http://www.ecoshock.info/
Latest science, authors, issues - from climate change, oceans, forests, pollution, Peak Oil, the economy, and peace. Ready for re-broadcast, computer, IPOD, or mp3 player. No copyright. As heard on CFRO Vancouver, and over 56 college & community radio stations, WPFW Pacifica in D.C. plus ...
Latest science, authors, issues - from climate change, oceans, forests, pollution, Peak Oil, the economy, and peace. Ready for re-broadcast, computer, IPOD, or mp3 player. No copyright. As heard on CFRO Vancouver, and over 56 college & community radio stations, WPFW Pacifica in D.C. plus KNEW 960 AM, San Francisco & Resonance FM London. Published Wednesdays.
Show all Visit Show Website http://www.ecoshock.info/Recently Aired
-
HD
New Age of Super Fires
Three key interviews on new role of fire during global ...
Three key interviews on new role of fire during global warming. John Betts on super fires and what we can do. Tom Gower on science of burning north lands. Marc-Andre Parisien on mega-fires in Canadian North. As forest fires rage across the Western half of North America, I've prepared a special show for your summer listening. Last week we heard 3 experts speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meet-up. This week I've pulled three of our best Radio Ecoshock interviews on the new age of super fires. And there's a super fire raging right now in the Canadian prairie province of Saskatchewan. In the north is a fire burning over 100,000 hectares, about 250,000 acres of boreal forest. Our guest John Betts tells us about the new age of super fires, their causes and what communities and individuals can do to reduce the risk of unstoppable fires in the age of global warming. I think the unreported fires in the far north of Alaska, Canada, and Russia are a big deal. Those forests were once carbon store houses which now become an addition source of greenhouse gases. If the top of the world burns, vast quantities of once frozen life can also be turned into both carbon dioxide and methane. Everyone in the world needs to know about this story, where ever you may live. So we'll reach back to 2007, just a year after Radio Ecoshock began. In a short interview, Dr. Tom Gower talks about his research on fires in Northern Canada as a positive feedback loop in climate change. Then from September 2014, Marc-Andre Parisien from the Canadian Forest Service tells us about record mega-fires in the Canadian far north. By the way, there is a new paper published in July 2015 by the journal Nature showing that climate change is definitely creating conditions for an increase in wild fires - in many parts of the world. The paper is titled "Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013" and you can read the full text, with helpful graphic maps, here. The summary says: "Climate strongly influences global wildfire activity, and recent wildfire surges may signal fire weather-induced pyrogeographic shifts. Here we use three daily global climate data sets and three fire danger indices to develop a simple annual metric of fire weather season length, and map spatio-temporal trends from 1979 to 2013. We show that fire weather seasons have lengthened across 29.6 million km2 (25.3%) of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in an 18.7% increase in global mean fire weather season length. We also show a doubling (108.1% increase) of global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons (>1.0 s above the historical mean) and an increased global frequency of long fire weather seasons across 62.4?million?km2 (53.4%) during the second half of the study period. If these fire weather changes are coupled with ignition sources and available fuel, they could markedly impact global ecosystems, societies, economies and climate." I'm Alex Smith. Welcome to another hot summer on Radio Ecoshock. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen on Soundcloud right now! JOHN BETTS: THE AGE OF SUPER FIRES Are we entering the age of super forest fires? Our guest is John Betts, Executive Director of the Western Silvicultural Contractors' Association in British Columbia, Canada. He's in the gorgeous lake-side town of Nelson British Columbia - right in the path of the dead pines forest fire threat. John Betts As a leader in an industry devoted to "managing" our forests, often by removing excess undergrowth, John advocates removing "fuel" from the forests before a disaster strikes. In years past, environmentalists have insisted such decay is natural and the woods should be left to their own devices. Now it's different. With global warming and warmer winters, the Rocky Mountain Pine Bark Beetle has killed off entire valleys of pine trees. They will eventually burn - and some surround communities in the interior of British Columbia, and soon in Alberta too. The same problem exists in the United States west, due to other bugs and general drying with climate pressures. Just consider the big fires in Colorado in 2012. The fires in Australia also look climate-related. Betts adds a further cause: namely our success in stopping forest fires, (he calls it "suppression"). Most of these forests, especially in Western North America, were adapted to cycles of fires. The coniferous seeds could withstand a fire and regrow. We know from studying forest soils there have been periods of fire for many centuries. But now with water bombers and new techniques, we stop them from burning, in our parks, on private lands, and around cities. John Betts says this means an abnormal amount of dead brush builds up beneath the trees. That's a recipe for a "super fire" - one we can't put out, until it burns out, or gets rained out. In British Columbia, the dead pines can build into a kind of pyramid structure, just like you might build in a fire pit. That burns so hot it kills off any seeds. In fact, it can sterilize the soil even of helpful fungi and bacteria. So the forest doesn't grow back, and the ecology has been damaged. Australia may or may not be a special case, with the eucalyptus trees and their oil, which act like instant torches. Note the Eucalyptus has been planted in California, in the U.S. South East, and around the Mediterranean. That could be a big mistake. But with long drought, and excessive heat, we've seen many parts of the world burn as we've never seen in recent centuries. Consider the 2010 great fires in Russia which claimed hundreds of lives. Just previous to that, Serbia had giant fires, as did Greece and Spain. It's an ominous trend, which John Betts says is no accident. As global heating continues, and the weather systems are thrown out of whack, we can expect a new age of great fires. Now you know the news before it hits your TV screen or headline. Expect it. Betts advises communities how to prepare. Things like removing brush, or even if necessary, creating fire breaks around towns. And we should stop our home-building invasion of the woods, particularly in fire-ready areas. Having people living there drives more efforts to put fires out, which leads to the danger cycle again. Or people stay and try to fight the impossible flames, and die as they did in Australia. The government there has changed its advice - now telling people to get out, rather than remaining home with garden hoses against the inferno. We need a lot of discussion and preparation to make sure our communities are safe, and our forests can return to some kind of natural cycle again - if "natural" is still possible in a big climate shift! It's possible some forests will never return, changing over to grasslands. We don't know yet, as we gamble away the future of the biosphere on a small planet. Listen to/Dowload the John Betts interview on super fires (24 minutes) in CD Quality or Lo-Fi FIRE EXPERT MARC-ANDRE PARISIEN Regular Ecoshock listeners know wildfires in the Arctic are bigger and badder than ever. Scientists predict a huge increase over the coming decades due to changes in climate, and various feed-backs triggered by global warming. Could the whole boreal forest burn down? New research has taken us deeper into fire behavior in the far north. The paper that caught my eye is titled "Resistance of the boreal forest to high burn rates." Our next guest is one of the authors. Marc-Andre Parisien is a research scientist for the Northern Forestry Centre of Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian Forest Service, located in Edmonton Alberta. Along with scientists at the Centre for Northern Studies in Quebec, Parisien is an author of the new paper "Resistance of the boreal forest to high burn rates" published in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on August 4th, 2014. You would need to be a paid member of PNAS to read this, but find the abstract here. Marc most of us can barely imagine the size and condition of the great Boreal forest. It runs from Alaska right across the whole of Canada to Labrador - and that's just in North America. There is more in Scandinavia and Siberia. Television doesn't report on fires in Canada's far north. Most of these blazes run their course with no one trying to put them out. How large can a fire get? A single large fire can be bigger than the island of Manhattan, which is 9,000 hectares, or more than 22,000 acres. One fire in the Canadian province of Quebec was 560,000 hectares, or 1.3 million acres. This summer of 2014, Parisien tells us, over 4.6 million hectares of forest burned (11.3 million acres) - that is larger than Switzerland. It's a stunning amount of carbon taken from trees and forced into the atmosphere. That is when forests become a carbon source, rather than a carbon sink. It's also a huge burst of black soot, a global warming agent on it's own, and a contributor to the blackening of Greenland. There are very different estimates for the increase in northern fires as the planet warms. By 2100, some scientists suggest forest fires in that region will increase by 30%. Others have suggested they might increase by 500%. If that becomes reality, we can doubt whether northern forests will continue to exist. The one possible saving agent, and the point of the paper by Parisien and scientists from a Quebec University - statistically, forests that burned within the last 40 or 50 years are LESS likely to burn again in our time. It looks like there is a kind of negative feedback loop at work here, at least for forest fires. However, I feel all that is uncertain as the Boreal and Tundra continue to heat up much more than the rest of the planet. We're running a big experiment here on planet Earth. In this interview, Marc-Andre notes that fires are not the only threat to northern forests. As the permafrost melts, trees can lose their hold in soil, tipping over in a phenomenon known as "drunken forests". These can already be seen in Alaska and the Yukon. We may also see changes in hydrology (when it rains or snows) as the planet warms. And forests have already been hit hard by changes in insects, like the Rocky Mountain Pine Bark Beetle which is killing off whole valleys of pines. These were enabled in such great numbers by a continuing lack of winters cold enough to kill them off. We didn't have time to talk about the other big threat: logging the Boreal forest. It's huge, all for toilet paper and other items we throw away. Find out about endangered Boreal forest logging at Greenpeace here, Forest Ethics here, or Canopy here. Marc-Andre listed other Canadian scientists who are studying the impacts of climate change on fires and the Canadian northern forests (despite Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of the Tar Sands). He also recommends this web site: the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System. There you can find all kinds of helpful maps, charts and information. It's a super resource for those who care about what happens in the North. Since the future of the world may be partly determined by what happens there, that's you and everybody else in the world. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock interview with Marc-Andre Parisien in CD Quality or Lo-Fi TOM GOWER: FIRES IN THE CANADIAN NORTH (from the Radio Ecoshock Show November 16, 2007) In the last few years, as the North heats up, wild fires have been burning, unreported and unopposed, across the top of the world, in both Canada and Siberia. The latest climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does NOT include this growing source of carbon.Dr. Tom Gower was from the University of Wisconsin/Madison, and is now with the North Caroline State University Department of Forestry. In this exclusive interview with Radio Ecoshock, Dr. Gower explains the vast boreal forest of Canada is no longer a carbon sink. It is losing more carbon to wild fires, than the trees can gather up. Forestry scientist Tom Gower This has severe implications for our climate - it becomes a positive feedback loop. The snow melts earlier, the fire season is extended, it's much hotter up North (climate hits the Northern pole much heavier) - it all adds up to a big tinderbox waiting for the next lightening strike.Dr. Gower's research was just published in the journal "Nature" on November 1st, 2007.As Dr. Gower says, the recent fires in California as child's play compared to the massive fires in northern Canada. There's just no news crews up there. This is part of a larger special program on Radio Ecoshock on the forest "carbon bomb." As one of our speakers, temperate rainforest activist Pat Rasmussen says, there is more carbon in the trees, by far, than in the whole atmosphere. It that gets released in a short period of years, it will be a "carbon bomb" changing climate drastically. In the one hour Ecoshock program, we weigh out reports that the California fires were brought on by climate change (maybe, maybe not) - and then look at new science by Dr. Lara Kueppers who also says the forests of the Rockies are now emitting more carbon than they can capture. Forests are no longer our friends, now that we have changed the climate. A 60 Minutes program, called the Age of MegaFires, even found an Arizona scientists saying that the American West will lost half its forests in the coming century, due to climate change!Half the forests going! We also try to figure out how much carbon is ready to go up in smoke, as the huge dead pine forests of British Columbia catch fire in the coming years. The Mountain Pine Bark Beetle, previously controlled by cold winters, has killed off 32 million acres of trees, and more to come. They are red, grey, dead, and waiting to burn.The wild thing is that governments don't even count wild fire carbon in their grand plans and promises. In reality, California should take half a million cars off the road just to offset the carbon that came out of the recent fires. Canada must reduce it's emissions even more, because of the carbon coming from northern fires. British Columbia, the same. These governments are cheating - but Mother Nature (the geo-physical system if you prefer) counts it ALL. No fooling the real atmosphere, which doesn't care where the carbon comes from, or what your excuse is. NEW CLIMATE MUSIC The United Nations Framework on Climate Change press room is running a weekly platform for climate music. I heard the lyrics for this next song by a Swedish writer calling himself "Climate Man". You can hear all of his music at climatesongs.com. We got in touch by email, and I agreed to produce a new electronic music remix for his song "CO2 Society". You can find my version, with my own new music and voice, on the Radio Ecoshock soundcloud page to download or share for free. This is it.
-
HD
World on Fire
http://bit.ly/JfocDr Wild fires from climate change cause still more warming. ...
http://bit.ly/JfocDr Wild fires from climate change cause still more warming. Three experts from American Academy for the Advancement of Science meeting February 19th recorded in Vancouver by Alex Smith. Michael Flannigan, U of Alberta on fire and climate. From UBC medical unit, Dr. Michael Brauer on health impacts and personal protection during smoke events. Tasmania's Fay Johnston' estimation of global annual deaths from landscape fire smoke. Best of Radio Ecoshock replay from 120418 1 hour. Welcome to hot summer programming from Radio Ecoshock. I'm Alex Smith, bringing together some of our best recordings and interviews. This week and next, we'll focus on the growing trend of monster forest fires - what one guest calls "the age of super fires". I feel personally involved. As I prepare this show, it's 111 degrees Fahrenheit, or 44 degrees Celsius, in the shade outside my studio, for the second time this week. My valley is grey with smoke. While having dinner two nights ago, we watched a forestry helicopter drop load after load on a small fire in the hill behind our home. A violent blast of lightening started it. They got it out. What should be the wet West Coast is tinder dry. Vancouver, Canada has filled up with smoke from huge fires in the region. Hundreds of fires have sprung up all along the West Coast of North America, from California to Alaska. More than a dozen started within 50 miles of my home in the past few days. And the big summer fire season is still ahead of us. Even if it's cold and rainy where you are, the impacts of global forest fires affect the health of millions, the economy, and act like a positive feedback loop to increase the speed of global warming. Next week I'll interview scientists and fire experts on the new super fires. This week, I'm replaying three talks I recorded at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Vancouver Canada in February 2012. We'll hear about the global fire situation, and the health impacts of fire smoke, including how you and your community can prepare for it. This is the Radio Ecoshock show from April 18th, 2012. Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen on Soundcloud right now! I've been working on the latest science about wildfires and climate change. The plan was to save the broadcast for summer, when the fires start.Nature isn't waiting. From the first week of April major television networks like CBS reported wildfires all down the West Coast, instead of the East Coast as it was in 2012. This follows a winter with very little snow. Gardeners started to feel like planting a month early. Farmers feared a continuing drought, with no snow to water the land before seed time.Forget about normal. Wildfire season started ridiculously early this year in North America, in the first week of April.TV and news reported thousands of heat records set in the Eastern United States, without ever mentioning "global warming".It's time for the Radio Ecoshock special, my recordings of a special session on fire and climate. The fire experts gathered at the February conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver 2012. You'll hear how fires make a hotter climate which feeds more fires, the cycle of positive feedback. An internationally recognized wildfire expert, Dr. Michael Flannigan reports on the latest science and experience in the field. Flannigan also describes a new risk that could tip the climate of the world.You may have a personal stake in this. Anyone with lungs does. From the University of British Columbia School of Medicine, Dr. Mike Brauer explains new ways of tracking dangerous smoke, which can travel thousands of miles, across international boundaries. I like Brauer's talk, because he also tells us how citizens can protect themselves during a smoke event.Finally we'll hear from Dr. Fay Johnston from the University of Tasmania. She was part of a team asking the big question: how many people die from fire smoke every year? The answer, and the places most at risk, may surprise you. DR. MIKE FLANNIGANLet's get the big picture, from one of my favorite wildfire experts. Dr. Mike Flannigan is a Professor of the Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta, and Senior Research Scientist at the Canadian Forest Service. His PHD is from Cambridge. He also trained in meteorology. Flannigan is Editor-in-chief of International Journal of Wild land Fire, and part of the U.S. Assessment on Global Change. Mike is a leader in newly formed Western Partnership for Fire Science.In the program you hear excerpts from my recording of Mike Flannigan's presentation at "Forest fires in Canada: Impacts of Climate Change and Fire Smoke" delivered Sunday morning, February 19th, 2012, in a special workshop at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science general meeting in Vancouver. Nobody says more in fewer words than Flannigan. When huge fires erupt, in Canada or internationally, Mike often gets called in. He begins by exploring the fire in Northern Alberta, Canada, where a town called Slave Lake had one third of the place burned out, including the municipal buildings the libraries. Video of that fire approaching the town here. Photos of the aftermath here. And this could happen to any town or city. Hundreds of homes were burned in Kelowna British Columbia in 20003. I don't have to tell anyone in California or Texas about the huge risks from out-of-control wild fires.Australians know how deadly fires can be. In 2012, Slave Lake in the Yukon had to be evacuated. This year it's towns in Northern Saskatchewan emptied out on short notice as a fires up to 100,000 hectares in size roar right up to the town limits.There was no way to fight such fires, and they moved fast with ferocity. Satellite images show the Slave Lake fire was actually the smallest of four infernos raging at the time.Remember the fire leader in Texas who said "No one alive has seen fires like this". Except we are seeing them more and more, especially after heat events.Mike Flannigan makes it clear that climate change is a contributing factor to these fierce fires. The underbrush is tinder dry, even in spring-time. The hotter weather creates a longer fire season. Heat also induces more lightening, which ignites the wild fire. It's a positive feed-back cycle, at least in the near-term. The burning forests release all the carbon previously held in vegetative matter. Tree trunks are mostly carbon. That release of carbon, and the extra black soot, all drive more warming.A few years after the fire, perhaps 7 years later, new growth will re-absorb some of the carbon back from the atmosphere. The fire zone changes from a carbon source to a carbon sink. But in the meantime, climate change has been further ramped up.If you ever wanted to know the basics of wild fires, and why we hear more about them, or get hit with smoke from faraway places, Mike Flannigan is the man to learn from.You can download my Radio Ecoshock interview with Mike Flannigan in May 2011 from the program titled "FLOOD FIRE WIND - Climate Shift" at ecoshock.org. (13 minute interview)About two weeks after this broadcast, you can download a free mp3 of Mike Flannigan's full speech at the triple AS from our Climate 2012 page. All of today's speakers will be there in full.HOW DO THESE FIRES COMPARE TO PAST AGES?Can we say there are more fires now than at any time in human history? What about fires in the past hot ages, in previous greenhouse worlds? I listened to two presentations on the history of fire by Douglas Woolford, from Canada's Wilfred Laurier University, and Richard Routledge, Simon Fraser University. The science was too complicated for radio broadcast. I came away thinking the field of fire archeology is still very young. Do we know enough to answer those questions, to compare our future to the distant past of fire?I came away from these American Academy presentations thinking we just don't know enough yet. You can dig further into the research that has been done, by downloading those two speeches (for a fee) from aven.com. We do know that fire smoke travels huge distances, sometimes smudging out part of a continent. In the soot below, human lungs don't do very well. As we'll hear in our third speaker, hundreds of thousands of humans die every year from inhaling smoke from natural and agricultural fires.DR. MICHAEL BRAUERBut first, you should hear this Canadian medical expert Dr. Mike Brauer. He explains big advances in predicting the smoke plumes, so people with breathing difficulties can be warned. It's almost like tornado warnings, only more accurate. Pharmacies can know to stock up on inhalers. And Brauer ends with tips you can use to protect yourself, if smoke fills your air.Mike was introduced by session organizer Charmaine Dean, of Simon Fraser University. In the radio program, you hear major excerpts from Mike's speech.In the first part, Mike explains several methods to predict where fire smoke will go. That's important to know if you are a health planner, a hospital worker or doctor, if you have health problems like asthma, - and if you just want to protect the lungs of yourself and your family.I became even more interested in the second segment, as Brauer explains the public health efforts, and personal things we can do to protect ourselves. If there are going to be more fires, and more smoke, we all need to learn about this. A smoke plume can travel hundreds of miles over a place like California, or New England (from Canadian fires). Whole parts of Asia have been covered in smoke - like the times Malaysia and Singapore went under a smoke cloud from fires in Indonesia.We know, from Brauer's study, that in Western-style economies, visits to doctors’ offices and pharmacies will go up. Those places need to stock up on inhalers and other medicines. People with certain ailments or low lung function need to stay indoors, with the windows closed. Driving around does not help, as Brauer says the smoke is actually worse inside the car.Brauer struck a chord with me when he recommended simple HEPA air filters for people's homes. I have had one running for the past five years, because we live in a high traffic area. We used to need to dust the place way too often, now much less.That air filter was running when the wave of radioactivity hit the West Coast about a week after the Fukushima nuclear plants blew up. About a month later I changed out the filters, which were no doubt radioactive. It saved our lungs a bit.These filters also reduce indoor smoke from fires by about 65% Brauer says. That's better for everybody.Once again, this is another reason to have at least a few days’ worth of food stocked up too. Nobody needs to go out to the store. DR. FAY JOHNSTONOur final presenter in this week's special on fire and climate change is Dr. Fay Johnston, a physician and environmental epidemiologist at the Menzies Research Institute in Tasmania, the Down Under of Australia. Here is a link to one of her smoke assessment projects. And here is a link to a public article "Fire Smoke Important Contributor to Deaths World-Wide".Her topic for this session of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is: "The Estimated Global Mortality Burden Attributable to Landscape Fire Smoke".Let's find out who really pays the ultimate price for advancing fires in a crowded warming world. We only have time for a few excerpts. First, what is a "landscape fire" and who is studying it?Dr. Fay Johnston describes the first attempts to quantify the impacts of global wildfires.As she says: "a world without fire does not exist." It is natural, but not when humans create the fire conditions, and then set those fires. Her team estimated about 90% of "landscape fires" around the world are set purposely by humans. We do it to clear new land for things like soy beans or palm oil. Africa is a central location for fires. It is part of their agricultural cycle. The old crop is burned off to prepare for the new one. Radio Ecoshock has had other guests explain that method of agriculture is adding to global warming.As far as deaths go, we find out there has hardly been any study in the developing world, where most of the fires are, and most of the death happen. To measure health impacts, Johnston's group had to use pollution studies generated in major smoggy cities. It turns out those impacts on lungs work pretty well for people smoked out in the jungle as well. Still, just like medical research, we take studies from the First World and apply them to developing countries, hoping it will work. There's no money to do the research in the heavily populated places where it is needed most. Isn't that always the case, in this unfair world? Whether its medicine or smoke, almost all research is funded and performed in the developed world, where a minority of Earth's population live and die. It may take another generation to see how climate change and fire do their dance in the most populated, and the most plant rich places on the planet.To be honest, this study finds smoke deaths from landscape fires are far less serious than deaths from smoking tobacco. Whereas several millions die because of tobacco, this study estimates about 340,000 people a year die from landscape fires. Around 10,000 of those are in South America, where relative population is low. Over a hundred thousand are in the Sahel region of northern Africa. More than a hundred thousand die each and every year from air-borne smoke in Asia but that is still fewer than die from cooking over smoky fires indoors in Asia. You can find the full speeches by Mike Flannigan, Mike Brauer, and Fay Johnston on the Climate 2012 downloads page at ecoshock.org. My thanks to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science for allowing me to record on February 19th, and to Simon Fraser University for organizing this session on forest fires, smoke, and climate change. Our music in this program was from the 1968 hit "Fire" by Arthur Brown. News clips were from NBC12 Richmond, and CBS evening news. Next week on Radio Ecoshock, I've selected 3 key interviews with scientists and experts on the new super fires, burning hotter than ever, thanks to climate change. The forests we used to think captured and stored our carbon emissions, are now returning that carbon at greater rates, adding to global warming. Remember, you can find all our past programs as free mp3 downloads at our web site, ecoshock.org. Or Google "Radio Ecoshock" and any environmental topic, to dive through our archives. And please tell your friends about the Radio Ecoshock soundcloud page for easy audio browsing. Still at the news desk, as the troubled future unfolds, I'm Alex Smith. Thank you for listening, and please join us again next week.
-
HD
Hot Minds in Motion
SUMMARY: The coming unstable tropics, seen through an ancient world. ...
SUMMARY: The coming unstable tropics, seen through an ancient world. From the UK, Dr. Jessica Whiteside. Former NASA scientist James Hansen says 2 degrees warming is unsafe and "crazy" to set that as a goal. Huge Canadian rainforest on cusp of mega-deal to save it. Activist Valerie Langer. Radio Ecoshock 150701. I begin with the voice of James Hansen, one of the world's most respected climate scientists. He spoke recently on Radio National in Australia. I have more on this mega-warning of the developing climate emergency later in this blog entry. We'll also investigate a Canadian deal to preserve ancient old-growth forests in an area the size of Ireland. Is The Great Bear Rainforest agreement a model for the rest of the world? Our guest is long-time campaigner Valerie Langer from Vancouver, Canada. But first, let's bust the myth that the tropics won't change much as the climate rearranges. Businessmen and government leaders keep rattling on about our future with 1000 parts per million or more of carbon dioxide. New science explains that even big dinosaurs couldn't live in that kind of world, ravaged by swings of climate so huge that plant life was unstable and unpredictable in the tropics. Welcome to Radio Ecoshock. I'm Alex Smith. Download or listen to this program in CD Quality or Lo-Fi. Or listen right now on Soundcloud! BREAKING NEWS: July 1st: MASSIVE FIRES ACROSS WESTERN NORTH AMERICA, from California to Alaska, and all Canadian western provinces. The Western half of North America is breaking into massive fires. In Alaska, over a million acres have been burned in just the month of June. The real fire season is yet to start. Fires in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan are so large, satellite pictures show smoke blowing all the way down through the central United States, as far south as Missouri. Air quality is hazardous in some cities in Saskatchewan and nearby Manitoba. There are, at last count, over 200 large wildfires burning in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, including some near Fort McMurray, home to the infamous Tar Sands. The coastal Province of British Columbia has major wildfire problems, already burning ten times what was consumed by fire all of last year - again with the hot summer still to go. Major wildfires are also burning in Washington State and Oregon. Nobody is even reporting on the monster fires in the Canadian Arctic. Some parts of Siberia were up to 6 degrees C hotter than normal this Spring. Deadly fires are already common there. At what point do we acknowledge that great parts of the Northern Hemisphere will burn, releasing all that carbon, every year as climate change develops? Stay tuned next week for a replay of our in-depth program on fire risk: "The Age of Super Fires". ECOSHOCK NEWS My climate action song "Time of Trials" has been selected this week by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in their on-going series of climate inspiration music leading up to the 2015 Paris climate talks in December. You can find their write up in Spanish here. And here is the announcement in English. You can listen to "Time of Trials" right now on Soundcloud here. COMING TROUBLE IN THE TROPICS: JESSICA WHITESIDE Businessmen and gloomy scientists have predicted our fossil-powered lives mean carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will reach 1,000 parts per million or more. What would such a world look like? We can get a glimpse by going way back, hundreds of millions of years, to a troubled hothouse world. Our tour guide will be Dr. Jessica Whiteside, a lecturer in Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton in the UK. She's the lead author of a new study that's been getting a lot of press. The title is "Extreme ecosystem instability supressed tropical dinosaur dominance for 30 million years." - as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One of the strange things about "land" is that it actually floats around on the Earth's hot core. A group of scientists travelled to New Mexico, where they found rocks that were much earlier in the tropics. There was no North America, or Europe - just one big continent on the earth, known as "Pangea". Scientists investigating the history of dinosaurs were always puzzled when no bones of the giant herbivores (picture a Brontesauraus) were found in rocks formerly in the tropics. What kept them out for around 30 million years? Now, through a series of methods cross-checking one another, this new paper suggests the climate of the tropics was far too unstable to grow the vegetation necessary to support very big herbivore dinosaurs. Over millions of years, the tropical climate swung violently from huge droughts to very wet periods. The vegetation would build up during wet times, and then burn with very hot wild fires during dry times. The scientists found carbon deposits from fires that burned at around 600 degrees - enough to sterilize the soil. Nothing grew back afterwards for a long time. I noticed with special interest the very hot fires that burned in that ancient tropical world. A Canadian fire expert on Radio Ecoshock told us about fires current fires so hot they sterilize the soil. More on that next week. At that time the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were 4 to 6 times modern levels, running from 1200 to 1600 parts per million CO2. Our guest Jessica Whiteside notes that is the expected level, on our current course, in the next one or two hundred years. This extreme instability was stronger in the interior of the continent of Pangea, away from oceans that might modify conditions. That's very much like what is expected in the interior of North and South America, as well as the interior of Russia and China. I asked Jessica if humans could have survived in the conditions of these ancient tropics. She says that is doubtful, because the average temperature was ten degrees C higher than today. We also discuss the lag time between higher CO2, and large climate changes. More conservative scientific thinking attributes "only" a 1 degree C rise for every doubling of CO2. But this is contradicted by studies of ancient climates (paleo-climatology) which saw 3 or even 5 degrees C of average temperature rise with each doubling of CO2. The scientists doing this study were well aware that the high carbon past they looked at might serve as an analog, almost a prediction, of what we will experience with a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock interview with Dr. Jessica Whiteside in CD Quality of Lo-Fi JAMES HANSEN: 2 DEGREES IS NOT A GOAL - IT'S "CRAZY" Let's get to that disturbing new interview with James Hansen. He's the former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He's also the scientist who warned the U.S. Congress about the dangers of climate change in 1988. If only we'd listened then. On Tuesday May 5th, 2015, Hansen was interviewed for the Australian breakfast show on ABC Radio National. Here's what happened. ABC RADIO NATION INTERVIEW WITH HANSEN Here is the key passage: HANSEN: "I refused to sign the Vatican Declaration which had the 2 degree limit and the reason I do not sign that is that the 2 degrees is actually a prescription for disaster. That’s actually well understood by the scientific community. We know that the prior interglacial period about 120,000 years ago – it’s called the Eemian in Europe –but it was less than 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial conditions and sea level was a least 6 to 8 metres higher, so it’s crazy to think that 2 degrees Celsius is safe limit. The only thing you can argue is that, well, it might take a while for the sea level to rise that much, but we know that it would happen because once the fossil fuels are burned to reach that level they are not taken out of the systems for millennia, and it does not require millennia for the ice sheets to disintegrate. RN: If you say it would be crazy to shoot for two degrees but that is exactly what we are going to be shooting for in Paris at the global climate talks HANSEN: That number (2 degrees) was chosen because it was convenient and thought that well that will give us a few decades so we can set targets for the middle of the century. Actually what the science tells us is we have an emergency, this is actually a global crisis and the science for that is crystal clear. It’s not obvious to the public because the climate system responds slowly, the ocean is 4 kilometres deep, these ice sheets are 3 kilometres thick. They only respond over time scales of decades to centuries, but once the processes are started it’s going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to stop them. So what the science actually tells us is that we should reduce emissions as fast as practical, bearing in mind the economic consequences, but in fact the actions that are necessary are not economically harmful. You just have to make the prices of fossil fuels honest." FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE. Note that James Hansen, just in the last few years, believes we need more nuclear power to stop climate change. The Australian pediatrician and activist Helen Caldicott pretty well demolished that argument in her book "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else." If Helen missed anything, it was shouted out to the world by the triple melt-down of three reactors at Fukushima Japan in 2011. If you want to bet on nuclear power, you are gambling with terrible stakes for the present and the future, in my opinion. That said, James Hansen is one of the world's greatest heroes of the science of climate change. Now he's saying that on our present course, within 40 or 50 years, the seas will rise several meters, demolishing the capacity of many of the world's great cities along the ocean. I hope New York, London, Shanghai and all the rest are listening. Hansen also says it is not too late, even yet, to prevent that kind of disastrous outcome. THE GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST: SEALING THE DEAL There are not many truly wild places left in this world. Environmental activists have been fighting to save one of them for 18 years. It's known globally as The Great Bear Rainforest. Situated on the central and northern west coast of Canada, this rainforest is home to giant trees, some thousands of years old. In countless coastal inlets, a rich mix of plants and animals thrive, including the iconic white bear, the Kermode or spirit bear. Supposed enemies met to find a solution. Dedicated green activists including Greenpeace, Forest Ethics and the Sierra Club met in marathon negotiations with executives of giant forest companies, First nations leaders and stakeholders preserve this great legacy. Eventually the government of British Columbia made a promise. Now, almost a generation later, that government is within 60 days of sealing the deal - a model of multi-party efforts to conserve nature that has inspired hope, around the world. To help us understand what's at stake, we have reached one of the long-term campaigners to save the Great Bear Rainforest, Valerie Langer. She's the Director of BC Forest Campaigns, for ForestEthics Solutions, and works for the convervation and markets group called "Canopy" as well. Valerie Langer Here's the thing: the Great Bear Rainforest is an area the size of Ireland - much of it untouched by modern civilization. Canadian and American-owned logging companies wanted to log the whole thing. They had to be stopped. Why would big forest companies give up some of the most valuable timber in the world, just to accommodate a few environmentalists? Because of activism from all three groups making this rainforest wood untouchable in the market place. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts were cancelled. Companies like Home Depot swore they would never buy the wood from the Great Bear. Other companies pulled out of British Columbia altogether. Feeling the heat, the forest company executives agreed to something they had never considered before: meeting with the environmentalists to make a deal. Some major foundations kicked in money to keep the negotiations going. One of the major problems was to keep the Great Bear without leaving First Nations (aboriginal) communities in poverty, without even logging jobs. Private foundations and donors raised $60 million dollars, matched by $30 million each from the Federal and Provincial governments, to help the First Nations communities create their own alternative economy. Eco-tourism was just a part of that big picture. All this had never been done before. It took 18 years to get it this far: the next 60 days are the final period for public comment, before the Great Bear deal is made into law. The fight isn't completely won yet. There is a rogue company logging in the Great Bear at a furious rate, trying to get as much as possible before the government gives final approval. It's called Timber West. The Province of British Columbia needs to rein them in, but the province has laid off most of it's enforcement staff. Public pressure on Timber West is still needed. Still, a deal involving all parties, settled peacefully with dialog, stands as a model for other endangered forests all over the world. Valerie Langer is a powerful speaker and power-house campaigner, so give this interview a listen. Download or listen to this interview with Valerie Langer in CD Quality of Lo-Fi STUNNING COURT VICTORY IN THE NETHERLANDS I can't wrap up this show, and this season, without a few words about a stunning court victory in the Netherlands. Regular listener and green radio journalist Mark Beekhuis brought this to my attention. Mark writes, quote: "This week a climate campaign group won a case against The Netherlands. A judge ordered the government to reduce carbon emissions by 20% relative to 1990 - by the year 2020. This is a first in the world. The main legal argument is that the State should protect all of its citizens - also the ones not yet born." Imagine, a government must protect future citizens, our grandchildren and descendants! In their ruling, the judges said: "The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts,"..."Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this." The current Dutch government is a coalition, where Beekhuis tells us, one party appears to accept this ruling, while another hopes to overturn it. The Dutch environmental group "Urgenda" has put all it's legal documents on the Internet. They have been translated into English as well. The group wants other countries to follow their lead in the courts. Activists in Belgium have already done it, and groups in Norway are working on it. This could be a world-wide movment to force governments to do their job protecting the future for all to come. Here is a link to a story on American National Public Radio about this case, so you can listen in to that. The Guardian write up is here. COMING UP THIS SUMMER This program concludes the first half of my 2015 season. I'm hard at work collecting some of the most powerful interviews for a "best of Radio Ecoshock" series. Since we have not resolved or really responded to the climate threat, the science and the activism going back several years is still very valid today. I hope you'll keep listening through the summer, as we go deep into the issues we all face, with a wide variety of voices. At the end of the summer, in the Northern Hemisphere, I'll return with a whole new energy, and a whole new series of programs. Of course that's assuming I can keep quiet even for a little while. Right now it's 107 degrees, about 42 degrees Celsius, in any shade you can find, outside my studio walls. That's in Canada, with summer barely started. Scratch, that, its gone up to 111 degrees F in the shade, 44 degrees C!!! This is insane! It's not just here in Western North America. As Jeff Masters writes in his blog, there are record temperatures being set on four continents this June/July. Record heat in Britain, Spain, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan - the list is long. We may have to begin with replays of our powerful interviews with top fire experts. There's lots more to come on Radio Ecoshock, so please say tuned. I'm also working on more new climate music to help spark the Paris climate talks. Watch the Radio Ecoshock page on Soundcloud for that. I'm Alex Smith. Thank you for listening, and thank you for caring about your world.
-
HD
SUDDEN HEAT
Summary: Dr. Robert Kopp explains why humans die in heat ...
Summary: Dr. Robert Kopp explains why humans die in heat waves, and why that will get worse as climate change develops. Then the incredible Dr. Jeremy Leggett on "Winning the Carbon War" Plus climate music from Melody Sheep. Radio Ecoshock 150624. Welcome back to Radio Ecoshock. I'm Alex Smith with two powerful interviews for you. First Dr. Robert Kopp explains why humans die in heat waves, and why that will get worse as climate change develops. Then the incredible Dr. Jeremy Leggett returns, talking about his open source book "Winning the Carbon War", his booming solar business in the UK, and a project to light up Africa with solar lanterns. All that plus two climate songs. Let's get going. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen on Soundcloud right now! WILL IT BE TOO HOT TO SAFELY GO OUTSIDE? Are we making a world where it will be too hot to go outside? Is the latest deadly heat wave in India a sign? We'll talk about all that and more with out next guest, scientist Robert Kopp. He's an associate professor in the Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He's Associate Director of the Rutgers Energy Institute. He was an author in the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Kopp is also a co-author of a thought-provoking op-ed in the New York Times, published June 7th. The title is "The Deadly Combination of Heat and Humidity". That was spurred by the massive heat wave that had just hit India, killing hundreds. It might just as easily have been written about the new deadly heatwave that struck this week in Pakistan, leading to more heat deaths. Read about that event, where the "wet bulb temperature" was over 33 degrees C. - in Robert Scribbler's blog here. You can find Bob Kopps technical notes to the New York Times article on heat, humidity and climate deaths here. DEADLY HEAT WAVE IN INDIA Radio Ecoshock guest Dr. Jeff Masters also has a related post on India heat wave deaths here. Jeff Masters on the end of this heat wave, here. Jeff writes: "According to the India Meteorological Department, a warming climate increased heat waves in India by a third between 1961 to 2010." The source for that statement, with more data on deadly Indian heat waves, is here. You can also check out this study "Intensification of future severe heat waves in India and their effect on heat stress and mortality" Kamal Kumar Murari et al, published August 9, 2014. OUR RADIO ECOSHOCK INTERVIEW The key fact Kopp raises is one we understand physically, but poorly intellectually. We all know heat feels worse when it's humid, or muggy as we say. What happens in the body to make humid heat more dangerous? Yesterday here in Western Canada it was 101 degrees in the shade, or 38 degrees Centigrade - pretty hot for mid-June. I was still out gardening, because it's very dry here, a semi-desert. I did not understand until I read that New York times article that a lower temperature, with high humidity, might actually be more dangerous than a hotter drier day. How can we communicate this better? Canadian weather forecasters try to combine heat and humidity into something called the "Humidex Index". I think we need a better word to get the public to understand this danger. It's not just India or Pakistan. It's Australia, Siberia, Brazil - and the United States. HEAT/HUMIDITY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. In the U.S., in the New York Times, the article says: "In work one of us (Robert Kopp) led for the Risky Business Project, we found that over the period from 1981 to 2010, the average American experienced about four dangerously humid days, with wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 80 degrees. By 2030, that level is expected to more than double, to about 10 days per summer. Manhattanites are expected to experience nearly seven uncomfortably muggy weeks in a typical summer, with wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 74 degrees, about as many as residents of Washington have experienced recently." Kopp adds in the technical notes: "These results come from the forthcoming book Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus, much of the text of which is available as a report at ClimateProspectus.org. " "Some summers would have days so stiflingly muggy that a healthy individual would suffer heat stroke in less than an hour of moderate, shaded activity outside. These stiflingly muggy days are Category IV (‘extraordinarily dangerous’) on the ACP Humid Heat Stroke Index, with wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 92°F. Such days have no precedent in U.S. history. In the ACP analysis, they are expected with 6%/year probability in Illinois and 1%/year probability in New Jersey under RCP 8.5 in 2040-2059. By 2080-2099, 4 such days are expected per summer in Illinois and 1 such day in New Jersey. The average American is expected to experience such a day with 1%/year probability in 2040-2059 and 80%/year probability in 2080-2099. About an hour of shaded, 150-watt activity at a wet-bulb temperature of 92°F leads to skin temperatures of 100°F and core body temperatures of 104°F (the threshold for heat stroke), based on a Danish study conducted on twelve trained, male endurance athletes, ages 23–34. 150 watts corresponds to ‘moderate effort’ on a stationary bike – about 40% of maximal aerobic capacity for these individuals. The athletes, dressed only in swim trunks and shoes, were asked to pedal to exhaustion on a stationary bike in a room with an air temperature of 95°F and relative humidity of 87%, corresponding to a wet-bulb temperature of about 91°F. After 45 ± 3 minutes of exercise without acclimation, or 52 ± 2 minutes with acclimation, these individuals reached exhaustion and a core temperature of 103.8 ± 0.2°F." NO PLACE FOR HUMANS OR ANIMALS OUTSIDE IN 2200 "And carrying on this way through the 22nd century locks in a trajectory where summer outdoor conditions could become physiologically intolerable for humans and livestock in the eastern United States — and in regions currently home to more than half the planet’s population. This remark is based upon a 2010 paper Matt co-authored with Steven Sherwood. This study found that conditions physiologically intolerable for humans (conservatively defined there as areas with peak wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 95°F during the peak of the summer, well into ACP Category IV, and well beyond the current planetary experience) cover regions home to more than half the planet’s population with about 11°C (20°F) of global warming. The regions affected include much of the eastern U.S., China, India, Brazil, and north Africa. Based on simulations with the MAGICC simple climate model, as run for the ACP, such conditions have about a 20% chance of being realized by 2200 under RCP 8.5." But this is not yet locked in, Kopp says, if we take greatly reduced emissions pathways. STEPS WE CAN TAKE: "Since we can’t avoid it now, we must make our communities more resilient to heat and humidity extremes. One step is to expand access to air-conditioning for those who can’t afford it. We must also improve cooling in stiflingly hot factories and warehouses, strengthen public health systems, improve public warnings when heat and humidity are dangerously high, and be willing to shift outdoor work schedules. There are some additional options we didn’t have space to mention here. These include technologies for passively cooling buildings and urban areas, such as cool roofs and pavements, as well as the broader set of energy efficiency measures to reduce the need for active cooling." Cool roofs and pavements link here. Dr. Kopp told us on Radio Ecoshock: "In the second half of this century that's where we really the effects of changes in greenhouse gases that we start making today. So if we continue on with a fossil fuel intensive growth trajectory, the average American might be experiencing around 17 dangerously humid days in a typical summer in the 2050's." Bob Kopp also did background analysis that lead to the breakthrough report called "Risky Business", launched by luminaries like Hank Paulson and Michael Bloomberg. The report warned of the economic costs of climate change. Along those lines, I ran into an new Australian study that found even indoor office workers, who presumably have air-conditioning at work, become a billion dollars less productive during heat waves - because their sleep is disturbed during hot nights. We talk about what hot humid weather really means in terms of worker productivity in a hotter world. I also find it interesting the electric grid is also less productive during heat waves. It takes more power just to cool electric generating plants, and the actual grid is less efficient. Kopp notes that nuclear plants sometimes have to shut down during heat waves (just as millions of people are cranking up their air-conditioners) - because nuclear power plants cannot operate if their cooling water (often drawn from rivers or lakes) is too hot. The same limitations can apply to coal power plants which also have to cool their operations. In a radio interview on WHYY radio in Philadelphia, Kopp talked about many risks that could be assigned a dollar value, easily understood by business. Then he said there are risks that cannot be expressed economically, but still keep him up some nights. That's in this Radio Ecoshock interview. Listen to that Bob Kopp interview on Whyy audio, July 1, 2014, with Kate Gordon, Executive Director of the Risky Business project, on the RadioTimes show with Marty Moss-Coane, here. Despite all this, Bob Kopp is not a total doomer, thinking it's all over. We discuss how we can cope with this climate mess, now that we have changed Earth's primary systems. Part of the problem, which Kopp outlines in his work, is climate change impacts vary from region to region, while the solutions need to be global. This adds a stumbling block to faster action. I may be experiencing a heat wave, just as you are thinking it's cooler than normal where you live. It's hard to get us all motivated at the same time. Bob Kopp did his PHD thesis on the opposite world - the time where the planet nearly froze over. He tells us about "Snowball Earth", and how close we came to extinction of life at that time, about 650 million years ago. And yet life on Earth came back with a roar, as the first multicellular organisms appeared. It was so prolific of species, the time was called "The Cambrian Explosion" I suppose it's comforting to know that so far life systems can recover from climate catastrophes, even if most of the known species die off (likely including us in the worst case scenario). However, Bob Kopp studied another snowball Earth that happened much earlier in the planet's history. The'Paleoproterozoic Snowball Earth'was about 2.3 billion years ago. Find out more about Dr. Bob Kopp at bobkopp.net. Listen to or download this interview with Dr. Robert Kopp in CD Quality or Lo-Fi MORE ON HEAT DEATHS AND A NEW FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE BELOW - BUT FIRST SOME CLIMATE MUSIC After we visit with out second guest, Jeremy Leggett, I've got more critical information for you about heat, humidity, and human deaths. Then we can look into a new weather development where storms get stronger, not weaker, as they move over land. It's called the "brown ocean" effect. Before we do that, let's get in a quick bit of music that is spreading into classrooms and chat rooms around the world. It's a technique of using a kind of hip rap to communicate science. The band calls themselves "The Melody Sheep" and you can find their series called "Symphony of Science" on You tube. This piece is titled "Our Biggest Challenge". It's a climate change music video, posted on You tube September 12, 2012, with more than 600,000 views so far. You can download the radio version here. "Melodysheep is John D. Boswell, creator of the acclaimed Symphony of Science music video series and other viral web videos, as well as a host of unique audiovisual projects. His webby award winning work has been featured on CNN, NPR, Wired, Adult Swim and more." WINNING THE CARBON WAR - DR. JEREMY LEGGETT He's been involved in the climate battle for decades. Jeremy Leggett founded the business SolarCentury, and the charity SolarAid. He's Chair of Carbon Tracker, and author of many books on climate, energy and society. Until recently, Leggett felt what we all feel, that the fight to decarbonize, -to save the planet, - is being lost. Now his web site bears the banner "The Winning of the Carbon War". It's a pleasure to welcome back one of our more popular Radio Ecoshock guests, Jeremy Leggett. There was a time, way back when, that as an Earth scientist Leggett did research for the biggest oil companies. Then, worried about what he found, Jeremy started writing reports for Greenpeace. I remember in the mid and late 1990's, Jeremy brazenly told big oil they should stop looking for new reserves, because the deteriorating climate meant they could never be burned. He was way ahead of the game before the more recent pronouncements of unburnable carbon and "stranded assets". As you'll hear in the interview, Jeremy Leggett went into a different kind of climate activism. He established a solar business in Britain, which isn't known for it's long sunny days. It's been a success, and gone international. Leggett tells us his firm Solar Century did over 200 million pounds of business last year, and is financially stable. That's quite an accomplishment, and it means a lot more renewable energy in Europe and abroad. Solar Century takes 5% of it's profits to create a charity called SolarAid. That charity has distributed millions of subsidized affordable solar lights in Africa. There are homes where students can study in the evening, and mothers can see to cook, because of SolarAid. It's a super vision. Through all this, I've seen Jeremy keep a catalog of the most important news in energy, climate change, and the environment generally. He published it for years on his site, as the "Triple Crunch Blog". Now Leggett has taken that skill, plus about 5 hours out of every day, to collect the signs that we may finally be winning the war against depending on carbon emitting technology. Those first voices are becoming a chorus of demands for action, and real solutions, around the world. You and I may miss those signs, thinking we are stupidly going down with the carbon ship, but Leggett has moved from deep pessimism to possible optimism. That reporting coming out monthly on his web site. These are really chapters in his upcoming new book titled "Winning the Carbon War". It's an inspiring combination of journalism and open publication of a book as it develops. The final chapter, he tells us, will be written at the end of 2015, after the Paris Climate talks. Here's an easy to digest article about this new book. We are at a pivotal moment in the history of this civilization. Leggett says it is still possible for humans to wreck our whole system, with something crazy like a major war. But except for such a major intervention, we may already be on a path toward saving ourselves from utter climate disaster. That's as good as optimism gets these days. Listen to or download this interview with Dr. Jeremy Leggett in CD Quality or Lo-Fi MORE ON THE ELUSIVE AND DANGEROUS "WET BULB" TEMPERATURE Let's get back to what we need to know to prevent heat deaths, or at least some of them. The essential concept is supposedly easy, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Perhaps it's because the "wet bulb measurement" adds a new dimension to thinking about temperature. Temperature is easy, whether you think in Fahrenheit or Celsius. Bigger numbers are hotter. But when we add the dimension of humidity, a bigger number is not necessarily more deadly. It could be 100 degrees Fahrenheit, or 38 degrees C - but if it's dry, humans can still sweat and cool themselves. But if we take a common thermometer, mercury in a glass tube, and wrap wet material around the bulb - the essential result is: at what temperature does that wetness evaporate, or conversely, take in even more water from the surrounding atmosphere. That temperature/humidity ratio is called "the wet bulb temperature", but confusingly, it's also called "the dew point". What is a dew point? Wikipedia defines it this way, quote: "The dew point is the temperature at which the water vapor in a sample of air at constant barometric pressure condenses into liquid water at the same rate at which it evaporates. At temperatures below the dew point, water will leave the air. The condensed water is called dew when it forms on a solid surface." Our interview with Dr. Kopp makes this clearer with some examples. A dew point of 86 degrees or above, he says, is dangerous for human health, especially for more vulnerable people like the elderly, babies, and people with certain medical conditions. It's not safe to work outside, doing strenuous tasks, if the dew point is 86 degrees or more. How high can it go? Again, Wiki says this, quote: "A dew point of 91 °F (33 °C) was observed at 2:00 pm on July 12, 1987, in Melbourne, Florida. A dew point of 90 °F (32 °C) has been observed in the United States on at least two occasions: Appleton, Wisconsin, at 5:00 p.m. on July 13, 1995, and New Orleans Naval Air Station at 5:00 p.m. on July 30, 1987. A dew point of 95 °F (35 °C) was observed at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, at 3:00 p.m. on July 8, 2003. Dew points this high are extremely rare occurrences." The very high dew point reading in Wisconsin in 1995 co-incides with the infamous Chicago Heat Wave that killed at least 750 people. I recall the city of Chicago morgue was overwhelmed, and had to bring in refrigeration trucks to stack the bodies. Note that the wet bulb temperature in the recent heat wave in Pakistan was a punishing 93 degrees F. We already know from climate science that the world is getting hotter, and the atmosphere is getting wetter. Warmer air holds more water vapor. In general, the world's atmosphere contains about 7% more water now than it did in 1970. That's a huge amount, almost oceans of water, running through the air. In some cases it forms "atmospheric rivers". If those coincide with a heat wave, deaths of unprotected, uncooled humans will result. We all need to learn this, and learn the numbers, whether it's called "wet bulb temperature", "humidex" or "dew point" - weather forecasters, city authorities, and citizens will need to really grasp this increasing threat with climate change. SOMETHING NEW WITH CLIMATE CHANGE: THE BROWN OCEAN EFFECT More and more, we are finding that climate change develops into new phenomenon not seen before. These are seldom good. That's why some prefer the term "climate disruption" for this transition into a different climate. The novelty of these discoveries means we all need to become students again, no matter how old we are, or what our profession might be. Here's another one, courtesy of NASA, the U.S. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It's called the Brown Ocean effect. I owe our Radio Ecoshock guest Robert Marston Fanney a tip of the hat for bringing this to all our attention, in his entry in Robert Scribbler's Blog. Here's my understanding of this new thing. In our experience of storms of the last century, in the 1900's, any hurricane, typhoon, or cyclone tended to pick up extra energy from a warm ocean, and then lose strength as it passed over land. There was less water over land to add energy through evaporation. All weather forecasts took this sort of law of storms for granted. Now, in a climate changed world, that may not happen. NASA tells us that if certain conditions are met, storms may now keep their strength over land, or even get stronger. Here is what NASA said in a study in 2013: "A Brown Ocean environment consists of three observable conditions. First, the lower level of the atmosphere mimics a tropical atmosphere with minimal variation in temperature. Second, soils in the vicinity of the storms need to contain ample moisture. Finally, evaporation of the soil moisture releases latent heat, which the team found must measure at least 70 watts averaged per square meter. For comparison, the latent heat flux from the ocean averages about 200 watts per square meter." So the wet land acts like a watery energy source, like a "brown ocean". Let's go to a concrete example. There was a lot of concern that the most recent Tropical storm to hit Texas, named "Bill", might meet these conditions. Texas and Oklahoma had just been slammed with record rains and flooding. There was lots of water left on and in the ground. Would "Bill" pick up strength as it headed inland? In this case, it appears that did not happen. NASA has documented such "Brown Ocean" cases, with the best known storm happening in Texas and the central states in 2007. In fact, there have been 16 cases where tropical cyclones kept their power, or increased it, while travelling over land. NASA also expects more brown ocean events as climate change develops. That turns storm forecasting on it's head. What used to weaken over land, can maintain it's destructive power, or get even worse. It's another development in our understanding of extreme weather events, in an era of human-induced climate change. You'll hear more about violent storms that won't quit, even if the weather person on TV doesn't tell you why. HEAT AT RADIO ECOSHOCK I don't know if this will be the hottest June the human world has ever recorded. It sure feels like it here, where the temperature soars over 100 degrees, or 38 degrees Celsius, day after day, in what should be the Canadian spring. The fact that the El Nino hot water system in the Pacific has not declined probably aids our journey to another record hot year in 2015. Somehow that Southern and Central Pacific hot water seems to have split into a new hot blob of water off the coast of the Pacific Northwest. It's amazing. The rainy city of Vancouver Canada just had it's driest month of May ever. June is hot and dry. It's like San Diego moved way north. That's why I'm reviewing Marjory Wildcraft's You tube video on gardening in hot weather. I'm hoping next year to begin some experiments of my own in cooling and adapting a garden for extreme climate change. Marjory is way ahead of us on that, and I hope to get her back to talk about ways to prepare your food production for extreme climate change. We close out this program with one of my new songs, called "Step Out". It calls us all to move away from screens and tiny rooms, to get outside. IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO SAY, AS CLIMATE CHANGE BLATANTLY ARRIVES? Now that the Pope is saying what I and my guests have been saying for 8 years, is it time to retire? Not likely. But next week will be my last of the regular season. I produce 45 new shows a year, starting in September and running straight through until the end of June. During the summer, I work through our archives, to find the key interviews many of you may have missed. There will be a "best of Radio Ecoshock" every week. One more new show to go though. Stay tuned! AlexRadio Ecoshock
-
HD
BATTLING CARBON GIANTS IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST
SUMMARY: Pacific Northwest fights becoming a carbon colony. Vancouver protests ...
SUMMARY: Pacific Northwest fights becoming a carbon colony. Vancouver protests American coal expansion (Kevin Washbrook, VTACC). Daphne Wysham: Oregon kicks out Canadian propane peddler. The unreported stories. Radio Ecoshock 150617 Welcome to Radio Ecoshock. This week we investigate attempts by the fossil fuel industry to capture otherwise green-thinking ports in the Pacific Northwest, of the United States and Canada, to export carbon to Asia. It's a battle you hardly hear about. Citizens are lining up against huge corporations with huge money, to fight off giant coal ports, liquified natural gas ports, even propane ports. If we commit to that infrastructure, we commit to devastating climate change - not to mention the explosive, toxic and polluting impacts of these big projects on the Pacific coast. We first hear from activist Kevin Washbrook reporting from Vancouver, Canada, and then from green radio host and activist Daphne Wysham from Portland, Oregon. I wrap up with some new science presented at a Harvard University research talk. Dr. James Anderson talks about why climate change is coming much faster than anyone thought possible. And why it's irreversible. It's eco-shocking radio. I'm Alex Smith. Let's roll. But I first want to thank George from Australia. George generously covered all the telecommunications and download costs, for all Ecoshock listeners, for the whole summer. That's a load off my mind for sure. Thank you George! Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen right now on Soundcloud! "GREEN" VANCOUVER, CANADA TARGETED AS CARBON PORT Multinational corporations would like to turn the gorgeous port of Vancouver, Canada into another fossil fuel colony. After coal port proposals were blocked by public outcry in the American Pacific Northwest, they want to ship out coal to Asia through Vancouver. There is an active proposal to steer dirty Tar Sands oil into hundreds of tankers through Vancouver's scenic inlets. Even liquid natural gas is trying to use Vancouver at an outlet. We've reached activist Kevin Washbrook in Vancouver. He's part of the group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, or VTACC. NASA scientist James Hansen famously was arrested protesting mountain top removal for coal. But in Vancouver, Simon Fraser University Professor and world energy expert Mark Jaccard was also arrested, blocking a coal train. The scientists are increasingly fed up with the failure of governments and official "climate talks" while carbon to the atmosphere keeps rising. Trying to stop fossil fuel exports is like playing the game whack-a-mole. You find one project, and then another pops up, like the recent proposal to ship out Liquid Natural Gas via the historic Fraser River. We get a rather scary update on that project, with information anyone living near a proposed LNG terminal needs to know! THE FIREBALL RISK OF LNG SHIPMENTS Here's the scoop. Canada hardly requires any environmental assessment for liquid natural gas ports. Remember, these are not just "ports" but large industrial operations where natural gas is frozen at hundreds of degrees below zero Centigrade, which compresses it for shipments (often to Asia). The company on the Fraser River just looks at their immediate site, to list what environmental impacts that might have, and IS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS POSSIBLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY RIVER SHIPMENTS. So the VTACC group had to look to the United States, which does require a full assessment, right out to the ocean. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recognizes that liquid natural gas is a terrorist risk. The Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks a lot about the reality of terrorist theats to Canada, but doesn't assess the possibility of an attack on an LNG tanker or barge. The U.S. Coast Guard also looks at possible risks. According to Kevin Washbrook, his group found a U.S. report by Sandia National Lab that says an "unignited" cloud of natural gas could spread up to 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) on either side of the ship used for transportation. Presumably, that cloud of gas could ignite into an unGodly big fireball. That's just one of the things they don't tell you. Who knows what could happen if terrorists bombed and exploded a giant LNG tanker near any port or city. It would look nuclear. You can find one report on all this from the U.S. Sandia National Lab, published in 2008, here. AMERICAN COAL SNEAKS OUT OF CANADIAN PORTS Tsawwassen, a suburb of Vancouver, Canada hosts one of the busiest coal ports in North America. It's called "Westport", shipping 33 million tons of carbon-loaded coal a year. About 8 million tons of that is American coal brought up from the Powder River open pit coal mines in Wyoming. It comes on U.S. trains owned by Warren Buffett. The obvious question: why don't they ship this coal out of American ports? As we'll hear next from Daphne Wysham, that's because coal port proposals in Oregon and Washington States have been shot down by public resistance. Nobody wants them, and no wonder. The coal trains themselves leave unhealthy coal dust all along the way. The companies say they don't but photographs taken by activists show they do. Plus the trains are way above the World Health Organization guidelines for night- time noise. Every train going by leads to more storms, droughts, and heat. Four out of six coal ports proposed for the US Pacific Northwest were shot down. The largest still being pushed by industry is for Cherry Point in Washington State, near the Canadian border. That's been rejected by the local tribe. So as Kevin puts it, British Columbia has become the back-door dirty doormat to ship American coal to China and Asia generally. The coal industry always wants to expand their ports, to double their shipments and their profits, and to double their emissions into the already damaged atmosphere. There is another proposal to build a coal port in another Vancouver suburb, the City of Surrey. Naturally, in the environmentally-conscious Vancouver area, there is lots of push-back from concerned citizens. The regional government has objected to the Surrey coal port. But the port system is not run by the City of Vancouver, but rather by the fossil- friendly Federal Government. There is no democratic input into where these shipping facilities are built, and whether they should be built at all. Building coal ports now seems like such a waste of capital. It's like building barns and herds of horses in the year 1905, just as the horseless carriage was starting to take over. Coal is so done. Keep in touch with Kevin Washburn on his Facebook page. Listen to or download this interview with Kevin Washbrook, in CD Quality or Lo-Fi "GREEN" PORTLAND, OREGON FIGHTS OFF CARBON EXPORT SCHEMES What's happening on the U.S. West Coast, where fossil fuel companies race to export carbon to Asia? Let's tune in with a long-time friend of the environment, Daphne Wysham. For 8 years, out of Washington D.C., Daphne hosted the syndicated radio show "Earthbeat",on the Pacifica network. Her articles have been published by both mainstream and alternative media. Now Daphne is in Portland Oregon, as Director of the Climate and Energy Program, at the Centre for Sustainable Economy. At the same time she's an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Daphne and I were just on Post Carbon radio, on KWMR in Northern California, with Bing Gong and Karen Nyhus. It was a wide-ranging talk and you can listen to it here. Green radio host, researcher, and activist Daphne Wysham In this show we drill into what is happening in Portland, the state of Oregon, and the Pacific Northwest - when it comes to transporting fossil fuels. Note that Portland was the first city in the United States to have and implement a climate action plan. Even so, the Mayor pushed a proposal to open a propane loading facility. The corporation involved, Pembina Pipeline Corp., operates in the Canadian Tar Sands of Alberta. For them, propane is just a bi-product they can sell. Of course it's wildly explosive, and adds more carbon to the atmosphere. Natural gas is lighter than air, so it rises when it leaks. Propane is heavier than air, so it flows along the water or land, into low spots, where it can pool and then violently explode. Pembina tried to tell the public the propane would go to help poor women in Asia have lighting and cooking facilities. Environmental groups found out the real destination was for making propylene in Chinese factories. The carbon emissions from this one propane port over a few decades would be larger than the emissions from the whole city of Portland. What good are bicycle routes and electric cars if the propane port overwhelms all the green good we can muster? The Portland propane facility has been turned away for now, being wildly unpopular. But the situation always requires vigilance, and these projects are seldom killed forever. Meanwhile, there's another fossil fuel port proposed for Vancouver, Washington, right across the river from Portland. If approved, that could be the largest oil terminal in the United States - larger even than the giants in the Gulf of Mexico. Daphne Wysham tells us the whole Pacific Northwest is in the cross-hairs of the fossil fuel industry. They want to build ports and shipping facilities that would allow a carbon river much larger than the Keystone Pipeline. Projects arrive, and small environment groups can't possibly match corporate funding for research and legal battles. The infamous corporate lobby group Alec, which funds politicians who write fossil-friendly laws, makes Oregon it's number three biggest target for funding, Wysham tells us. That is why Oregonians are now demanding a moratorium on new fossil fuel infrastructure. That's the real answer. The moratorium movement is spreading to Washington State, and only needs British Columbia to get on board, to stop this fossil madness. We all seen what happens when mega-corporations start playing with local or state politics. The money and big promises of jobs lure in the politicians. Are these forces compatible with democracy and self-determination? Is there still enough freedom left on the Pacific Coast to avoid becoming the kind of carbon colonies that developed in Texas, Alberta, and Louisiana? Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock interview with Daphne Wysham in CD Quality or Lo-Fi Follow Daphne Wysham on Twitter here. IRREVERSIBLE CLIMATE CHANGE: JAMES G. ANDERSON In the short time we have left, I'd like to pass on some quotes and some notes from a deep and important talk from Climate Week at the Harvard University Center for the Environment. The speaker is Dr. James Anderson and the title is: "Coupled Feedbacks in the Climate Structure That Set the Time Sale for Irreversible Change: Arctic Isotopes to Stratospheric Radicals." Watch the full talk by James G. Anderson on Vimeo here. This talk on April 8th, 2015 was part of a series of presentations. I found this on Vimeo thanks to a tip from a Radio Ecoshock listeners, and I'm so glad I did. The talk, as Anderson tells us, is fairly high level, a presentation of on-going research into some important developments in the climate. Anderson covers a wide range of science. I can only cover a few important points. James G. Anderson, Harvard For example, research into past ages showed the stratosphere, that upper layer of Earth's atmosphere above the weather, was far wetter than today, in past greenhouse ages. The wetting of the stratosphere should be happening now, but until very recently, nobody knew how that could happen. Anderson also points out a key difference between past hot house worlds and today. This time around, humans also injected chlorinate substances, like ozone-destroying CFC's, that were never there in past ages. How does that affect climate change? And as we'll hear from this opening quote, scientists are gaining new knowledge on changes we've made that cannot be reversed, at least not in any time scale that matters to humans. Here are some key quotes from Dr. Anderson, speaking at Harvard. Quote 1 "This is really a research talk about two aspects of the climate structure both of which are coupled through irreversible connected cycles. So I'm going to talk about experiments done 5 meters above the surface, and then experiments done 20 kilometers above the surface. And you'll see why those are linked. I want to emphasize some points. The first is this global climate structure is changing far more rapidly than we believed was possible even five years ago..... The next issue is the feedback in the climate structure because it's these feedbacks that set the time scale for irreversibility, and I'm going to take a very brief tour through the climate system to show how that functions." Next we'll hear about the fragile Arctic and how that determines so much of our weather. Note how Anderson also stresses a point made again and again by our guest scientist Paul Beckwith, when explaining the new disruption of weather in the Northern Hemisphere: the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and as polar regions warm up, that difference is declining. The result is a slower and wavier Jet Stream. Quote 2 "The climate structure depends in large measure on the temperature gradient between the tropics and the polar regions." "During the Eocene there was very little temperature difference between the tropics and the polar regions, and in that particular structure the stratosphere had to be wet ... I don't think there's any possibility of having that climate structure without a moist stratosphere. And as we'll see, moisture entering the stratosphere today has a very different connotation because it triggers catalytic cycles involving chlorine and bromine that were not present during the Eocene. I'll also talk about deep convective injection North of the sub-tropical Jet which, as we saw from Brian's talk, is a potential way of transitioning from the current structure of the climate to one in which there is a far smaller difference in temperature between the equator and the polar regions. So this convective injection of water turns out to be unique over the U.S. And it's couple to also anti-cyclonic flow over the U.S. that's created by the North American monsoon. So we have this convective injection into this anti-cyclonic motion which is a demonic combination created by the dynamics, but is has a very strong coupling into the catalytic chemical structure of the stratosphere." GEOENGINEERING As a side-note, Anderson explains why both the Left and the Right may support further research into geo-engineering. First he refers to the National Research Council report on climate engineering, particularly solar radiation management. Quote 4 "It [Geoengineering research] is being pushed, actually in a bi-partisan way. The right would like to have solar radiation management so more fossil fuels can be burned. And the Left believes that intruding in natural systems like this is a very dangerous adventure. So research on the topic is gaining bi-lateral support, which is highly unusual these days. And we'll see that it engages exactly the same catalytic chemistry." "GLOBAL WARMING" - BAD NAME FOR THE PROBLEM Next we hear why James Anderson thinks "global warming" is so horribly wrong as a term to describe the current climate shift. QUOTE 3 "This term 'global warming' applied to this problem makes me shudder, because 70 per cent of the globe is covered by ocean with an average depth of 3500 meters, and it has massive heat capacity. So in my mind the most degenerate variable you can discuss is mean global temperature. And it also carries this connotation of something that's happening slowly. You know, 1 degree Centigrade per century doesn't carry a huge amount of political imperative behind it. It also carries the connotation that you could watch things slowly change and then if you don't like it you can just slow down the release of carbon dioxide and return to the initial [state] - and nothing could be further from the truth. I always avoid the term ['global warming'], and I cringe every time I hear it." METHANE AND CLATHRATES We'll never have time to get to all the great science in this talk, but I want you to hear this: "The next point involves these methane clathrates. These are these beautiful structures: ice cages within which Nature inserts methane produced anaerobically [without oxygen] by decomposition of organic material. It's entropy that's driving this entirely because Nature of course abhors a vacuum. You want to stuff molecules into every possible nook and cranny in order to engage the inclusion of the energy states. And it turns out methane fits beautifully into these water cages. This is ubiquitous. Methane clathrates contain about three times the chemical energy of all known fossil fuel reserves in coal, petroleum, and natural gas. And they reside not only in the surface soils of Siberia and Northern Alaska but also they are ubiquitous across the ocean basins." Anderson gives the example of a clathrate pulled up off the West Coast, from a depth of about 100 meters, that could be ignited with a match. "But the numbers, as Steve Wassi (sp?) pointed out are quite concerning. If you plot the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning in gigatons of carbon per year (so you have to convert back from CO2)....In 1990, about 6 gigatons of carbon was added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning - and that was basically a textbook number for many, many years. But in 2000 it started to take off, and when the 2007 IPCC report came out these were the release scenarios. This was the worst possible case this upper red line. And of course we've exceeded it every year subsequent to 2007. The key point is that just a half a percent of the labile carbon in the surface soils of the North Slope of Alaska and Siberia - just half a percent release rate per year gives us around 8 to 9 gigatons per year which doubles the carbon added to the atmosphere by all fossil fuel burning world-wide." So that constitutes the next exhibit for feedbacks. EXHIBIT A - THE ARCTIC Anderson starts with data produced at the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. Their research focuses not so much on the area covered by Sea Ice, but on the volume of the ice (which also accounts for it's thickness). Shockingly, in 2007, there was less ice in the Arctic than the 2007 IPCC report predicted for the end of the century. "The volume allows you to calculate the heat, the internal energy going into the system to melt that amount of ice, per year. And that turns out to be about 1 part in 40,000 of the circulating infrared radiation between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere/water/carbon dioxide cloud structure. And so just a very small shift in the Meridional inflow of heat into the Arctic has huge ramifications in terms of losing this permanent ice." "So the second point here is it's these feedbacks within the climate structure that are driving both the first and second derivative of that ice volume. And of course as ice pulls back, one of the feedbacks is that the ocean exchange brings in warm water from lower latitudes bringing heat into the Arctic basin. The other thing that happens is that as ice and snow disappear, the atmospheric transport that used to come in and radiate as T to the Fourth into the cold ground below it - would be stripped of it's internal energy before it even got into the Arctic Basin. That's not true any more. In fact about three quarters of the heat transport is by the atmosphere." "Then of course the most obvious is the rejection of incoming solar forcing. Ice reflects 90 per cent of it, ocean water absorbs about 90 per cent of it. On the face of it that's important to the energy balance of the climate. But the University of Washington also discovered that what in retrospect is quite obvious but very important - and this that the dominant amount of that energy goes into just the upper few meters of the Arctic Ocean. And the mean depth of the remaining ice is only a meter and a half. The entire edges are slushy and gets broken up. And so all of that solar forcing goes right into the heat bath within which that remaining ice resides. And this is why you see such a dramatic combination of feedbacks." Due to the multiple feedbacks in place "...from my perspective it's from the Arctic that all these problems evolve. This brings up the problem of high latitude melting of clathrates and permafrost. Of course the immediate question is can we lose 70 percent of the ice volume in 30 years and return to a stable condition. I don't know anybody who has suggested how heat can be extracted from this system to re-form the ice structure. All of these feedbacks are operating in the same direction. And there's no known mechanism that can extract heat to re-form these ice structures... and so when you look at this question [of reversing Arctic ice loss], the answer quite clearly 'no'." LOTS MORE IN THE TALK Well, we didn't get to the strange way chlorinated substances play back on other climate feed-backs in the atmosphere. Plus, and this is a spoiler alert, scientists have discovered a way the stratosphere can become wetter, as it did in past greenhouse worlds. Many, many hours flying around the world found the stratosphere has the same low amount of water vapor. But in a kink in the system, a collision of weather factors over the continental United States creates a kind of heat funnel that does inject more water into the stratosphere. There are several other sites like that, Anderson says. They have the mechanism that will wet down the stratosphere over time. As I say, there is a huge range of cutting science in this talk by James Anderson. Some of it is difficult for the lay person to understand. But most of it is very clear, and we learn of feedbacks which make this developing climate shift into a major geological event that cannot be reversed. We have already gone over the climate cliff. How far we fall depends on whether we can reign in our fossil burning emissions before they trigger much, much larger carbon or methane inputs from the previously frozen lands and sea bed in the Arctic. Then Anderson wraps up with a passionate talk on why Harvard University MUST divest it's multi-billion dollar investment fund from fossil fuels. OUT OF TIME Ahh, we've blown through the time barrier again. Get all our past programs as free mp3s from our web site at ecoshock.org. Listen any time on the Radio Ecoshock page on Soundcloud. Support the on-going work of Radio Ecoshock here. I'm Alex. Thank you for listening, and caring about our world.
-
HD
THE CARBON BUBBLE BURSTS
SUMMARY: Author and finance guru Jeff Rubin "The Carbon Bubble: ...
SUMMARY: Author and finance guru Jeff Rubin "The Carbon Bubble: What Happens To Us When It Bursts". Science journalist Emma Marris on re-crafting the wild. Radio Ecoshock 150610 "Look we recognize that climate change is happening. The dilemma for society is addressing climate change, and balancing it with development. So we have to be realistic. Renewables and alternatives will all play a role, but even if those forms of energy grow by orders of magnitude over say the next fifty years, traditional hydrocarbons - oil and gas - will still make up the majority of the energy mix for at least the next century." - Curtis Smith, Shell Oil. That is Shell Oil spokesman Curtis Smith, speaking on the Platt's Podcast "Capitol Crude" June 1st, 20154. Curtis Smith was explaining why Shell Oil wants to spend $7 billion dollars looking for more oil in the Arctic. In an internal Shell Oil paper, leaked by the Guardian newspaper, the company recognizes that their energy strategy will lead to 4 degrees Centigrade of warming - twice the safe limit, and then to 6 degrees of warming, a level scientists suggest could wreck civilization. So they know. And they want to find more carbon to burn anyway. Before you kiss our chances good-bye, there is some really good news from our feature guest this week. Author and financial expert Jeff Rubin says the carbon bubble is already bursting. Governments and mainstream media will hardly tell you. But the markets are already heading for the exits away from such stranded fossil assets. The stock values of companies in the mega-polluting Canadian Tar Sands have fallen by 70%. Coal company stocks are collapsing, down 90 percent. Stay tuned for a ring-side view of a falling petro state, right here on Radio Ecoshock. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB). Or listen on Soundcloud right now! JEFF RUBIN: "THE CARBON BUBBLE" With the Tar Sands and the crash in oil prices, Canada went from being a world petro-state to an economy in trouble. Our next guest says the carbon bubble is bursting in Canada, and that may not be a bad thing. Jeff Rubin is no ordinary critic of fossil fuels. He was the Chief Economist for CIBC World Markets, the investment arm of a Canadian mega-bank. Since then he's written the books "The End of Growth" and "Your World is About to Get A Whole Lot Smaller". Now Rubin has a new work out: "The Carbon Bubble: What Happens to Us When it Bursts." The obvious question, which everyone asks: what is a carbon bubble? A bubble is an expansion which is based on a false premise. For example the 2007/8 housing bubble was based on an assumption that American mortgages were reliable, when they were not. In our present case, Rubin says, the false assumption is that we can burn as many fossil fuels as we need or want to. In reality, there is a limit to the amount of carbon dioxide the atmosphere can tolerate, before the climate becomes unsafe. Canada, under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has bet it's economy on the Tar Sands in Alberta. Most of international and domestic policy is geared to further expansion of Tar Sands production and sales. As a result, the Canadian currency became a "petro-dollar" that went up with Tar Sands production, until it was worth more than the U.S. dollar. Other Canadian sectors, like manufacturing and exports of commodities like lumber, suffered due to the high Canadian dollar. Then when OPEC decided to ramp up production, even as oil prices fell, the Canadian dollar crashed by over 20 percent, going less than 80 cents to the American dollar. Manufacturing in Canada should rebound, but so many companies shrank or went out of business, it may be a slow climb back. TAR SANDS AND COAL: THE ECONOMIC HIT What ever politicians may say or do about climate change, Jeff Rubin says the market has already spoken. The stock value of coal companies in the United States lost an astounding 90 percent of their value. Canadian Tar Sands companies lost 70 percent of their value. Rubin tells us the heavy oil from the Tar Sands (or "oil sands" as the industry tries to say) costs more to refine, and gets less on the market - perhaps forty something a barrel, versus the 50 or 60 dollars a barrel we hear quoted as "the price of oil". Considering even the most efficient Canadian producers of tar sands bitumen need to get at least $60 a barrel, somebody somewhere is losing big money. Natually, the expansion promised by Tar Sands companies (and Stephen Harper) has been cancelled. Layoffs in the province of Alberta have been massive. Expected energy revenues to governments have crashed, meaning more cut-backs and layoffs. The carbon bubble has burst in Canada. Rubin says that may not be a bad thing. Canada's real resources, that the world needs, are not climate-killing heavy oil, but food and water. A warming climate will change agricultural possibilities in Canada. A longer growing season means new crops can be grown - say corn and soy, instead of just wheat. Rubin says Canada should aim to be "the breadbasket of the world." Farmland has become the new darling of billionaire investors and giant pension funds. The Canadian Pension investment board bought massive acreage in Assiniboine farm land, but Saskatchewan is banning some farm ownership schemes. See this. Middle East Sheiks have purchased a large share in wheat distributor "The Canadian Wheat Board". Germans and Asians are buying giant farms in Canada. And not just in Canada. Wall Street investors and Chinese companies are buying farm land all over the world. George Soros is reported to be buying farmland. Investment guru and billionaire Jim Rogers advised buying farm land several years ago. He was ahead of the curve. SAVE YOUR INVESTMENT OR PENSION FUND: GET OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS The crash of tar sands and coal stocks is just the beginning. Fracking companies are also losing big. University endowment funds are getting out, as Stanford University did with coal. After all, why educate students and then toss them into a wrecked world? Jeff Rubin was one of Canada's top investment analysts with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Now he advises investors to run, not walk, to the exits on the what have been the most profitable of all investments: oil and gas. People save their money, while saving the climate, Rubin tells us. THE LNG BUBBLE I ask Jeff Rubin about the multi-billion dollar proposals to build ports to export Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) from British Columbia. He says those projects are dead before they begin. Why? Because the major buyer was supposed to be China. But China just made a much cheaper deal for Russian gas brought in by pipeline. They have no need to go through the expensive process of freezing and compressing gas, and then decompressing it again before use. They don't need Canadian LNG. THE WATER MARKET Jeff Rubin says the other commodity Canada has, that the world wants, is water. However this discussion makes me, and many Canadians, very nervous. Most of the talk is about exporting water to the United States, where drought is already limiting farm production, and not just in California. Most of Canada's big rivers actually run north to the Arctic Ocean. For decades, there's been talk about diverting them south. But remember, this plot to divert rivers was actually tried in the Soviet Union, under Stalin. The ecological devastation was spectacular. Today, we have no idea what happens to Arctic ecosystems, and the Arctic sea, if we siphon off fresh water flows. I'm guessing it would not end well. But you can expect pressure from the United States to get more Canadian water, and who knows, in the future a solution forced by military threats is not impossible to imagine. In the present, Rubin says we already export water - in our crops. Wheat uses a lot of water, and Canada exports a lot of wheat. Australia also exports water (that it can hardly afford) in it's wheat crops. At least agricultural exports are value-added water, and we don't have to divert rivers. LEARN WITH RUBIN I learned a lot just talking with Jeff Rubin. He's a very smart mind who sees further into the future than most of us. Listen to or download this interview with Jeff Rubin, in either CD Quality or Lo-Fi. This new book "Carbon Bubble" is mainly about Canada. But it got me thinking about the fossil-dependent Middle East countries, Norway, and even the United States, which is trying to frack it's way back into an oil and gas superpower. This is really a global carbon bubble that is about to burst, with Canada as an early case study. Here's another useful radio interview with Jeff Rubin, on the Canadian Broadcasting Network program "The Current" on May 19, 2015. Find Jeff Rubin's web site here. On You tube, Jeff Rubin talks about (the dismal) future of the Oil Sands here, on the Canadian CTV news channel, May 19, 2015. HOW DO WE "HANDLE" THE WILD, NOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HERE? We are not alone on this Earth experiencing a rapid shift of climate. Our next guest is a voice for the wild, and what we must do. A new study in the journal Science finds climate change could push into extinction one of six plants and animals on this planet. That's a huge unimaginable loss. A climate shift won't respect the boundaries of parks and wilderness areas we've set aside. Can we just step back and watch? Emma Marris says "no". She's been a reporter for the journal Nature, and has a Master’s in Science Writing from Johns Hopkins University. Her controversial book is titled "Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World". Just lately, Emma's stirred up another storm among naturalists with a provocative article in Orion Magazine, called "Handle with Care". Emma Marris, photo courtesy of Nature Conservancy From Klamath Falls, Oregon, we welcome Emma Marris to Radio Ecoshock. We have a wide-ranging discussion about what our role is in preserving wilderness lands, now that climate change, invasive species and other human influences has re-shaped what we mean by "wild". My own worry, and it's a big one, is that Emma's proposal could lead less sensitive and ethical people to a justification for "developing" the parks, or "managing" aspects of nature we don't understand very well. Humans are known for their hubris and natural failures. Can we overcome that threat? It's interesting to compare environmentalism in the United States with Canada or Europe. In Europe, there is practically no original wild space at all, so the discussion there is quite different. Here in Canada, there is so much wilderness there is no hope or idea that humans could or should manage it. We'll have to see how Emma's proposals for "gardening" in Nature resonate in other parts of the world. Most recently, Emma has been writing about wolves in the crowd-funded journalism site "Beacon". How wild are re-introduced wolves that wear GPS broadcasting collars, names, and intense study and tracking operations? Find that discussion in Beacon here. Find more about Emma Marris here at her web site. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock interview with Emma Marris in CD Quality or Lo-Fi. You can also listen to Orion magazine host Scott Gast talking with Emma Marris about her controversial article here in a 12 minute podcast. My thanks to Erik Hoffner of Orion Magazine for suggesting this guest. NEW ALEX SMITH SONG: "SHE DIDN'T SAY" To accompany this interview on the wild, I added my new song about the disappearing species at the end of this program. The piece is called "She Didn't Say". It's written and performed entirely with computer synthesizers. You can also listen to or download (free) this song from Soundcloud. EXTINCTION RADIO As long-time listeners will know, I don't agree with Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson's argument that humans will go extinct before mid-century, due to multiplying feedback effects and methane driven by climate change. However, I value McPherson's work to identify and track positive feedback effects, which few others do. Mike Ferrigan, host of Extinction Radio You can listen to this ongoing argument with a new extended online radio show coming out of Scotland, with host and producer Mike Ferrigan. It features some guests we've had on Radio Ecoshock, and some new voices, with not all of them agreeing with extinction either. It's a radio dialog. Find the web page, and listen to episodes of "Extinction Radio" here. MY THANKS TO SUPPORTERS Thank you to all who "friended" this program on Facebook. We just crested over 26,000 listens on Soundcloud, gaining quickly. We now have more listeners in more countries. Hello to listeners in Scandinavia, Switzerland and Austria, Israel, Russia, India, and many more. There is a momentum now. It's not yet time to completely give up hope. I'm Alex Smith. Thank you for listening, and thank you for caring about our world.
-
HD
Mobilize to Save the Climate!
SUMMARY: Psychologist Margaret Klein Salamon on movement to mobilize to ...
SUMMARY: Psychologist Margaret Klein Salamon on movement to mobilize to save the climate - a total shift in society. The transformative power of climate truth. Plus scientist Paul Beckwith on chemtrails and geoengineering. She's an American clinical psychologist and host of theclimatepsychologist.com. Now Margaret Klein Salamon is calling the United States to an emergency mobilization - to stave off a disastrous shift in our climate. Why it might work. Why it has to. Then we're back with climate scientist Paul Beckwith to talk over chemtrails or covert climate geoengineering. Maybe it hasn't started, but Beckwith thinks it should. Listen to/download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen to it right now on Soundcloud! MOBILIZE TO SAVE THE CLIMATE! I realize not everyone listens to radio. That's why I'm taking the time this week to give you extensive notes on this critical idea of a rapid shift in society to prevent disastrous climate change. It's not a new idea, following the example of what happened in the United States (as well as Great Britain, Canada and many other countries) during World War II. What's new is a movement to really make that big change happen. Our guest is Margaret Klein Salamon, the author of a widely read article "The Transformative Power of Climate Change". While studying for, (and getting) her PHD in psychology last year, Margaret Klein Salamon became increasingly aware of climate change. She was also in New York City during Hurricane Sandy. Talking with friends, she decided to start a climate psychology blog, but her friends challenged her, saying writing is not enough. What can we do together to really solve this problem? Clinical psychologist and climate activist Margaret Klein Salamon Through her blog, she found more "collaborators" and allies, in particular Ezra Silk. They developed a "social movement start-up." (The Climate Mobilization, and The Pledge to Mobilize). Ezra Silk is the co-founder of the Climate Mobilization. The Pledge was developed with Philip Sutton, the co-author of "Climate Code Red" (2008). Margaret is the fourth psychologist we've had on the show - but so far, no psychiatrists, even though what we are doing to the planet is pretty crazy. Why do you think there's a difference in response by the two fields of mental health? She replies that psychatrists are trained like medical doctors, and these days tend toward pharmacology - writing prescriptions. While a psychologist might be able to offer therapy regarding climate change, there is no drug treatment for it. However, Lise Van Susteren is one American psychiatrist who is also a climate activist. CLIMATE MOBILIZATION "We recognize that the climate problem is a global emergency that threatens to cause the collapse of civilization within this century." - Margaret Klein Salamon That is the starting point. They look at history: the World War Two home-front mobilization in the United States, starting after Pearl Harbor (December 1941) and developing in 1942 and after. The global emergency was the imperial ambitions of the Axis Powers (Germany and Japan). America rapidly transformed every sector of society and economy. Soldiers, businesses, and housewives went to work on the war needs. It was the first time women went to work in factories (other than during the early industrial revolution). During this time, 40% of produce was grown at home in Victory Gardens. Universities changed to war-related research (a trend which continues today). It's an example of how America, and other countries, could deal with an acute crisis, such as climate change. This historic example has been used by many climate leaders and thinkers. Hilary Clinton has used that example, as have Executive Directors of many NGO's, including Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute. He was one of the signatories of a 2008 letter to President Barack Obama, calling for an effort like the World War Two mobilization, but this time to fight climate change. And yet, no one was directly advocating to go ahead and do this mobilization. That is the role of this new movement called Climate Mobilization. They want to push this forward through the tool "The Pledge to Mobilize". That is a one page document that any American, and just recently any international citizen, can sign. The Pledge contains a platform with five political demands. The signer recognizes climate change threatens civilization, and they endorse this 5 point plan to mobilize all social and economic resources to stop the worst of climate change from developing. For example, the Pledge calls for the United States to reduce their emissions to "net zero" by 2025, through a complete transformation of the energy and agricultural sectors. It would entail, they say, full employment. It demands the top priority of American diplomacy is to reach global net zero emissions at top emergency speeds. When signing, you endorse those 5 points, but also make three personal and political commitments. They include "I will vote for candidates who have signed the Pledge, over those who have not." That includes all levels of elections, whether local, state, or national. "I will support candidates who have signed the pledge with time or money or both." Plus the signer promises to spread the truth of climate change and the Pledge itself to others. Margaret says it becomes "like a missionary activity." The expectation is that you will talk to people about the reality of climate change, and what needs to be done, quickly. "It's a way to break climate silence." Up until Pearl Harbor, many Americans were in denial about what was happening in Europe and Asia. They did not want to become involved in another European war (after World War One) and chose isolationism. Only when the people felt directly threatened at home, did the big swing take place. Where people wanted their personal lives, suddenly they developed a sense of duty before self. If each of us continues pursuing our own happiness only, then we will face collapse. DO WE HAVE TO BE POLITICAL? A huge number of people who distrust any government action. Does climate mobilization have to come from the federal government? "Yes", says Klein, the scale of changes are so large that they must be coordinated nationally. A city-by-city, state-by-state approace won't do enough, fast enough. And yet City and State action are also needed. She wants a declaration of emergency, or maybe even a declaration of war against climate change. Localized agro-ecology is part of the required change, giving us near zero emissions supply lines, rather than long-distance trucking or air transport of food. Agriculture should also sequester carbon into the soil. This will also offer more protection against food shocks. International relations would be built on countering the climate emergency. It might involve technology transfer, similar to the "lend-lease" that occured during World War Two. Except we might ship out solar panels or electrified mass transportation systems instead of guns and tanks. It will require "all hands on deck" which means anyone who wants to work would be employed in this climate emergency (full employment) as happened during World War Two. The Republican majority in Congress is filled with leaders who deny climate change is real, or that humans are causing it. That's kind of a stumbling block, isn't it? Yes and no, says Klein. We should not waste out time arguing with deniers, but work with the majority of people who know climate change needs to be stopped. We must ask our politicians: "do you have the ability to protect our country - and the world - from collapse, or not?" Another part of World War Two, for people in many countries, was curtailing consumer spending and even rationing. Do we need that now, and won't that be a very difficult sell, to promise people less? It seems just to fill up our car one more time, or pay that electric bill for coal-powered juice, we all need to be able to turn off our knowledge of climate change. Margaret, what tools can psychology offer to help us overcome the bits of denial we all need, in order to keep functioning in a fossil-powered world? Klein says psychoanalytical work helps a patient accept conflict, within themselves. For example, you might both love someone and hate them. We will have similar mixed emotions, because in spite of our climate knowledge, the fossil powered world around us is almost inescapable on an individual level. Still, we feel guilty about our energy use. Psychology suggests we should expect the mind to do anything and everything to protect us from full knowledge of what climate change means and will do. We've never been perfect as information processors. "We don't want to know, on the most basic level, because it hurts to know." BEYOND DENIAL: DISSOCIATION Denial is just one of our mechanisms. Most of the time we operate in "dissociation". The most extreme dissociation is an out-of-body experience, or creating multiple personalities. We all dissociate in lesser degrees, by putting unpleasant realities out of our minds. We may plan video games, watch TV or do many things to think about anything other than climate change. "Zoning out" works. Dissociation, Margaret says, is the lack of normal integration between thoughts, feelings, and action. People understand the climate threat intellectually, and may talk about a billion people dying, but their feelings and actions don't reflect what they are talking about. Margaret references David Robert's recent piece about the awful truth about climate change - but his language reflected a kind of emotion numbing. WILFUL IGNORANCE Another psychological defense against really knowing about climate impacts is "wilful ignorance". It's when you "know enough to know you don't want to know any more." We may start reading an alarming article on climate change, then quickly move on to another news item, and "forget" about it. The person could learn more about it, or really throw their lives into it, but claim they are not experts, not scientists, so they bear no responsibility. HANDLING CLIMATE EMOTIONS If we really tune in to what humans are doing to this planet and other species, we may feel strong emotions, like grief or anger. Do you advise people to let those emotions happen, or to calm themselves in various ways? Margaret says we must experience these emotions, but we may need to find ways to contain or structure, so they don't overwhelm our lives. "If you haven't cried about climate change, maybe you don't quite understand, or more likely, maybe you are dissociating." But we need to find the right time and place. It doesn't work to cry about climate change at an important meeting, "or to become furious about climate change in front of your young children." Holding feelings in can create psychological problems, she says. Margaret started a Facebook group, now run by others, called "Climate Change. It's Personal". It's about how we as people live in these times. We don't have to experience the climate crisis alone. SHOULD WE DOWNPLAY BAD CLIMATE NEWS TO AVOID PARALYZING PEOPLE? We recently had the Norwegian eco-psychologist Per Espen Stoknes on the show. He says we have to stop frightening people with climate forecasts, which may only paralyze them into inaction. What are your thoughts? She wants to read more about his position, but mainly disagrees. Climate change is frightening, if the facts are understood. However, Klein wants us to channel emotions like grief, fear, anger into mobilizing to do something about the situation. The Pledge to Mobilize solves the problem Stoknes is talking about. There is a huge solution on the table that everyone can be part of. "If we don't solve this, all is lost." She believes in "climate truth" and recently published an essay titled "The Transformative Power of Climate Truth". It was published on Common Dreams, and has been a top story on the site Climate Code Red, while trending high on Reddit, and of course in her blog theclimatepsychologist.com. Klein tells us: "If you're not talking about the fact that climate change will cause the collapse of civilization, if we don't take drastic action, I think basically you are bull-shitting people." Her use of "bull-shit" comes from the piece "On Bullshit" by Philosopher Harry G Frankfurt. It shows how especially in America, and especially in politics, experts recommend avoiding the truth, to communicate instead just some message that works to bring people toward what you want. It's called manipulation, and it's the new method of operation for control by politicians, corporations, and anyone with a cause. Even phrases like "green jobs" or "clean energy future" may hope to trick people away from the awful truth of climate change, and the much stronger path we need to take, says Salamon. Honesty offers us the enormous power of transformative truth. The fact we've gone this far, toward warming the planet, is a sign of wide-spread institutional failure. "Our institutions are not working. It has to come from us, from the people living in this fateful hour." She's seen this inaction. For example, some have change jobs, so they have more time for climate activism. They become the kind of fuel for the massive social transformation that we need. Of course I agree with Margaret: this is the hour. People are either going to answer this threat in reality, or not. INSPIRATION FROM SOCIAL CHANGE IN WORLD WAR TWO Margaret says she derived some hope from the book "No Ordinary Time" by Doris Kearns. The full title is "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II" and it won a Pulitzer Prize for history after it was published in 1995. During the isolationist phase in the United States after World War One, military production was largely decommissioned. Germany built a war machine never seen before, with the Blitzkreig and tanks, while the U.S. was still using horses - the Cavalry - in the military. After the attack on Pearl Habor, there was a transformation on every leve in America, with massive public participation. It gave her hope we could make a massive change to save what's left of the climate. IS A MILITARY IMAGE THE BEST WE CAN DO? I worry a return to military imagery has it's draw-backs. Militarism is part and parcel of climate change and the bad things that might happen when droughts, famines or repeated extreme weather strike. Is this really the best example we have? Klein admits it's not the best example, but it may be the best we have in living memory. Plus, the climate mobilization will be much better, because it leads to more life and living things, rather than death and destruction. However, in some ways it's easier to sell war. It's been part of our evolution as a species. If the North Koreans (or pick you enemy) was destroying our climate, we might rally against them sooner. But really, we ourselves are the enemy wrecking the climate. That's difficult. There are bad actors, like fossil fuel companies and denial think-tanks. But they don't actually cause the problem as much as our willing dependency on burning fossil fuels. Without a visible "enemy", the climate mobilization will require a higher level of human consciousness and functioning. CAN "CLIMATE MOBILIZATION" GO INTERNATIONAL? How do you see this call for climate change going international - to countries like India, who never experienced the big shift in World War Two, or Scandinavia, where they didn't mobilize against Hitler? I guess I'm asking, is this really an American movement, when we need a global response? Klein replies that very recently they introduced an international version of The Pledge to Mobilize. They had to take out the World War Two metaphor, as it doesn't apply everywhere. Plus they changed the target of getting to Net Zero to 2030, to give developing nations a little bit more time. Instead of relying on the U.S. Constitution, it calls on the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. People from all over the world are now taking the Pledge to Mobilize. It can apply in any country that has elections, because it calls on pledgers to choose climate-active politicians. I presume it cannot yet reach into dictatorships or kingdoms, like Saudi Arabia. We must choose leaders who will "protect civilization" - the "pro-civilization party". CURRENT MOBILIZATION NEWS Ralph Nader, the famous consumer advocate and Presidential candidate, has signed the Pledge. The first Climate Mobilization Day of action will be on June 14th, 2015. That's anchored by their San Diego team. They had a march/rally where they posted the Pledge on the Federal Building in San Diego. They will follow that up with former Congressman Jim Bates who has signed the Pledge. Bates will recreate Paul Revere's ride in the streets of San Diego - warning that the climate crisis is coming and we must mobilize, ad Revere warned of the coming British troops in the Revolutionary War. Now the movement will build on that to call on Mobilizers all over the country on June 14th. Their longer goal is about the 2016 elections in America. The huge media coverage of this long drawn-out election cycle is a good opportunity to get the Mobilization message out. Climate change is so evident now, everyone can see it in their community. What initially seemed like a wild idea now seems almost self-evident - that we need a massive change to save ourselves. Who could have imagined the Roman Catholic Pope Francis would spear- head the climate message? People wanting to take the Pledge and become climate truth activists should go to climatemobilization.org. Download or listen to this 44 minute interview with Margaret Klein Salamon in CD Quality or Lo-Fi SCIENTIST PAUL BECKWITH ON GEOENGINEERING AND "CHEMTRAILS" A lot of interest in geoengineering from former chemtrails people, who think geoengineering is already happening, being sprayed from planes. On our Radio Ecoshock show for March 18, 2015, Harvard scientist David Keith said we would know if geoengineering was being done on a scale that matters was happening. That show was picked up by Dane Wigington, host of geoengineeringwatch.org. Suddenly that show was downloaded a month later another 500 times from Soundcloud. Dane is one of the more charismatic and savy people to emerge out of the "chemtrails" movement. They don't refer to "chemtrails" any more, but position themselves as an anti-geoengineering group. Some environmentalists also oppose geoengineering, like the ETC Group. But Wigington, and apparently a large number of people connected via the Internet, think covert spraying of the sky, to cool the planet, is already happening. The former chemtrails movement has splintered somewhat. Some still believe the spraying is done to enable the secret Alaskan radio frequency site HAARP to control our minds. That may be the origin of the "tin foil hat" expression, as believers suggested metal foil could repel these waves from our brains. I got an email from another chemtrails enthusiast who thought the spraying was CAUSING global warming, not cooling the planet. Other's don't believe in climate change at all, so it's all over the map. Wigington has no doubts that the world is set to warm in a dangerous way. He says governments, or the Powers That Be, are panicked, and are spraying aerosols to try to control what would otherwise be runaway warming. They may also be playing with controlling the weather, a project the U.S. military has tried in the past. I haven't been able to find any peer-reviewed, published scientific work establishing the existence of a massive covert project to stave off climate change with aerosols launched from aircraft, commercial or otherwise. Being a science-based program, that doesn't leave me much to cover, other than asking other scientists what they think about it. University of Ottawa climate scientist Paul Beckwith Two weeks ago, we had Paul Beckwith on Radio Ecoshock, for a tag-team effort to cover major climate change stories around the world. After our talk, I asked Paul what he thought about covert geoengineering, and about new scientific calls to do research into ways we could cool the planet on an emergency basis. Paul agreed to have this conversation broadcast, and that's what you'll find in this week's show. I'm just making notes on a major climate research talk given at Harvard University. The speaker, Dr. James Anderson, says there is support for geoengineering research coming from both the Left and the Right. The Left hopes to show the big risks of doing it, the Right wants to find a way to keep on burning fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the U.S. National Research Council has called for funding research into geoengineering. However, I haven't heard of that resulting in new funding announcements yet. As a member of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), Paul Beckwith joins a few other scientists, including Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge (also a guest on Radio Ecoshock) in calling for geoengineering to cool the Arctic. They want to save what is left of the sea ice, saying when that goes, runaway feedbacks will develop that will speed glacial melting, increase methane emissions to very dangerous levels, and further destabilize the weather in the Northern Hemisphere, by disrupting the Jet Stream. In another Radio Ecoshock interview, Beckwith suggested that just a few airplanes could spray sulfur or other materials to create a localized volcano-like cloud in the Arctic to deflect some solar energy back into space. He's now looking at other ways to create clouds in the Arctic, and is open to many varieties of geoengineering, such as biochar, and of course technology to remove carbon from the air. Does he think there is a global conspiracy of geoengineering right now? He hopes not, "because it certainly isn't working." Like David Keith, he thinks any spraying effort large enough to make any difference would be detectable in various ways, and it hasn't shown up. It's a simulating talk, which no doubt will add to both or our resumes on the Chemtrails "Disinformation Directory". I've been told in a half dozen emails that eventually I will be tried and convicted of some sort of crime for not admitting that there is a conspiracy to poison the sky. It's rather amazing that we picked up that number of listeners who came to hate. That's new for Radio Ecoshock. Listen to Paul Beckwith on geoengineering and conspiracy here in CD Quality or Lo-Fi. My thanks to those whose ongoing monthly support keeps this show on the air. You know who you are. And a special thanks to Pat for her generous donation this past week. Find out how to support the show here. I'd also like to thank Jack Wolfe for helping to manage the Radio Ecoshock Facebook page. Jack's doing a tremendous job, helping to announce each new show on a wide variety of internet forums. With that help, we reached over 19,000 people on Facebook in one week. You can help us spread the word, by "liking" Radio Ecoshock on Facebook here. That helps us get wider exposure. The folks who retweet my humble weekly show announcement are also helping a lot. It's a kind of radio/Net activism. All our past programs are available as free .mp3 files on our web site at ecoshock.org. I'm Alex Smith, saying thank you for listening, and caring about our world.
-
HD
Crashing Climate Change
SUMMARY: Climate scientist Paul Beckwith from the University of Ottawa ...
SUMMARY: Climate scientist Paul Beckwith from the University of Ottawa rejoins Alex Smith to investigate the latest record heat, melting, and emissions. Are we already entering an extreme climate shift? Among the news covered: * 2015: hottest first 3 months ever * the new highest carbon dioxide levels ever recorded * methane and melting permafrost in Russia * record extreme heat in Spain, Portugal and Italy * will the California drought last 30 years? (and is it time to get out) * Australians lose billions with heat waves (even indoor workers affected) * Canadian scientists protest government muzzling * Arctic sea ice at new record low for May * Obama approves Shell Arctic drilling * even more ice loss in Antarctica then we knew. Listen to or download this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality or Lo-Fi. Or listen on Soundcloud right now! From Pole to Pole, and around the world, climate news is streaming in, and it's not good. We are crashing into the age of global warming. Here to help us is one of our favorite guests, scientist Paul Beckwith. Paul has two Masters degrees, and is currently working on his PHD in climate science at the University of Ottawa in Canada. I began this show by saying: "Paul there's so much hot climate news, it's very hard to keep up. I keep expecting somebody like CNN will start the first 24/7 climate news station. That's the level of coverage we need now, don't you think?" That turned out to be too true. Hardly had we hung up the phone last Friday, that news poured in about more than a dozen killed by extreme flooding in Oklahoma and Texas. Eleven inches of rain fell in the Houston area in 24 hours. Even concrete bridges were knocked out of the way by the raging flood waters. As Scientific American reported, "Climate Change may have souped up the record-breaking Texas deluge." May have? The United Nations IPCC and many other climate scientists released papers on the advent of extreme weather now that the climate system is breaking down. Extreme rainfall events have been happening around the world. We know the role that increased water vapor in a hotter world plays, and we know the heated oceans play a part too. It's not a secret. Maybe it's still a secret in Texas and Oklahoma, who keep voting in climate deniers to Congress, like Senator James Inhofe. I have to wonder what it will take to get the average American to wake up and stop voting for people who stop action to save us from even worse climatic events. Also on the weekend, the supreme heat wave hitting India. It's especially bad in the Southern Indian states, where temperatures hit 48 degrees, and then flirted with 50 degrees C in some places (188-120 degrees Fahrenheit). More than a thousand died. In our interview, Paul Beckwith tells us why babies and seniors tend to die first. The Indian government advised people to stay inside. Let me tell you, I've been to India, and to Southern India. Millions of people must work every day, or begin the process of starvation for their families. Or course they are going to work in the heat. They must. And many die. Air-conditioning? Don't forget at least 200 million people in India don't have any access to electricity. People in developing countries die because of our carbon-rich lifestyles. It makes me angry. Anyway, let's go through just some of the top climate stories, as we move around the globe, starting with two very disturbing records. First this. RECORD LEVELS FOR CO2 "New Records For Atmospheric CO2 "CO2 averaged 404.11 parts per million the week beginning May 3, a new weekly record. Since we are now passing the annual spring peak, this record will probably stand until next spring. The week beginning May 10 averaged just under 404. The reading of 404.54 on May 16 set a new single-day record." My comment: It's no big surprise. This whole civilization is based on transferring fossil fuels from underground into gases in the sky. That's what we do...expect to read this story every year. THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2015 MARKS A NEW RECORD FOR WORLD HEAT "The first quarter of 2015, a transcendental for the fight against climate change year, has set a new world record high temperatures in the recent history of the Earth. Data from the National Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicate that in March recorded the highest temperature for this time of year since 136 years ago were initiated record, surpassing the previous record, 2010, at 0.05 ° C. The first quarter of 2015 was the warmest period of history in the middle of the land and ocean surfaces in the world, at 0.82 ° C above the average of the twentieth century, surpassing the previous record-from 2002 to 0, 05 ° C. The average land surface temperature was also overall record for the January-March period. Most of Europe, Asia, South America, East Africa and western North America have had an onset of warmer than normal year, according to the official news agency of the United States. Regarding the data of the surface of the oceans, last quarter marked the third highest level in the period of 136 years of record, 0.53 ° C above average." Get another take on this story here. Maybe every year won't break the records, but most will. Let's go to the regional view, starting with this story out of Russia. CARBON TIME-BOMB IN SIBERIA THREATENS CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE "A DEVASTATING and sudden acceleration of climate change which is currently being sparked could result in 'awful consequences', a leading scientist has warned. "Climate change expert Professor Sergey Kirpotin, [in Tomsk] 51 said this could result in 'awful' consequences. 'Bogs are extremely important for humanity. They function as a sort of natural freezer as they don't let the carbon build up in the atmosphere,' he told The Siberian Times. 'However, the permafrost in northern areas of western Siberia has started melting. As the permafrost thaws, it creates new lakes and old ones get bigger. "All the organics trapped in permafrost start decomposing rather quickly. "Obviously, a lot of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, are released into the atmosphere. "Methane is a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.'" EXTREME RECORD-BREAKING TEMPERATURES IN SPAIN (and Portugal, Sicily) Here's a headline from one of my favorite weather guys, and repeat Radio Ecoshock guest, Dr. Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground: "Jeff Masters: extreme, record-breaking temperatures in SpainAll-Time May Heat Record for Europe Falls For the 2nd Time This Monthby Jeff Masters, wunderblog, May 14, 2015 An extreme May heat wave unprecedented in European recorded history has invaded Spain and Portugal, bringing the hottest May temperatures ever recorded on the continent. According to the Spanish meteorological agency, AEMET, at least four stations in the Valencian Community of eastern Spain hit temperatures today in excess of the previous European May heat record set just eight days ago -- a 41.9 °C (107.4 °F) reading at Catenanuova, Sicily (Italy) on May 6. Today's European record-breaking May temperatures in Spain included: Carcaixent: 42.9 °C (109.2 °F)Xativa: 42.7 °C (108.9 °F)Algemesi: 42.6 °C (108.7 °F) Valencia: 42.6 °C (108.7 °F) Many stations in Spain's Valencian community went above their June records, and were near their all-time records for any month. The record set at Valencia Airport today was 6.6 °C (11.9 °F) above the previous highest May temperature, was 4.4 °C (7.9 °F) higher than the record for June, and was the 3rd hottest temperature since records began in 1869 for any month! This week's heat wave began yesterday, when hot air from North Africa flowed northwards over Spain and Portugal, setting all-time May heat records at Madrid, Sevilla, Cordoba, Ciudad Real, Granada, and many other cities. Portugal beat its all-time May heat record with a 40.0 °C (104.0 °F) reading at Beja EMA (old record: 39.5 °C, 103.1 °F, at Regua on May 28, 2001). The most remarkable record yesterday, however, was from the Canary Islands to the southwest of Spain, where Lanzarote Airport hit 42.6 °C (108.7 °F), breaking its old record for the entire month of May by 6 °C (10.8 °F)! The old record was 36.6 °C (97.9 °F) on May 24, 1986." NOAA: 90% CHANCE OF EL NINO The last big El Nino we experienced caused new records in heat, during the winter of 1997/98. That was the year Indonesian peat fires turned that country into one of the world's biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The smoke covered most of southeast Asia. What will burn down this time? Here is how our recent guest Robert Marston Fanney described it in Robert Scribbler's Blog: "Well, it’s official. According to NOAA’s May 14 update, we are now looking at a 90 percent chance that El Nino conditions prevail through Northern Hemisphere Summer and a greater than 80 percent chance El Nino will last throughout all of 2015..." RELATED: CARBON EMISSIONS INCREASE RISK OF U.S. MEGADROUGHTS. California drought continues despite weak El Nino conditions. NASA says on our current carbon course, the whole US Southwest will experience a drought like the 1930's dustbowl, but lasting for 30 or 35 years - a whole generation. That will happen this century they say. "Carbon emissions could dramatically increase risk of U.S. megadroughts" says NASA. ARCTIC SEA ICE AT HISTORIC LOW This from the Arctic News blog. "THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015Arctic Sea Ice At Historic Low On May 20, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent was only 12.425 million square km, a record low for the time of the year since satellite measurements began in 1979." Our guest Paul Beckwith explains it takes 80 calories (a measure of heat energy) to melt 1 gram of ice. When the ice is gone, it takes just 1 calorie to raise the temperature of water 1 degree. Theoretically, the same 80 calories of heat falling on ocean instead of ice could raise the surface temperature by 80 degrees! (It doesn't because there is mixing with cooler water below - but this shows the huge difference between having ice in the Arctic and not. EXTREME HEAT POSES A BILLION-DOLLAR THREAT TO AUSTRALIA'S ECONOMY I'll bet the cost is far higher, if you include loss of forests, the costs of fighting fires, the toll on farm animals and crops, etc. The key insight to this article is that extreme heat doesn't just affect outside workers. Even people who work in air-conditioned offices lose productivity. Why? Because humans don't sleep as well during hot nights. "May 4 2015Extreme heat poses a billion-dollar threat to Australia’s economy When heat waves hit in summer, do you have trouble sleeping? And the next day, even though you are working in air-conditioning, are you a bit slower, your judgement a bit off, or your patience a bit frayed? In a paper published today in Nature Climate Change, we and colleagues show that heat stress probably cost the Australian economy nearly A$7 billion in 2013-2014 through productivity losses such as those we’ve mentioned above. That bodes ill for the future, with heatwaves forecast to get hotter and more common thanks to climate change. While we should continue to attempt to mitigate climate change, we need to take steps to adapt. One of our most surprising findings is that you don’t have to work outside to feel the heat. Although outdoor workers report greater levels of productivity losses from heat, indoor workers aren’t immune. Poor sleep is one possible explanation." Find the original paper in Nature here, as published online May 4th. COLD WEATHER IS MUCH DEADLIER THAN EXTREME HEAT, STUDY SAYS Here on Radio Ecoshock, we like to follow the truth, whether it is convenient to theories or not. So far, the greater number of deaths are still caused by cold. But that ratio will change, says Paul Beckwith, as the coldest parts of Earth appear to be warming much faster than the global average. Just look at Alaska this past winter. It was often warmer there than in New England. We've just heard from Jonathan Mingle the same is true in the Himalayas, often called the world' Third Pole. And I've reported on news that Antarctica is melting more rapidly that we thought (more on that below). "Cold weather is much deadlier than extreme heat, study says Extreme weather gets more attention, but moderately cold weather is most deadly by far, a study says, analyzing deaths in 13 countries. By KAREN KAPLAN Extreme weather gets more attention, but moderately cold weather is most deadly by far, a study says In the U.S., 84% of days are colder than the 'optimum,' least-deadly temperature. Extreme heat waves like the one that killed more than 70,000 Europeans in 2003 may be the most visible examples of deadly weather, but cold days actually cause more deaths than hot ones, a new study says. After examining more than 74 million deaths that occurred in 13 countries from 1985 to 2012, researchers calculated that 7.3% of them could be attributed to cold weather and 0.4% to hot weather. In another counterintuitive finding, extreme weather — either hot or cold — was responsible for only 11% of the weather-related deaths, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet. 'Heat stroke on hot days and hypothermia on cold days only account for small proportions of excess deaths,' the international research team wrote. The researchers collected daily data on weather conditions, air pollution and deaths from 384 cities around the world. For each city, they calculated the temperature at which deaths were least likely to occur. All other days were compared to days with this 'optimum' temperature. With the bulk of the days in all areas being below the ideal temperature, days rated cold but not extremely cold were blamed for the most deaths — 6.7% during the study period. Extreme cold was responsible for about 10% of all deaths on cold days. However, extreme heat was responsible for about half of all deaths on hot days. Although the study included data from a range of nations — Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand and Britain were also included — no countries from the Middle East or Africa were represented. That means the results don’t necessarily apply everywhere." PROTESTS in Seattle re SHELL ARCTIC DRILLING Paul and I discuss the paradox of US President Barack Obama saying that climate change is an extreme threat to the nation's security - and then approving drilling in the Arctic by Shell! What the world does not need is more fossil fuels, especially in the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Shell has their giant platform in the Seattle harbor. Scads of Kayakers turned out to surround the rig in protest. Photo credit: Daniella Beccaria/seattlepi.com via AP Shell says their drilling is perfectly safe, even though (a) their last attempt ended in a dangerous failure when their rig broke down and had to be towed back and (b) there is no reliable secondary drilling rig to try to stop a blowout, like the BP giant spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And remember that the Arctic also lacks the warm-water bacteria the helped eat up some of the BP oil. What spills in the Arctic stays in the Arctic, possibly for thousands of years. Paul wonders if Obama isn't picking his battles carefully. Perhaps it will take one spill or breakdown in the Arctic to bring the public call for banning all drilling. One allowed might stop thousands of planned rigs invading the Arctic in search of more fossil fuels we cannot afford to burn. YET ANOTHER ANTARCTIC ICE MASS DESTABILIZED A few weeks ago I tried to wrap up all the Antarctic news with Dr. Roland C. Warner, the Tasmanian scientist. As I said at the beginning of this post, new and bad climate news just never ends. NASA now announces they've discovered another ice shelf that passed a tipping point of no return in 2009. We're just finding out about that one. "Yet another Antarctic ice mass is becoming destabilized, scientists report By Chris Mooney May 22 The troubling news continues this week for the Antarctic peninsula region, which juts out from the icy continent. Last week, scientists documented threats to the Larsen C and the remainder of the Larsen B ice shelf (most of which collapsed in 2002). The remnant of Larsen B, NASA researchers said, may not last past 2020. And as for Larsen C, the Scotland-sized ice shelf could also be at potentially 'imminent risk' due to a rift across its mass that is growing in size (though it appears more stable than the remainder of Larsen B). And the staccato of May melt news isn’t over, it seems. Thursday in Science, researchers from the University of Bristol in Britain, along with researchers from Germany, France and the Netherlands, reported on the retreat of a suite of glaciers farther south from Larsen B and C along the Bellingshausen Sea, in a region known as the Southern Antarctic Peninsula. Using satellite based and gravity measurements, the research team found that 'a major portion of the region has, since 2009, destabilized' and accounts for 'a major fraction of Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea level.' The likely cause of the change, they say, is warmer waters reaching the base of mostly submerged ice shelves that hold back larger glaciers — melting them from below." Chris Mooney does great work on climate reporting. Here is another verion of that same story. "Glaciers Are Crumbling in Southern Antarctica Faster Than Previously ThoughtVictor Luckerson @VLuck Previously stable glaciers have been melting rapidly since 2009 Multiple large glaciers that were previously not thought to be in danger of melting have been crumbling since 2009, according to a new study published in Science. Researchers have discovered that glaciers on the southern Antarctic Peninsula’s coastline have been steadily thinning over the past several years, with some dwindling by as much as 13 feet per year. The glaciers had not shrunk significantly before 2009. The rate of melting makes the region 'the second most important contributor to sea level rise in Antarctica,'lead study author Bret Wouters told NBC News. Overall, 80 trillion gallons of water were added to ocean by the Southern Antarctic Peninsula between 2009 and 2014. Continued melting could raise sea levels by another 14 inches." So Antarctica is into "unstoppable" melting. Greenland is pouring ice water into the sea at terrific rates. How far is sea level really going to rise? I recall a few months ago Paul Beckwith put out a You tube video asking if it's possible the world might experience 7 meters (!!) of sea level rise by 2070. That's 22 feet. At the time I really didn't get it. In this interview, Paul explains his methods and reasoning, and now I wonder if he isn't right. We know for sure that scientists who take a linear view are kidding themselves and everyone else. If we say there is 3 centimeters of sea level rise now, and then extend that to the rest of the century, it looks like a meter of sea level rise by 2100. That's what the IPCC has said. But once you find out that melting is doubling every few years, that's all nonsense. We'll get a lot more than that! Check out how Paul explains it, in this interview. Or watch Paul's explanation in this You tube video. CANADIAN SCIENTISTS PROTEST MUZZLING BY THE GOVERNMENT As I've said before on Radio Ecoshock, if I want to get a quote or explanation of climate research by Canadian government scientists, I have to submit my questions in advance. That request is sent to the Office of the Prime Minister, where junior know-nothings will tell the scientist what to say - a few weeks after the news has passed. Now Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken his religious fundamentalism, and his love for the Tar Sands, much further. It's not just climate scientists who are muzzled, but all sorts of people, including biologists and more. Research paid for by the Canadian tax payer is hidden away, made secret. It's something Stalin would do. In the past two weeks there have been multiple demonstrations by government scientists and workers demanding the right of free speech. It's easy. Just as the American scientists do (after the bravery of Dr. James Hansen) - the scientist merely has to say they are speaking for themselves, and not the Canadian government. It's been sad to see scientists in their lab coats out with signs, demanding basic human rights. Shame on the government of Stephen Harper. This is an election year. A big change is needed, because Canada has joined the likes of Saudi Arabia in trying to tear down and weaken any effort to forestall the worst of climate change. Until recently, Canada did not even have a plan to reduce emissions. We love the Tar Sands! Who cares if people in India die of heat, if Texans are flooded out, if Canadian forests are ravaged by out-of-control insects. Money drives Canada. THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE NEWS Throughout this whole interview, we get more than snapshots of a planet in trouble. Paul gives us a lot of the reasons behind things, explanations of the way the Earth systems really work. It's an education - and that's no surprise because Paul gives lectures at the University of Ottawa. He's a teacher, a communicator, and a research. It's a rare mix. Paul has two Masters degrees, and is working on his PHD in climate science. He's tasked himself with the specific project of investigating whether a rapid shift in our climate is possible, what would drive that, and what are the signs. We had record heat here on Canada's West Coast last week. We're getting the hottest of summer weather in the Middle of May. Is this it? Given all we've talked about, could we be going into a shift in the global climate regime, the one Paul has been researching? Follow Paul Beckwith on his Facebook page here. Here are some links to just a few of Paul Beckwith's You tube videos. Abrupt climate system change NOW: Part 1 Abrupt climate system change NOW: Part 2 Abrupt climate system change is underway. EXTREME WEATHER Caused By Polar Warming Global food shocks from climate disruption. On necessity of geoengineering to cool Arctic NEXT WEEK: EXTREME MEDICINE FOR AN EXTREME CLIMATE DISEASE I've given you a lot of bad news this week. Next week, we'll talk about what we need to do about it. Next week we'll talk about the Climate Pledge - a call for a mass mobilization and a change as great as America's sudden shift in 1942, to fight the Axis powers. The President told the car makers to stop making cars. Everyone, from housemakers to farmers were called to support the war effort. Over 40% of U.S. produce was grown locally, in Victory Gardens. Now that President Barack Obama has admitted climate disruption is a much greater threat than terrorism, it's way past time to act. You can download all of our past programs as free mp3's from our web site, ecoshock.org. There's a lot of solid science there, plus our authors and activists. You can support Radio Ecoshock by clicking on the donate button on this page, or get more options here. This program continues only by support from listeners. SHOW ME Following all the news in recent weeks, are we already entering a climate shift? How would we know? Those are questions I asked myself, in my newest song, called "Show Me". This piece was written with female vocals courtesy of Mike Greene of realitone.com, and Tantra, from Dmitri Sches. You can also download this song from Soundcloud, or easily make a link to pass this music on to others. As always, thank you for listening, and caring about your world.
-
HD
Sick Food & Black Carbon
SUMMARY: Agricultural economist John Ikerd explains why factory food fails ...
SUMMARY: Agricultural economist John Ikerd explains why factory food fails our health needs. Jonathan Mingle on black carbon, the second largest cause of climate warming, melting Arctic, and killer of millions. In this Radio Ecoshock show, we'll find out why factory farms are wrecking the health of millions. Then on to the second largest cause of climate warming, and no, it's not methane. I'm Alex Smith. Let's get going. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen to this program on Soundcloud right now! DR. JOHN IKERD: WHY FACTORY FOOD FAILS US When young people want local food, safe food grown organically, when they spend a few cents more for eggs from a free-range chicken - they may not realize there is a long-term champion for all of that and more. John Ikerd was raised on a Missouri farm before going all the way to his doctorate in agricultural economics. He's worked in the big farm system, and taught at the University of Georgia, the University of Missouri, and more. Since retiring as Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, John didn't go quiet. He's written a half dozen books, and continues to speak in America and abroad. His book include: "The Essentials of Economic Sustainability", "Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense", "Small Farms are Real Farms: Sustaining People Through Agriculture", "Return to Common Sense", Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture", "Revolution of the Middle… Pursuit of Happiness", and "The Case for Common Sense". The Case for Common Sense is available free online here. John objects to the "industrial paradigm" in modern agriculture: "specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control." This creates "animal factories" set up like "biological assembly lines." It treats animals as though they were raw materials running through a factory. These animals are not healthy. They factory system kills them at a very young age, and it's likely they may not have lived much longer. There is a lack of concern that these animals are living sentient beings. DO WE NEED INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE TO FEED PEOPLE? While there is a saving in labor, Ikerd says, there is no saving in fossil fuels, or in capital required. Big food operations require more of both. Studies show that if we changed to a really sustainable and organic system, using techniques learned in the 1930's and 40's - retail food prices would not go up more than 10 to 12 percent. In the U.S., food prices already rose more than that, as a consequence of the biofuels program, where food was turned into a gasoline substitute or additive. Up to 40% of the U.S. corn crop went into ethanol production. We can feed the people without an industrial agriculture system, at a reasonable price, says this experienced agricultural economist. It is not true, Ikerd says that we need factory farming to support our large population. The industrial farm can produce food with less labor, and particularly less skilled labor. I would add that fewer farmers means a depleted sense of community in rural areas. These large farms tend to inhabit a kind of social dead zone, with fewer people to volunteer or organize community, and less need to do so. WHY IS FOOD PRODUCTION SO SECRETIVE, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC? Most people never visit a factory farm. In fact, in many places we are prevented by law from seeing these secret massive pig and chicken farms, much less taking pictures. How did the act of farming become so closed off - that anyone questioning where our food comes from can be called a "terrorist"? Part of economic theory, Ikerd says, is the ability to carry out impersonal transactions. We do it all the time in the market place. "The local food movement, that is booming all across the U.S. today, and the organic food movement before that, was really and is really an attempt by consumers to gain some knowledge of where their food comes from. I think they are increasingly losing confidence in the industrial food system - including the government that supposedly is regulating that system to ensure them of the quality and the safety, and kind of the ecological and social integrity of how the food is produced. They are increasingly turning to more localized production so they can know the farmers, or they are in a situation where they could actually visit the farm if they wanted to. They are ensuring the integrity of the products through this sense of personal connectedness with the farmer." POOR HEALTH IMPACTS OF FACTORY FOOD: OBESITY, DIABETES AND MORE Obesity, diabetes, and many diseases unkown when we were kids are sweeping the Western World. Can we tie massive health problems to industrial agricuture? John says industrial agriculture is part of this poor outcome, while more rests with the next stage of packaging and marketing. AN INTRIGUING THEORY OF HOW CROP MAXIMIZATION CAN LEAD TO UNHEALTHY FOOD Scientists predicted this problem in the 1930's and 40's. This includes Professor William Albrecht at the University of Missouri. "He said when you turn to focus on the economics, as he knew was coming, with the chemical fertilizers and pesticides and things of that nature - he said what you will end up with is you select crops for the maximum yield rather than the quality. And what you end up with in crops with maximum yield is crops that are higher in those nutrients that come from the air - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. And he says, they will be deficient in those essential nutrients that come from the soil, because that will be the nutrients that limit production, whereas those that come from the air are basically limitless. If you think about that, what is coming from the air is carbohydrates - carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. And so you end up with crops that are high in carbohydrates, high in sugar and high in calories, and lacking in some of the essential nutrients. That was his hypothesis. That is what you will end up doing. People will end up over-eating in the calories. You'll have crops that are too high in calories relative to those essential nutrients. And [people] will overeat on the calories in the process of trying to get enough of those limited nutrients that come from the soil." Albrecht famously said: "NPK formulas, (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) as legislated and enforced by State Departments of Agriculture, mean malnutrition, attack by insects, bacteria and fungi, weed takeover, crop loss in dry weather, and general loss of mental acuity in the population, leading to degenerative metabolic disease and early death." You can read John Ikerd's 2011 Albrecht Lecture "Healthy Soils, Healthy People" here. Ikerd says our food system is directly related to problems of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and various forms of cancer. The industry actively discourages research into the possibility that "people are overweight today because they are starving for essential nutrients that have been taken out of the industrial food." John doesn't discount other factors, like lack of exercise and changes in lifestyle - but even those may be related to lack of vitality from a poor food supply. ANIMAL FEEDLOT WASTE In a You tube video, John put out a fact that stunned me. He said "If you've got even 200 cows you've got as much waste as a city of 10,000 people". There are operations with thousands of cows, and tens of thousands of pigs, not only in America or Europe, but in China too. What is the impact of all that manure, and what can we do about it? "We have the evidence that shows we are polluting the streams, the air and the water with agricultural waste from these operations." While there are differences between human waste and that from cows or chickens, in some ways they are very similar. Why do we treat human waste with sewage systems and other precautions, John asks, while we don't require farm waste to be disposed of safely? It's the same as telling a city of people to just dump their sewage in their backyards, and let it be washed away with storm water. We wouldn't allow that for humans, but that's what happens at large animal feeding operations. "The problem is we are treating these big agricultural factories, as if they were traditional family farms." An EPA report from the late 1990's found there were 35,000 miles of streams, in 22 states, that had been polluted with waste from these confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). The groundwater in 17 states was polluted. "In the state of Iowa there's been a three-fold increase, a three hundred percent increase, in the number of waterways that are impaired with agricultural waste since the early 2000's.... The facts are there. I think there is a conscious attempt to keep the people from knowing, at you hinted at earlier on, to keep the people from knowing what's going on with the industrial food system." WILL CLIMATE CHANGE LEAD TO MORE LOCALIZED AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE? As we've seen in California, the climate can change for years at a time. John Ikerd, says the climate threat can actually boost better farming methods, and more localization. In several speeches, John has said it's difficult to forecast the future. But there are underlying principles. With climate change the greatest impact is going to be the variability. That's key for agriculture, which is susceptible to extremes, whether untimely cold spells, heat waves, dry and wet years. That's a huge risk for agriculture, with more crop losses. This may change the nature of agriculture away from the industrial type, e.g. large feedlots and mono-culture, which is highly risky with no diversification. Family farm operations tend to be more diversified. With climate change, the public may soon become more aware of the huge tax cost of supporting industrial agriculture. Most people are simply not aware that most Western governments spend many billions of dollars supporting industrial agriculture. We pay attention to military spending, but not agricultural spending. More than half the cost of crop insurance is compensation for a certain yield. Governments also provide low interest loans, subsidies, and other means of keeping up with disasters. The taxpayer assumes a lot of risks. Now futures even guarantee the price. Farmers can plant any amount of crops, without worrying about market prices which are guaranteed by the government. Then there are tax credits. For example, the polluting manure pits of hog operations are not taxed in property taxes in some states, like Iowa. As climate change stresses crops, for example requiring more irrigation from dwindling water supplies, then the cost of production will go up, and so will the cost to the taxpayer through all the subsidies. Tax payers may start to object to this blank cheque for industrial food production. The logical alternative is a move to more sustainable agriculture. Crop rotations, organic, and better livestock management. These can cope with risk, from the time before government and taxpayers took up the risk. They can produce as much as the industrial farm, he says. And they can adapt better to changes in the climate. Here is another key point, as raised by many other guests on Radio Ecoshock: the sustainable farm can also capture carbon back into the soil, becoming a solution for climate change. JOHN IKERD'S BOOKS Ikerd is author of "Essentials of Economic Sustainability", "Sustainable Capitalism, A Return to Common Sense", "Small Farms are Real Farms", "Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture", and "A Revolution of the Middle". More complete background information and a wide selection of writings are available at http://www.johnikerd.com. In this interview John believes that we owe a debt to the people of the past who made our lives possible - and we can only repay that debt by leaving a sustainable society to the people of the future. CHINA I also ask John about his impressions from his trip to China (he just returned in the past week). Ikerd hopes the Chinese will avoid the mistakes made by America with industrial agriculture. The Chinese people have traditions and methods which could enable them to jump over the stage of industrial plunder of the land and animals, toward a truly sustainable system. He doesn't know if they will accept and complete that challenge. There are billions of rural farmers in Asia. There is no where for them all to go, in order to clear the land for large-scale industrial agriculture. China and India cannot release the same per capita pollution that we did in the West - or our climate is doomed. He talks about his long relationship with the Institute of Post Modern Development for China. This is associated with Claremont Lincoln University in Claremont, California. The group is associated with 23 centers in China studying everything from "process theology" to "sustainable urbanization". Finally, Ikerd takes some hope from the rapid growth of alternative farming in America. It's small, but growing fast. Asked if we can really hope that industrial giants like Monsanto or Cargill could fall, John says one advantage of being old (he's 75) is that older people have experienced a world much different from today. Maybe old people believe major change is possible, because they've seen so much rapid change already. Find John Ikerd's personal web site here. Download or listen to this 34 minute interview with John Ikerd in CD Quality or Lo-Fi (and feel free to pass on these links, they are permanent). CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL DISORDER This one hour Radio Ecoshock show contains audio from this You tube video: Climate Change Denial Disorder by Funny or Die, uploaded April 16, 2015. Coming up: the second biggest cause of climate change, driver of half of all Arctic melting, and killer of millions. Jonathan Mingle on black carbon. FIRE AND ICE: JONATHAN MINGLE ON BLACK CARBON Something is killing millions of people around the world, including in your city - but we don't want to know what it is. The same something is the second largest global warming substance after carbon dioxide. Few people know that either. We'll investigate with Jonathan Mingle and his new book "Fire and Ice: Soot, Solidarity, and Survival on the Roof of the World". Here is the publisher's bio on Jonathan Mingle: "Jonathan Mingle’s writing on the environment, climate and development has appeared in The New York Times, Slate, The Boston Globe, and other publications. He is a former Middlebury Fellow in Environmental Journalism, a recipient of the American Alpine Club’s Zach Martin Breaking Barriers Award, and a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. He lives in Vermont." We have a long way to travel in this interview, to the Himalayas, so recently brought into the spotlight by the massive earthquake in Nepal. But we start closer to home: Why did US President Obama make his most recent climate announcement in a hospital? Living in a city powered by fossil fuels is like smoking cigarettes. Everybody, men, women, children and babies are smoking in the smog. Why don't we hear more about it? The health impacts from burning fossil fuels are many and deadly: heart attacks, lung cancer and cancers of all kinds, asthma, birth defects - in fact, we don't know all the ways this pollution hurts us. And that's not just in North America, or Britain (which recently had severe pollution alerts, along with much of Northern Europe). Of course you've heard about smog in Chinese cities, but did you know New Delhi India likely holds the dubious honor of being the world's most air-polluted city? Jonathan travelled to a small valley in Nepal, which was a very poor nation even before the recent great earthquakes. There he found the village of Kumik, in the Zanskar Valley. These simple people will be among the early refugees due to climate change. Aside from a punishing drought which has gone on for years, the major source of water from nearby glaciers is starting to dry up. The glaciers are melting back. In the coming century, they will stop feeding these legendary rivers: the Ganges (reaching both India and Pakistan), the MeKong, the Yangtze (aka Yellow River in Tibet and China). In a century, it's possible these could run dry, says Mingle. That's partly because the Himalayas, like the Arctic, are warming 2 to 3 times faster than the global average. In fact, there are a lot of comparisons to what is happening in the Arctic and the Himalayan mountains. The Himalayas have been called the world's "third pole". The Kumik villagers, poor as they are, know they have to move. They will move, but no one knows where. BLACK CARBON AND THE WARMING OF THE WORLD "Black carbon" is defined as ultra-fine particles that are the result of incomplete combustion. The common name is "soot". The small size of the particles is key, because they can get past our defenses, like nose hair, and go straight to the lungs, where they are very damaging. Because this carbon is black, it also absorbs more of the sun's heat and energy, both in the air, and wherever it lands. Large parts of Greenland, for example, are now black, as scientist Jason Box has revealed, speeding up glacier melt there. The same factor is at work on Himalayan glaciers and snow. Quicker and earlier snow melt adds to climate change. The third factor is harder to study. It's the way black carbon changes cloud formation. This can even change the monsoon rains that Asian agriculture depends on. There was some debate about whether increased clouds from smog may actually be a cooling factor. However, an exhaustive study led by Radio Ecoshock guest Tami Bond showed the net impact of black carbon is indeed global warming. In fact, black carbon is the second largest cause of climate change, after carbon dioxide in the air. It's more of a threat even than methane (so far). Here is a link to my Radio Ecoshock show on black carbon, with Tami Bond and more, from April 23, 2010. You can also find out more from in my Radio Ecoshock special for April 25th, 2008 "Highway to Hell, How Smog Kills". (Download that .mp3 here, or read the blog here.) CHANGING COOKING Black carbon comes from many sources, including forest fires and burning of agricultural waste. But a huge contributor in India and other places in Asia is the use of solid fuels for cooking. This includes burning dung in primitive stoves indoors, which is a huge health hazard, leading to early death of millions. The Indian government and some NGO's have been trying to convert citizens away from using these fuels in cooking. But impoverished people cannot afford a modern stove, and there is no electricity or gas available for hundreds of millions of people. Even families who could afford to convert, say they prefer the taste of food from "traditional" cooking methods! About 3 billion people, almost half the population of the world, still use solid fuel for cooking. As a result, satellite photos often show huge continent-sized clouds of smog over North India, and parts of China. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is just one group working to help solve this problem. NASA photo shows smog over India. Then we have hundreds of millions of people using kerosene lamps for light. That also produces black carbon. In fact, Mingle tells us, kerosene smoke is almost 99% black carbon! This interview, and Jonathan Mingle's book, is a real adventure in climate change developing at a very human level. It contains the big, big picture of the second largest cause of warming, but it also has a portrait of early climate refugees, on a very human level. Mingle obviously fell in love with the place and the people. It shows. The book is: "Fire and Ice: Soot, Solidarity, and Survival on the Roof of the World". Find a good article by Jonathan in the Huffington Post here. Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock interview with Jonathan Mingle in CD Quality or Lo-Fi (and feel free to pass on these permanent links). OVER AND OUT That's all for this week. Check out all our past programs as free mp3 downloads at our web site ecoshock.org. If you can contribue to keeping this program going, that would be great! Get details here. Thank you for listening, and caring about our world.
-
HD
How to Avoid Thinking About Climate Change
In this week's show: * Norwegian eco-psychologist Per Espen Stoknes ...
In this week's show: * Norwegian eco-psychologist Per Espen Stoknes tells us why public concern about climate may be falling, even as the science becomes more certain. How to avoid thinking about climate change. * Alternative energy expert Robert A. Stayton says "yes we can power the world with solar" and tells us how. * Dr. Alan Rozich tells us "Other Inconvenient Truths Beyond Global Warming." Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) Or listen on Soundcloud right now! You can also download individual interviews. PER ESPEN STOKNES: TRYING NOT TO THINK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING How is it possible that as the science becomes more clear about climate change, polls show people are less concerned about it, compared to other problems, like the economy? Why has the campaign to get the public onboard with climate action failed? On Radio Ecoshock, we've paid attention to the pyschology, the way we think about energy and global warming. There's a new approach out, from the Norwegian eco-psychologist, Per Espen Stoknes. His book is called "What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming". There's a different kind of climate denial we'll have to try to overcome before we can get very far into your work. I have plenty of listeners who believe civilization will have to crash before we can really cut emissions enough. A few think humans will go extinct before 2050, and that will solve the problem. I'll get some angry emails and blog posts just for letting Per say there are some ways out of this. Per Stoknes answers that the idea of doom is exactly one of the defenses against thinking about (and acting on) climate change, that he writes about in his book. His view is fascinating and revealing. WHAT ABOUT GRIEF? Thinking of beloved species now threatened with extinction, including lions, elephants, and most recently announced, many large wild herbivores - grief does seem like the appropriate emotional response. Per Stoknes agrees. Climate grief workshops are springing up. Psychologists are getting patients upset or overly worried about climate change, and they counsel accepting that grief, and working through it. The scientists I talk with are blunt and bleak about the path we are on, and the need for gigantic changes to avert very dangerous climate change. From all corners of the Earth, pole to pole, those are the facts. Are the experts wrong to spread that message, or should they just keep their concerns within scientific circles? The prospects seem so dire, and we've been sold so many false promises as green-washing by industry and politicians, that the global villagers are almost hostile to any solutions. Is there a psychological way to get out of that strange problem? Give this interview a listen. Stoknes may bring you almost to (gasp!) hope. More articles by or about Per Stoknes new work. His web page. Per's academic page. More info on Per's new book: https://stoknesdotcom.wordpress.com/book/ Writer’s Voice, Psychology Today – "The Coming Climate Disruptions: Are you Hopeful?" and BoingBoing.net – "The 5 Psychological Barriers to Climate Action" Find a 1 hour video of Per Espen Stoknes talking about his new book at Transition United States on May 15, 2015 here. Download or listen to (or pass on) this interview with Per Espen Stoknes in CD quality or Lo-Fi ROBERT STAYTON - SOLAR YES WE CAN If we stopped using fossil fuels today, the climate would still heat up, and civilization would crash. That's the nasty problem, and we need a roadmap out. Robert Stayton says solar is the path forward. He's been teaching about energy and solar power for decades at California colleges and the University of California in Santa Cruz. Those years of expertise are drawn together in his new book "Power Shift, from Fossil Energy to Dynamic Solar Power". Given the warnings of scientists, there are really only four possible routes to slashing emissions, or even reducing carbon in the atmosphere. In this book, Robert Stayton lays out four stark choices we all need to make, if we must phase out fossil fuels. 1. Go backwards in technology to pre-fossil lifestyles. Various pundits, like James Howard Kunstler, suggest humans willy nilly will return to an age made by hand. Do you think we can go back to the technologies humans used before coal power? A few people can do this, but not our whole population, at current levels. 2. The second suggested step is to capture and store the carbon from fossil fuel burning. Is it a rational plan? Not really. Since the carbon dioxide is about ten times the volume of the original fossil fuels, there isn't enough space to put it. Even the space we have are likely to leak CO2 back into the atmosphere, sooner or later, defeating the purpose. Plus we would have to build a whole new industrial landscape for carbon capture and storage - which will require even more fossil fuels. It doesn't seem very workable, which explains why it isn't being done. Even so, the United Nations IPCC assumes we will capture and store CO2, to reach the "safe" 2 degree level of global temperature change. Plus carbon capture and storage only works on large power plants, leaving no solution for emissions from cars, trucks, planes, and ships. That's a huge hole. 3. Some scientists, from James Lovelock to James Hansen, say we need massive amounts of nuclear energy to get off fossil fuels. Again, Stayton looks at the huge costs of building that power, in dollars and in more carbon emitted. Then he considers the huge risks, including studies showing nuclear plants will melt down on average every ten years. As a long-time researcher and teacher of solar power, Stayton says it's going to work. He knows we have doubts about that, and addresses those doubts. And yes, solar can replace itself, run heavy industry, and all that. As you can read in this article, Stayton says the whole world could be solar powered by 2060. In the late 1990's, Robert installed solar on his house in Santa Cruz County, California. A lot of people have toured his set-up, and then gone on to install solar power. Probably because of his long experience teaching all things solar, I found this book accessible and useful right away. It's not written as a general policy book for planners and politicians, although it can be used that way. The book is really written for the rest of us. Download or listen toRobert Stayton in CD quality or Lo-Fi DR. ALAN ROZICH - IT'S MUCH MORE THAN GLOBAL WARMING We like things to be simple. For example, we know society is emitting too much carbon dioxide, endangering us all with rapid climate change. Dr. Alan Rozich is knocking at the door to make this all more difficult. His first new book is called "Other Inconvenient Truths Beyond Global Warming." Rozich says humans are heading into a new and dangerous situation, which you call the "Super Nexis". It's a combination of factors, including global warming, but more based on our unsustainable use of resources in total, and our failure to understand and cope with the waste stream of civilization. The resources vector incluses the developing shortage of many metals we depend on, not to mention the increasing cost of fossil fuels, as we reach into heavy oils and scour hostile places like the Arctic. Rozich doesn't buy the current story that we have plenty of fossil fuels. He writes: “The most important take away, is that resolving the Super Nexus needs to be our focus and not CO2. Resource security is pivotal for societal functionality. If society gets most of its resources from renewables, then CO2 emissions will drop. Transitioning to a renewable economy also means that many of our resources which heretofore are emitted into the environment as waste are now recovered which will attenuate emissions and pollution of the environment.” I asked Dr. Rozich to come on the show, because he is not just another voice in the chorus. I think his book has some different sources and directions, that need serious consideration. The book is "Other Inconvenient Truths Beyond Global Warming" and it's available in all the usual places. You can find a bit more on Alan's Facebook page, called "otherinconvenienttruths". Download or listen to Alan Rozich in CD quality only. I'm Alex. Thank you for listening, and caring about our world.
