Two Reading Tips - EPA Climate Change Report And William Barr's History Misleading Congress With A Summary

This post offers an introduction to two articles that I think are worth reading.  One is about an EPA report on economic impacts of Climate Change and how we can reduce them.  The other gives some background on William Barr and how he mischaracterized to Congress an internal Justice Department memo in 1989.

The Climate Change one isn't news to people immersed in the topic, but adds the weight of Trump's EPA giving the warning. And it's something to pass on to skeptics.   The Barr piece is important context ( that I haven't seen elsewhere)  for his summary of the Mueller Report

Part 1:  Climate Change

Even when the fire is raging and police and firefighters issue mandatory evacuation orders, there are people who refuse to leave their homes.   Climate change happens more gradually than raging wildfires, but the devastation is more extensive and the damage will continue to increase if we don't slow things down.   Here's an LA Times article* about a recent EPA report on the future economic impact of climate change and how a carbon pricing scheme could reduce the future impacts by half.

"By the end of the century, the manifold consequences of unchecked climate change will cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars per year, according to a new study by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those costs will come in multiple forms, including water shortages, crippled infrastructure and polluted air that shortens lives, according to the study in Monday’s edition of Nature Climate Change. No part of the country will be untouched, the EPA researchers warned.
However, they also found that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and proactively adapting to a warming world, would prevent a lot of the damage, reducing the annual economic toll in some sectors by more than half."

This is from the Trump administration's EPA!!!!!  (Do I need more than the exclamation points, each of which represent another outrageous decision by the EPA to loosen standards that help individual companies and compromise the future for the rest of us?)

Who could sit around, unconcerned about climate change?  I ask that question daily.  Here's my current version of the answer:

• people who don't know - they only know what's on the news and the media's 'balanced' coverage which gives the 1% deniers equal time with the 99% of scientists who know that climate change is real, gives them a false sense that it's still up for debate
• people who have a vested interest in not knowing - they have corporations or jobs or investments in those corporations that are maintaining their current lifestyle  (this includes politicians who get significant funding from those oil and coal interests)
• people who don't care - they think that they will be gone before the real impacts hit and they don't have kids or grandkids who will be affected; or they, for whatever reasons, can't concern themselves with the fate of others

I'm convinced that Climate Change is the most serious challenge to human existence (both in terms of surviving, and for those who survive, living in a world with a regular life with access to food, housing,  and safety.)   That's why I belong to Citizens Climate Lobby and why our local chapter was pleased that we got the Anchorage Assembly to pass a resolution endorsing the current Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.  It's true, the Assembly's resolution, by itself, does little.  But as part of the CCL's webpage of all the other endorsers, it's like a signature on a petition with many, many others.  It's telling legislators who are concerned about the politics of Climate Change, that there are many people and organizations out there that have their backs.

In any case, I'd recommend reading the LA Times article so when you talk to deniers or avoiders you have data to push them closer to understanding why we can't dawdle on this.

*Note:  There are two LA Times articles.  One was a last week in something called LA Times Science Now and it includes a useful chart.  The other is a shortened version in today's regular LA Times.

As if that weren't enough for one post, here's another piece to help people understand William Barr and his history of writing summaries for Congress.


2.  William Barr's Past Summarizing For Congress

Just Security  has an article on a 1989 situation where then Attorney General William Barr misled Congress with a summary of a Justice Department document that, when finally made public, showed Barr's deception. An excerpt:

"Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.
When Barr withheld the full OLC opinion in 1989 and said to trust his summary of the principal conclusions, Yale law school professor Harold Koh wrote that Barr’s position was “particularly egregious.” Congress also had no appetite for Barr’s stance, and eventually issued a subpoena to successfully wrench the full OLC opinion out of the Department.
What’s different from that struggle and the current struggle over the Mueller report is that we know how the one in 1989 eventually turned out."

It got Barr off the hook in the short term and he was no longer Attorney General when it was finally made public.  My experience is that people tend to use the same strategies that served them in the past.  If Barr can keep the Mueller Report hidden until after the 2020 election, he'll have done his job.  Compare this good-old-boys-protecting-their-own behavior with the tell-it-like-it-is language of people like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!

We need to see the Mueller Report!  

Remember, you're not helpless.  You have power.  You can let your Congressional Rep and your Senators see these documents and let them know how you feel.  No, your one contact (phone, email, or mail) won't change things, but along with thousands of others, it will.  (The links help you connect with your members of Congress.)

Anchorage Assembly Passes Resolution Endorsing Passage of HR763 Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend Act l

Our local Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) chapter has worked hard on a variety of activities, and one was to get a resolution from the assembly endorsing a carbon fee and dividend law be passed in Congress.  The vote was 8-1.  The lone holdout felt that such a resolution was just a feel-good action that had no effect whatsoever.

Taking from the perspective of just Anchorage, one might say he's right.  Passing the resolution doesn't actual 'do' anything.  But on a larger scale, the Citizens Climate Lobby is asking its local chapters - nearly every Congressional district has at least one chapter - to get such endorsements to give demonstrate support across the country.  Just one city like Anchorage passing a resolution is not a big deal.  CCL gathers all the endorsements and puts them on their website.

If you go to the link, there are lots of individuals, but only a few cities and local governments.  That's because the legislation was just introduced recently and previous city and local governments endorsed the generic idea of a carbon fee and dividend.

So passing a resolution like this is like Anchorage signing a petition.  Just one person alone isn't much, but hundreds or thousands start to make a collective difference.  I want to thank Assembly members Dick Traini, Chris Constant, and Pete Petersen for sponsoring the resolution.

Will it make a difference for our Congressional delegation?  Well, we've been talking to all three for a while now and Sen Murkowski has stepped out on this issue.   But when people around the country look at the list, they will see the largest city in the state most affected by climate change so far has endorsed this legislation.

So that's all I have to say.  But here are two pictures I took today in Anchorage.

One of Campbell Creek off of Tudor a little east of Lake Otis.

And the other is downtown as the blue sky and puffy white clouds reflect off the Atwood Building.

Hey Dems - Disagreement Is Human, But Don't Cut Off The Supply Of AOC's

"HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS"  is the headline of an Intercept article that tells us the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

"warned political strategists and vendors Thursday night that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business."

I don't know if that would have prevented Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez from knocking off one the most senior Democratic representatives last year in the primary.  I don't think they took her seriously or even considered he might lose.  Though the demographics of the district had changed in AOC's favor.

But look at yet one more example of how this young, articulate Democrat is shaking things up among the old white guys in Congress.  And, because of Youtube and other social media, the world gets to see her doing it.




Any one being honest with themselves has to be impressed with her content and delivery.   She's calling out people who have been getting away with murder (if you count all the lives lost because of poor health care access, because of the hundreds of thousands civilians who have died in our war in Iraq to avenge the three thousand or so who died on 9/11.  That's like a hundred eyes for an eyes for an eye.

But let's take heart in the powerful young, diverse, often female voices that are shaking things up in Congress.  I understand that the Democratic establishment is used to doing things a certain way and they have good reasons to believe in things like supporting incumbents.  But do you think you would be watching inspiring videos today if Joe Crowley had beaten AOC in that primary?  Did ordinary people even know who Joe Crowley is?

Competition makes incumbents stronger when they get in the general election.  DCCC back off.  Let the best candidate win the primary.  These young members of Congress will bring younger voters to the polls.  AOC says in the video she will turn 30 soon.  We remember Alexander the Great even though he died in his 3rd year.

The DCCC should be encouraging new young leaders.  It should also be teaching candidates how to run competitively, but fairly and on the issues.  If they must enforce anything, it should be personal attack against other Democrats.  It should help staff and candidates with addiction problems, with relationship and other problems.  Life is difficult in the US these days.  Our moral and emotional support systems are falling apart.  And campaigning is particularly challenging to one's social life and offers lots of temptation to compromise one's ethics.  

[Conservatives who see her as a threat, well, you should.  Your party is supporting the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and your inability to see that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity because of your personal vested interests, is not only tragic for you, but for all the rest of humankind who will suffer because you've refused to take action.  I'm sorry.  All your arguments on this topic are dead wrong.  Fighting climate change, as AOC says, will be much cheaper than not doing anything.  Actually, a carbon fee with dividend (a bill is already in the House) is the easiest and most effective first step.  Working to develop and support alternative energy not only will create significant numbers of jobs and help keep the US competitive in the post carbon world.  Though that won't have much meaning in a world of endless floods, storms, droughts, heat waves, that will result in disrupting agriculture that feeds the world and the wars that will follow.   You believe in the Rapture, but not Climate Change?  And the delay in countering climate change that AOC talks about is already costing us lives and health and disrupting how humans live.  Just a note - the war in Syria was preceded by a multi-year drought that forced farmers off their land and into the cities where they made up a large pool of unemployed and discontented revolutionaries.  There were other issues, of course, but the disruption of the economic system caused by drought was a big factor. But working together to fight this shouldn't be based on fear, but on the much better world that will come of it.]

Once Again, Lisa Murkowski Shows Fellow Republicans What Principled Courage Looks Like - This Time On Climate Change

No one with an open mind who learns the basics of climate change, can have any doubt it's real, it's human caused, and it's going to mess with our planet big time.  The sooner we take serious action to slow it down, the fewer the climate caused disruptions in the future.  Action to slow down climate change will have more long-term impact on humanity than any other issue.

You have to have a reason to oppose action to slow climate change - a big financial interest in burning carbons, or pressure from important friends who have such an interest.  Friends who have banned the words 'climate change' from Republican lips, and won't be your friend if they somehow slip out of them.  Some of these people are so committed to their party that they stay willfully ignorant.  Others know there is a conflict between their party position and reality and it probably eats them inside when they think about their inaction.  (So the more they hear about this from their constituents, the sooner they will take action.  So contact your Republican Senators.)

And now we have two US Senators from CO2 producing states - a Democrat, Joe Manchin, from the coal country of West Virginia and the other from my oil rich home state of Alaska, Republican Lisa - writing an opinion piece in the Washington Post - Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin: It’s time to act on climate change — responsibly.  A short excerpt:

The two of us have more in common than might meet the eye. We come from different parties, but we are both avid outdoorsmen and represent states that take great pride in the resources we provide to the nation and to friends and allies around the world. Alaska and West Virginia know that resource development and environmental stewardship must move in tandem, which is why we are committed to putting forward bipartisan solutions to help address climate change.
There is no question that climate change is real or that human activities are driving much of it. We are seeing the impacts in our home states. Scientists tell us that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Rising temperatures and diminishing sea ice on Alaska’s shores are affecting our fisheries and forcing some remote communities to seek partial or total relocation. In summer 2016, West Virginia experienced unprecedented flooding that killed 23 residents and inflicted tremendous damage across the state.

This is big.  In the cases of both Senators, CO2 production is important, and politicians cross the producers at their own risk.  Manchin just won reelection, so he has six years for his constituents to forget this, or for them to come to appreciate his leadership on the issue in their state.  Murkowski has four more years to her next election.

And Murkowski and Manchin are the Chair and Ranking Member* of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee respectively.

The fact that this is big highlights a lot of what's wrong about politics in the US - big anonymous money supporting or attacking politicians because of their stance on a particular issue.  [Note:  Alaska Common Ground and others are hosting a talk by Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, March 21 at 49th Street Brewing at 6pm with a live feed.]

If you think about political parties as religious denominations, it's easier to understand the difficulty for someone like Lisa Murkowski.  She's grown up Republican.  Much of her family and many of her close friends are Republicans.  And it's a tightly controlled church - particularly for elected Republican officials.  They want you to toe the party line.  Every step over that line is seen as a betrayal of your religion and all your family and friends who believe.  And during this administration, there's an added pressure - a vindictive president who punishes people who disagree with him.

On the other hand, Lisa Murkowski, while seen by Democrats as making the right decisions on some key policies, is, after all, a Republican who takes the wrong stand from their perspective, on a lot of issues - like drilling in ANWR.  She and Manchin can argue they are the people in the middle who better reflect what Americans want.  Except that the middle has moved so far to the right on many issues that the middle is far to the right of someone like Richard Nixon.  (And conservatives will, correctly, look at some social issues - like LGBTQ rights - as examples of leftward movement.)

But Murkowski was abandoned by the Republican party in 2010 when Joe Miller beat her in the primary.  She ran as a write-in candidate and, with the help of Alaska Native organizations and many Democrats, was reelected in the regular election.  After ditching her, the Republicans took her back in the fold, though only very reluctantly for many.

So it's important for Alaskans to let her know we've got her back.  (Do we?  We'll see what kind of primary opposition Murkowski gets and whom the Democrats will nominate, I guess.)  At the very least, people should send her a note, an email, or call her office  ((907) 271-3735) and thank her for taking this stand on climate change.  And ask two friends to do the same.

And West Virginians you can email Joe Manchin and thank him.

And the rest of you can let them know you appreciate their taking a principled stand on climate change.  And if you have another Republican Senator, let them know they should take the Climate Change Plunge as well.



*Ranking Member is the most senior member of the committee of the minority party.

Let's March

Seattle, where we've spent most of the month, had one of the coldest Februaries on record and including one of the snowiest.
San Francisco, where we spent part of the month, was rainy and February temps were well below normal.
And the LA Times says today that LA had its first February since they've been keeping records ( "at

least 132 years") when temperature never reached 70˚F.  The average was down from 68˚F to 61˚F.

Meanwhile Anchorage started February a little warmer than normal and ended a little colder than normal.

So, does this mean Trump is right and Climate Change is a hoax?  Weather is NOT Climate.  Weather is what happens short term.  Climate is the larger overall trends.  And Climate Change is about change.  That doesn't mean just getting warmer (though that's the overall trend).  It also means more extremes, more volatility, and changes that will affect how much water areas have, whether traditional crops will survive, whether heat and floods will change the landscapes.

Climate change is real and businesses know it and are concerned.   Only ideologues who reject science for vanity and ideology don't believe it.

But meanwhile, Let's March.  Let's enjoy this month.  Our last full day in the Seattle area is beautiful.  And I'm looking forward to getting some sunny wintertime in Anchorage tomorrow.

So, What Exactly Is The Green New Deal? Here's A Copy Of The Resolution

Like a lot of people, I suspect, I liked the idea of a Green New Deal, but didn't really know much about the details.  So I looked online to find the document that spells it out.  What I got was the resolution that was introduced in Congress.  You can scroll down to find it all below.

Some thoughts:
1.  It's more a set of goals and priorities than a plan of things to do.  Though it does have some specific targets, like reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40-60% from 2010 levels by 2030
2.  It pulls together a whole range of issues that are normally dealt with (if at all) separately, and by the grouping of them here, makes the point that they are all related and must all be considered jointly.
3.  It sets out lots of important social/economic values - like protecting marginalized folks (a long list that goes from indigenous folks, to depopulated rural communities, low-income workers) - as needing to be protected from negative consequences of the changes.

The Right Wing Nay-Sayers have already begun attacking it for all sorts of reasons that boil down to demonizing it among the Right and splitting support on the Left.   I hope people are learning to see through such tricks.

FDR's New Deal was a series of bills all tied together by a common concept of getting people jobs, food, hope.  This could be the same.

I hope that a carbon fee and dividend bill - one has already been introduced in the House - will be one of the first successes of the Green New Deal.  All the analysis I've seen shows a Carbon Free and Dividend Bill is the most politically feasible and most effective way to quickly start reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wanted to break it down and make it more consumable, but to do that right is going to take some time and creativity.  In the meantime, here's a copy of the resolution.

Green New Deal Resolution by on Scribd

Joel Sartore's Photo Ark

 Here's a post I forgot to put up.  We stopped at the Annenberg Space For Photography when we were in Los Angeles.

These posters were on the street light poles on my bike ride to the beach, but I'd never been to the Annenberg.

This museum is in Century City and is free, but parking is $4.50.  But if you get there after 4:30pm, it's only $1.50.  Since it's a small space and it closes at 6:00pm, there's enough time.

Joel Sartore is the photographer.

The photos are magnificent.  I only had my little camera to take pictures of pictures.  This one is a close up of his photo.

Despite humans' greater abilities to think and communicate, those abilities too often are used to destroy the natural habitats of these animals.  Whether by turning natural spaces - forests, plains, jungles, shorelines, wetlands - into farmland, oil fields,  mines, housing, battlefields, or simply cutting the trees or taking all the fish, we have radically endangered a multitude of species.

And that's not to mention how climate change further threatens the animal world.

This exhibit is a reminder of the mass plundering humans have done and the diversity of amazing animals we're likely going to wipe off the face of the earth.   Sorry this is blurry, but it's all I have of this message.

Another Prediction About 2019 Science Events - This Time From Science Magazine

The other day I posted an LA Times list of science events or projects that would likely be in the news in 2019.  Science Magazine has also put out such a list.  They didn't explain the order, so I took the liberty of grouping events under the same title (ie Climate Science) together.  I also took as little as I could to post here, just what I thought was enough for readers to understand what they were talking about.  Go to the original form more details.   Let's see where the two lists - LA Times and Science Magazine -  overlap.


CLIMATE SCIENCE   (LA Times talked about the many projects on Antarctica)
All eyes on polar ice
If you want to understand Earth's warming future, look to the poles. This year, scientists in two international projects will heed that call. In September, researchers will position a German icebreaker, the RV Polarstern, to freeze in Arctic sea ice for a year's stay. The ship will serve as the central hub for the €120 million Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate, hosting researchers from 17 countries.

CLIMATE SCIENCE
Solar dimming gets a test
A geoengineering technique to curb global warming by temporarily dimming the sun's rays could get its first, modest field experiment this year. In solar geoengineering, vast amounts of reflective aerosol particles would be sprayed into the high atmosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions.

SCIENCE POLICY 
A science whisperer for Trump
For 2 years, President Donald Trump has been making decisions involving science and innovation without input from a White House science adviser. Meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, whom Trump nominated in late July 2018 to fill that void, was awaiting final Senate approval at press time. The question is what his arrival will mean for the administration's handling of an array of technical challenges, from regulation of human embryo engineering and self-driving cars to combatting cyberterrorism and fostering a more tech-savvy workforce.

SCIENCE POLICY
Divided we stand?
You'll need a Ouija board to predict how U.S. science will fare this year under a divided government, with Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives while Republicans retain the Senate with President Donald Trump in the White House. There are the known flashpoints—Democrats challenging the Trump administration on its environment and energy policies, for example.


PARTICLE PHYSICS
Seeking new physics in the muon
By studying the magnetism of a particle called the muon, physicists hope to find results this year that could point to new particles or forces, something they have craved for decades. Scientists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, are examining whether the muon—a heavier and shorter-lived cousin of the electron—is more magnetic than theory predicts.


BIOPHYSICS
A fine-grained look inside cells
In cell biology, higher resolution means more gets revealed. Now, scientists are ready to use new combinations of tools and techniques to provide close-up looks at components inside cells in unprecedented detail, and in 3D. Already, researchers can analyze DNA, proteins, RNA, and epigenetic marks in single cells. This year, multidisciplinary teams plan to combine those methods with advances in cryoelectron tomography, labeling techniques to trace molecules, and other types of microscopy to see subcellular structures and processes.


BIOTECHNOLOGY
New GM mosquitoes take off
The first release of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes in Africa is set to happen in Burkina Faso this year, an initial step in a planned "gene drive" strategy against malaria. It will be the first release of GM mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles, which transmits the parasite responsible for the disease. The gene drive approach, under development at the nonprofit consortium Target Malaria, would spread mutations through the wild population that knock out key fertility genes or reduce the proportion of female insects, which transmit disease.


CONSERVATION
Nations size up biodiversity
Three years in the making, a $2.4 million assessment of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems will be published in May. By evaluating trends over 50 years in indicators such as species extinctions and extent of marine protected areas, it will chart progress toward international goals on biodiversity conservation—and, in many places, how far short the world is falling.



SPACE SCIENCE  (LA Times talks about New Horizon)
The next planetary mission
In July, NASA will chart its next major step in planetary science when it selects the next billion-dollar mission under its New Frontiers program. The agency will choose between two finalists. Dragonfly would send a semiautonomous quad-copter to fly across the surface of Titan, the saturnian moon sculpted by rivers of liquid methane. The copter would search for clues of chemical reactions that could lead to life. The Comet Astrobiology Exploration Sample Return mission would return gases and ice from the nucleus of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

RESEARCH ETHICS
A push to return museum holdings
Researchers are beginning new efforts to return bones and cultural artifacts collected for study and as museum specimens to the peoples from whom they were obtained, often without consent. Expect renewed debate on this issue, as after centuries of exploitative collecting, some researchers use new methods to collaborate with those communities, and also expand efforts to return objects of art.

#METOO  (I'm grouping this with other ethics related ones)
New rights for alleged harassers
This year, the U.S. Department of Education may finalize controversial proposed rules that would reduce universities' liability for policing sexual harassment and sexual assault and give more rights to the accused. The regulations, proposed in November 2018, would change how institutions investigate such allegations under the landmark 1972 law known as Title IX. They wouldn't be responsible for investigating most off-campus incidents of harassment or assault, and the standard of evidence for confirming allegations of on-campus misconduct could rise.

BIOETHICS
China eyes bioethics overhaul  (LA Times does cover this one)
China is likely to tighten its rules for genetic engineering of humans, including the creation of heritable traits, in the wake of an uproar over such work in 2018. A Chinese scientist named He Jiankui announced in November 2018 that he modified a gene in embryos that led to twin baby girls.

LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE
Disease crisis looms for swine
Pig farmers—and perhaps some bacon lovers—will anxiously scan the headlines this year for news of African swine fever (ASF). Harmless to humans, the viral disease is highly infectious and lethal among pigs, causing serious economic damage through culls and trade bans.

Seems this one is more geared to scientists and the LA Times list toward a lay audience, which makes perfect sense.

Big Science Stories 2019 -Space, Metric System, Antarctica, Opioids, Periodic Table, Climate Lawsuit, Moon, Gene Editing, Gun Research

We get so much news, so fast, and so superficially covered, that it's hard to separate the trivial from the truly significant.  We knew, back in 1969, that landing on the moon was a major change for human beings in their relationship with space and with humans' self image.  But today such earth-shattering (certainly in a figurative sense the moon landing was) events whiz by our consciousness.*

So I'm offering you some predictable science events coming up this next year as outlined by Deborah Netburn, Melissa Healy, Julia Rosen in the LATimes today under the title, "Nine stories to watch in the new year."  Of course, the article itself has a lot more details on each project/event.  And it has cool pictures too.

I'm going to put this list on the refrigerator, so when these become news stories, I will remember they were coming and have a more holistic sense of them all together.  And I can add other key stories that aren't on this list.  

1.  New Horizons pays historic visit to Ultima Thule: While you’re sipping champagne this New Year’s Eve, a spacecraft 4 billion miles from Earth will be making history.

2.  "Redefining the metric system: On May 20, the international metrology community will change the definitions of four basic units of measurement: the kilogram (mass), the Kelvin (temperature), the mole (amount) and the ampere (electrical current)."

3.  "Antarctica gets ready for its close-up: It’s summer in Antarctica, which means it’s the season for science. In January, two big expeditions will begin to explore pressing questions about how the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is changing — and what that means for the rest of the planet."

Sorry, can't skip this comment from the Antarcica story without my own comment:

"In addition, scientists will “collaborate” with seals by outfitting them with monitoring equipment that gathers data as they forage."

Even with the quotes around collaborate, this is still misleading.  They are using seals to further their research.  Whether the actual experiment is ethical or not, using 'collaborate' makes it sound much more like the seals are eagerly in on this and getting something out of it too.  (And the research may well be intended to help the seals long term, but the seals surely are not willing collaborators.)

4.  "New ways to prevent opioid abuse: The statistics of opioid dependency and death remain grim. And let’s not sugarcoat this: The data suggest things will probably get worse before they get better. In 2019, government agencies, health policy experts and medical researchers will be looking for ways to change the trajectory of this American crisis."

5.  "The periodic table turns 150: It’s time to step back and appreciate one of the great marvels of science. That’s why the United Nations has designated 2019 the International Year of the Periodic Table.
The choice wasn’t arbitrary: 2019 marks the 150th anniversary of the theory around which the table is organized. Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev discovered the cyclical pattern — or periodicity — in how the elements behave as they increase in atomic weight." 

If subtracting 150 from 2019 is a challenge, that gets us back to 1869.  So, no, Abraham Lincoln never heard of the Periodic Table because he was assassinated in 1865.

6.  "Youth climate lawsuit may finally go to trial: A landmark climate lawsuit has been inching closer to trial for four years. And in 2019, it may get its day in federal court at last — unless judges toss the case once and for all.
The suit was brought by 21 young people who say the U.S. government is violating their constitutional rights by promoting the use of fossil fuels in spite of the dangers posed by climate change." 

7.  "A traffic jam on the moon: If you thought going to the moon was passe, think again.  In 2019, China, India and Israel are all expected to land unmanned spacecraft on the lunar surface, while NASA steps up its efforts to return a human crew to the moon by 2028."

8.  "How to move forward with gene editing: Few were expecting that 2018 would see the birth of twin girls whose DNA had been edited in the lab when they were just days-old embryos. But it did, and now the scientific and bioethical questions raised by gene editing promise to be front and center in 2019."

9.  "Will money start pouring in for gun research? If the trend continues, the coming year will bring more school shootings and more mass shootings. And those will keep the complex of related issues — gun access and storage, mental health and violence prevention — front and center.
Philanthropies have responded to nearly 20 years of federal funding limits on firearms research with new private investments , and that money has begun to nurture a generation of public health researchers with expertise in these subjects."

 

*As a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand in the late sixties, I watched the moon-landing in a Thonburi classroom.  That was one event that garnered plenty of attention in - then - far away Thailand.  But I learned during those years that not hearing the US daily news wasn't that big a deal.  Things that were truly important, I would learn about.  The rest - like car crashes and routine murders - were just variations of the same story with different details that I really didn't need to know.  Exceptions like the Sharon Tate murder, I did find out about eventually.

How And Why To Talk About Climate Change - Katharine Hayhoe

Katherine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and a Christian Fundamentalist.

In this Ted Talk, she talks about how to talk to others about Climate Change by sharing your values and why climate change matters to you.

Anchorage just got through a large earthquake, one of a magnitude that has killed hundreds and thousands in other locations.  We got through it reasonably well, in part because after 1964 earthquake, geologists and engineers came up with building codes that protected most buildings.  

We need to be looking ahead right now, to implement changes that will reduce our carbon usage before we heat the planet to the level that we won't be able to easily adapt to.  And there are lots of ways to do this.  She talks about some of these options in the talk too.  

AIFF 2018: Rising From The Earthquake - Salmon, Rising Ocean's, and A Funny Story

We got to the Alaska Experience Theater late and watched the end of Anote’s Ark,  a film about the island nation Kirimati that is predicted to be underwater by 2040.  Perhaps the first nation to disappear because of climate change.  Anote is the name of the island's president and he's followed on film fighting to save his culture.

I didn't realize that it was preceded by Kings of the Yukon, so it took a while to figure out why the filmmaker was talking about salmon and the town of Emonak.  I'm guessing from the Kings impressive website that this was Matt Fox.  Here he is answering questions.

Citizens Climate Lobby (a group I'm involved with) had a presentation as a follow up to the climate change issues raised by Anote’s Ark,







The final movie of the evening (there had also been something at 3pm) was Funny Story.  The director Michael Gallagher was there with two of the main actors - Jana Winternitz and Matt Glave. (They're in that order left to right in the picture.)

There was a good crowd for all the films as the Festival volunteers have worked really hard to recover from the 7.0 earthquake that temporarily shut down Anchorage on what was supposed to be the opening day of the festival.  The Funny Story crew were on the tarmac in Seattle ready to take off when word came in of the earthquake.  They had to wait 5 hours before the flight was cleared to go to Anchorage.

It was great to hear from the crew of the film after the movie.  The film's website says this is a film about good people doing bad things.  I'd say, maybe, 'normal people doing bad things.'  I'd even allow that no one was malicious, but I have a higher bar for 'good people.'  And I'd say what they did was dumb more than bad, leading to very awkward relationships.

So, the festival is on, and actually was yesterday.  I couldn't tell yesterday and my right leg wasn't going to allow me to yesterday anyway.  But by standing through the films tonight I was ok.

The Bear Tooth might get inspected tomorrow by the city to see if they are safe, but from what I heard, the projector was damaged too.  So it's not clear when we'll see films there.  For now they are showing films at the Alaska Experience large theater.

It looks like the schedule pages are now accurate.  You can get to it here.  Three films are set at the Alaska Experience Theater starting at 3pm, 5:30pm, and 8pm.  I'll post more about what's scheduled tomorrow morning.  But if you can't wait, click on the ink.   [I'd note there are two events planned for 3pm at the AK Experience Theater, but today they told me that only the large theater is being used.  But maybe that was for today and not tomorrow.

OK, if you have kids who are off of school tomorrow, one of the 3pm showings is called FAMILY ANIMATION.   Sounds like a great activity for kids.

Intergoernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) Report

Amidst all the serious issues the Trump administration is causing, the really big issue facing everyone is global warming.  But the IPCC report that just came out is not a page turner for most people.  I challenge Netscape, Disney, Prime, and all the other producers of blockbusters to take on the issues of climate change that in a way that is both entertaining and educational.  In the meantime. . .

This is NOT easy stuff to understand.  But people should know this report was done (it's the continuation of work from the Paris Climate Change Agreement, agreed on by basically most every country except Trumpia. (This Mother Jones article gives more nuance)

It looks like the Press Release is the most understandable part of the report, and it's still work to get through.  Here's some key excerpts.

“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2oC.
“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5oC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5oC, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be.

From what I can tell, the report  is basically is comparing what will happen under the goals of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5˚C or to 2.5˚C, the feasibility of both these goals, and the impacts on the earth and life for each.

I tried to skim the main headings of the summary of findings, but they are pretty dense reading, so I've picked the list of terms listed at the end.  If people learn these terms, that would be a good start.  Then they look at the parts of the report.

Box SPM 1: Core Concepts Central to this Special Report
Global mean surface temperature (GMST): Estimated global average of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea-ice, and sea surface temperatures over ice-free ocean regions, with changes normally expressed as departures from a value over a specified reference period.
When estimating changes in GMST, near-surface air temperature over both land and oceans are also used.19{1.2.1.1}
Pre-industrial: The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity around 1750. The reference period 1850–1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial GMST. {1.2.1.2}
Global warming: The estimated increase in GMST averaged over a 30-year period, or the 30-year period centered on a particular year or decade, expressed relative to pre-industrial levels unless otherwise specified. For 30-year periods that span past and future years, the current multi-decadal warming trend is assumed to continue. {1.2.1}
Net zero CO2 emissions: Net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are achieved when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced globally by anthropogenic CO2 removals over a specified period.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR): Anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage, but excludes natural CO2 uptake not directly caused by human activities.
Total carbon budget: Estimated cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the preindustrial period to the time that anthropogenic CO2 emissions reach net zero that would result, at some probability, in limiting global warming to a given level, accounting for the impact of other anthropogenic emissions. {2.2.2}
Remaining carbon budget: Estimated cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from a given start date to the time that anthropogenic CO2 emissions reach net zero that would result, at some probability, in limiting global warming to a given level, accounting for the impact of other anthropogenic emissions. {2.2.2}
Temperature overshoot: The temporary exceedance of a specified level of global warming.
Emission pathways: In this Summary for Policymakers, the modelled trajectories of global anthropogenic emissions over the 21st century are termed emission pathways. Emission pathways are classified by their temperature trajectory over the 21st century: pathways giving at least 50% probability based on current knowledge of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C are classified as ‘no overshoot’; those limiting warming to below 1.6°C and returning to 1.5°C by 2100 are classified as ‘1.5°C limited-overshoot’; while those exceeding 1.6°C but still returning to 1.5°C by 2100 are classified as ‘higher-overshoot’.

Impacts: Effects of climate change on human and natural systems. Impacts can have beneficial or adverse outcomes for livelihoods, health and well-being, ecosystems and species, services, infrastructure, and economic, social and cultural assets.
Risk: The potential for adverse consequences from a climate-related hazard for human and
natural systems, resulting from the interactions between the hazard and the vulnerability and exposure of the affected system. Risk integrates the likelihood of exposure to a hazard and the magnitude of its impact. Risk also can describe the potential for adverse consequences of adaptation or mitigation responses to climate change.
Climate-resilient development pathways (CRDPs): Trajectories that strengthen sustainable development at multiple scales and efforts to eradicate poverty through equitable societal and systems transitions and transformations while reducing the threat of climate change through ambitious mitigation, adaptation, and climate resilience.

Just Spent My First Daylight Hours In Maui Watching Senate Hearings, But Reminded That Universe Will Continue Unaffected

We got in late last night.  I didn't set an alarm for this morning, but I woke up early enough to only miss the first half hour - much of which was repeated during breaks.

But as important as the Kavanaugh hearings may be to many of us, really, the universe isn't paying any attention.  My evidence?

We finally took off about 7pm last night from Seattle as the sun was starting to set.  We were headed southwest to Maui so we had a sunset backdrop for a long way.  The picture above - well it really looked like that from my window seat.  The sun and the rest of the universe are oblivious to what we do here on earth.

There’s still a fiery glow along the horizon at 9pm Seattle time (7pm Hawaii time).

These are just a few examples of the changing sunset over the first two or more hours of our flight, though the first picture is by far my favorite.


And as I look out over the cloud covered ocean, the sky and the water seem unaffected by the Senate Hearings as well.

Though here on earth, the activities of humans are affecting the oceans and the wind patterns and how the clouds move and how long they hang over places while they drop their load of water back to earth.  Who gets on the Supreme Court and the decisions they make about climate change, about regulations on carbon, and about various things - like campaign financing and gerrymandering - that affect who gets elected to Congress will make a difference on our planet.

Anchorage's Great September

The warm (for Anchorage high sixties and low seventies) sunny days began just before Labor Day and today continued the trend.  But it's getting darker faster each evening, it's colder in the mornings, and when the sun slides out of sight, the temps drop quicker each day.  Down into the low forties at night.  Still eating on the deck, savoring this great weather.

But the birch out front is now all yellow.

(The tree branch in front is a mountain ash. Those leaves are green and the berries are as fat and red and plentiful as I can ever remember.}

But the birch is having trouble holding all its leaves.

While North Carolina and Southern China are experiencing the worst of what climate change means for humans, Anchorage, for now, are getting one of the more comfortable side effects. (But Alaskan villages are being captured by the sea, as winter sea ice that protected the land from the ravages of winter waves thins and even disappears.  And as permafrost melts, roads and buildings built on top of it lose their footing.  And the oceans warm and acidify changing the life cycles of salmon and other marine creatures.)

Economist Dr. Adele Morris' Compelling Talk On Why Price On Carbon Is Best Way To Slow Down Climate Change

This month's Citizen Climate Lobby meeting was this morning.  Groups from all over the US (representing 85% of all Congressional districts) and many countries beyond the US borders met in a conference video call to catch up on this month's actions and to hear, economist,  Dr. Adele Morris talk about her research on implementing a carbon fee.

The introduction to Adele Morris starts about 3:12.  It's worth starting there so you know who she is and why she's worth listening to.  She begins about 4:57.




The basic point is explaining

"why economists are so unanimous in supporting a price on carbon whether through a tax on carbon or a cap and trade program.  I happen to favor a carbon tax approach for a variety of reasons.  But the point is very clear, and this is a huge consensus in my profession, that is that it's the most cost-effective way.  If you have a cost on carbon, you're incentivizing all the lowest cost ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and you're doing it in a heart beat.  Like as soon as you have a price on the carbon content of fossil fuels, that instantly changes the incentives for which power plants are going to operate more and which sources of energy are going to be more cost effective.  It gives a boost to renewables relative to their fossil competitors.  It's just the absolutely most competitive way to create a wide range of incentives across the economy."

It's much easier to just play the video and hear her clearly explain this.  She's impressive!

She goes on to briefly talk about the eleven essential questions for how to implement a price on carbon.  I've taken these from her Brookings Institute webpages:

"Click on a question below to jump to its discussion: 
1. What is the name of the carbon pricing policy? 
2. What greenhouse gas (GHG) sources and gases does the policy cover? 
3. What’s the initial price and how does it change over time? 
4. Who pays the carbon charge? 
5. Who collects the revenue? 
6. What happens to the revenue? 
7. Does it change other Federal climate and energy policies, and if so how? 
8. Does it constrain state-level policies? 
9. Does it allow offsets (alternatives to paying a fee)? 
10. Does it give credits or rebates for certain activities? 
11. Does it include measures to reduce effects on U.S. competitiveness and emissions leakage? "

If this is all new info for you, you've got some serious catching up to do.

Being a member of  Citizens' Climate Lobby over the years has convinced me beyond a doubt, about Morris message:  that the most efficient, effective, and practical, and politically feasible step in slowing down climate change is a carbon fee.  

And why does this matter?  Because if climate change doesn't get slowed down, terrorism, cancer, traffic, privacy, the Supreme Court, and every other issue people are concerned about won't really matter.  We're already feeling the consequences of climate change in the loss of sea ice, in hotter summers, in fiercer storms.  All these changes will intensify and have huge impacts on human life, on what crops grow where, on the availability of water.  People will either die or move.  That movement will cause huge disruptions in agricultural output and everything else.  We are already seeing the destabilizing effects of immigration in Europe and in North America.

There is no more important issue facing human beings.

You can find out more about Citizens Climate Lobby - the most effective and efficient group I've ever seen - here.

I'd note the Anchorage group meets the second Saturday at 8:30am at UAA's Rasmuson Hall 220.  (Yes, it's early, but it's an international group video call.  And then you have plenty time left to do all your Saturday activities.)

You can find your nearest local chapter here.  There's at least one in every state and most US territories.  And in over 40 other countries.