Blog

Fragilecologies Archives
18 December 2002
Guest Editorial: Dr. Lino Naranjo Diaz
Santiago de Compostela, Spain

“The Prestige is our Chernobyl” –> (Spanish Government Official)”

On November 13, 2002, a severe storm hit the Galician coast in Spain along the northwestern tip of the Iberian Peninsula. Heavy rains and high winds of over 120 km/h were observed over the region, and especially over the maritime area near the Atlantic coast of Galicia. This was not unusual for that time of the year. Autumn and winter in this part of the world are usually characterized by a high frequency of winter storms that have heavy rainfall and high gusty winds, and navigation in this region becomes especially risky. In ancient times, Romans called the northwestern tip of this land “Cape Finisterrae” (End of the World), and in modern times this coastal area is known as “Costa da Morte” (The Dead Coast). Severe storms have destroyed many ships over the centuries. However, November 13, 2002, was special: a single-hulled tank steamer named Prestige, bound for Singapore with more than 77,000 metric tons of fuel oil on board, suffered from the high winds and turbulent sea very near the Spanish coast and began to spill fuel. This was the start of one of the worst ecological disasters ever recorded in Galicia, in Spain, in Europe, and even worldwide. The Prestige was transporting twice as much oil as the infamous Exxon Valdez, which went aground in Alaskan waters in 1989.

Various factors contributed to the increasing magnitude of the disaster, but the most important one was undoubtedly the “weather connection.” On November 14, the Spanish government made the decision to move the vessel westward, away from the coast. They believed such a movement would prevent the fuel from spreading to any part of the Iberian coast. However, when the ship began to move away from Costa de Morte, it was surprisingly carried southward toward Portuguese waters, spreading the oil spill into a long “fuel front” exactly to the west, exposing almost the entire Atlantic coastline of Galicia. This was a terrible mistake, because it did not take into account the climate factor. The winds in autumn normally blow from the west, and forecasts from many sources indicated that changes for westerly (eastward-flowing) winds over the area for the next few days was practically assured. As a consequence, “black tides” of highly toxic fuel oil began to reach the coastal areas, driven by high westerly winds during the next two weeks. The oil slick virtually destroyed one of the most beautiful and richest areas for fishing in Europe, affecting the economy and the basis of many fishermen’s livelihood. Hundreds of beaches were destroyed, and the wildlife has been severely damaged, which affects the crucial economic activities such as tourism.

Are individuals, institutions, or governments to blame for this environmental tragedy? Searching for reasonable explanations about why weather and climate factors were not adequately taken into account is currently almost impossible. However, some lessons have to be learned. On a national level, Spain did not have a preparedness plan for this kind of disaster. Although these kinds of events are not unusual in Galicia, the magnitude of this event forced the national government to take urgent action. It had to improvise under strong regional pressure and, consequently, obstructed the development of faster relief measures. This increased the chances for making severe mistakes.

For the first time, a “human-made” disaster has had a harsh impact on all stages of Galician social life, and even in all of Spain. The political consequences in the long term are very difficult to predict. The capacity of the European Union (EU) to exert a leadership role in environmental protection, following the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol process, has also been called into question. The EU has maintained a very weak policy about ocean transport of dangerous cargo, a policy forced by the economic interests of some EU members.

Currently, the Prestige is an ecological time bomb. Sunk 3,000 meters deep in the Atlantic Ocean, with 40,000 tons of fuel oil remaining in its tanks, it continues to represent a serious threat not only to Galicia, but to other locations in the Atlantic as well. Living marine resources in this part of the Atlantic could be damaged by the toxic waste; fishing industries of several countries could be impacted in a wider sense. The Prestige disaster might, for example, prove to be the beginning of the end for many parts of the rich fishing industry based in Galicia. It is also the beginning of the end of the old EU policy regarding the security of transportation in European seas and coastal areas. In any event, what the Prestige disaster MUST be is the beginning of the end of a worldwide policy that relegates the environment to being held hostage to the economic interests in the name of human well-being. Back home, thousands of Galician fishermen remain at risk, and the world must pay attention.

Fragilecologies Archives
5 December 2002

A search on the Internet using the keyword “hotspots” turns up two categories of sites. One category focuses on positive things (interesting, fun, recreational): for example, skiing, scuba diving, resorts, dancing, singles hotspots, and so on. The other category of hotspots highlights negative things: coral bleaching, toxic pollution, disease, biodiversity loss, conflict hotspots, and so forth. “Hotspots” identification seems to have gained popularity, especially with respect to environmental change. Here, “hotspots” refers to locations and situations where the results of air-sea interactions in the tropical Pacific Ocean affect human activities and the environment in harmful ways. Some of those effects are only short-term, while others may have long-lasting implications.

Despite the fact that there are hotspots for just about every environmental problem one can name, there are few, if any, focused on interactive hotspots – for example, the interface between agriculture and forests, or the interface between cultivation and grazing. Interestingly, there is no explicit mention of El Niño hotspots. I would define these as regions that are likely to be affected by an El Niño event. In the mid-1980s, a couple of researchers compiled maps of El Niño’s likely impacts on temperature and rainfall (see maps below). They have been reproduced in hundreds of publications, both scientific and popular. The media like to use these maps in their popular science articles to explain what an El Niño event is and what it can, or might, do.

These maps are now almost twenty years old, and there have been some changes in where El Niño’s worldwide impacts might show up. For example, it seems that the relationship that may have existed before 1980 between an El Niño in the tropical Pacific Ocean and drought throughout India may not be reliable today. Other relationships (called “teleconnections” by scientists), however, do seem to have enough reliability for use by decision makers. While one should not expect for example a drought in the US Pacific Northwest every time there is an El Niño, the probability of a drought in the region does increase. Drought may be expected to occur, say, 80 percent of the time southern Africa when there is an El Niño of a certain intensity.

The intensity of an El Niño event can vary from weak to moderate to strong to extraordinary. A strong event is more likely to influence the climate conditions far from the Pacific Basin, whereas weak events are likely to have their strongest impacts in Pacific Rim countries. A list of likely El Niño hotspots might include, among others, the following:

• Drought in Zimbabwe
• Drought in Mozambique
• Drought in South Africa
• Drought-related food shortages in Ethiopia
• Warm winter in the northern half of the United States and southern Canada
• Heavy rains in southern Ecuador and northern Peru
• Drought in northeast Brazil (a region known as the Nordeste)
• Flooding in southern Brazil
• Drought and fires in Indonesia
• Drought in the Philippines
• Droughts in various South Pacific island nations
• Drought in eastern Australia
• Heavy rains in southern California
• Fewer-than-average hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic
• Coral bleaching worldwide

El Niño is a spawner of climate anomalies and climate-related hazards around the globe. Many groups focus on the forecast of its beginning and on tracking its development for 12 to 18 months. It pays to listen to their forecasts, even though they are not always correct. Often the actions that a society needs to take to mitigate or avoid the worst impacts of an El Niño-related societal or environmental impact are those from which society would benefit anyway: cleaning up our dry river channels so torrential rainwater can pass to the sea; repairing leaky roofs; shoring up bridges, rail lines, and roads that are in poor condition. El Niño forecasts, in fact, provide decision makers with the earliest possible warning of climate-related problems they might have to face.

Clearly, the science and art of forecasting El Niño are in their early stages. The maps above were composed almost two decades ago and are in need of updating. Nevertheless, for some locations around the globe, and for some socioeconomic activities worldwide, such information can provide a “heads up” to decision makers in climate- and weather-sensitive regions and sectors. Forewarned is forearmed, because such information provides power to those who choose to use it.

Fragilecologies Archives
14 August 2002

I have to tell you up front that I have not read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. I have, however, heard lots about it from my women friends. In brief (as I understand it), the book suggests that men are different from women in the way they deal with life and with others. Women are, in general, more sensitive than men toward the feelings of others. Men are, in general, more interested in information, while women are more interested in context. I am not sure whether the analogy will hold for the comparison of emails to letters – but now that I have your attention, I would like to give it a try.

Emails are impersonal. No matter how hard one tries, transmitting warm and emotional thoughts by way of email is a difficult task. The pressure of time, the need to spell check, the pressure to type in a correct representation of one’s thoughts, the pressure to answer other emails, typing with two or three fingers in front of a 15- or 17-inch monitor – all these factors lead to an impersonal communication. An email also lacks a personal signature.

Letters, on the other hand, convey a much higher level of sincerity. There is little room for correction, unless a draft is first written and then a clean copy is made. People writing letters on paper must think through what they want to say, thought by thought, sentence by sentence, before it is written down. The letter-writer must go to the trouble of putting the letter in the mail. For centuries, writing on papyrus, animal skins, or parchment has been the preferred way to communicate. By analogy, writing on stone or clay tablets is, to me, more like writing down one’s thoughts in email.

With written letters, there is a tendency to rethink what has been said and therefore there is a delay in sending them – a safety period, so to speak. With emails, the tendency is to fire them off, once they have been written. One may not actually want to take the time to modify (or mitigate) his or her first thoughts. And it is so easy to hit the “send” button. Not only that, but the sender does not have to wait several days before the recipient receive the message, and wait several more days for a reply. With emails, sending and receiving messages can take place in real time, and then often do. What was not clear in the first message can perhaps be cleared up on a second or third email.

The writer of an email is also stripped of the trouble that the letter-writer must go through in order to mail a letter: address an envelope, find a stamp (remembering which is the latest stamp with the correct price on it – I don’t know what they currently cost), and then remember to get the letter into a mailbox.

It is important to be aware of the differences between emails and hard-copy letters. They are not the same. While they do convey information from one person to another, they can be very different in the depth of thought that goes into them. The level of sensitivity varies, with email tending to be less sensitive, often incomplete thoughts that can mislead or provoke the recipient. I have actually witnessed a situation in which email correspondence between people in the same office went on a downward spiral, as one misleading statement led to an equally insensitive response, and so forth, until both parties ended up completely estranged, with no further communication possible between them.

I suggest that, when writing an email, we take the time to go back and read it through and think about its content, and more importantly, its tone before sending. Try to put ourselves in the place of the recipient. This would lend a little “Venus” to our emails and mitigate their “Mars”
aspect.

Fragilecologies Archives
16 July 2002
Guest Editorial: Ilan Kelman

Ecocrimes are being committed in rural Wales. The £35 million Cefn Croes wind farm near Aberystwyth will provide 39 turbines supplying enough electricity for 40,000 homes, covering 1% of Walesí current electricity needs. Nearby, in Camddwr, £200 million will build 165 wind turbines, each more than 100 metres tall, as one of the worldís biggest wind farms.

The benefits touted are economic development in a deprived area, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to help prevent climate change, and a shift towards social acceptability for ìgreen energyî sources. The jobs created will stop people moving from the area, thereby revitalising the local economy, providing funding for cultural and community projects, providing opportunities for the young, and helping to preserve the Welsh language in this area where it still dominates English. The project sounds idyllic, helping the environment, people, and culture without much effort.

Well, £235 million of effort. And effort which will destroy part of a devastatingly beautiful environment. The intrinsic value of nature and beauty, even landscapes which result from centuries of human activity, cannot be priced, particularly when we do not necessarily know what is there. A wind farm project in Mynydd Hiraethog, Wales was scuttled in 2001 when a protected bird species was discovered on the site. Amazing what we find when we deign to look. One Camddwr local suggested that ìIn the name of environmentalism, we destroy a beautiful environmentî.

This effort, though is hardly environmentalism. Large-scale technical projects? Monoliths visible across a long distance? Relatively centralised operations requiring additional systems to transport the electricity for use? These statements sound familiar. They apply to electricity plants run by nuclear power and fossil fuels. In fact, it appears that in our rush towards megascale windpower, we are making exactly the same mistakes as we have made in the previous energy generation. Why go big when small works better?.

For example, rather then trying to meet X% of Walesí current electricity needs through wind power, why not invest that money into reducing Walesí current electricity needs by X%? Hundreds of simple and effective means exist. Five quick examples are turning off lights and electrical appliances when not needed, air-drying laundry rather than using electric dryers, improving home and office insulation, a small wind turbine and photovoltaics for each house, and installing street lights which use solar power linked to batteries.

Each individual item on its own is small. Added up, they have an immense effect. Especially when completed for an area the size of Wales. A wealth of knowledge and expertise exists in places such as Ireland, Canada, and Barbados illustrating that the smaller, sustainable approach works.

The challenges are changing peopleís behaviour and ensuring that the energy solutions do not cause other harm. One example of the latter would be the use of solar cells or insulation which have an intensive energy and environmental cost to produce. Implementing smaller scale solutions is difficult and requires commitment, but surely sustainability, averting climate change, and creating a healthier environment for future generations are worth a bit of effort?

And the jobs, economic development, and cultural preservation so important to this part of Wales? The point of sustainable energy solutions (rather than only renewable energy) is, well, solutions for energy which are sustainable. But sustainable overall. Therefore, solutions should be local, small scale, and community run. You not only satisfy energy needs, but you develop local knowledge, increase community awareness and spirit, and increase disaster resilience, amongst other advantages. You become a national and international example of what a community could do with respect to energy sustainability. You sustain your community in the long term through innovation, self-help, and pride, not just until people get bored of a couple of wind farms and drift away ten, fifteen, or fifty years later. Not easy, but feasible and worthwhile.

But do people prefer an easy, get-rich-quick scheme which wrecks something irreplaceable or do they prefer to think seriously about the problem and to develop real, not band-aid, solutions? Unfortunately, people often prefer immediate cash rather than taking the time and (pardon the pun) energy to think beyond their own generation. And when the former chairman of a key political party is also one of the wind farm developers, you meet a corrupt but influential power structure which cannot be defeated by lobbying for a community to invest in itself.

So for the sake of immediate profit and for looking good by doling out cash for perceived green energy, we create the antithesis of green energy. While the Camddwr project will potentially stop low-level military training flights in the area–another energy-wasting and environmentally damaging government activity–that benefit is a hefty price to pay for a solution that does not address the fundamental problem. We simply use too much energy.

Rather than scrambling to produce a vaguely-acceptable supply, we should target demand. Rather than focusing on one aspect of energy, we should be creating sustainable communities. Rather than building bigger and more expensive ecoprojects, we should be examining what our “need” truly is and how long-term these “ecoprojects” truly are. Admitting the answers may not be easy. Enacting proper solutions may require sacrifice. But we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our environment to demonstrate what can be done so that others may emulate. To do otherwise would be criminal. Time will tell whether or not the only life-sustaining planet we know is as forgiving to ecocriminals as we are to ourselves.

If you have any comments or feedback about Wind Farm Ecocrimes please contact Ilan Kelman at his email address ilan_kelman@hotmail.com

Fragilecologies Archives
1 July 2002

About ten years ago, I got a dreaded letter in the mail. It was from the Internal Revenue Service. They wanted to audit a tax return of a few years earlier. Why they picked me I will never know. The auditor said that it was some sort of random check. It was a command performance, that I must be there when they tell me to show up. In fact, my job requires that I travel a lot and apparently the IRS, at least then, allowed only one postponement. If I did not comply with a second date for the audit, I was told I would be delinquent and subject to whatever the IRS was questioning.

After several sleepless nights, I asked my accountant to re-check my tax return and to come with me to the audit, which was not in Boulder where I live but near Denver. I drove the accountant to the audit. We sat in a waiting area and had the “opportunity” to listen to a taxpayer being raked over the coals by an auditor in one of the Dilbert-like cubicles that serves as their offices. “Mr. Glantz,” I heard the receptionist say, “the auditor will see you now.” Showtime!

I recall walking into the office and spotting on the wall a certificate of appreciation to the auditor signed by President Reagan. The auditor appeared to be less than 30 years old. On his desk was a copy of a hunting magazine. There I was, on the opposite side of the desk, a tree-hugging liberal and supporter of animal rights. I had a feeling I was in for a bad time. I had brought some articles in which I had been quoted or that I had written for conservative magazines in order to show that I was “used” by the two ends of the political spectrum. He seemed somewhat impressed.

I presented my itemized lists of deductible items — books, travel, unreimbursed work expenses, and so on. They were hand-written and recorded on yellow legal paper. Then the fun began. “Why did you count item X as a work expense? Where did you stay when you were in such and such a foreign city?” Most of the conversation now is nothing but a blur. I do, however, recall a couple of questions that have stuck with me. In fact, I refer to them at parties if ever the IRS becomes a topic of conversation.

Running his finger down the hand-written lists, he came across an item marked “book.” He asked, “you have a book listed here on March 3 (three years earlier), what was the name of the book and its author?” I said that if it was on my itemized list it was work-related, probably an environment or climate book. He continued down the column and said “Here is a book for $22.43. What was the book, and who was its author?” I gave the same answer as before.

After about two hours of this Q&A, he summed up the meeting noting that he had found some discrepancies in favor of the IRS and that he had found even bigger errors in my favor. He suggested we forget them, and just as I was about to agree (just to get out of there), the accountant said we would file for the $167 dollars owed to me.

Now, get the picture: I was about to get back money from the IRS following an audit. I was told that only a few percent of audits get anything back and that over 80% of those audited have to pay something additional. I had survived my first and only audit … so far.

Today we have two major scandals related to “cooking the accounts.” Enron did it one way and WorldCom did it another. The former used a clever way to hide their lie, whereas the latter apparently manipulated their numbers so as to look profitable. But the methods of accounting they used were obviously phony and (it has been said) would have been spotted in the first few weeks of Accounting 101 at any college.

The point I want to make is that the IRS scrutinized me at the $8- and $22-dollar level, while they were unable to detect an obvious misplacement of $3.6 billion.

There is hope and solution in the offing, however. The new young auditors, like the one that scrutinized every meager amount on my list of deductions a decade ago, should be given the task of reviewing these multi-billion dollar corporations, and the IRS accountants in charge of monitoring and scrutinizing the WorldComs and Tycos and Xeroxes of today should be sent to the minor league to audit the hand-written lists of deductions of everyday, hard-working Americans. Maybe, this way, those hard-working laborers would finally get a break on their taxes.

Fragilecologies Archives
15 May 2002

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly established in the late 1980s by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). It was a timely process. Information and concern was mounting about the human potential for contributing to the naturally occurring greenhouse effect. Governments convened meetings to discuss possible approaches to prevent, mitigate, or adapt to the consequences of global warming.

The goal of the IPCC was to assess the state of the science of the climate system as it relates to the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A few thousand scientists from around the globe were brought together to focus on the science of greenhouse gas buildup, the impacts of climate variability and climate change, and the policy aspects of global warming. Each topic was attacked by a working group: science, impacts, and policy.

The IPCC assessment reports have been published five years apart, based on the research and review efforts of the scientists, beginning in 1990. To date there have been three major assessments. Lots of new information was included in the 2001 report, when compared to the first. There has been progress on most fronts, and the number of scientists who support the IPCC findings appears to have grown sharply, while those who oppose the idea that the climate is changing as a result of human activities has stayed about the same, with a few vocal spokespersons.

I believe there is value in the undertaking of assessments of the state of our knowledge about the global climate system and about human activities that might affect or be affected by global climate change. Clearly, there are many positive aspects of the IPCC process and its outputs, such as the entrainment of future researchers and capacity building with regard to climate change issues in developing countries.

My primary concern centers on the frequency at which IPCC assessments have been undertaken. Several of my colleagues who have participated in the preparation of IPCC reports have voiced their reluctance to participate in yet another assessment so soon after the issuance of a report. Are scientists being burned out by the numerous meetings and writing assignments? The question people seem to be reluctant to ask is this: is it time to rethink the frequency of the IPCC reports?

Obviously, new and useful scientific research findings do not occur automatically every five years. While these reports are issued every five years, the research going into them is drawn from work done on a shorter time frame. For example, the most recent report was issued in 2001, and senior researchers are already being contacted about serving as lead authors for the next IPCC review in 2005. When does the scientific research that goes toward the next assessment get done?

I am concerned that there is hidden pressure to provide scientific advances in various areas of these reports, when in fact only minor advances may have been made. Is it time to review the IPCC process of the 1990s? Is, for example, the five-year timetable appropriate? Are the numerous consensus-building meetings necessary? Is the institutionalization of the Secretariat an appropriate mechanism, now that the global warming issue has been placed on the agenda for most countries? And what is UNEP’s role, given that its Atmosphere Unit has been decimated?

Reviewing past experience, perhaps it would be better to have eight-year intervals between IPCC assessments, allowing a year and a half to digest the previous report, five years for research, and a year and a half for preparation of the new assessment.

I want to say that I believe that, scientific uncertainties notwithstanding, human activities can alter local to global climate conditions. Discussing the IPCC process or raising the possibility of a review could open up the proverbial Pandora’s Box. I do not want to see it weakened by the “naysayers” (those who do not believe that human activities can influence global climate). On the contrary, I want to see a more effective IPCC, one that enables researchers more time to do the research.

Fragilecologies Archives
6 May 2002

After ten years of focused international research on global warming (most often referred to as climate change), I have come to believe that, aside from those groups dealing specifically with these scientific issues on a more or less daily basis, most people do not know what is meant by climate change. I say this because scientists frequently remind us that climate is constantly changing on all time scales – yearly, on decade and century time scales, and beyond.

So, when climate change issues reach the public, the media, and elected policy makers, it is often unclear which type of change in climate they are talking about, what the possible impacts might be, and what they should be concerned about. The problem is with the meaning various people attribute to the word “change.” The public often refers to climate change when they are actually talking about climate variations on seasonal, interannual, and decadal time frames. So, “change” in reference to climate is mixed up with “variability.”

Depending on where one lives, change at some time or space scale may be welcomed. A somewhat warmer winter to many Minnesotans might not seem so bad, and might even be favored. Most likely, a reaction to that possibility might not take into account the other ramifications of a 1-2°F warmer winter (e.g., what happens to the other seasons? To ecosystems, recreation, agricultural pests, etc.?). More rain in a semiarid region would most likely be favored, depending on when and the rate at which it falls.

Also, depending on the possible intensities and durations of the various climate changes, the perceived severity of impacts on society and environment will differ. At some level, change may favor some places, at other levels not.

Thus, the word “change” when associated with climate means different, sometimes contradictory, things to a wide range of observers (depending on their geographic location, beliefs, desires, perceptions, resilience, and vulnerability). Talk of climate change can become confusing and misleading to the public, media, and policymakers. Risk-takers are likely to favor change, while those who shun risk will be fearful of it.

Most societies have plenty of expressions about change, such as the following: “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts” (Arnold Bennett). “Progress is a nice word. But change is the motivator. And change has its enemies” (Robert F. Kennedy). “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory” (W. Edwards Deming).

I propose a re-labeling of the most dire changes in the global climate regime. They should be referred to as “deep changes.” The notion of
deep changes has been defined (in a non-climate context) as when “one system of change yielded to another” (Fischer, 1996, p. xv). Fischer used this notion in his study of price revolutions in history. He observed that “every period of the past has been a time of change. The world is always changing but not in the same way.” He also noted that “the history of prices is a history of change… Price inflation has been a continuing problem in the past, but it has not been constant in its rhythm, rate, or timing.” Similar observations can be made about the global climate regime.

For these reasons, among others, it is time to draw a long-needed line of separation between those climate “changes” that we have been living with and adjusted to over seasons, years, and decades, to those that societies have not seen in millennia. For this reason I propose the use of the notion of “deep” climate change to represent the profound type of change that many scientists now say that future generations will likely need to adjust to, as a result of the increased emissions of greenhouse gases. “Deep change,” according to Fischer, “may be understood as a change in the structure of change itself.”

NB: I would like to note that my belief in the need for such a new term was inspired by Fischer’s book on price revolutions, and not on Deep Ecology literature.

Fischer, D.H., 1996: The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fragilecologies Archives
1 April 2002
Guest Editorial: Ilan Kelman

Climate change is a subject of much debate. Is it happening? Do humans contribute to it? What will the consequences be? Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that climate change is real and that we have caused much of it, powerful skeptics remain along with a wide array of uncertainties and unknowns.

The issues are of immense importance to our daily lives. If climate change is a reality, and is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, then it is clear what needs to be done. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through solutions such as relying less on private transport, buying smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and appliances, using less energy, and shifting our energy supply to renewable sources.

But, the skeptics cry, the changes would be enormous! We cannot afford these actions for something which is so uncertain. We have a right to use as much energy as we need, they claim.

Fair enough. But how much energy do we actually need? Surely it is cheaper for an individual or a business to save energy and to purchase their supplies from cheaper, cleaner sources?

The pennies enter a simple equation. If you turn out your lights, you save money. If you walk a kilometer to buy milk rather than driving, you save fuel. These economics would be even truer if all energy sources were competing on the same basis by using the true costs to determine the market price of energy sources.

But the impacts are wider. If you walk rather than drive a kilometer every day, you will be healthier. In addition to feeling better, you will have fewer sick days off work which increases your employer’s productivity. And the less you are sick, the less you or the government needs to pay for your health care.

These wide advantages also apply to the other suggestions to counter climate change. Using less energy, increasing fuel efficiency, and reducing greenhouse gases means that less pollution is being emitted and less local and regional environmental consequences result. Greenhouse gases are not the only emissions from energy sources which harm us and the environment.

Particulate matter and fuel additives are good examples. These not only lead to respiratory ailments and harm the health of children, but they can stunt the growth of animals and plants. The solutions to reduce greenhouse gases are also solutions to improve health and the environment. Healthier people lead to a more productive economy and a happier population while a healthier environment means more resources which can be used sustainably or enjoyed for their intrinsic value.

So, yes, climate change may be happening and we may be contributing to it. If so, we know what to do: use less energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and tackle pollution. On the other hand, climate change may not be happening or we may not be contributing to it. If not, we still know what to do: use less energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and tackle pollution.

The uncertainty in climate change and its impacts are important
scientific questions, but answering them is not needed for developing policy. We have enough certainty in areas other than climate change to know what we should be doing.

Fragilecologies Archives
12 February 2002

The longest La Niña in decades has waned, so we are told by those who monitor the changes in Pacific Ocean sea surface and subsurface temperatures. They watch a host of indicators: changes in the thermocline’s depth across the equatorial Pacific, the difference in sea level at Darwin (Australia) and Tahiti, surface wind speed and direction in the tropical Pacific, the aerial coverage of the warmed surface water, and so on.

Today the collection of such indicators and the computer model runs of more than a dozen research groups seeking to forecast the behavior of the ENSO cycle months in advance suggest that La Niña is on its way out. If it is, can an El Niño be far behind?

Some observers suggested that there was likely to be an El Niño in 2001 (I was one of them!). It didn’t happen. Now, some forecast groups are suggesting that there
could be the onset of a warm event under way now in February 2002 to become a moderate event by the end of this year. How much of what we are hear about the onset of an El Niño is guesswork?

Once it is certain that the La Niña episode of 1998 -2000 has ended and that sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are “warming past neutral,” speculation will grow with every squiggle of the SSTs in the tropical Pacific. “The squiggle is upward this week! El Niño is coming!” “The squiggle turns downward, La Niña may return!” This is the kind of news we heard in November 1997 during the development of the El Niño of the Century.

To my mind, this was rather irresponsible reporting by the media and irresponsible comments by scientists who provided the media with such an interpretation of changes in conditions in the tropical Pacific. Forecasting climatic phenomena on weather time scales (hours to days) is not really a good idea.

Looking on the Internet for news stories on El Niño, one finds mostly old stuff relating to the 1997-98 event. All that is about to change. The media, to be sure, will pounce on El Niño as a newsworthy event, once a reputable scientist declares that an event is about to begin. Researchers, forecasters, and speculators about the climate are all preparing for the next event.

Those of us who deal with El Niño are in a position as evaluators of these events to say anything we wish about it and much of the public will accept it. That being the case, we must approach what we say about the ENSO cycle with great care.

A growing number of examples of forecasts have caused considerable controversy relating to interpretations placed on the forecast by the media (e.g., US, Australia, Brazil). How best to communicate a forecast and how the media should translate that into language the public can use without causing undue alarm (or undue inattention!) has become an issue of great concern in scientific circles. We had best think about how we will discuss our interpretations of those changes in the Pacific in a responsible and reliable way. Perhaps by doing so we can avoid the charges of media “hype” and scientific mis-statements that came with the last El Niño in 1997-98.

Fragilecologies Archives
16 January 2001

A large portion of the oil that fuels the US economy comes from Saudi Arabia. We burn that oil, along with other fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, to run our industrialized economy. Burning the oil, coal and gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts, as a result of population- and industry-driven demand in the USA. Carbon dioxide (along with the Chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxides and methane) is a greenhouse gas. Increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide have been identified by hundreds of scientists from around the globe (representing industrialized as well as developing economies) as a major contributor to the warming up of the Earth’s atmosphere in the 1900s and especially in the 1990s. As many international scientific reports, such as that produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), have suggested with increasing confidence, the atmosphere has gotten warmer as a result of fossil fuel burning and other human activities. They say that, unless there is a sharp reduction in fossil fuel use worldwide and especially in the rich industrialized countries, the human-induced warming of the global atmosphere will continue to increase. That warming will most likely result in major changes of local and regional climates (precipitation, temperatures, fire hazard, altered growing seasons, etc.), climates to which societies had become accustomed in the past century. Researchers say that nights will be warmer, extreme climate and weather events will become more frequent, more intense and are more than likely to appear in new locations. Inhabitants of island countries around the globe are worried about being inundated from heightened storm surges as a result of sea level rise of up to a meter by the end of this century.

Some governments take the global warming issue very seriously. Others are undecided. Still others seem not to care at all. Recently, the President of the US, G.W. Bush, pulled the US representatives out of the negotiation process for the Kyoto Protocol. He announced to the world in March 2001 that the protocol was ‘dead’, as far as he (and, therefore, the US) was concerned. What then are people to do?

I suggest that national government leaders in the US, including the president and his extended family, spend their lengthy summer vacations, not in Crawford, Texas, but in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Why Saudi Arabia? The summertime temperatures constantly exceed 110 deg F, day after day after day. Water is a scarce commodity but desalinization of seawater has been made possible by the revenues gained from oil exports to the US and elsewhere.

This would be a useful experience, because it would give our politicians a true feeling for what summers in the US will be like later in the century. With global warming, a Saudi-summer would become a standard summertime climate feature in much of North America. The Saudi-like summers would occur in time for our children and our children’s children to figure how to survive in such a harsh, hot-temperature climate.

Is this really what Americans want for their future generations? I don’t think so. Politicians must start to think well beyond their next election if they have any desire at all to protect future generations of Americans from having to cope with Saudi summers year after year after year, and well into the future.

Saudi Statistics & Facts:

• Climate:
  harsh, dry desert with great extremes of temperature. From June through August, midday temperature in the desert can soar to over 100 deg. F.
• Terrain:
  mostly uninhabited, sandy desert
• Land use:
  arable land: 1%
  permanent crops: 0%
• Environment:
  • current issues: desertification; depletion of underground water resources; the lack of perennial rivers or permanent water bodies has prompted the development of extensive seawater desalination facilities; coastal pollution from oil spills
  • natural hazards: frequent sand and dust storms

CRAWFORD, Texas

Downtown Crawford

A Crawford ranch

Crawford Statistics & Facts:

• The population of Crawford is approximately 631.
• The approximate number of families is 267.
• The amount of land area in Crawford is 1.623 sq. kilometers.
• The amount of surface water is 0 sq kilometers.
• The distance from Crawford to Washington DC is 1295 miles.
• The distance to the Texas state capital is 86 miles. (as the crow flies)