Just see for yourself

Click.

the same restless, miserable, frustrated creatures we were before...

Via Living in a Van Down by the River:

"We clutter the earth with our inventions, never dreaming that possibly they are unnecessary--or disadvantageous. We devise astounding means of communication, but do we communicate with one another? We move our bodies to and fro at incredible speeds, but do we really leave the spot we started from? Mentally, morally, spiritually, we are fettered. What have we achieved in mowing down mountain ranges, harnessing the energy of mighty rivers, or moving whole populations about like chess pieces, if we ourselves remain the same restless, miserable, frustrated creatures we were before? To call such activity progress is utter delusion. We may succeed in altering the face of the earth until it is unrecognizable even to the Creator, but if we are unaffected wherein lies the meaning?"

--Henry Miller The World Of Sex (1940)


Recommended Reading:

The Spell of the Sensuous, by David Abram. Excerpt here.

Beyond Civilization, by Daniel Quinn. Info here.

Tags:

• rewilding

Just doing what they do...

An Iraqi man mourns a family member


Bill O'Reilly denies there is a civil war in Iraq. "...they're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."


A child cries after her parents were killed by coalition troops

Meanwhile,
the other terrorism persists.


An Iraqi family mourns for a young boy killed in a coalition attack

Tags:

• oreilly
• iraq
• terrorism
• fundamentalism
• propaganda

A new blog and a great idea

I've started a new blog at wordpress. It's called Why Nature Matters and it will be home to my writings on, well, why nature matters and how to talk to an environmental skeptic. I'll be spending a lot of time on it, and less time here. I aim to keep the new blog free of politics or personal thoughts, so I will keep posting those sorts of things here.

I hope you'll visit the new blog and find it useful.

Now for the great idea: I detect a little bit of Buckminster Fuller in this. Many countries pay their citizens 'social income' - that is, income that is in addition to anything you get from work or investments. Kuwait, for example, used to pay all of its citizens from its oil wealth.

It's an interesting idea, and you can read more about it here.

An Open Letter to Climate Change Skeptics

Dear Skeptics:

I am what your side would call an 'environmentalist hand wringer.' I believe that global warming is a threat that should be taken seriously.

I have been called a 'useful idiot' by the people on your side. I won't argue about that. I am an intelligent layman with no professional background in science but a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn. And from my perspective, your side isn't doing so well.

We laymen face an ongoing deluge of information on every subject. As a result, we have developed strategies to make quick judgments about an issue. When someone makes a claim about global warming or secondhand smoke or the health effects of junkfood, we don't always have the math or science background to evaluate the claim.

But there are many other things to consider: what is the background of the promoter? Are there obvious conflicts of interest? Is the commenter a scientist? A scientist in the field? Does he or she offer evidence or just rhetoric? Show a real understanding of the topic?

Lately public opinion in the US seems to be headed my way. Polls show that most people in the US believe global warming is a threat and we should do something about it. In this, we are catching up to the other industrialized nations.

Your side doesn't believe there's a threat. You claim a liberal bias to the media, that the effects are overblown because fear sells. You claim that scientists are afraid to speak the truth for fear of losing funding or jobs.

Frankly, that is bunk. There is plenty of money available for skeptics.

Michael Crichton is a bestselling author who published a novel, State of Fear, raising doubts about global warming. He has since sold more than 1.5 million copies, met with President Bush to advise him on climate change, and testified before congress.

Senator James Inhofe was Chairman of the Department of Environment and Public Works. He has received 850,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician, published a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. For this he was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine and won a powerful position in the Danish government for his views.

Steve Milloy has made a career out of doubting established science on tobacco, the environment, and gun control. Not surprisingly, his 'scientific' positions follow a predictable political trend. Far from being ostracized and denied funding, he is regular commentator on Fox News and has received thousands from ExxonMobil.

So there's no lack of funding for skeptics. What about fear of professional reprisals?

Tim Patterson, Bob Carter, Richard Lindzen, and Ray Spencer are all university professors who have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed doubt about global warming. Some of them have also earned a little extra income from ExxonMobil and others for their views.

Ad hominem, you cry. Vile, baseless rhetoric!

But is it really? Or is it a good way to evaluate how reliable certain positions are?

Inhofe calls global warming a hoax – but he is in the pocket of the oil industry and a career politician to boot. Why trust him? Michael Crichton is a fiction writer – why trust him?

What was I supposed to think when Congressman Joe Barton launched an investigation of a noted climate scientist (Michael Mann). Is Barton a reliable source for decisions about global warming? In 2001 Barton declared "As long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that." In 2005 he engineered an outrageous government giveaway to the oil industry with the Gasoline For America's Security Act, right as the industry was posting record profits. He worked as a consultant for the oil and gas industry before becoming a congressman.

So what did intelligent laymen think when Barton launched his investigation of Mann and demanded to see all Mann's data, all his funding records, details about his work on the International Panel on Climate Change, and his entire Curriculum Vitae?

And let's not forget the background noise: a Republican Congress that has, at best, a troubled relationship with science. In one corner we have multiple supporters of Intelligent Design, over there we have Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo by video, and in this corner we have someone inviting Michael Crichton to testify against global warming.

Perhaps I am a useful idiot for the secret cabal of climate scientists out there, a member of H. L. Mencken's great Booboisie.

But if I am a useful idiot, then aren't Senator Inhofe and Representative Barton harmful idiots for your side?

If your science is right, you are doing a terrible job promoting it. Really. Lomborg, Crichton, and Milloy show us its not a lack of funds. Patterson, Carter, Lindzen, and Roy Spencer demonstrate that its not fear of speaking out.

So what is it that is causing your side to lose the public debate?

Could it be your science?

Tags:

• globalwarming
• science

9 Arguments Used by Environmental Skeptics (and How to Counter Them)

1. It costs too much to save the environment.


Not so. Take subsidies paid to the fishing industry: "...governments subsidize the destruction of oceanic resources to the tune of $15-30 billion each year. In 2001, subsidies paid to the fishing industry in Japan reached $2.5 billion, equal in value to a quarter of the catch. U.S. fishing subsidies totaled $1.2 billion, exceeding the worth of 30 percent of the U.S. catch.... A global network of marine reserves protecting up to 30 percent of the world’s oceans would cost around $13 billion — far less than the subsidies that currently promote overfishing. Such a network would also create some 1 million new jobs and bolster the number of fish that can be caught in nearby waters." (reference, emphases mine)

Also consider ecosystem services - the economic benefits provided by a healthy environment, like flood control, water filtration, and CO2 absorption. A 1997 paper in Nature (see also here) concluded "For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate." An estimate of the value of Canada's boreal forests put the value of their ecosystem services at $93 billion a year, 9% of Canada's GDP.

Then there is the Stern report, which stated that it would be far cheaper to spend money to prevent global warming now, rather than trying to deal with its effects later.



2. Environmentalists just want more government restrictions on freedom.


Whose freedom?

Your freedom to drink clean water and breathe clean air, or the freedom of multinational corporations to pollute? Whose rights will be affected if, say, the oceans run out of fish?



3. There is more forest in the USA now than there was 100 years ago!


This is true. But is it healthy forest?

There is more forest now because most of the continent was deforested in the 19th century. Before European settlers arrived, there were more than a billion acres of forest in the US (including Alaska). Now there are about 750 million acres, young, fragmented, and radically changed from the pre - European condition: 10% of the 800 tree species in the USA are non native species.

The latest data ("Forest Resources of the United States, 2002") says that about 56 million acres of that are tree plantations - not natural forests but large stands of particular trees that offer a profit but poor habitat. Another 504 million acres are classified as timberland - land that could produce timber - and is occasionally logged for that purpose. In addition, forests are fragmented by roads and urban and suburban sprawl. This is one reason for the rapid decline in the population of the Cerulean Warbler and other species which require large tracts of undisturbed forest.

As economy and population booms, these pressures will increase. "In the last decade, the South lost 2.9 million acres to sprawl while another 4.5 million acres of native forest were replaced with fast growing pine plantations. In addition, logging is predicted to increase across the South by 50% by the year 2040 with a loss of as much as 31 million acres of forested land." (reference)

The National Atlas website has a fascinating tool that lets you look at forest fragmentation in the USA, as well as a lot of other data. I also highly recommend The Hidden Forest by John Luoma as an overview of forest ecology.



4. Polar bear populations are actually growing, so melting ice from global warming isn't a threat.


Polar bear populations are increasing. This is mainly due to a global ban on hunting in the 1970's. Since that time polar bear population has increased from 5,000 worldwide to 20,000 or so.

But the polar bears are showing considerable signs of stress. "Polar bears in western Hudson Bay weigh about 15 percent less (about 150 pounds less for an adult male) than they did 30 years ago." (reference)
The Hudson Bay bear population "has plunged 13 percent in 10 years, from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004. Scientists have also documented thinner bears, lower female reproductive rates, and reduced juvenile survival in this population of bears."

And it's not just in Hudson Bay: "...in December of 2005, the U.S. government released a study showing that polar bear drownings off the north coast of Alaska, once rare, have been happening with greater frequency. Reduced sea ice means polar bears have to swim greater distances than before, which puts them at greater risk of drowning." (reference) Polar bears are also endangered by pollution, especially around Norway and Russia. (reference)



5. Environmentalists killed millions by banning DDT!


Tim Lambert, on his blog Deltoid and his older blog has a ton of information regarding what really happened with DDT and malaria in the third world. There was never a global ban on DDT. The United States banned DDT after we had eradicated malaria.

In third world countries, insects quickly developed resistance to DDT from overspraying (see also here) and malaria cases surged in the late 60's and early 70's. Since then, other methods have been developed. DDT is still recommended by the WHO for use in residual indoor spraying, in which a small amount of DDT is sprayed on interior walls to discourage mosquitoes from resting indoors.



6. Evolution will take care of everything. The fittest species will survive, others will die out.


Evolution will indeed kick in. Insects and microorganisms (many of which just happen to cause disease) will evolve very quickly, because they reproduce frequently and in great quantities. A look at the rapid development of pesticide resistance in insects demonstrates this. Larger vertebrates, who require several years to reach sexual maturity and who produce smaller broods, will not be so lucky.



7. We are going in the right direction already.


After all, air and water is cleaner in the United States that it was 30 years ago, right? The question is, have we gone far enough, and are we moving fast enough? Our progress is reason for hope, but it's not a reason to dismiss the serious problems we still face.



8. Humans are more important than some moss or caterpillars.


This assumes that humans are fundamentally separate from nature. Environmental changes affect humans. Think of natural disasters, or disease spread by insects. What about health problems caused by pollution? What about the fact that 1 billion humans depend on fish to provide their daily protein?



9. Technology will solve our problems.


This is only partly true. Technology combined with a focus on solving the problem will solve our problems. Technology has historically allowed us to destroy natural resources much faster, rather than making us more efficient. The most technologically advanced nations in the world also use the most resources per capita. (reference, pdf)

Rumsfeld Faces War Crimes and the Dems Show Some Spine

There are some glimmers of hope in the dark perspective offered in the last post. The new democratic leadership is showing some guts: Nancy Pelosi is proposing strict anti lobbying legislation and Patrick Leahy is already pushing to restore the right of Habeas Corpus, a right that was written into the Bill of Rights yet ignored by the Bush Administration.

And Rumsfeld now faces charges for war crimes. Sadly, it's in German courts. But Rumsfeld now lacks some of the protections that his post as Secretary of Defense gave him. It's about time.