Via NY Times

An opinion piece in the Times, Disaster at the Top of the World by Thomas Homer-Dixon, a prominent thinker on resource scarcity and rising conflict–reminds us that it will be nearly impossible to mobilize people on the issue of climate change legislation because our identities and how we see ourselves in the world is more important than the truth of what is happening, or in other words, our identities shape how we react to the severity of the issue. But eventually, we will have a clear, present and dangerous crisis that will be directly linked to climate change. 2010, shaping up to be the hottest year on record, full with drought, fire, and flooding is perhaps still not enough. Dixon reminds us that a, “key lesson of the recent financial crisis: when powerful special interests have convinced much of the public that what they’re doing isn’t dangerous, only a disaster that discredits those interests will provide an opportunity for comprehensive policy change like the Dodd-Frank financial regulations…Policy makers need to accept that societies won’t make drastic changes to address climate change until such a crisis hits.”

So, what are we to do? Wait for the disaster and have a plan for it? Essentially, yes.  It seems like a nice compromise between proactivity and reactivity: Be prepared to react. He cites a Harvard publication from 2009, Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes, but says that this report and others like it are the exception and not the norm and efforts remain uncoordinated.

Most climate scientists believe that we have a shrinking window of time to address this issue. But this think piece almost recommends that we let the window close and figure out how to hack it after. Scale the wall, climb the fire escape, etc. The biggest question then is, do we really need to enter into the crisis era before anything actually changes? I believe there are countless opportunities to use environmental challenges as democracy building exercises and opportunities, invoking crowd sourcing technologies and the like. But on this issue, I might actually be okay with the benevolent dictator who has all of our best interests in mind when the crisis, whatever it may be, actually hits.  In the meantime, we can and should continue to do the work we do to look at the decisions of our lives as potential landscapes for sustainability. Let this, define us. And let this, be our identity.

Via Solutions

Full with a lesson on the basics of David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage theory to a discussion of the vision for a more sustainable Appalachia, this article outlines how it came to be that Appalachia became synonymous with mountain top mining, rapid environmental destruction and risk with limited return, that somehow gives the allusion of infinite return, and of course, how this place can be and is being saved. The key concepts from the piece are below, but I would highly recommend a full reading.

Under the guidance of eighth grade history teacher Cate Arnold, students in the BLS Youth Climate Action Network (or Youth C.A.N.)are spearheading an initiative to build a 70,000 square foot green facility on the school’s roof.  The design is a collaboration between the students and pro-bono professional Gail Sullivan at Studio G Architects. It includes a weather station, a greenhouse, outdoor classrooms, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not deterred by the hefty multi-million dollar price tag, students have already received substantial awards, pledges and challenge grants to turn the design into reality.  Twenty-eight solar panels and 350 trays of sedum have already been installed, and the outdoor classrooms and elevator to the roof are scheduled to be completed by fall 2011.

While the project began with the question of how BLS could reduce its carbon footprint, the vision that has grown out of it has become much bigger.  The Youth C.A.N. students aim to use their green roof as a teaching facility, not just for students at BLS, but for students at schools across the region. In addition, they have already convinced five local colleges to join in their own green roof teaching pursuits and have participated in numerous high profile national conferences and events to highlight the importance of addressing climate change.

Founded in 2007, BLS Youth C.A.N. has been profiled by many national news outlets, including the Boston Globe and the Today Show. All the attention is well deserved, considering the scope of the project and the successes they have achieved so far. However, what stands out to me is not just the state of the art facility, or the massive grants, or the comprehensive sustainability curriculum, it is the connection that underlies all of these things: these students get it. They get climate change and its impact on society, but they also understand how to translate that knowledge into action. Not just their own action, but the actions of others as well, whether they are dedicating their time, pulling out their checkbooks, or anything else that engages with the issues of sustainability.

Ultimately, the nation’s sustainability challenges can’t all be solved by putting high-tech green roofs and solar panels on top of all of our buildings. Much of it will need to be done in less glamorous ways- by replacing inefficient boilers, caulking holes that allow heat to escape from buildings, turning lights off when there is no one in a room, or simply driving less. However, it is the conversation that these students are inspiring with their grand vision that will likely have a much larger impact than the physical structure alone ever could.

Boston Latin student and Youth C.A.N. member Rebecca Park summed up the spirit of the project in her interview with the Today Show when she said: “environmental activism in general is not just about stopping climate change, it is about building stronger, better societies.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. It is a reminder that every day people- even those that aren’t even old enough to vote yet- can make as significant impact in what can sometimes feel like an enormous global challenge.

via huffington post.

We know that sustainability as a concept has remained nebulous. Save for the idea that it implies an equitable distribution and consumption of resources, that will not compromise future generations use of said resources, we have little else to agree on about what sustainability looks like in action, in day to day existence.

I recently read an essay in Grist, Environmentalism’ can never address climate change, written by David Robert, who literally opens his piece by saying, “I’m not an environmentalist and these aren’t environmental challenges.” It made me think about what exactly the challenge is then. What kind of challenge is the climate change (and related sustainability) challenge then?  The idea that framing matters is not new; communication scholars have long been studying the fallout—both positive and negative—from the way in which we talk about certain issues.  Somehow though, we in the climate movement seem to have thought we were exempt from this phenomenon for far too long; that somehow data would speak for itself.  Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of people thinking about how to talk about this stuff before; artists, scientists, policy makers, students, but to make an impact, to have a critical mass, we all need to have a shared vocabulary and clear vision about what we want, when we want it, how we get there and most importantly how we talk about it.

I see the new blog as an opportunity to showcase and discuss living proof of sustainability, of people working towards a clear vision, and not always through novel technology (although, yes, sometimes we will discuss this), but more importantly, a reading between the lines of where we are and where we want to be. In Robert’s essay, he argues that if we succeed at the sustainability challenge (a big if, he points out), it will be a groundbreaking, revolutionary new model. “…it will be a tidal shift in human history on par with the agriculture, industrialization, or democracy itself.”

The difference is, those that lived through these histories only had a slight understanding of the massive impact they were about to have on the physical and social operating systems of the planet. We, on the other hand, with our science and blogs (and science blogs), living in the data explosion era, know better, maybe.  So, let’s get to it. We have a lot of re-making to do.

This is the potential scenario that confronted New Yorkers who stopped by the CISC table at the City of Water Day (hosted by the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance), which took place July 24^th on Governor’s Island. CISC was one of many organizations on hand to talk to participants about various water-related issues. At the CISC table, attendees viewed a map of 1 in 100 year flood events developed by the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC).

For anyone who may not be familiar with the NPCC, it is a panel of climate science experts convened by Mayor Bloomberg, modeled on the IPCC, and co-chaired by CISC’ own Dr. William Solecki to evaluate the impact of climate change on New York City. Earlier this year, the panel released a report of their findings that includes an assessment of the progression of severity of 1 in 100 year flood events (or flooding that has a 1% chance of taking place every year) under a rapid ice-melt scenario. It is clear from looking at the map depicting this flooding that the areas impacted will increase over decades to come.

The communication of climate science is a complicated matter, which we as a society still haven’t quite figured out yet. As I watched people grapple with this one small piece of climate change information and how to respond to it on a post-it note, the reasons for this hit home. Instead of just talking at them, we asked people to engage with the map by sharing their thoughts and questions on post-it notes.

Here is a snapshot of some of the things people wrote:

• Uh oh, there goes the beautiful Riverside Park! Make for the Highline!
• My house is under water.
• Need to stop global warming! ASAP
• How will this impact the landfill that makes up parts of Manhattan?
• I find the whole thing too depressing to think about.
• I had thought that the whole city was at risk of being submerged, or even the whole coast – thanks for the clarification, re-education, and dissemination.
• How will they keep subways pumped out?
• One of those things we’re just going to have to live with cause there is no easy solution.

Some people (many of whom appeared to already have knowledge of the topic) were eager to share their thoughts, knowing exact what they wanted to say.  Others mulled it over, even struggled to figure out how to connect with what was in front of them. Comments ranged from personal to global and tongue-in-cheek to highly serious. Still other event-goers chose not to write anything, a number of them stating something along the lines of “I don’t know what to say.”

As I spoke with people and listened to their thoughts, is seemed to me that in order to really connect with these highly technical climate science concepts, people needed to be able to repackage them in meaningful and personal ways. Those who could, often wrote something down on a post-it. Those who couldn’t, generally walked away without doing so.  Yet, I feel I learned as much from listening to people who chose not to participate as from those who did.

Becoming empowered to do something about climate change requires 1) that people connect with the information in front of them and 2) that people believe that their actions can make a difference- whether on the personal or the policy level. Millions of people across the country already do this. Still, we need to figure out how to involve millions more. It seems to me that asking people to engage with these concepts, instead of viewing them as passive recipients of information, is an important and promising first step, even if they do walk away the first time around.

From Yale Environment 360.

Peterman Glacier

“University of Delaware ocean scientist Andreas Muenchow said that so much freshwater is stored in the massive iceberg that it could keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for four months and could sustain the flow of the Hudson and Delaware rivers for two years. Muenchow said it is unclear whether this massive calving event is related to rising air temperatures in Greenland and the Arctic, but another researcher said that the calving was probably hastened by rising sea and air temperatures in northern Greenland. The Petermann Glacier is one of the two largest remaining glaciers in Greenland that terminate in floating ice shelves. In 1962, a 230-square-miles iceberg broke off from the nearby Ward Hunt Ice Shelf.”

In related news, Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts is using the occurrence to speak to/shout at global warming deniers  about the reality and severity of climate change. In a statement, he said,  “An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country. So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree Arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate.”

To read more about Mr. Markey’s statements and the political log-jam we seem to find ourselves in , read here.

From the press release:

In March 2010, the IPCC received approximately 3,000 nominations. At the Bureau session held in Geneva, 19-20 May 2010, the three working groups presented their selected authors and review editors for the AR5. Each of the selected scientists, specialists and experts was nominated in accordance with IPCC procedures, by respective national IPCC Focal-Points, by approved observer organizations, or by the Bureau.

In comparison to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), participation from developing countries has
been increased reflecting the on-going efforts to improve regional coverage in the AR5. About 30%
of authors will come from developing countries or economies in transition. The proportion of female
experts, has significantly increased since the AR4, reaching approximately 25% of the selected
authors. More than 60% of the experts chosen are new to the IPCC process, which will bring in new
knowledge and perspectives.

Congratulations, Bill! Thank you for all you do.

From Reuters:

The long-term warming trend, along with reports that Arctic sea ice covered less of the ocean and snow covered less ground around the world in May, is consistent with the science of climate change… Many climate scientists believe that Earth’s surface is warming, due in part to the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. In addition to a record-hot May, high temperature surface records — for warmth on the planet’s land and oceans — were set for the period of March through May and for January through May, the data center said in a statement.

Looking only at global average land surface temperatures, May and the March-to-May period were also the warmest on record. Global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-to-May were the second-hottest on record, behind 1998, according to the data center. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for May was 59.84 degrees F (15.46 C), which was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 58.6 degrees F (14.8 degrees C). The global land surface temperature for May was 53.87 degrees F (12.15 degrees C), which is 1.87 degrees F (1.04 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 52 degrees F (11.1 degrees C) — the warmest on record. The May worldwide ocean temperature, the second warmest ever recorded after 1998, was 62.29 degrees F (16.82 C), compared to the 20th century average of 61.3 degrees F (16.3 degrees C).

Most of Earth’s land areas saw extraordinary warm temperatures, with the hottest showing up in eastern North America, eastern Brazil, eastern Europe, southern Asia, eastern Russia, and equatorial Africa. China’s Yunnan province had its warmest May since 1951 while many locations in Ontario, Canada had their warmest May on record.

It was unusually cool across western North America, northern Argentina, interior Asia and Western Europe. Germany had its coolest May since 1991, its 12th coolest May on record.

But now we seem to be back to a different argument: not how we should regulate carbon, but if we should at all. Tomorrow the senate will vote on a resolution of disapproval from Senator Lisa Murkowski, which would essentially ban the regulation of carbon dioxide under the clean air act. For a full write up and information about who is backing it and why, see the NY Times article.  Essentially the disapproval, if passed will veto the endangerment finding, which was a “scientific determination that green house gasses are bad for public health and welfare.”

It appears that this summer’s climate debate might be heavier than we at first thought, with the lingering weight of the “why should we regulate” question added to the “how.” From a sustainability perspective (not partisan) the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying they strongly oppose the resolution. And most importantly, there is language stipulating that a veto would likely be recommended by administration senior advisers if the President is presented with the resolution.

So…all hope is not lost. But it is going to be a hot, political, summer.

As cities become the prominent place of human habitation, the baseline for which we come to know nature or how we experience it is potentially unrecognizable compared to what once was in these spaces. The woods in my old backyard are now condos. And the family that lives there now has no idea how important that space was in that capacity.  Times Square used to be a beaver dam.  And so on and so forth.

CISC Fellow John Waldman wrote a piece for Yale Environment 360, in April of this year. “The Natural World Vanishes: How Species Cease to Matter,” looks specifically at our water ways and the change in our reliance on them and the fact that we are quite comfortable with that.

From the piece: “Once, on both sides of the Atlantic, fish such as salmon, eels, and, shad were abundant and played an important role in society, feeding millions and providing a livelihood for tens of thousands. But as these fish have steadily dwindled, humans have lost sight of their significance, with each generation accepting a diminished environment as the new norm.”