Newsflash, Republicans: Americans Are Connecting Climate and Crazy Weather

An update to my last post: Yale University conducted a national poll related to the IPCC’s release of its extreme weather report. The poll finds that the majority of Americans see the extreme weather events of the past year as being influenced by climate change. Poll information below.

Let’s now chat the good cheerleader chant: “Action, action, we want action!”

Read Full Post »

IPCC Report on Extreme Weather Released

Unless you’ve been living alongside a naked mole rat over the past year, you probably have a sense that this year has seen some pretty crazy weather. Already, this year has set a record for billion-dollar disasters in the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center–with at least 10 disasters of this caliber (so far) and a bill amounting to $50 billion.

We here at Spinach have brought attention to this in multiple posts–from a general take on extreme weather, to the drought in Texas, to the impact extreme weather will have on insurance costs. Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its report on extreme weather events entitled “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters” (SREX). The culmination of two years of work by over 100 scientists, the report further solidifies that as climates continuing changing, humanity faces increasing risks of extreme weather events. Once again, the take-home message: Unless we act, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

Check it out at: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Read Full Post »

The Tragedy of the Commons: Reconsidered

For those of you looking to expand your spinach heads, we have some food for thought today. Many of us are familiar with the concept of “the tragedy of the commons.” But I feel a little refresher will serve us well before digesting some of the philosophical nutrient nuggets we have in store. Let’s review, shall we?

In 1968, Garrett Hardin proposed an idea that has since become widely accepted in environmental thinking and explanations of environmental problems. The idea is economic in nature; it starts with the idea that individuals stand to do better for themselves by taking full advantage of resources, including shared or “common” resources. Common resources would be those such as public lands, waterways, and the air we all breathe. In viewing these resources from an individual perspective instead of a sustainability or group mindset, one has the propensity to exploit a resource. This concept is known as “the tragedy of the commons”—that in trying maximize personal gain, groups of individuals will drive a finite resource beyond its carrying capacity, or its level of sustainability. Hardin used this concept to explain the overgrazing by cattle farmers.  In his words:

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

This concept has been used today to describe many environmental issues from polluted air in Los Angeles to the depletion of global fisheries.

Now It’s Time to Expand Your Minds

As environmentally-conscious folk, we accept Hardin’s notion. It makes sense. Yet the other day, I stumbled across an alternative theory proposed by Patricia Marchak in her book Uncommon Property. A once abundant and prized resource, cod stocks have been overexploited and in some cases, such as Newfoundland, driven to depletion. Marchak argues that this situation is, against conventional wisdom, not a tragedy of the commons. How could that be?

Marchak argues that a fishery is not a true common resource. A country retain the rights to the oceans within 200 miles of its borders and possesses the management responsibilities associated with maintaining a fishery. As such, the true cause of fisheries exploitation is state mismanagement, what Marchuk fittingly calls “the tragedy of state mismanagement.” For example and in the case of cod fish, the Canadian government failed to accurately set and monitor their proposed total allowable catch (TAC). Fisherman fished above and beyond what was permitted until the stocks collapsed in 1992 and Canada announced a short-term moratorium on cod fish that has lasted through today. Contrast this with Iceland, a country that initiated the implementation the 200 mile zone and maintains strict TACs, and its clear that better management practices of one country contributed greatly to the perseverance of their cod stocks.

While many theories stand the test of time, they also receive good modifications and refinements. Charles Darwin contended that natural selection is a long process, yet Rosemary and Peter Grant proved otherwise in their study of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Island. Hardin’s theory of a tragedy of the commons is still a good one, but it serves us better to incorporate Marchuk’s observations so as to properly identify culprits. It save us time and energy.

Read Full Post »

How Much is 500 Million?

Total emissions are around 8 billion tons. The increase from last year would put this line off the chart.

Sometimes it’s better not to sugar coat it, and just come out with the news:

Last year, global carbon emissios increased by 564 million tons. That amount of tonnage would be like taking 2.5 million Statues of Liberties. Or 95 million elephants. Considering gasses typically don’t weigh very much, you can tell how much carbon that actually is.

According to a piece from the Associated Press, that increase is larger than the total emissions for every country on Earth, not counting the big players: China, India and the United States.

Climate scientists this week have looked at that number with an element of shock. It represents a major spike – up 6 percent – in just one year. And the culprits are clear. It’s not the caribean islands or small African nations. It’s China, by far (233 million ton increase), followed distantly by the U.S. (64 million tons increase) and then India (53 million tons more).

The cause is relatively obvious: massive increases in industry processing. Making stuff, and sending it around the world to be bought.

In some sense, that’s actually good news. The global recession pushed manufacturing into a slump. But the massive increase in emissions now shows that the sluggish years may be over, and we’ve gotten back in the saddle of producing, transporting and disposing.

Too bad economics isn’t the only factor worth considering. We’ll stay off our soap box about what increased emissions mean, and why an uptick this large in a measly 12 months is concerning. We won’t mention the mountain of evidence showing climate change directly correlated to the rising amount of carbon, methane and other greenhouse gasses in the air. Nope, for this installment, we’ll just let the data speak for itself.

But we will try to end on an up note, as we always do. If we start thinking about how to solve this problem, perhaps the first place to look is toward countries like Switzerland, New Zealand and Pakistan. However, slight, all three saw reductions in their emissions last year.

Read Full Post »

Election 2012 Coverage: Obama and the Enviros

This weekend marked one year until the 2012 election. As we here at Spinach have shown (and will continue to show), not one of the Republican candidates is all that appetizing for out plates. But then, is President Obama all that appetizing either? Our election coverage continues by imposing an important question: What do environmentalists do? Do we continue to stand by the President, recognizing that if we sit out we could face worse for at least four years? Or do we stand by our principles and refuse to support anyone who is not supporting us?

Let’s start by acknowledging this: We are all disappointed in the lack of action we have seen on the environment. Cap and trade died. Then it became a shooting target in Democratic campaign ads (Joe Manchin). The Obama Administration punted on long overdue ozone regs. Now it’s unclear as to whether or not Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline. But does that mean we turn our backs on President Obama?

I am going to stick my head of spinach out and say we  need to continue to stand by the President. While we are continuing to kick the problems of climate change down the road, the President has not been a total disappointment. His move on CAFÉ standards is a large accomplishment. We went from 30 years of no standards to new standards (EISA 2007) to another massive overhaul with 54.5 MPG as our new standard by 2025. Then we set the first standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The transportation sector contributes about 20-25% of our GHG emissions annually; improving this sector is a big deal that should not be overlooked. Officials say the light-duty CAFE standards will save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and cut oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day by 2025. Remember, when you’re consuming around 19 million barrels day, every little bit counts.

Oh but wait, there’s more. While ozone may have been punted, Obama has let his EPA continue to promulgate many other important regulations (and there are a number of them–like limiting pollutants from boilers and pollution that cross state lines). EPA has issued the first-ever national standards to reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants. He put his foot down and said he would veto the House Interior Appropriations bill that threatened to brutally attack the EPA with over 30 policy riders. He continues to champion for science and technology initiatives that will lead to breakthroughs in our energy policy (ARPA-E, Energy Innovation Hubs, etc). He continually pushes for a clean energy standard. Oh, and in case you missed it, he thinks we need to end subsidies for fossil fuel companies. Also, let’s not forget, the man did bring the solar panels back to the White House.

Even without all of this, no enviro can deny:  It is better to have a President who acknowledges that human-induced climate change is real rather than to have one who either questions human contributions or, worse yet, doesn’t believe it’s happening at all.

Read Full Post »

Rick Perry’s Ignorance, China to US: So Long, Suckers!, and Is It the End of Peanut Butter Jelly Time?

Dave Matthews sings “so much to say, so much to say, so much to say…” and I find that I, too, have so much to say. Munch on these:

No Rick Perry, You Are Ignorant

Monday, Rick Perry told a New Hampshire crowd that he was not ignorant of the global warming issue. Rather, he’d call himself a “thoughtful skeptic” (“know what I mean??”). I have yet to hear him articulate a thoughtful comment as to why he is a skeptic and engage with people about the facts of the issue. Until he can (and I suspect he can’t given his inability to debate), I hold that Perry is actually straight up ignorant. Or as Cracker Barrel might say, “Eg-no-ra-moose!”

Lindsay Graham, China is Downing My Lunch—And They’re Threatening to Take My Dessert, Too

A worthy environmental snipbit this week: China states that they will not allow their per capita CO2 emissions to surpass that of the United States. Currently, China is projected to surpass the U.S. by 2017. A recent statement by the vice chair of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, Xie Zhenua, voiced a strong commitment to ensuring that this does not happen. In order to ensure that it does not, China’s five-year plan includes a 17 percent decrease in CO2 per unit of economic growth and increasing energy efficiency to 40-45 percent from 2005 by 2020.

This all in addition to the huge subsidies they are providing to solar energy systems and plug-in electric vehicles. We will see how these efforts pan out, but suffice it to say that I think China means business—both in the business opportunity sense and the business of tackling environmental issues.

It May Be Peanuts to You, but Extreme Weather Does Affect Food Prices

As previous posts highlight, we’ve seen some pretty extreme weather recently—and I’m not just talking about this weekend’s historic nor’easter. There was the tornado in Alabama, historic flooding in the Midwest (several times this year), a historic drought in Texas, and of course, hurricane Irene trotting all the way up the East Coast.

Extreme weather events have a multitude of impacts, and impacts that are now being felt beyond FEMA’s purse. These extreme weather events have harmed basic food production as crops yield less and less. These reduced yields will naturally lead to an increase in prices as supply is unable to meet the consistent demand for these goods—demand that is now much greater than supply.

We are seeing this with a staple good of a staple sandwich, the P in PB and J. Peanuts are grown all over the U.S., in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma, and of course, Georgia. According to the Peanut-Institute, peanuts are the most popular nut of choice, accounting for 67% of nut consumption (even though peanuts are technically legumes).

Unfortunately, the price for those delectable nuts is about to jump pretty substantially. CNN Money reports that Kraft will raise prices for Planters peanut butter; ConAgra increased its price of Peter Pan more than 20 percent; J.M. Smucker plans to increase the price of Jif by 30 percent. Given the peanut’s popularity, this hike is sure to be felt by many far and wide.

As this example shows, not only will extreme weather cost more to cleanup, but it can also mean that our food stuffs will cost more. Is this bye-bye, Peanut Butter Jelly time?

Read Full Post »

Corn Sugar Salvation

 

Every now and again we here at Spinach HQ veer off the straight and narrow path of staunch eco and energy policy and into the more sublime. Or dare we say, more fun.

This item caught our attention because of it’s overlap with food and agriculture, and specifically corn, which has arguably changed more about our ag systems over the past 50 years than any other crop. We’ve all heard the demonization of high fructose corn syrup — HFCS, as its known — for making our bodies unhealthy, our kids fat, and type 2 diabetes more common. Most of that demogoguing came from food and consumption guru Michael Pollan, who’s written a handful of books on how we eat.

Now, Pollan is changing his tune. And while one should shake his head at perpetuating a theory he knew was wrong, we do applaud his effort to correct the record. Here’s what he told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer in an interview this week about HFCS:

“I’ve done a lot to demonize it. And people took away the message that there was something intrinsically wrong with it. A lot of research says this isn’t the case. But there is a problem with how much total sugar we consume…It shows the brilliance of the industry, which is always a couple of steps ahead of me…They started giving products made of real sugar health claims and [are] trying to make sugar look good.”

Since this is a science blog, a quick primer: HFCS is made from corn starch, which is boiled down to make a super sweet syrup of glucose. The a molecular additive of genzemes make the glucose into fructose. Fructose is what’s known as an isomer of glucose: the same molecular formula (C₆H₂₂O₆) but different molecular structure. Sucrose, or table sugar, on the other hand, has a different molecular recipe: (C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁).

The difference in carbon and oxygen quantities doesn’t inherently make you fatter, or more susceptible to diabetes. The problem has long been that HFCS is easy to mask, so it goes in everything we eat, thus making us consume more sugars than we would normally eat. So Pollan is admitting that it’s the quantity and packaging of HFCS that is bad for us, not the compound itself.

Okay, we’re done with wonky science stuff.

Read Full Post »