Song of the Day: Fairytale

This song has two of the qualities I most appreciate in music; namely, it conveys sincere emotion and it's just a lot of fun. Also, I have a soft spot for music with an Eastern European flare. The guys doing backflips in the background are pretty entertaining, too ;)

Eurovision winner 2009: Alexander Rybak with Fairytale

I may need to pay more attention to Eurovision in the future.

Guerilla gardeners could harvest more than a statement

The goal is commendable. The enthusiasm is inspiring. But could it be that popular worldwide movement “Guerrilla Gardening” has possibly life threatening consequences?

According to Toxic Metals in Soil-Plant Systems, “toxic metals in our environment, especially in soilplant systems, are of concern in recent years in view of their potential for transfer to human beings and consequent effects.” Nicole Willner reports in her article for Planet Green that “typically found heavy metals such as lead and mercury or arsenic and petroleum can be found in soil where old homes, buildings, landfills or heavily trafficked highways once stood or still stand.”

Consider for a moment what it means to work the land, to grow plants, to consume the food produced by these plants. It means coming into physical contact with the soil and its contents. It means taking into the body all the things those plants absorbed from the soil.

By gardening unknown land, these guerrilla gardeners take the risk of exposing themselves, their children, their neighbors, and their pets to toxic, contaminated soil. Consider the locations often chosen for guerrilla gardens: unwanted, otherwise unused, urban land. One has to ask oneself why this land goes unused in the first place. Without known history by virtue of long term ownership or accurate scientific testing, is it worth taking the risk for a statement garden?

An All-Star Pitch

The Midsummer Classic of America's pastime is tonight in the heartland. There are few things more poetic. The much debated "this once counts" approach to the All-Star game aside, it should prove to be a great night for baseball in St. Louis. In an effort to promote community service, President Obama will be tossing the first pitch at the game. He will be the first president to do so since Gerald Ford did it in the 1976 All-Star game. In addition, he'll be in the FOX booth at some point during the game to provide commentary and will appear with all the living presidents in a pre-game video. As I wrote in my undergraduate thesis, there is no other sport that connects so deeply with American heart and history than baseball, and tonight should prove to further strengthen that bond.


President Obama's enthusiasm for sports, just as everything else about him, is well reported. From his bowling score of 37 during last year's campaign, nationally televised March Madness bracket, correct pick of the Lakers, and oft-cited general infatuation with watching and playing basketball, the public has come to understand that the president is a sporty guy. He may have snubbed his hometown Blackhawks during their unlikely playoff surge by confessing his adoration for Alexander Ovechkin, but the guy can't be a big fan of every sport, right? But tonight's appearance, amid the glitz and gaiety of sports, comes at an apex for the President's administration. While still in the positives for approval rating, his numbers are dipping, now at 57% approval, 32% disapproval, according to a CBS poll. The same poll shows a disillusioned American public is losing faith in his economic policy; he now holds only a +4% approval margin on his handling of the economy, an 18% drop from just one month ago. Only 21% belive that the stimulus package has had a positive impact on the country and a slightly smaller percentage believe it has actually made it worse.

In addition, American political ideology is shifting toward the right, according to Gallup. For those who discount the Republican party, for all its problems, a quick resurgence is not out of the ballpark, so to speak. Play ball!

James Hansen should be what Al Gore is

I saw James Hansen's piece today in the huffington post and confirmed again my desire to pass over the cultural battle on climate change to his capable hands. Hansen is a climate scientist, but also an outspoken critic on current climate policies and heads NASA's Goddard research center. He was censored by the white house during the Bush years, and understands the corruption of the political system. Most importantly, he is not a polarizing figure in the way that Al Gore is. Half (or rather a little less than half) of Americans voted against Gore in 2000, and still don't particularly like to hear him talk. Try typing Al Gore Global warming into youtube and check out the results - it seems like a fair number of conservatives actually think that Gore invented global warming for profit and political gain. Who we need in the forefront of this is a quality scientist like Hansen.  

Here is a good clip from his editorial where he rips into the controversial Waxmen/Markley bill then proposes an alternative. Coincidentally, this is the alternative option I support as well:

For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."
• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the "fee-and-dividend" version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

The Fox global warming propaganda

Following climate news is a serious hobby for me. It is also part of my job as a climate change researcher. As a result, I am more irritated than most when I see pundits  saying that believing in climate change is just following Obama and Gore's propaganda. They are relentless in this, even suggesting that those who believe in global warming are akin to holocaust deniers. Who are their credible experts? Unfortunately, they have no qualifications whatsoever with regard to climate science, such as Bernie Goldberg (a political writer) in the link above.

 Imagine a comparable scenario..... 

Lipitor has designed a new cholesterol medication, but before it can be distributed to the general public, scientists are required to test it for safety. After years of testing, 99% of scientists agree that the medication is dangerous and will likely kill a large percentage of users. The medication is deemed unsafe for the public. Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Lipitor spends millions of dollars to convince the public and also congressmen that their drug is perfectly fine, defaming the researchers and questioning the science. Conservatives get behind Lipitor's campaign, claiming that the government wants to control what you consume, that scientists verdict is part of plan to raise money for other comparable drugs. Average Joe political writers are asks for comments and take some strong stands on the issue (without any qualifications of their own). In the end, the drug is released, because the public is convinced, not by the science, but by Lipitor's campaign. 

The fact is, very nearly all climate researchers are reaching the same conclusion, that climate change is real, and is happening fast. The best example of this is the IPCC, or the intergovernmental panel on climate change. From their website:

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

In other words, the IPCC simply summarized the scientific literature on the subject. They are not biased, and report on the work of thousands of scientists. There is no better source for a summary on climate change than the IPCC, because no other group provides such an extensive review of available material. The IPCC reports require years of work from thousands of scientists and take every effort represent the full spectrum of available data. Here is a small excerpt from the most recent 2007 report, to get a taste, though I would recommend reading all of AR4, available free on the website if you want more info:

"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 average sea level"

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005 of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}"

With this understanding, it is hard to contest the key elements of their reports. When conservatives, like in the clip above (also here, and here, and here, and here) attempt to write off the reports, they are not rejecting the rhetoric of Gore and Obama, they are rejecting the work of the researchers whom have dedicated their lives to studying the issue. 

Song of the day

Haven't heard of this guy before, but heard his track 'Animal' on the BBC today. Sounds vaguely animal collective with a catchy beat, not bad. 

We're not in last any more!

Just saw this report from the G8 and the WWF which actually rates Canada below the US for climate policy and emissions trends. That's right, the US has moved out of the cellar! Next we need to work on moving away from the 'poor' section on their chart. 

A story I should have heard about

I decided to do a little research on political parties today, official stances and such. Mostly it was a response to frustration with both parties at the moment (nearly the same sentiment echoed by Bill Maher last week. So I found myself on the homepage for the green party, where they had a story about a ship full of 20 aid workers that are being held at bay by the Israeli military. Among the crew are green party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and nobel laureate Mairead Maguire. According to the article, the boat was out to deliver humanitarian aid to the wartorn Gaza strip when they were detained by the military, despite staying in international waters. How do stories like this go largely unreported? 

The article left me wondering something else though: why is the green party so politically irrelevant that a presidential candidate being detained doesn't make news? Imagine if it was Sarah Palin on that boat! She challenges Obama to a footrace and makes news. Unfortunately, the last thing most Americans heard about the green party was that they cost the democrats the 2004 election. This is really too bad. The democratic party, contrary to what Foxnews or many repubublican reps may say, is not terribly liberal right now, and it is certainly not socialist, at least no more than public education or social security, or medicare is socialist. There is really no option to go left of Obama right now something the green party could actually provide. More on this later...