A day (or 365) for the Earth

Happy Earth Day!

In anticipation of the holiday and in recognition of just how gorgeous it was outside yesterday, I dusted off the ol' Surly and went for a ride around the lake. Though a little out of shape from the winter, I was pleased to discover that I haven't completely lost all of the gains I made last year. But enough about me:

38 years ago, former Wisconsin governor Gaylord Nelson started Earth Day as a grassroots environmental teach-in effort. These days, its celebration has expanded to the point of qualifying as an Earth Week or even Month. That's definitely progress, but we'd also do well to apply its lessons and principles year-round.

I already posted a list of some of the Earth Day related events around town. Interestingly enough, that simple post elicited a rather impassioned response from commenter William, who apparently isn't convinced that global climate change is actually happening, or that humans are responsible for it. He, like a small but vocal group of people, believes that the media is one-sided in its coverage of the issue. I countered by arguing that, in an effort to appear objective, the media gives too much air-time to the deniers. Simply because a view point exists on an issue does not mean it should automatically be given the same credence as another take on the issue that has far more in the way of evidence to back it up (take Holocaust deniers, for example).

Climate change deniers overwhelmingly rely, perhaps unwittingly, on disproved, biased and/or highly flawed research. If a news report wants to include the voice of someone whose opinion is that it's not happening, fine, but to include false "science" on the subject is not good journalism. It's lazy at best, destructive at worst.

This, of course, resulted in me being called "close-minded" and "self-absorbed," among other things. I can take the name calling. What I have a hard time dealing with are people who, for whatever reason, still stubbornly refuse to see what's right in front of their faces. This is too important an issue to play politics or personal pride with.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Emphasis mine, of course. There's a lot of good reading at that site, and I highly recommend taking a look.

The trick with a lot of this data is that it's incredibly complicated, and parts of it can appear, to the layperson (myself included), to contradict other data sets. For instance, while the trend in most parts of the world is toward warmer average temperatures, there are sections ("parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic") where the average is actually cooling. Do these seeming inconsistencies negate the entire debate? I wish.

Global climate change involves several large-scale changes, but it also manifests in many, more localized and varied forms. For example, we'll see longer, more harsh droughts in certain areas, while in other places we'll see greater flooding and more severe storms.

Point is, it's happening and humans have a pretty large hand in causing it. There is debate, however, as to the exact manifestations, consequences and time-line. Getting that right is important, and as such we should be fostering constructive debate and research on the matter. But we first need to move beyond questioning whether it's happening at all. It is.

A United Nations report ...by the world's top climate scientists said global warning was "very likely" man-made and would bring higher temperatures and a steady rise in sea levels for centuries to come regardless of how much the world slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, was created by the U.N. in 1988 and releases its assessments every five or six years.

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

As for the assertion that "hundreds of scientists have signed petitions that state climate change isn't a problem" (made by the commenter and in several other forums), I offer the following Royal Society paper debunking that and many other misleading arguments:

There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it. There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We've also been observing a far greater increase in arctic sea ice melting than previously predicted. According to a new study, only 13% of the new layer of ice formed last year survived the annual melt.

Research has linked the thinning of Arctic ice to warmer average temperatures caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases from human activities. Readings from U.S. submarines indicate a widespread reduction in sea ice thickness of 40 per cent since 1960.

The melting is also increased because the darker surface of open water absorbs the sun's rays as heat rather than reflecting them back into space like ice and snow.

Those people who live close to and rely on arctic ice already know this is happening. Inuit hunters are facing increasingly dangerous routes across thinning ice. Homes and other structures face instability as permafrost disappears. People in far northern climes are on the front lines and there's no doubt that something is drastically changing.

And the data, stories and research goes on and on.

Point is, we can't afford to debate if change is happening. It's far too late for that. What we must do is talk about and implement ways to counteract these negative changes--ways that don't themselves have negative consequences (take the current skyrocketing prices of corn and rice, for example).

Thankfully, not all is doom and gloom. While it is essential that we take this problem as being deadly serious, we can also take heart in the fact that many people have been working on creative and productive solutions for years now. The scale and scope is breathtaking. Everything from simple in-home green solutions to massive renewable resource projects have been and continue to be tackled. There are several great resources for keeping up on these developments, too:

• TreeHugger - a blog with frequent entries about various green technologies, toys, businesses and communities, etc.
• InHabitat - a blog that covers green building, technology and architectural developments.
• Haute Nature - ecologically based creative ideas, art and green products for your children, home and lifestyle.
• Ideal Bite - daily and easy-to-implement tips and tricks for making your life more environmentally friendly.
• Grist - environmental news that's "fiercely independent" and not boring.
  
• WorldChanging - "a solutions-based online magazine that works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us."

And the list goes on.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is something that, in one way or another, impacts all 6 billion of us. Changing our ways to better the planet we live on doesn't have to mean crazy high prices, poor economies or massively restricted civil liberties. In fact, I'd argue that intelligently implementing positive changes to help save the world, as it were, would help us avoid all of those things. Green technology is, more and more, the money-saving choice. Improving conditions means fewer droughts and floods so that food sources aren't wiped out. It means less chance of massive epidemics. It means, if we keep at it, cheaper/renewable sources of energy. The crunch at gas pumps isn't going to get any better.

So go out and celebrate Earth Day, but be sure to take it and run with it. After all, the phrase may be a cliche, but it's still absolutely spot-on: make every day Earth Day.

UPDATE TO ADD: A great, comprehensive site on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" - covers things far more comprehensively than I can.

Donuts and Greens

Two tasty tidbits courtesy Isthmus' Daily Page:

You are invited to create an original and educational project to be presented to the public. Your interactive project may cover the areas of food, wellness, recreation, fashion, care and protection of natural resources, natural energy, water purification and management, pollution control, and other areas.

I've never been much of an inventor, but I admit that this challenge piques my interest. Usually, any time I come up with something I think is new and innovative, it's already been done, but that certainly shouldn't keep any of us from trying, right? So put on your thinkin' caps and get cracking on a cool, enviro-loving project. What else are you going to do now that we're all trapped by icy snow?

Also, TDP informs us that there is, of course, a Youtube video of the now infamous Krispy Kreme donut truck chase. Again, high-speed chases = bad. But you gotta admit, shower of donuts pelting a police car = more than a little amusing.

Heads in the oily sand

It's both fascinating and frightening to watch as the economy does a (so far) slow-dive into what experts agree more and more is likely to be a recession. The two key "shock" factors causing this decline, they say, are the credit crisis and, surprise surprise, oil prices.

So basically what they're saying is that greed and shortsightedness are causing problems. Who woulda thunk it?

More intelligent minds than I, that's who: analysts have been predicting peak oil for years now, decades even, warning that, contrary to what the big oil companies would have us believe, crude is not a renewable energy source and will run out.

In our rush to keep the oil companies happy, we've neglected our duty to research and develop efficient, affordable alternative sources of energy. The first people to pay the price of this failure will be those who are most vulnerable to economic downturns: those in developing countries, and those at the lower end of the income spectrum. So at first, it's easy for the lawmakers to ignore the problem, because hey, if it doesn't effect them, why should they really care? I'm not speaking for all lawmakers, of course, because there are a few delightful exceptions--but they are the exceptions, and sadly not the rule.

The greed and predatory practices of the companies involved in the sub-prime loan debacle also effect those people on the lower levels of the totem pole, but it's creeping up into the middle-income folks, too, which is probably why it got so much attention so quickly once things blew up. But it did still take things blowing up before we took notice and corrective measures began to be put into place.

We simply cannot afford to wait for the proverbial bomb to go off before we try to fix things. It may have worked to some degree in the past, but we're reaching critical mass now, when we must work to solve problems before they blow up in our face. If they do, we're at the point when we won't be able to afford the damage.

I'm not as doom and gloom about all this as I might sound. I do believe there are economically viable ways to solve our biggest problems, because smart people have been working on them regardless of what the people with money want. Wind farms. Biomass. Energy neutral buildings. Sound credit counseling for people with lower incomes. Community organizations. Youth job and school programs. The list goes on and on.

There are so many individuals and groups out there in the world and right here in our own community who are selflessly working to make things better. It's an uphill, sometimes thankless battle when there are also so many people--politicians, executives, regular joes--who, for one reason or another, are working against them.

Many excuses are bandied about as to why we can't do this or why we can't do that: it's too expensive, it will hurt the economy (because apparently super high oil prices and crappy loans won't?), it's not reliable, etc. But really, when you do the research, almost all of the arguments become pretty flimsy. If the same funding levels and drive were applied to the development of many of these clean technologies and effective social programs, their costs would come down as they grew more efficient and their efficacy improved. And if we must appeal to enlightened self-interest, the economy would be helped by creating new areas for job growth, new and more sustainable businesses, higher profits for those leading the charge, etc.

Once again, it comes down to willpower. Do we want to make the world a better place? Do we care about the well-being of our neighbors? Or are we too lazy, too caught up in ourselves and our big cars, big houses, and big bellies to notice that our world is falling to pieces? Man, I really, really hope not.

It's a little easier to be green

I've just arrived back in town from my whirlwind tour of Vancouver, BC for the 9th annunal International Drag King Extravaganza. While I work on a write-up of my experiences at the event (which was awesome), I wanted to post something else important to tide you over:

Though the name is a little cheesy, the goal and the cause are unbeatable - Take the Mpower Pledge to help reduce carbon emissions in the city of Madison by 100,000 tons by the year 2011.

When you take the Mpower pledge, you join a community commitment to reduce 100,000 tons in citywide emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2011.

You’re Mpowered to buy more renewable wind and solar power and help eliminate 40,000 tons of CO2; together, we can increase the efficiency of our current energy use in simple ways that can save enough energy to power more than 20,000 homes; we can install solar systems – a system in your home or business can eliminate 7,000 tons of CO2; we can reduce car emissions and plant trees – 1 tree absorbs 1 ton of CO2 over its lifetime. You can begin to conserve and protect our most precious resource: water.

You’re Mpowered at home, at work, at school and on the go to make our community a remarkably healthy place to live, work and play today, and for generations to come. You can. You count.

You can sign the pledge either as an individual or as a business (if you have one) and there are a number of options for actions to take to help meet the goal. Heck, I just learned that MG&E has a website that will give you an estimate of how much money it would cost you to sign up for their green energy plan, something that could offset your carbon emissions by 50-100% for a minimal extra charge. Tonight I'm going to go home and talk to the roommates about the plan and get our house onto it.

Every little thing helps, but signing onto a larger plan/pledge like this is an even better and more effective way to make a difference. It's not as difficult as it used to be to go all or even just mostly green, and the short and long term benefits can't be beat.