Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability (1)
Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability and Climate Change (1)
This past week I was at the county fair. There were science exhibits, and a display on climate-wise gardening. There was a lot of attention to garbage; it was a zero-waste event. There was an exhibit and lecture on irrigation, with, of course, some discussion of stressed and contentious water resources. After the fair I took a one-day course on grasslands and the reclamation of prairie land. There are many places where climate and climate policy fit into this mix of small activities.
I want to start with the idea of “sustainability.” When I moved to University of Michigan in 2005, I was introduced, seriously, to the idea of sustainability. I kept asking whether or not there was an accepted, single definition of sustainability. The short answer was, “no.” If you look around you find a couple of notions that are always included in the definition of sustainability. First, there is the idea that the way that we use resources to maintain our standard of living does not preclude the ability of future generations to do the same. Second, there is the idea that all of the pieces fit together into a whole. A popular notion of sustainability is “think globally, act locally”, or conveyed by the company Seventh Generation, which strives, “To inspire a revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.” On a whole different scale is Ceres, which “leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity.” Here are some links to definitions and discussions of sustainability: @ Washington State University, Wikipedia, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is obvious that our climate and climate change fit into the notion of sustainability, but it is not an easy relation to understand, describe and to make actionable. More directly related to our ability to sustain ourselves are population, energy, energy consumption, and standard of living. Historically we have used easy resources, because they are easy. For many centuries we were reliant upon wood for fuel and building. We cleared forests for agriculture. During the 1800s the United States was largely deforested. It became self evident that forests and whale oil were not going to support a growing population, an industrial society, and a growing economy. (A nice history of energy, and interestingly Dolly Sods Wilderness.) These sources of energy were replaced with coal and oil. All of these sources of energy have obvious, direct environmental consequences. There are also some environmental consequences that are not quite as obvious and direct; namely, those consequences due to the release of carbon dioxide.
The wealthy economies and standard of living that followed from industrialization become the priority; hence, easy energy becomes a priority. The obvious and direct environmental consequences, ultimately, become something that we try to deal with – for example, The Clean Air Act. We seek a balance of environmental pollution and industrialization – a contentious balance. Climate change is an environmental problem that is not as obvious and not as direct. It is problem where it takes, compared with a human life, a significant amount of time for the signal of climate change, of global warming, to emerge over the natural variability that we are used to dealing with. In order to mitigate climate change through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions our “easy” choice is to quit burning fossils fuels, but that is not an easy choice to make if we humans exercise our prerogative of pursuit of high standards of living and population growth. To address climate change requires us to look out beyond the length of our lives and to see the value that a sustainable environment will have to those who follow us.
There was a couple of years ago a paper in Nature entitled, “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues. Here is Figure 1 from that paper.
Figure 1: “The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.” From “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues (Nature, 2009)
This figure conveys the integrated nature of sustainability on the planetary scale. An easy example to point out – climate change is, primarily, a problem of carbon dioxide emission, as is ocean acidification. Hence, from an integrated perspective, the two cannot be looked at in isolation. But looking around the circle, all of these environmental issues are related. They are all related to population, energy, consumption, standards of living and robust economies.
I started this entry, this series, with a very mundane event – being at the fair. At the fair we talked about water, and sure climate change might be important to water, but it does not seem as immediately important as the cities’ thirst for water and the purchase of agricultural water rights (Thirsty Cities, Dry Farms). This interface of climate change on this local level is real, it is contentious, and it is substantive. Yes, I have started another series, and in it I will look at “think globally, act locally.” Yet another problem of many scales that must be addressed as we adapt to global warming.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index
You're reaching. Really reaching.
I'll give you a C- just for effort.
Our grandchildren will be thrilled to learn about their future energy needs. Quelled by a few thousand wild flowers. The Gods must be crazy part three.
How to impede the economy 101
Activists plant rare flower in attempt to block building
SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) — Authorities are on the lookout for pistil-packing activists who apparently planted endangered wildflowers in order to block a housing development.
The state Department of Fish and Game has determined that Sebastopol meadowfoam discovered in the Laguna Vista subdivision in Sebastopol was deliberately transplanted from another location.
"This is a very unusual situation," said department botanist Gene Cooley. "I've never known a rare plant to be introduced to a site to thwart development before."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2005-06-07-f lower_x.htm
You don't see the truth in what Nea said? It's true. I know from construction how hard it is to build ANYTHING in rich areas, e.g. the Hamptons, Northwest Island, parts of New Jersey. But the same people who live there are the ones that own the corporations that put pollution in the water, cut down ALL the old growth forests (look at the history of forest growth), etc. and don't give a damn about what happens to others.
Then they line up the Big Money Wannabees (BMWs) to support them by selling them a line about not taxing rich, too many environmental restrictions are the reason for unemployment, etc..
The BMWs are like the dorky kids that think that the cheerleader will like them if they help her do her homework. Only in this case it isn't the homework, it is their vote or some other type of support. So keep spouting dogma that isn't rational but don't kid yourself that this will get you into the rich club or that if you do make it that these actions have anything to do with why you made it.
I think the Scientology cult is a great analogy for Gaia global warming proponents.
However,higher C02 levels in the ocean(carbonic acid) are a pollutant and erode the calcium shells of shellfish and coral reefs!
Saw it in an issue of Time
Read it til my eyeballs bled
Was the summer of '79
Me and some nerds from school
Had a theory and we tried real hard
Jimmy quit and Jody got a whitehouse job
I shoulda known the oil companies wouldn't let us get too far
But when I look back now
That summer the ice sheets seemed to last forever
And if I had the choice
Ya - I'd always wanna be there
Those were the best days of my life
Ain't no use in complainin'
When you got an agenda to do
Spent my evenin's down at the EPA
And that's when I met Jimmy Carter!
Standin' on his staff's podium
He told me that oil has never been higher
Oh and when he shook my hand
I knew that it was now or never
Those were the best days of my life
Back in the summer of '79
And now the times are changin'
Look at everything that's getting hot and hotter
Sometimes when I read that warming article
I think about being poor and wonder what went wrong
Blaming oil companies for all the world's problems
You told me our climate should stay the same forever
Oh the way you teased that data
I knew ice melts now and will stop never
Those were the best days of my life
Back in the summer of '79
do the oil companies build volcanoes?
Yep. you guys should be blogging in tents. without cars. without air conditioning and heat. without any leisures except what the climate brings you. you wouldn't last a week.
Yeah, funny, alright. Funny like war, like cancer, like harlequin icthyosis...
Best of luck.
I am a republican he won't get my vote this year. I am going to vote for a green republican this year. Are any out there?
Not for the highest office but, they are out there.
REP - "Republicans for Environmental Protection"
LOL, U2 on both also :-)
So I talk about how Perry's obvious and open ownership by the fossil fuel industry is the primary motivator of his speech denying climate change, and the best defense you can come up with is, "Well, Obama's doing it too!"? (A defense made all the more invalid by the simple fact that Obama has nothing quite like Governor Good Hair's Big Energy puppetmasters pulling his strings...)
Im more a PTSD Guy they say at the VA.
But thanks anyway.
Yes, I'm well aware of that.
Hence, why my responses most times are buffered.
Combat or Katrina ?
Bahhhh, You owe me a new Eee pad tablet !
See, we have a lot more in common than you thought :-)
Most folks get too wrapped up in stuff.
Ive come to roll with the flow and body jabs .
Its been a good run.
There has been much discussion concerning how this AGW thingy is nothing but a scheme for government control and a redistribution of wealth. Here is something for everyone to mull over. Arctic ice is melting (sorry, Iceage) and Russia has been making plans to declare the Arctic as theirs. Other countries are getting into the act as well,. The ones with borders on the Arctic, at least. (sorry, China) There has been estimates that 25% of the world's oil reserve could lie within the Arctic and bordering countries want to lay claim to it. ... Are you with me so far? Now, if it is government that is wanting to make a power grab, using AGW as an excuse, that would seem to contradict their efforts to lay claim to the oil in the Arctic. (They NEED the ice to melt in order to extract this oil) Seems to me, these governments would rather quash any science that supports AGW in order to get to this oil. Are you still with me? Who, or what, is the biggest winner in all of this, if nothing is done to abate AGW? Soooooooooooo, who, or what, has the greatest reason to quash this AGW thingy? Also, who or what has spent more than a couple of bucks to disprove this AGW thingy? Bingo! Big Oil! ... Kinda makes me feel like a succa. How are you feeling now?
I know. This is just my theory and I have no peer reviewed studies to support it (pffftt! Who would want to be MY peer?!?!) but, how do you like it? As a theory? .... What did I say I would do, if I heard any more laughter! ... OK, Iceage, I will allow you a snicker but, no one else!
Run this through your thought processors, sleep on it and see if you can shoot any holes in this theory. I think I may be up for a Nobel Peace Prize! Granted, I would be the dumbest person to ever get one but, hey! Someone has to be the dumbest person to get one!
BTW, Patrap, you owe me a new keyboard and a Dr. Pepper but, yes, that would have been my answer too. Yes, you may substitute a Fresca.
Oh, would you stop?! Logic and reality are simply not a part of the denialist canon! Don't you know that?! ;-)
Yeah, I've never really understood why it's so easy for some to believe that The Big Mean Government would want to "push" AGWT just so the third of atmospheric scientists who work for it could keep their jobs, while at the same time they simply refuse to, or are unable to, see why Big Energy would want to quash the science just so they could maintain the current fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as possible.
Something else that appears to have escaped their thought processes: a huge part of that Big Mean Government they so revile is ideologically dead set against the science behind AGWT. It's as if many denialists long ago came to the mistaken conclusion that The Government is comprised of nothing but treehugging academic elites intent on maintaining research grants, which requires some truly remarkable magical thinking.Namely, ignoring all the many Rick Perrys of the country, politicians who have received seven- and eight-figure campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and not a penny from bearded research scientists studying CO2 concentrations. Are they the ones funding the "plus" research grants we continually hear about?
Link
Tell that to the Shellfish if C02 isn't a pollutant. When will these Jack Wagons ever learn?
Is this your subtle way of telling me to not expect to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? ... Well, I have yet to see anyone to show evidence that would discredit my theory. I used the FTM model and it almost never gives a false positive. ... I am still holding on to the hope for a nomination. ;-)
33 degree Celsius = 91.4 degree Fahrenheit
32 degree Celsius = 89.6 degree Fahrenheit
I don't know. I'm sure he's an outcast in the Ivy League circles.
More like cat5 hurricane fuel!
I do not believe that I have ever seen the GOM this hot before. Does anyone know if this is a record?
this!
Here we go again! When will the Jack Wagons ever learn?
BP Investigates New Sheen in Gulf
London Oil giant BP is investigating a new sheen in the Gulf of Mexico with a remote-controlled mini-sub but says there is no immediate indication it was the result of a new oil spill.
A catastrophic April 2010 explosion at BP's Macondo well in the Gulf killed 11 men and led to the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, although BP's description of the site of the new sheen and a statement from a U.S. official seemed to indicate that the discovery wasn't near where the Macondo well blew up.
A sheen is a shiny coating that floats on the surface of the water, and could come from leaked or spilled oil. BP did not make clear what the source of the sheen was, but told The Associated Press it was not found near "any existing BP operations."
Link
.
this.
Greenland Glacier Melting Faster Than Expected
ScienceDaily (Aug. 18, 2011) — A key glacier in Greenland is melting faster than previously expected, according to findings by a team of academics, including Dr Edward Hanna from University of Sheffield. Dr Hanna, from the University of Sheffield's Department of Geography, was part of a team of researchers that also included Dr Sebastian Mernild from the Los Alamos Laboratory, USA, and Professor Niels Tvis Knudsen from the University of Aarhus, Denmark. The team´s new findings present crucial insight into the effects of climate change.
Link
..
I want to find a credible and up to date source of all the energy subsidies in US. For example how much $$ did the fossil fuel industry received in 2010 (or 2011 so far) and how much the wind farm industry received. I found dozens of articles but they all post different numbers from different years and trying to promote vicimization.
A while ago I think Nea posted something to that effect (at one of Dr. Master's blogs) and I think Skypony too but I cant remember when and where for the life of me.
Any help will be highly appreciated and thank you all in advance!
Sakis
A better question might be: How can a Princeton professor put out a position paper that includes no references? That is incredibly unprofessional and makes his "paper" a joke in scientific circles. It's less trust worthy than the grey literature, that usually contains references you can double check. Are we supposed to be awed by his Princeton affiliation and look the other way when he disregards professional practice?
As a biologist with an interest in CO2 impacts on plants, one of the basic things I understand is that the impacts of CO2 can not be taken in isolation. If temps are going up and precipitation regimes are changing, all the CO2 in the world won't benefit a plant. He quotes greenhouse studies where only CO2 levels are changed and plants grow without interaction with other plants. There is evidence from real world studies that weedy and many invasive plants benefit disproportionately from increased CO2 levels. Their competitive advantage means less resources for other plants. At the plant community level there is no evidence that more CO2 is good. We also know that increasing CO2 levels tends to grow plants with a higher ratio of non-nutritive tissues to nutritive tissues. Many of these CO2 enriched plants are a negative for animals that eat them.
The paper contains many other over-simplifications and other statements that are just plain false. No shit, Dr. Harper, correlation is not causation, but as a physicist you should be aware of the casual evidence of the greenhouse effect. A hint for you, among other lines of evidence it has something to do with quantum mechanics. Something you should understand. He's an embarrassment to Princeton.
The position paper was published via his affiliation with the The Marshall Institute. This anti-science institute is supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies. No conflict of interest there.
08:25 PM GMT on Augusti 18, 2011
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index