This magnificent short film was produced by Everynone in collaboration with WNYC’s Radiolab.
Apparently, the world’s most prominent climate change skeptic, statistician Bjorn Lomborg, changed his mind, and now believes that Global Warming is a viable threat that deserves an annual investment of tens of billions of dollars. Apparently, it is “one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront.”
While Lomborg has a new book out, and sales will undoubtedly be helped by this change of heart, this is still a moment to consider. After all, the Republican strategy to prevent environmental reform, as laid out by strategist Frank Lutz in 2002, is to sow doubt about the scientific consensus about global warming. In fact, Charles and David Koch, owners (and oil barons) of Koch Industries, collectively known as Kochtopus due to their unmatched spending to help sow that doubt, are the face of that effort. Americans For Prosperity is their lovechild.
Lomborg’s reversal isn’t a huge game changer itself, but after the recent vindications of Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, the IPCC, and IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, it appears that the Climate Gate and other Koch-funded efforts to sow doubt about Global Warming, are, to quote Shakespeare, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
However, after speaking with a couple of right-wing lobbyists this weekend, I understand anew that some folks consider attacking climate science a bonafide calling, and in their minds, are convinced of global conspiracy. Typically these types of people are surfaced whenever they start rambling about Al Gore. No scientist, or amount of reason, will be able to convince them otherwise.
In related news, Canada just banned bisphenol A (BPA) by declaring it toxic. Scientific American linked it to cancer, genital defects, obesity, and ADD. However, The American Chemistry Council continues to defend the use of BPA. In the United States, the FDA raised concern about BPA, but remains unwilling to regulate its use. Lets see, what is the common link here? Oh yes, industry is spending money to prevent limits to their behavior.
Finally, a new study identifies 39 more coal ash dumpsites that are polluting drinking water with arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals. The EPA is holding hearings this week. However, the electric power industry is fighting national regulations. I suppose they would rather take their chances with conservative state governments in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, whose residents will have to deal with the lead and arsenic. Coal may look cheap, but its externalities are enormous.
Unfortunately, the prospects of a Republican takeover of Congress mean that the obfuscation will only increase.
UPDATE: The Washington Post had an excellent editorial today on the subject of attacks on climate science:
“EARLY THIS YEAR, climate-change skeptics went on the attack, pointing to two molehills of scandal that they claimed were towering peaks of scientific malfeasance. One was “Climategate,” in which skeptics used highly selective excerpts of stolen e-mails in an effort to discredit some well-known scientists. The other was the identification of errors in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the canon of the international consensus on global warming — particularly a dubious prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Investigation after investigation has since shown that neither episode undermined the basic science of climate change or the credibility of climate scientists. On Monday, the scientists were vindicated again, twice… So the overblown critique of climate science that emerged early this year continues to underwhelm.”
- Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change (guardian.co.uk)
Recently international marine modeling expert Malcolm Spaulding shared his thoughts with ecoRI about the oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon, and what went wrong. Spaulding, after reviewing much of the technical information from the BP hearings, concluded that while the Blowout Preventer Valve will present a lot of evidence on why the rig exploded and sunk, there were “relatively straightforward oversight problems” that could be fixed:
“In this case we had a whole series of human failures in the system. One of the control pods didn’t work. There is some question about whether some of the plumbing on one of the valves was installed correctly.”
Spaulding also believes that a key to future offshore development is improved risk assessment and scenario development, to show that these oil companies can respond should a disaster occur.
Well, witness the Perdido, profiled in the NY Times. The Perdido is much more sophisticated and complex than the Deepwater Horizon. Not only does it operate in deeper water, but it is the deepest platform in the world, with a well in production at 9600 feet. The Perdido is a 20-hour boat ride from shore, which means that fire response vessels may not be able to arrive in time to save the rig in case of a fire. But the Perdido’s complexity is not in the state-of-the-art rig, it is on the ocean floor:
“The Perdido platform is a vast hub that can drill and pump oil from wells across 30 miles of ocean floor. Below it is a subsea cityscape of pumps, pipes, valves, manifolds, wellheads and blowout preventers — all painted a bright yellow so as to be visible to the floodlights of the remote-controlled submarines that maintain it. Shell, in reducing the weight of the platform, which can produce up to 130,000 barrels of oil a day, is among the first companies to use a new technique: instead of pumping the drilled liquid to the platform and separating the oil, gas and water there, as is typically done, engineers installed new separation equipment directly on the sea floor. While that improves efficiency, the equipment is also more difficult to monitor and fix than if it were on the platform.”
Lets see, the rig drills at depths that human divers cannot reach; much of the equipment which could cause an accident can be reached only by submarines; the rig is 20 hours from shore. Additionally, the rig is designed to simultaneously drill new wells and pump out existing wells across 30 miles of ocean floor. The complexity of the Perdido is incredible.
Does this sound safe? Can we manage these risks? Just because the engineer in charge says that the Perdido has “multiple safety barriers and redundant systems,” does that mean we can believe they will work? Is Royal Dutch Shell prepared to handle an accident?
The Perdido is a banner example of how complex and expensive new energy is becoming. Energy Returned on Energy Invested, or EROEI, continues to drop closer to 1:1. The risks only increase. How exactly is this sustainable?
- Risk-Taking Rises as Oil Rigs in Gulf Drill Deeper (nytimes.com)
I was even more ‘shocked’ to hear the owner of said industrial-sized farm accused of being a “bad actor” by going to the “lowest level of compliance” on FDA regulations by another local farmer in Clarion, Iowa.
Finally, I was even more ‘shocked’ to discover that the owner of Wright County Egg , who also owns a facility in Maine, recently admitted responsibility for 10 counts of animal cruelty in a negotiated settlement with the State of Maine and paid $36,947 in fines and restitution, and $100,000 to aid further inspections by the Maine Department of Agriculture.
I am just ‘shocked.’
- Salmonella Linked to Egg Farms and Chicken Feed (nytimes.com)
Strategic Sourcing & Procurement: Great Starting Points to a Green Supply Chain (via ValueStreaming)Posted: 08/26/2010
This new survey by Deloitte is a must read (there is a link to it in the Value Streaming blog.) Deloitte questioned a group of 50 executives across a broad spectrum of industries and found some great insights about the application of sustainability principles in business today. Nearly all companies felt that sustainability had a part in their organizations’ strategy and interests. For most, while they talked about a Triple Bottom Line, sustainability initiatives were predominantly environmental. The survey also indicates that in the recession, some companies drew a hard line with regards to sustainability investments and traditional Return on Investment (ROI) measures – in other words, they limited their investments to ones that would pay off in the short term. However, many did see opportunities for payoffs with investments in operational efficiencies, brand enhancements, and supply chain improvements.
Ted Nesi at WPRI.com does an excellent job dispelling some fiscal alarmism over the state debt load in Rhode Island. Today you see a lot of criticism of deficits and debt, but often a poor understanding of the difference between short and long term structural deficits, as well as the different types of debt. It is important that voters begin to understand these issues, instead of just relying on misleading talking points from their politician or cable/radio personality of choice. Ted writes that:
“…Rhode Island has a lot of difficult decisions to make over the next few years. And it’s important that as we move forward, we really understand the reality of the state’s problems so we can focus on the right issues, ask the right questions, and make the right choices.”
Are we at war with Islam? George W. Bush, author of the “War on Terror,” said this about some American statements critical of Islam, way back on November 13, 2002, after a meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi-Annan:
“Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”
The current controversy over the so called “Ground Zero Mosque” shows that the sentiments of a vocal minority of Americans are not so welcoming of Islam. They may claim that they only oppose the Islamic Center being built on “hallowed ground,” but you see Americans protesting mosques all over the country. Is that just NIMBY? Or, do they have a problem with all Mosques and Islam?
When you have Christians in Florida creating a Burn the Quran day on September 11, it is hard not to see a War on Islam from this vocal minority. The danger of this rhetoric is that it may be feeding the radical minority of jihadist Muslims from groups like Al Queda. By grouping those extremist few with the global Islamist whole, the rhetoric may be helping the radicals recruit and fundraise. The Wall Street Journal, bastion of Rupert Murdoch, seems to agree. They quoted independent terrorism consultant Evan Kohlman of Flashpoint Partners saying “We are handing al Qaeda a propaganda coup, an absolute propaganda coup.”
In the same breath, those that view President Obama as a secret Muslim without a birth certificate feed into the same rhetoric. It shows an America that is intolerant of religious freedom, despite our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. This whole “controversy” is a disgrace. David Brooks has an excellent column today in the New York Times, where he talks about the “underlying” problem in America:
“In this atmosphere, we’re all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions. Occasionally you surf around the Web and find someone who takes mental limitations seriously. For example, Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway once gave a speech called “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment.” He and others list our natural weaknesses: We have confirmation bias; we pick out evidence that supports our views. We are cognitive misers; we try to think as little as possible. We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group. But, in general, the culture places less emphasis on the need to struggle against one’s own mental feebleness… There’s a seller’s market in ideologies that gives people a chance to feel victimized…To use a fancy word, there’s a metacognition deficit. Very few in public life habitually step back and think about the weakness in their own thinking and what they should do to compensate. A few people I interview do this regularly (in fact, Larry Summers is one). But it is rare. The rigors of combat discourage it. Of the problems that afflict the country, this is the underlying one.”
Unfortunately, American attitudes towards Islam are often wrongheaded. Before the Iraq War, most Americans did not know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, let alone a Sufi Muslim. We tend to view Islam through the lens of the Iran Hostage Crisis, Al Queda, and the violent historical intersections between the minority of extremist Muslims and American foreign policy. If we are really so serious about the Constitution that we inherited, and the freedoms encapsulated in the Bill of Rights, we need to reaffirm those freedoms by respecting Islam and the Muslim community in America.
- Protests, Rhetoric Feed Jihadists’ Fire (online.wsj.com)