to the aquifer, and things like waterless urinals, triple glazed windows, and low-flow faucets deliver additional benefits. There's lots more too.

But equally intriguing is the way the Center has been designed to serve as a teaching tool, a process that began even well before its construction. Students have a live model of sustainable living and learning--including an mini-wetlands area in the building's atrium--in which they can measure and manage the performance of its openly accessible systems.

In the words of Kevin Knobloch, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists and keynote speaker at the Garthwaite Center's official opening last month, the building is "a model of sustainability for academic centers across the U.S.." And the school appears to welcome the chance spread the word.

p.s.: I owe thanks to both Jill Burrows and Lelia Elliston of the Cambridge School for turning me on to this happening. The photos are courtesy of CSW as well.

p.p.s.: CCW has posted a nifty little time-lapse movie of the entire Garthwaite construction project. Nicely done.

Thinking about building your own? Check out this offering at NEXUS.

There's good news if you plan to take on a green building project in or around your campus, home, or office. The Green Roundtable is featuring a Green is Affordable showcase at its NEXUS Green Building Resource Center in Boston...date: Thursday, December 6th, from 2 to 6 pm. The event is free, and you can get the details on exhibitors and speakers here.

The IPCC Report...an afterthought

This morning's email brought me the latest update from carbon offset firm, TerraPass--and along with it, some provocative thoughts about the just-released IPCC Report on global climate change. As if the report itself weren't sobering enough, we're reminded in the TerraPass piece that the collective conclusions of the thousands of scientists and reviewers who put the report together paint a rather conservative picture of the likely impacts of global warming.

This seems due to the fact that many scientific viewpoints were 'homogenized' to pull the overall report together. As well, in true scientific fashion, the lack of thorough understanding of several (potentially very significant) ongoing 'ice flow' phenomena prevented those scenarios from being included. In any event, this is a very interesting writeup--take a minute to check it out.

The report's impact: action or inaction?

The TerraPass post also prompted a comment string that I felt I had to weigh in on as well. A commenter observed as to how often 'inaction' is based on a lack of 'certainty' about things like the impact of climate change--note, the IPCC report claims a 90%+ likelihood that its predicted outcomes will happen.

It's ironic, I observed in my comments (and will repeat again here), that the models and ‘predictability’ that seem to be readily accepted in deciding other no less significant issues—like, say, going to war--are certainly no better. Would any of you deny that critical decisions are made day in and day out on the basis of much less outcome certitude than the IPCC report gives us?

This seems clearly a case of the natural skepticism of science working against itself, and it raises some very intriguing communication challenges for those who can help put things in their proper perspective. And guess what? That's exactly what I've set out to do in this eConsciousness raising--and issues straightening out--channel. So stay tuned. There's lots more interesting stuff to come, I'm sure.

P.S.: Interesting...just to show you how the communications battle is being waged, here's a snippet from a recent analysis of the IPCC report's conclusions:

"An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism."

This comes from the Canadian Fraser Institute, which definitely has an agenda of their own. Their web site and this Wikipedia piece will give you the flavor. Now, who said this wasn't going to be confusing?

About the new IPCC Report, wedges (no, not wedgies), and a quick $10,000

As you know, today the U.N.'s long awaited report from International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was issued (in Paris). Its assessment, reflecting the research of over 2,500 scientists from 113 countries, is pretty sobering, and concludes that it's a virtual slam dunk (actually, they were a bit more circumspect) that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the culprit. Some may still argue that point, but I wonder who's gonna listen.

How's this for hard reality?...

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

Add this to tidbits like...

"...the average temperature of the global ocean has incresed to depths of at least 3000m..."

"At continental, regional, and ocean based scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed."

"The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 meters of sea level rise."

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."

What have we wrought?

Next topic: Wedges.

In the wake of this report, you will probably hearing a lot of talk about wedges. Climate "stabilization wedges". These are the brainchild of two Princeton University professors who profess (that's what they do, right?) that it's still possible to avoid climate catastrophe by applying the right set of 'wedges' from our toolbox of energy technologies, thereby flattening the rate of emissions growth asap, and holding it there for the next 50 years. This is put in perspective much better than I could, in a feature on the wonderfully informative Climate Repair web site.

If you relate to this concept--and I believe most of you will--then you'll have to check out the Stabilization Wedges Game. Princeton's Environmental Institute has created a fully downloadable version to allow you to learn, and challenge yourself to take on some of the tough decisions that wedging our way to a cure would take. It looks like a great education tool.

Last topic: $10,000.

Now, if you're a scientist, or know of one, this should catch your attention. A story today in the U.K.'s Guardian Unlimited reported that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank with "close links to the Bush administration" has offered scientists $10,000 each "for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." You know what report that's referring to, right? But did you know who's engaged AEI to undertake this campaign to undermine the study? I'll give you a hint...it's a very big oil company who's actions of late could well be seen as XX rated.

I'll leave you to mull that over and take a look at the game. Let me know how it goes.

Convenient facts, misused...or, Be careful what you read

One of the beauties of the blogosphere, beyond self-publishing bliss, is that I can reach out to you real fast. I mean real, real fast. No editor. No print schedule. Just drop everything and post.

Which is why I'm writing now. I just happened to catch up with a 1.18.07 Wall Street Journal op/ed piece titled "Will Al Gore Melt?". And while I have no problem with the WSJ per se--I do with the authors of this piece, Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg, the Culture Editor of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen, and Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, respectively.

So I have to respond. Why? Because I would hate to see the deceptive spinning of facts regarding Climate Change cast doubt on the overwhelming evidence behind its human origins. I'm not worried about Al Gore's ability to defend himself and counter the 'facts' laid out by Rose and Lomborg. But I am worried about you. When confronted with arguments against An Inconvenient Truth that seem to make sense, what do you say? How far will you sway?

With a little help from my sources (linked and referenced as best I can) here's a little point and counter-point...

First, a point the authors make about the dangers of following Gore's path toward an "environmentally obsessed society"...They write, "If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world."

Now, I don't know which U.N. report they are referring to (and there are many), but consider the fact that in two weeks, the very same institution's Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present an updated, and long awaited 4th Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007--and it is very unlikely that it will support their contention. How can it, with pre-release review already prompting headlines like "UN climate panel to step up warnings on climate" (Reuters), and "Report has 'smoking gun' on climate" (USA Today). Sounds like it's going to be hard to find allusions to a warmer and richer world in this report.

Second, a point intended to convince us that the cooling of some areas of the world are conveniently "ignored" by Gore...they write "He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years."

Gotcha?

At first blush, Rose and Lomborg would appear to have dealt a blow to the unfortunate truths Gore would have us believe...but again, their contention is readily dismissed by the facts. Scientifically, while there are data suggesting that the East Antarctic ice sheet is showing some growth, it is far from conclusive, compared to the mass of data on rapid melting elsewhere. Moreover, there are known ocean currents that act as a buffer to the transport of heat (via warm water from the tropics) to the South Pole--and even if temperatures did warm on the order of, say, 10 degrees Centigrade (shifting from roughly -60 to -50 degrees Centigrade) some increase in ice would be consistent. (There's lots on this, with good backup, on Coby Beck's How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.) Bottom line, it's most important to remember that "a rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming." (RealClimate.org) When you hear otherwise, there's no need to back off of global warming.

I think you get the gist of it. So beware: a few well placed spokespeople, or articles, or studies can disproportionately color (colour, for my friends at futerra) an otherwise overwhelming body of truth. Especially so when the truths are supported in a language--namely, science--which for most of us is not a native tongue. But you don't have to get a degree, memorize the book, or otherwise become an expert. You do have to take what you read and hear, and think before being moved off course. You do have to let science and scientists do what they do best--that is, challenge, and challenge, and challenge again their assumptions--and recognize when those challenges are being exploited.

And, you do have to trust your eConsiousness. Climate change is far too broad in its impact and implications to be a slam dunk in anyone's book. If you're engaged at your core, you will find the true story line, and future op/eds will be...well, just that.

P.S.: For any of you who are interested, here's a bit of homework. Can you help counter two additional contentions made in the WSJ piece? If so, please drop a comment here (click 'comments' below) for all to see. I, for one, would like to have the answers in my back pocket.

1. Rose and Lomborg write, after being rebuffed in attempts to interview Gore, "It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century." (I would definitely like to research this U.N. statement.)

2. Further, they challenge him elsewhere, as in "Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920's and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly." (WHO reports, here we come...)

I'll take a pound of CO2 with that cheeseburger...

Somewhere along the line you've probably heard it too. It goes something like this...for every umpteen miles we drive our car, x pounds of carbon are released into the atmosphere. "What?", you say. "Pounds of carbon? Not dropping out of my tailpipe, but rising up into the atmosphere?"

To think about it, it doesn't really make much sense, does it? How can all those tons of carbon stay up there? And how can the stuff that comes out of my tailpipe, which I think of as being a 'gas' (vs. gasoline), actually weigh that much? Which brings me to one notion behind this post. You see, for all the information we're getting nowadays on greenhouse gases--and how they're created, what they're doing up there, and how they can be reduced both on the front and back end of things (through reabsorption by trees, the oceans, etc.)--I worry that it's the little things that can trip us up on the road to eConsciousness. Things like just not getting the concept of--well, how carbon can 'float'.

So before we turn to dietary issues, let's take a minute to defuse this potential stumbling block. It's not even that complicated. The principle is captured in the diagram above (and in the larger, more detailed version you'll see by clicking on the visual below). Numbers aside for the moment, what essentially happens is:

Combustion breaks apart the components of gasoline, namely hydrogen and carbon, and recombines them--the carbon, that is--with oxygen. "So..." Well, here's the important part. Each component has a molecular weight: hydrogen being 1, carbon being 12, and oxygen being 16. So, when the carbon from your gas tank combines with oxygen from the air, you're actually manufacturing CO2--one carbon and two oxygens together, and about three times as heavy as carbon component in the original gasoline.

And off they go. Pounds and pounds of CO2 molecules. Tons and tons as time goes on...at a rate of almost 20 pounds for each gallon of gas you burn. I'll repeat: 20 pounds of the stuff for every gallon you burn! No matter how efficient a car you're driving. Whether for business, for fun, or--heaven forbid--just idling.

So I thank carbon offets guru, Adam Stein of TerraPass, for crunching all the numbers and explaining the science (on his TerraBlog post). Plus visual modeler extraordinaire, Marshall Clemens of Idiagram for helping create the marvelous diagrams shown here. With their help, maybe the point will reach more of you, more effectively. Think about it.

Now, for what a cheeseburger can teach us about CO2...

Fortunately, while we're all trying to get a handle on the basics, we've got folks like Jamais Cascio, who on his Open the Future blog shares insights from his research. And the news isn't great. Intrigued by the question of what the carbon footprint of another typical American staple, the cheeseburger, might be, he came up with some startling factoids. Consider this...

- The average American eats about 150 burgers a year.

- Between a quarter- and a half-kilogram of carbon dioxide are emitted in the production and consumption of one cheeseburger (calculating everything from raising the cattle and making the buns, to the transportation that gets the burger--and us--to the burger joint).

- Over the course of a year, according to Jamais, between 37 and 75 kilograms of carbon emissions result from the average American's cheeseburger habit.

And there's more...like the methane gas that the cattle generate (with about 20x the greenhouse gas effects of CO2), and so on. (You can hear much of this discussed in a fascinating interview with Jamais on TreeHugger Radio). But the message is clear. What we eat, and all the energy required to make it, transport it, and enjoy it contributes significantly to greenhouse gases (GHGs). No wonder it's fueling a skyrocketing interest in growing, buying, and consuming locally. That, though, is a topic for another post, so stay tuned.

By the way, Jamais refers in his piece to a report from Stockholm Unversity and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, titled Energy Use in the Food Sector. For those of you interested in some of the fascinating details, check out the PDF here.

Note: If you would like to use the visuals above for web or print purposes, please feel free to do so...but we ask that you 1) attribute the source and 2) inform us where it will appear, which will help us better meet your informational needs. Thanks.

A potential new tool against climate change ups the ante

Just when you thought you had global warming figured out, and were lining up your strategy for cutting emissions and greening your life, along comes this news. "Climate change", in the words of Brad Allenby writing in Greenbiz.com, "has never been inevitable, but a matter of values and political choice, a pricepoint issue." Allenby's comments follow recent claims that it may soon be feasible, using known technologies, to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere--essentially providing the same service as our hard-pressed forests and ecosystems.

Simple translation: we may find ourselves able to go beyond the reduction of new emissions and actually remove existing, historical CO2 from the atmosphere. And the even more far fetched part is that we could conceivably regulate just the amount of this greenhouse gas we want--taking it back to, say, the amount present when the industrial revolution began.

Allenby, however, issues a caution...and I heartily agree. Such a paradigm shift moves climate change from a challenging enough "simply stop what you're doing" mission to an even more globally challenging fix involving the "network of natural, human and built systems that define the world as it is today."

One can only imagine the nature of the push and pull between all parties--from scientists, to environmentalists, politicians, academics, architects, engineers, and industrialists--as such a capability ramps up and begs the question: who's in charge here?

p.s.: Stay tuned for more updates on this 'developing story'. Meanwhile, you may want to bone up a bit: take a look at the extremely informative Ph.D. dissertation by Joshuah Stolaroff at Carnegie Mellon University, entitled Capturing CO2 From Ambient Air: A Feasibility Assessment.

Three things you need to know about Biodiversity and why it matters

Here's my guess: if you were to list the major issues of our world today--even within the spectrum of sustainability that I focus on here--biodiversity is probably not at, or near the top. After all, there are enough tree huggers out there protecting the habitats of the endangered. There are plenty of 'other' fish in the sea to replace those temporarily in short supply. And with all the reforestation going on, what's to worry about the Amazon?

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to dismiss biodiversity. It seems so 'scientific'. It involves complex relationships within complex systems that are difficult to grasp. And of course, it's not nearly as sexy a topic as melting icecaps and glaciers.

But here's the rub: we remain ignorant about biodiversity and its role in our lives today at our own peril. While we often "feel ourselves to have escaped the limits of nature" (David Suzuki in The Sacred Balance), we have not, and we cannot--even with all the technical prowess we command. Biodiversity does matter. But how?

Here's where my notion of three things you need to know comes in. Three things I know we can all remember. Three things that capture the essential message of biodiversity, but will forgive you from having to memorize species and classifications, or study photosynthesis, or describe the carbon, nitrogen, and decomposition cycles...unless you want to, of course.

1. Remember that nature is cyclical. In natural systems there is no waste. In other words, species biodiversity assures that all waste products from one sub-process are the raw material for other sub-processes. This is important because it reminds us that continuous re-use of the planet's resources--the true natural state--has enabled many millennia of adaptable, robust life. Consider this when our 'civilized' societies choose to release amounts of greenhouse gases far in excess of that which our forests and soils have evolved to absorb.

2. Remember that nature is balanced. For as long as there has been life on Earth, there have been interdependent cycles at work providing essentials like water, oxygen, and nitrogen (needed by all organisms to live). Ecological biodiversity, with its delicately balanced, co-evolved systems and services that we take for granted runs like advanced, precision machinery. Consider this when we choose to despoil or otherwise change the conditions of our natural estuaries or intact forest ecosystems.

3. Remember that nature is resilient. Indeed there has been much change in our physical and biological world over the ages, including 'naturally caused' extinctions. But nature has prevailed, and adapted. Genetic biodiversity, enabling species to cope is behind this survival. Let us consider this when we choose to forego genetically diversified, native crops for those which we breed to be overly specialized, and often turn out to be poor adapters to changes in temperature, sun, and moisture.

So there it is...my overly simple take on biodiversity, though I must credit the likes of David Suzuki (The Sacred Balance) and Paul Hawken (Natural Capitalism) for the facts and inspiration behind it. Use it, if you will, to help choose the things you decide to do. And the things you decide not to do...in your home, your business, at school, with your vote, and with your wallet. I don't know about you, but I don't think we can mess with biodiversity and get away with it for long.

Climate change is for real. No it's not. Yes it is. It's not. It is...

Been caught flat footed on global warming lately? Have the skeptics been getting the better of you? Don't panic.

Many thanks to a bright fellow named Coby Beck for his tremendous contribution to ending stalemates like the one above. First, he's compiled a very long list of the questions and issues that skeptics raise about Global Warming. Then he's provided succinct answers, backed with enough of the science that it can still be understood by non-scientists. He's also provided links off the answers for deeper exploration. And, finally, he's organized them all by category so we can find our way around easily.

This fantastic material is all just a click away. You'll find it on Coby's blog, A Few Things Ill Considered, and also on the Gristmill, to which Coby is a contributor. Take your pick, but do click. Now.

As any of us who've been caught fumbling when trying to make headway with a diehard skeptic, this will give you comfort...and may even help win a convert or two along the way.

A promising new environmental resource

When I began this blog, I never set out to be the expert, but rather to lead the way to the experts--the facilitate part of my mission. And on the way there, to add value by pointing out relevance, being a 'translator', and making connections--the other key part of what I've set out to do.

Well, both of these hopefully come into play in this post. And better yet, the reference I'm about to point you toward appears committed to bringing you similar value. It's the new and ever evolving Encyclopedia of Earth, described as an "electronic reference about the Earth, its natural environments, and their interaction with society". It promises to be a lifesaver for many of us who are swimming in a sea of information the likes of which none of us has seen before.

Here's how the authors describe it themselves...

"The motivation behind the Encyclopedia of Earth is simple. Go to Google™ and type in climate change, pesticides, nuclear power, sustainable development, or any other important environmental issue. Doing so returns millions of results, some fraction of which are authoritative. The remainder is of poor or unknown quality.

This illustrates a stark reality of the Web: digital information on the environment is characterized by an abundance of "great piles of content" and a dearth of "piles of great content." In other words, there are many resources for environmental content, but there is no central repository of authoritative information that meets the needs of diverse user communities."

OK, I know this all sounds a bit holier than thou, so I dove into the Encyclopedia to explore for myself. I was pleased with what I found, even moreso when I followed the Topics list to an intriguing subject area called Ecological Economics. Here, an entry on Biophysical Economics caught my attention.

If you haven't yet delved into Environmental Economics yourself, or read the intriquing book Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins, suffice it to say for now that it brings us a new framework for viewing our interaction with the planet. It illuminates, among other things, important notions about the value of planetary services and natural assets--oxygen production, waste decomposition, climate regulation, water purification, etc.--and their absence from traditional global economic and business models. Environmental Economics theory and practice point the way to fundamental new ways of addressing sustainability.

That said, if the piece on Biophysical Economics in the Encyclopedia of Earth represents the quality of entries coming to us through its growing content, then it's a site to bookmark for sure. Edited by Dr. Robert Constanza, Gund Professor of Ecological Economics and Director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont, and authored by Dr. Cutler J. Cleveland, Profesor of Geography and Environment and Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University, it's a thought provoking read.

I'll leave you with an excerpt from the entry. It lists four points of consensus on the Environmental Economics vision, thought-provoking statements that underscore the dangers of exceeding our planet's limits...

"1. the vision of the Earth as a thermodynamically closed and nonmaterially growing system, with the human economy as a subsystem of the global ecosystem. This implies that there are limits to biophysical throughput of resources from the ecosystem, through the economic subsystem, and back to the ecosystem as wastes;
2. the future vision of a sustainable planet with a high quality of life for all of its citizens (both humans and other species) within the material constraints imposed by 1;
3. the recognition that in the analysis of complex systems like the Earth at all space and time scales, fundamental uncertainty is large and irreducible and certain processes are irreversible, requiring a fundamentally precautionary stance; and
4. that institutions and management should be proactive rather than reactive and should result in simple, adaptive, and implementable policies based on a sophisticated understanding on the underlying systems which fully acknowledges the unerlying uncertainties. This forms the basis for policy implementation which is itself sustainable."