Environmental news: Birds move north, Ice sheet breaks July 30, 2008

Reuters this morning reports on two different scientific observations demonstrating the effects of global warming.  Bird populations in Northern Europe are shifting northward in response to changing temperatures (I haven’t yet read the scientific article, but according to the news article the researchers controlled for other possible factors).  Giant chunks of the Canadian Ice Shelf are breaking off in response to warming temperatures. 

For those who are, for some reason, skeptical of climate change, these observations add to the incredible amount of evidence for a changing climate.  You can argue until you are blue in the face about whether this change is caused by humans or not, but if you really think that climate is not changing in the face of the scientific evidence available today, it is the rough equivalent of still believing the world is flat.  Luckily, there will soon be many more deserts in which you can bury your head in the sand as the rest of us actually deal with the issues.

Go Green, Save Green July 29, 2008

Here is a great post on how you can still look cool even while saving money and natural resources…

McCain Advisor Hints at Cap-and-Trade (Flip-)Flop July 29, 2008

As I commented earlier this month, McCain’s campaign website outlines a fairly reasonable plan for cap-and-trade carbon emissions policy.  But recent comments by Steve Forbes, a McCain campaign advisor, bring into question the sincerity of the McCain camp on their plans…

(Crap, and I’ve always like Forbes…)

Science vs. Media Coverage of Science July 29, 2008

In the New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin analyses the effects of climate change media coverage on the public’s understanding of the issues and the consensus.  As a scientist, I have to admit that I found the article somewhat simplistic mostly due to its failure to describe the actual process that scientists use to communicate their findings and which seems to cause the most confusion for the public.  But the article did raise some interesting points and is worth reading, especially for those of you who find yourself confused by the climate change issue. 

The best part of the article, in my opinion, was the comparison of the climate change issue to scientific, medical findings on diet.  News coverage of studies on diet are always showing dramatic turnarouds:  butter is bad–use margarine!  margarine is bad–use butter!, or the always fluctuating opinion of whether coffee is good or bad.  But really, scientists are agreed–and have been for a long time–that if everyone ate a little less, and used just a reasonable amount of butter or margarine, and represented all the food groups in their diet, that we would all be much healthier and less overweight.  Switching from butter to margarine is not going to be the difference between fitting into your high school jeans and shopping in the ‘Big and Tall’ store.  Eating a sensible diet and exercising a reasonable amount will have a much greater impact than following the latest spreadable fat advice. 

This is how science is in general:  there is a body of knowledge, of understanding, that is generally acknowledged as true by scientists.  Most scientists then do their research at the edge of that understanding:  where the knowns stop and the unknowns start.  When scientists complete their research on a certain topic, they prepare the work in a manuscript, which is submitted to a journal and goes through a process called peer review, in which 2 or more scientists in the same field (but not collaborators on the project, or from the same institution) review the work for the proper use of methods, proper analysis of results, and for clear communication of the ideas.  If the reviewers and the editors of the journal feel the manuscript fulfills the standards of the journal and represents science carried out according to general standards, then the manuscript is published.  And, yes, most scientific papers are not fun to read.  But that is because scientists are so careful to distinguish between what has been accepted as fact, what is the precise question being worked on in this manuscript, which questions are still out there.  Therefore, you will get lots of scientific papers on a topic before it tends to be generally accepted:  ‘Five pieces of fruit a day improves the health of 10 male adults’, ‘Five pieces of fruit a day improves the health of 72% of 2000 female nurses studied,’ ‘Eating fruit does not increase health of 8 morbidly obese patients,’  ’Increasing fruit consumption tied to increased health in 92% of 700 nursing home patients’ eventually leads to someone summarizing a wide array of studies on the topic and concluding, again using statistics, that eating fruit is good for you.  It is a slow process, but it works for the most part.  But it does not transfer well to today’s fast-paced media.  The media wants a sound bite, and is rarely willing to settle for a scientist saying, ‘My data indicates, with 89.2% confidence, that eating 2.7 g of butter per day is better for the functioning of the blah blah blah system in white males of ages 30-39 in good health than eating 2.7 g of margarine per day.’  The media (and the consumers of media) want a scientist that says, ‘The final word on butter vs. margarine is that butter is better.’   Until there is a better understanding of the scientific process by the public (and, perhaps even more importantly, by the media), there is never going to be solid coverage of science by more than a few talented journalists who have taken the time to understand the process of science, and the current state of science on the topics they cover. 

If you are not a scientist and you want to understand what the news is on a scientific issue, what can you do?  Well, you can continue to read the news.  Just take it with a grain of salt…remember that the journalist has probably substantially simplified the findings of a paper, or substantially edited what the scientist actually said (many institutions now offer media training for scientists, but trust me…most of us are not good at producing little sound bites of our work).  If you are particularly interested in an issue, or think it might affect you, read a more in-depth article on the topic from a respected magazine or a respected web-site.  Many government agencies provide good background on important issues on their website, for the public as opposed to for other scientists.

News Flash: NASCAR lags in environmentally sound practices July 29, 2008

In what should come as little surprise to most of you, the Washington Post today confirms that NASCAR is a llittle behind in reducing its carbon footprint.  For example, NASCAR only stopped using leaded gasoline in 2007.  But the report does mention that other racing organizations, such as the Indy Racing League (which is responsible for the Indy 500), have made substantial changes without sacrificing the pleasure of viewers. 

If you’re gonna pay for a day at the speedway, support one of the innovative organizations.

Easy green action: Ditch the bottled water July 28, 2008

I never have had a big problem with drinking tap water, so other than in preparation for hurricanes and occasionally when travelling, I don’t buy bottled water.  I never even really understood the draw.  Well, alright, a couple weeks ago I was in Stuttgart and accidentally ordered bottled water and to my surprise it was the best tasting water I have ever had…but when I looked at the price in the store, five dollars a liter, I quickly realized that was not typical bottled water.  When not fumbling in a foreign language, though, I just fill a glass with water from the tap or fill a reusable water bottle.  And while this might be due to laziness or cheapness on my part, it is the green thing to do.

The Pacific Institute estimates that in 2006:

• Producing the bottles for American consumption required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation
• Bottling water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide
• It took 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water

Plastic can be recycled, but recycling still uses more energy than simply buying one reusable bottle. 

If you really can’t stand the taste of tap water, buy a filter.  You can buy a filter that attaches directly to your sink spout, or you can get the kind that comes with a pitcher which can be kept in the fridge.  Buy everyone in the family a reusable water bottle, buy a filter, and start saving your money…this is one of those green actions that will save you major money as well as reducing your carbon footprint.

The Army is going green July 27, 2008

The U.S. Army sees conserving fuel as a way to save soldiers lives, by reducing the amount of fuel that must be moved in convoys in war zones (Reuters).  Until two years ago, it had never occurred to me how much fuel the armed forces use, probably because I spend little time thinking about military logistics.  But I was having dinner one night with a good friend who is an officer in the military, and somehow tolerates being friends with a pacificist/environmentalist.  He raised his eyebrows at me and said, “I think you would have a heart attack if you knew how much fuel we go through on base in just one day.  Those tanks, we’re not talking miles per gallon, we’re talking gallons per mile.  And forget the jet fuel we use up…”  But lately there has been quite a bit of movement on the part of the armed forces to conserve fuel, mostly to conserve money but now also to save lives in the Middle East.  If the Armed Forces–a notoriously ‘don’t fix it unless its broken’ organization, especially in wartime–can realize that ‘going green’ saves money, why can’t this lesson permeate the thick skulls of Congress and the White House?

“Let Them Eat Meat”: Food for thought July 24, 2008

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article today examining the effects of human consumption of live stock, which is increasing as more people can affort to eat meat.  The Earth cannot sustain a population of 6 billion meat-eaters.  This raises questions of the economics, the environmental effects, and perhaps most importantly, the ethics of meat consumption.  And I mean the ethics of meat consumption not from the point of view of killing and eating another creature, I mean the ethics of using valuable grains to feed livestock, as opposed to using those grains to feed people.  I think this article raises interesting questions for every eater to consider:  what is the effect of my diet on other human beings?  Food for thought.

Nuclear ‘Contamination Incidents’: A risk we are willing to take? July 24, 2008

The French now produce about 78% of their electricity with nuclear power, for which many in Congress have been expressing their admiration (now that the whole freedom fries ridiculousness is over).  Nuclear power is expensive, but it does not emit carbon dioxide as a byproduct like coal.  Therefore, expanding nuclear power in the US is seen as a viable option for reducing US greenhouse gas emissions.  Certainly, the technology surrounding safety at nuclear power plants has improved since disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; technology should now prevent meltdowns and those ‘worst-case’ nightmare scenarios.  But, unfortunately, even those who are at the top of the game in nuclear power cannot avoid some accidents, and this (along with what to do with the waste) must be a risk that the US weighs as it considers nuclear power versus other options for electricity generation (wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc.)  As Reuters reports today, there is still very real danger to people and to the environment that comes with nuclear power.  Food for thought…my feelings on nuclear power are ambivalent at the moment.

Do Americans just complain about high gas prices, or actually change their behavior? July 24, 2008

I had dinner with a bunch of Europeans last night and the topic of conversation moved to high gas prices in the US.  (I am in Europe at  the moment, so my information sources are the same as theirs: the news).  They all wondered what Americans are doing to reduce their use of petroleum, if they are so upset about the prices.  Good question.  The news coverage of the rise in gas prices has focused on a lot of complaining that Americans are doing, how people are perhaps driving in a slightly more conservative manner, and how airline prices have forced some people to change vacation plans.  But there has not been news coverage, and I haven’t heard from my family and friends, that there is a concerted effort by people to reduce their demand for petroleum products in general and thus to do their part in bringing the prices down.

Basically, the view from across the pond here is that either Americans as a whole don’t understand that their gas for driving  is not the only place they use petroleum, or Americans are lazy and want the government to magically lower oil prices without the citizens themselves having to change their behavior ONE BIT.  Great choice, America:  you can either be seen as ignorant, or lazy.  Although the problem of thoughtless energy and product consumption is general to developed nations and the wealthy (and, yes, even the poor in America are wealthy compared to the poor in other nations), Americans epitomize the wastefulness that has led to the current oil consumption problem.  People here in Europe cannot understand how Americans can complain about their gas prices and demand that more drilling occur for more oil, without making simple, logical changes to their behavior.

If Americans were serious about getting gas prices down, they would not just complain at  the pump and change their driving habits a bit.  Here would be some actions that would indicate a true desire for change.  First, buy local food.  If you at the supermarket buy grapes from Chile, don’t think that those grapes came to the store by foot or by bike.  Or even by sailboat.  A LOT of fuel was used to get those grapes to the store.  If you buy something from a farm within 100 miles of where you live, the transport involved and thus the fuel consumed is obviously smaller.   Look not just at the prices of foods you buy, but where they came from.  Second, stop using bottled water.  Bottled water, which is rarely anything more than tap water anyway, is a petroleum guzzler in two ways.  First, plastic bottles are made from petroleum.  Second, a lot of fuel is burned in the production of the bottles and in moving full bottles of tap water from the factory to the marketplace.  Buy a filter and a refillable water bottle, encourage everyone you know to do the same, and you’ll save a lot of wasted energy right there.  Third, think about what you buy and use.  Recycled products conserve not just material, but a lot of water and energy in their reuse.  Use recycled products.  Recycle the products you use.  Buy products with reduced packaging, don’t put your shopping in plastic bags.  Buy an electric lawn trimmer or leaf blower rather than a gas-powered one.  If something says ‘Made In China’ that means that it had to be transported to you from China.  If you buy something online, select ground transportation.  Go paperless–receive and pay your bills online, reducing paper consumption and fuel consumption in carrying all that mail around. 

You can make a difference at work, too.  Encourage your company to buy recycled paper, to recycle paper along with plastic, aluminum, and anything else that can be recovered.  Reduce your company’s fuel use, both direct and indirect, by having video-conferences rather than face-to-face meetings when possible, reducing use of overnight express mail, and looking for ways to fit a reduction of petroleum use into your business plan.  Encourage your company to subsidize or reward car-pooling and public transportation use by employees.  And if you work somewhere that gets its electricity from oil (very few places do these days, but check) then for God’s sake make people turn out the lights and office equipment at the end of the day.

From a distance, if Americans can’t even make little changes in their behavior that demonstrate their desire to see lower fuel prices, then they are lazy.  It takes no effort for us Americans to sit back while the oil companies get permission to drill more oil in the hope that it might eventually lower gas prices.  It takes no effort for us Americans to sit back while the President pleads with the Middle East to release more oil.  It takes a little effort to change driving habits and auto usage to save money at the pump, but only because it is a direct and obvious place that the rise in petroleum prices is seen.  I have seen no evidence that Americans are changing their habits on any of the ‘indirect’ petroleum uses.  So, people, show a little initiative and demonstrate changes in behavior, rather than just demanding changes in policy.