Walking the Talk

May 20, 2013 – A collaborative bit of research headed up by Oxford and NASA has found that climate change will be a little slower in developing than previously thought.  This is excellent news, no doubt about it.  Assuming this report is correct, how should governments, corporations and individuals proceed?  Surely the most far-reaching results in the shortest amount of time would be the most sensible goal for which to strive.  If you were in charge, what three draconian steps would you take, right now, to change the world’s progress in mitigating climate change?  I realize it sounds as if I were making a game out of this most serious of all problems; it’s really just a way, I hope, of helping readers to grasp the seriousness of this moment.  If researchers are to be believed, we’ve been given the most precious gift of all: time.  What should we do with it?

It’s a question with too many answers.  Or should it be phrased a different way?  Perhaps we should think in terms of what not to do (the Keystone pipeline comes to mind).  Certainly the evidence supports mounting suspicion that the pipeline will leave us in much worse shape – due largely to frequent, massive diluted bitumen spills – than we’re in right now.  The failure of Shell and Conoco to advance their plans to drill in the Arctic, at least in Alaskan waters, would suggest that this is an ill-fated venture, no matter who attempts it.  The continued loss of boreal forests in Canada and Russia exacts a terrible price from each and every one of us: unbreathable air, made so by the presence of too much carbon dioxide.

To what degree, then, can we bring to a halt the mining of fossil fuels?  If we can make the decline of coal permanent, if fracked wells continue to sputter almost as soon as they become active, if the Keystone pipeline is nixed and if renewable energy is subsidized, would that make a big enough difference?  If the Arctic Ocean asserts its superiority and is recognized as undrillable, in Russian as well as Alaskan waters,  would that bring us a step closer to where we need to be?   However the matter is approached, the goal must be no more mining of fossil fuels.  The risks to human survival are just too great.

Our forests can undo some of what we’ve done, but only if they are left standing.  Whether we light the match or nature does, their loss costs us in so many ways.  Not only do they clean the air, they sequester carbon, which is released if a tree is destroyed by fire.  We also lose the ability to burn the tree for purposeful reasons, as a source of fuel.  The timber is lost to us for many, many different kinds of construction, or the food which some trees provide is lost, or the shade it provides is lost, at a time when sources of cooling are becoming increasingly precious.  Animals lose homes and sources of food.  Planting trees is one of the most beneficial activities in which we can engage.  Fast- growing kinds, consisting of soft wood, are probably going to carry the load for awhile; we simply haven’t got the time to wait on slow-growing varieties.  Trees that can provide us with food are also of tremendous importance.

Finally, while carbon dioxide is toxic in large quantities, methane is even more so.  Confined until recently in permafrost, methane is being found in the air we breathe in greater quantities than ever before.  While occurring in the atmosphere for a period of only seven years before it breaks down, its toxicity is 20 times greater than carbon dioxide’s.  Couple this unwelcome fact with methane’s plenitude.  Warming oceans are releasing methane at an ever-increasing rate, and millions of farting cows and pigs are just doing what comes naturally – and I don’t mean procreating.  We must slow the rate of warming any way we can in order to prevent any further release of methane into the atmosphere.  No more industrial agriculture, no more cars – no more disposable diapers!

We’ve got our work cut out for us.

An Ounce of Preparation

March 16, 2013 – What’s the saying – expect the unexpected?  As a librarian, I don’t necessarily expect to find everything that comes across my desk interesting.  That’s hardly the point, is it: the point is that because someone will find it interesting, it belongs in the library.  Some items have broad appeal, others far less.  In my opinion, The Journal of Accountancy falls into the second group.  To be honest, just reading the title almost puts me to sleep.  Even so, the current issue features an article with great relevance for virtually all of us.  The article?  “Preparing for Disaster.”

While that title may strike some as unnecessarily apocalyptic, I would ask that you try to see it differently.  It has been written with an eye toward learning from the experiences of others – in this case, three CPA firms in very different locations: the Jersey shore, New Orleans, and Joplin, Mo.  The firm in New Jersey struggled to remain up and running in spite of nine of its 14 offices sustaining damage during Superstorm Sandy.  The company in Joplin has constructed a tornado shelter, partly in response to its employees’ psychological needs.  The third firm continues to deal with the fallout resulting from Hurricane Katrina.

What were the challenges?  It is entirely possible that one day, any one of us might find ourselves in similar situations.  For Withum Smith + Brown, losing nine offices was only the beginning.  SS Sandy also knocked out 25% of cellphone towers in a 10-state area.  While WSB had put in place a post-disaster communication strategy, it had not allowed for this contingency.  Forced – as we all are, from time to time – to think on their feet, IT came up with these solutions: 1) converting the firm’s internal website into a bulletin board where employees could find critical information; and 2) reliance upon texting to raise awareness about the internal website.

Bourgeois Bennett took a different approach.  With floodwaters rising to rooftop level in 80% of New Orleans, cellphone towers again took a hit.  BB decided that an externally hosted bulletin board (i.e., one outside Hurricane Katrina’s reach) would be most helpful.  Later, during recovery mode, water was found to have seeped into their office building, causing mold.  The company was forced to temporarily relocate to a site in Houma, La., an hour away from New Orleans.  Might they have been better prepared?  No mention is made of a disaster recovery plan.  These days, every company, every community, and every family needs one.  Not only that – it needs to be regularly updated, as well.

At Hardy, Wrestler and Assoc., one of the biggest problems has been psychological.  It’s not surprising that employees of the Joplin, Mo. firm retain a heightened fear of high winds and storms, precursors to tornadoes.  For this reason, the company elected to build a tornado shelter as part of their new building.  The shelter is stocked with emergency supplies like water, flashlights and first aid kits.  Bourgeois Bennett introduced additional mental health care options.  Sixteen of its employees lost everything they owned in the hurricane, something from which it is not easy to recover.  There is a need for them to feel that they’re not facing an uncertain future all by themselves.

We’re all in that boat, aren’t we?

 

With thanks to the Journal of Accountancy.

The Cost of Everything, the Value of Nothing

March 13, 2013 – It has always seemed strange to me that some people’s attention is riveted by the cost of preventing/mitigating climate change.  Whatever the cost, it’s too high!  I would have thought that death was too high a price to pay, and that compared to death, we would do anything to survive.  Ultimately I think this has to do with an underperforming imagination.  Climate change deniers do not believe they or their progeny will die because of global warming.  A trifle clammy on an August afternoon?  A few inches of water in the basement?  A brief tornado touchdown in a town suitably far removed from one’s own?  What’s all the excitement about?

Let’s see: forest fires, landslides, valley fever, tsunamis, malaria, drought, bird flu, crops destroyed, earthquakes, houses torn off their foundations, famine, dengue fever, avalanches, influenza,  floods,  ebola.  There sure are a lot of ways to die, and some of us haven’t got brains enough to be afraid of them.  Of course, there will be some outcomes that won’t kill you.  You might wish you were dead, but your designated role will be as a witness to suffering.  One of these nonlethal results is homelessness.

According to the Global Estimates report, just released by Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre Publications, 32.4 million people were forced to abandon their homes last year because of floods, storms and earthquakes.  The vast majority of those affected were displaced from Asia and West/Central Africa.  Those of us residing in the so-called developed world did not escape without a scratch, however – 1.3 million people in wealthy countries were also dispossessed.  The United States ranked first among them.

Flood disasters in India and Nigeria accounted for 41% of global migration due to climate change.  Monsoon floods in India dislodged 6.9 million people. Six million Nigerians were also hard hit.  A total of 8.2 million Africans were displaced because of calamitous weather in 2012.  Lord Nicholas Stern had this to say when interviewed by the Guardian newspaper (UK): “It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming.”   Stern, who is the Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, elaborated by saying that massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise by as much as 5C (9 degrees Fahrenheit).  This is due to carbon dioxide levels having risen steadily for the last 50 years.

Furthermore, Stern believes people will leave their homelands only as a last resort, after their crops and animals have died.  Without diplomatic preparation, many emigres will be stopped at their destination’s border, if not before.  At this point, refugee camps might be the best outcome for which the world dared to hope.  Not only does Lord Stern believe that armed conflict will result from this forced migration, he believes it will become a common occurrence.

Not quite the equivalent of a flooded basement, eh?

 

With thanks to climateprogress.com

A Good Outcome for Activism

May 9, 2013 – How terribly satisfying to know that yet another coal export terminal planned for the Pacific Northwest will not be developed.  Houston-based Kinder Morgan announced it is dropping its plans for a coal export terminal, to be situated near the town of Clatskanie (don’t you love the town names in Oregon and Washington?).  Kinder Morgan, a terminal and pipeline operator, investigated options near Clatskanie for 16 months, but never applied for any permits.   The intent was to ship coal to Asia from the Columbia River port.  The project’s failure to actualize means a reprieve from coal train traffic for Portland.

This is the third coal export project to be abandoned in the Northwest.  Taken together, the three proposed terminals represented up to $550 million in investment, 305 permanent jobs, and almost 50 million tons of Montana and Wyoming coal.  Three more projects await approval.  Of the six original proposals, Clatskanie would have generated the most coal train traffic through Portland.  Environmentalists opposed the trains because of the coal dust, diesel pollution, and traffic congestion problems associated with them.  As many as 12 mile-long trains would have passed through North Portland every day, had the Clatskanie project moved forward.

An additional problem encountered at the Clatskanie site was natural-gas-fired power plants, owned by Portland General Electric (PGE).  Located in Port Westward Industrial Park, PGE feared that coal dust would foul the operational parts of the plants.  (It doesn’t take a particularly lurid imagination to guess what that same coal dust might do to human lungs)!  While Kinder Morgan has not acknowledged the vehement opposition to Clatskanie that activists brought to bear, environmentalists believe it played a role in KM’s decision, says Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper.

VandenHeuvel believes that coal export is simply not a viable option in the Northwest.  Union leaders, coal companies, and terminal developers disagree.  Their stance, that coal will be shipped through Canada if it cannot pass through the Northwest, is based on concern about the jobs lost.  One might also suppose it is founded largely on concern about the money not made.  Since VandenHeuvel says he doesn’t expect any more terminals to be proposed, that concern could be quite legitimate.  Coal export has become a toxic subject in the state of Oregon.

There remain three projects under consideration, as they undergo the arduous approval/permitting process.  Two of them are located in Washington, one is in Oregon.  One of the terminals, to be sited near Bellingham, Washington, would be called Gateway Pacific and would handle 53 million tons of coal per year.  Another terminal that goes by the name of Millenium Bulk Terminals, to be located in Longview, Washington, would handle almost 49 million tons annually.  Ambre Energy’s Morrow Pacific Project would be built in Boardman, Oregon, out of which 9 million tons would be shipped annually.

May they never see the light of day.

 

With thanks to The Daily Climate.

Blowing in the Wind

May 6, 2013 – From the Little Known Facts File: a disease called Valley Fever.  Until quite recently it was endemic in the arid farm regions of California and Arizona, but nowhere else in the United States.  Now, because of ongoing drought in other areas of the country, awareness of this disease needs to increase.  For while half of those exposed to the fungus spores that carry the disease show no symptoms, the numbers of those who die – yes, die! – is on the upswing each year.  One of the reasons is the lack of familiarity with this malady on the part of doctors.  Another reason is climate change.

Other areas of the world that already know about Valley Fever (VF) include Mexico, Central, and South America.   Once soil has become so dry it has the consistency of dust, it is easily transported by the wind.  Human and animal activities increase its transportability.   VF can be contracted simply by breathing in the fungus spores that make up a portion of the dust.   Members of certain ethnic groups, those with weakened immune systems, and newcomers or visitors to a place where VF is prevalent are the most susceptible to infection.  Sadly, over 150,000 VF cases go undiagnosed every year, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  The symptoms are similar to influenza – it seems like that’s the case with a number of dangerous infections – and in a small percentage of cases the infection can spread from the lungs to the brain, bones, skin, and even the eyes.  Individuals who do not receive treatment can go blind, have skin abscesses, lung failure, or even die.

Federal health officials have ordered 3,000 highly susceptible inmates from two San Joaquin Valley (CA) prisons to be moved, because several dozen prisoners have died in recent years of Valley Fever.  Between the years 2001 and 2008, 265 Californian’s died of VF.   Farm workers and those who labor in construction can be especially hard hit by VF.  Twenty-eight construction workers became ill in February in San Luis Obispo County, again in California.  In 2011 there were nearly 22,000 cases of VF found almost entirely in California and Arizona.  The fact is that cases in California increased from about 700 in 1998 to more than 5,500 in 2011. Needless to say, some of the escalation in numbers is due to a better understanding and awareness of the disease.

Do not be fooled into thinking that VF continues to occur only in the southwest U.S.  Cases of VF  increased nationwide by 850 percent between 1998 and 2011.  Periods of dramatic increase have been observed when drought is followed by prolonged  episodes of rain.  This kind of “random” weather appears to characterize climate change in the United States.   For instance, the nearly unnavigable Mississippi River, for reasons having to do with the lack of rain, has now flooded. Not only does the weather vary a good deal from one year to the next, it can vary within a season.

Certainly one location that may be ripe for an increase in the number of cases would be Texas.  Anyone who has observed drought maps over the past two years knows how severely Texas farmers and communities have been affected.  There has been some minor easing so far this year; whether that will continue and whether that can be regarded as good news on the Valley Fever front remain to be seen.  It would make an enormous amount of sense for Texas doctors to familiarize themselves with Valley Fever now, rather than wait for a possible outbreak.

 

With thanks to www.algore.com.

Europe Gets It Right

April 29, 2013 – Today was a good day.  Today the European Commission voted to ban the use of a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids for two years.  Fifteen countries voted for the ban, which is not enough to constitute a “qualified majority.”  That’s the reason for the ban’s two year duration.  The moratorium applies to all member nations of the European Union, and England, and will begin no later than December 1 of this year.  It does not apply to crops that do not attract bees, or to winter crops.  Because it is the seed that is treated, the sale and use of seeds – primarily of corn, soy and canola - are prohibited.  Furthermore, none of this type of pesticide can be sold to amateur growers.

Back in January, the European Food Safety Authority issued a statement regarding the unacceptability of neonicotinoids because of the danger they pose to bees.  Research has found that these pesticides impair bees’ ability to navigate, forage, and communicate; disturb their procreative rhythms, weaken their immune systems, and leave colonies unable to overcome natural threats such as mites and fungi!  Small wonder that these tiny creatures have succumbed to what we ourselves refuse to acknowledge: the chemicals that play such a prominent role in our world will one day be the death of us all.  (For further information regarding chemicals that do great harm, see the article just posted yesterday at www.tomdispatch.com , written by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner.)

In looking at how slow we have been to respond to this crisis, you would never know that 35 percent of the world’s food crops depend on bees.  According to a 2012 literature review undertaken by scientists writing for the journal Ecotoxicology, these crops have an annual value of $200 billion.  Bee populations are declining by 30 percent every year.  Is $60 billion really so easy to come by?  Based upon our behavior, one would think so.

It would be unfair not to mention that some restrictions are already in force in France, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia.  This becomes particularly important in light of the fact that companies like Bayer and Syngenta – manufacturers of neonicotinoids – like to threaten that, without these newer products, a return to the older, more harmful pesticides previously used is inevitable.  Parties on the other side of the debate respond by pointing to the fact that this has not happened in France, Germany, or Italy (there are no known results for Slovenia), and that natural pest predators and crop rotation have been proven very effective.

Here in the United States, we continue to drag our feet.  The EPA rejected a petition calling for a ban on the sale of Clothianidin, one of the pesticides soon to be banned in the E.U.  How determined is the EPA to ignore the manifest hazards imposed by these chemicals?  So determined that they have promised to issue an evaluation of neonicotinoid safety in 2018.  That’s right, 2018.  This date is a reflection of the American people’s determination to ignore the fact that Bayer and Syngenta carry the EPA around in their collective hip pocket.

It’s a very convenient arrangement.

 

With thanks to the BBC News and Grist.

Beyond the Tipping Point

April 25, 2013 - In the world as we presently know it, the truth seems to sneak up on us.  Media of every description trumpet their version of reality, and after hearing it long enough and often enough, it becomes as familiar as an old sweater.   Yes, there’s a niggling at the back of the brain that asks “But what about A, B, or C?”  That question, along with so many others, never gets asked – or answered – in the media, and that is supposed to help us forget our doubts.  Time passes, doubts fade away to nothing, then all of a sudden – there it is!  THAT’S what we thought all long.   The truth has snuck up on us once again.

Such, I would contend, is the case with the story of renewable energy.  HA! says the fossil fuel industry.  They can never catch up with us.  We have all those lovely government subsidies, people love to drive all those gas-guzzling cars, we are the most profitable business in the world.  Consumers don’t care about breathing clean air, they care about ease and convenience.  So they say, so say the media.   As the old paradigm dies its slow, two-steps-forward-one-step-back death, it can be hard to tell who is headed for the exit.  Rest assured, nevertheless: it ain’t renewable energy.

At least, not according to the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report just issued.  Analysts at BNEF integrated economic prosperity, demand growth, technology cost evolution, expected climate policies, and fossil fuel market trends in order to come up with their projections.  This Global Energy and Emissions Model, based on the preceding criteria, tells us that wind and solar will dominate renewables, with 30% and 24% of the power capacity added between 2012 and 2030, respectively.  Seventy percent of all new power generation, 2012 – 2030, will come from clean technologies.  Renewable, sustainable energy will account for 37% of total energy output in 2030.  Remember, this is a global projection.

Remember, too, that clean, green technology is dropping rapidly in price.  Energy demand in the United States is in decline.  China, of course, is the real story.  If renewables can hold the line on cost, and if Chinese leaders continue to heed the protests of the Chinese people, all of whom are disgusted by the dirty air they breathe, they may well embrace renewable technology.  According to Michael Liebreich, CEO of BNEF, “What [the report] suggests is that we are beyond the tipping point towards a cleaner energy future.”

If that’s not enough to make you exclaim “Amen, brother!” then try this on for size:  Walmart’s newest energy policy requires them to make or obtain 7 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy globally by the end of the decade.  This amounts to a 600 percent increase over 2010 usage.  At the same time, Walmart will cut their energy consumption by reducing power usage per square foot by 20 percent in their stores and warehouses.  Considering that the retail behemoth operates 10,500 stores in 27 countries, a concerted effort should make these goals realizable.

Finally, let’s hear it for North Carolina.  Though the chairman of the General Assembly’s House Committee on the Environment is a member of ALEC and proposed that organization’s model bill for repealing state clean energy standards to his committee, it was defeated in committee by an 18-13 vote.  Perhaps committee members are aware that clean energy generates $3.7 billion in annual gross revenue for North Carolina.  Perhaps they know that 108,000 North Carolinians work in the clean energy sector.  Maybe they’re proud of the fact that North Carolina ranks 5^th in the nation for solar energy production.  Way to go, environmental committee members – you did the right thing on behalf of your constituents.

 

With thanks to Climatewire, Climatedesk, and Climateprogress.