Worldchanging: Bright Green

Oceans’ Ability To Absorb CO2 May Be Diminishing, New Study Says

Yale Environment 360 — 2009-11-20T12:02:09-08:00

A study of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans from 1765 to the present shows that as humanity pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere, the capacity of the world’s oceans to continue absorbing carbon appears to be decreasing. Researchers from Columbia University and NASA estimate that since 2000, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans may have declined by as much as 10 percent. In effect, researchers say that industrial activity has been producing so much C02 since 1950 that the oceans are slowly becoming saturated with the gas. “The more carbon dioxide you put in, the more acidic the ocean becomes, reducing its ability to hold CO2,” said lead researcher Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The study, published in the journal Nature, estimated that the oceans currently hold about 150 tons of industrial carbon — a third more than in the 1990s. The researchers used data on ocean chemistry, salinity, temperature, and other measures to calculate the amount of industrial carbon in the ocean for the past 245 years. The study showed that the land may now being absorbing more carbon than it is producing, perhaps because higher atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing the rate of photosynthesis.

This video produced by Columbia University’s Earth Institute
shows concentrations of industrially produced CO2 increasing
in the world’s oceans over the past 2 1/2 centuries.

This piece originally appeared in Yale Environment 360.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Yale Environment 360 in Climate Change at 12:02 PM)

Seattle as North America's First Carbon-Neutral City

Alex Steffen — 2009-11-20T11:01:57-08:00

Last week, I stood on the stage at Seattle's Town Hall and called on Seattle to become North America's first carbon-neutral city, dropping its per capita climate emissions to nothing by 2030.

Since then, I've gotten a whole slew of great emails and calls from people who are thinking that goal through, and have questions. Mostly, folks have been wildly supportive, generally wanting most to know how they can help build the movement to do that. I'm a writer, not an organizer, and I don't have the plan, but I can explain a little more my thinking, and share some observations about what seems to be needed right now. Hopefully those will help.

The timing and target come from the now-common observation that we need to aspire to return the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 ppm. In order to do that, we need to at very least level off at 450 ppm mid century. To do that, while billions of young people in the developing world rise out of poverty (and escape the problems of poverty), we need to create a new bright green model of prosperity, one that can be shared equitably and sustainably by all. For that model to be widely adopted by 2050, I reckon, we need to have it up and running by 2030. Because of the vastly unequal distribution of formal research and innovation capacity in the world, because of the developed world's near-complete responsibility for the climate problems we already face and because of the central role of cities in climate action, that model needs to come from the wealthier cities of the Global North. We have to invent that model and be living it in 20 years.

Building bright green cities: that's the great moral and political challenge of our day. That is our generation's Abolition, our era's World War Two. If we can achieve this, we'll provide component innovations, new mental models and more time for billions of people around the world to blaze their own trails to their own new models of prosperity. We'll address the major causes of planetary environmental destruction, relieve the suffering of hundreds of millions of people and protect the rights of future generations -- all while improving our own lives and preparing our region for the economy of the 21st century. This isn't just a win-win proposition, it's the possibility of multi-dimensional, cascading, feedback-loops full of win.

The only "non-win" about it is that it will involve change -- not sacrifice, because all the evidence suggests that most people's lives will improve; and not expense, because all of the steps we need to take return more money than we'll spend, over time (and if it makes money it's not a cost, it's an investment). Of course, people hate change. Most people want everything to stay exactly the way it was about 10 or 20 years ago; and the idea of plunging forward into a future of dramatic transformations makes many people grumpy, and a few downright psychotic.

Of course, change is the only given; and when it comes to our collision with planetary boundaries, our choice isn't whether to change or not, it's whether to act or be acted upon by vast forces we're unleashing as a consequence of our way of living today. Our current way of living is toast in either case, and will vanish within the next few decades; the only question is, what will replace it? Will our way of living be followed by millennia of ecological impoverishment, increased human suffering and diminished cultural possibilities; or will it be followed by a better way of life, one that prevents catastrophic collisions with ecological reality, and leaves us (and billions of others) wealthier, healthier and happier? That's the only real choice we have in front of us.

Now, we are really and truly on terra incognita here. No one knows exactly what a carbon-neutral North American city would look like, or what the best, fastest routes there will turn out to be. There is no map for these territories, and we'll need to cultivate an attitude of experimentation, innovation and learning as we go.

Even some of the most basic questions will demand debate: How do we define carbon-neutrality? What do we include in our carbon footprint and what do we leave out? How much can we ethically rely on offsets or other "shifted changes" to make up for the damage caused by some of our existing systems that are very slow to change? How do we wrest away the regulatory authority and fiscal capacity to make these changes, in the face of what has already been determined opposition from those industries most invested in continued ecological destruction? How do we envision the end result and help our fellow citizens connect to it as a goal? The questions go on...

But developing answers to those questions in ways that make sense in our context is part of the model we're trying to create: the conversation about change is itself part of the change we seek. Indeed, having made the case for this shift to those in our own region who are skeptical (or in some cases, directly hostile) is part of what will arm other cities, in different contexts, with information and insight to build their own cases for change. All of this is hard work, but it isn't wasted labor.

The most important part is the standard: if any sustainability plan we find ourselves discussing isn't hammering out a pathway built of measured steps and leading to zero impact in a definable and relatively immediate time-frame, it's just no longer good enough. I think zero carbon emissions by 2030 (with the interim goals of 10 percent immediate cuts and a 50 percent reduction in the next 10 years) makes sense. Others may differ. The important point is that we stop investing energy in small steps that cannot add up to the large leaps we know we need to make, and stop accepting modest (or even lame) goals as sufficient.

In fact, I'm increasingly suspicious of any proposal to make something less unsustainable, rather than following a measured path to zero impact. Surrounded by a global leadership culture that values above all else civic incrementalism, compromise and moderation (sometimes for very good reasons), many of us tend to assume that progress is gradual and that steps in the right direction are at very least a good start. But that thinking is dysfunctional for the times in which we find ourselves. We need (for really direct and documented reasons) bold, rapid action and the completion of goals on a strict timetable. If any particular action can't make a case for itself as part of a bold and rapid shift, I increasingly suspect it's a sparkly distraction, not a stepping stone.

That absolutely does not mean that everything we do must be perfect, or even produce a specific measurable impact. Steps that are specific and limited, but lead nonetheless to a larger goal are great, even if they alone won't solve the whole problem. Compact fluorescents will not save the planet, but they clearly lead to reduced energy usage, and so there's nothing wrong with encouraging their uptake as part of a march towards zero emissions in twenty years.

Even more important are cultural actions. All of the largest barriers to bright green innovation are cultural and conceptual, not technical. The technical challenges of implementation are pretty huge, but they can't be faced at all without changing the way at least an active core of people see these issues. What does a zero-impact society look like? What is the definition of prosperity? What actually makes us happy? What parts of our lives already fail to work as advertised, and what would it feel like to transform them? How would we live in this new world?

These are questions that, fundamentally, we can only tackle through art and design, creative inquiry and intellectual exploration, conversation and media. We need a movement of people engaged in this work. For while it's true that changing attitudes alone is not enough, inspired minds driving forward a cause is the only formula for real change that has ever worked: free your mind, and your ass will follow.

Free your mind, Seattle.

Image credit: Craig Allen, CC

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Features at 11:01 AM)

Companies Increase Commitment To Tackling Climate Issues, Report Says

Yale Environment 360 — 2009-11-20T10:58:27-08:00

Major corporations in the U.S. have shown an increased willingness to voluntarily reduce their impact on climate change despite a sluggish economy, according to a new scorecard produced by the nonprofit group Climate Counts. Eighty-one of the 90 major companies assessed saw an average increase of 22 percent from last year’s scorecard, with Nike topping the list with a score of 83 out of a possible 100 points. Scores are based on 22-criteria in four general areas: measurement of impact on global warming; reduction of impact; engagement in climate-related public policy; and transparency. In Climate Counts’ third corporate scorecard, several companies saw major improvements, including eBay, which completed a company-wide inventory of its effects on global warming; US Airways, which set goals to reduce climate impacts; and Apple, which resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the chamber's opposition to climate legislation. Companies with leading climate ratings include Starbucks, General Electric, HP, IBM, Unilever foods, UPS, and L'Oreal. The scorecard was developed with oversight from an independent panel of business and climate experts from universities and non-governmental groups. See the full list.

This piece originally appeared in Yale e360

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Yale Environment 360 in Business at 10:58 AM)

A Womb of One's Own

WorldChanging Team — 2009-11-20T10:31:05-08:00

by Anna Fahey

The womb is not free of toxic pollution.

This week, the Washington Toxics Coalition released a study that should raise the ire of pregnant women like me. Their findings in a nutshell: developing fetuses spend their first nine months in an environment that exposes them to a range known toxic chemicals. That environment? Their mothers’ bodies. That means my body.

The first-of-its kind study analyzed blood and urine samples from nine women in Washington, Oregon, and California during their second trimester of pregnancy, to test for 23 chemicals from five chemical groups. Their bodies were found to be contaminated with 13 of the 23 chemicals. “These chemicals can cause reproductive problems and cancer, disrupt hormonal systems such as the thyroid, and can impair brain development,” the study states.

So, why is my response ire and not panic? I guess I’m over the panic. During my pregnancy, I’ve been reading a lot about the toxics in my body and their potential effects on the fetus (and I'll be writing a lot more about this stuff in this blog series). I realize it’s too late for panic. Contrary to popular belief, my womb is not entirely my own.

I’m with the woman from this Seattle Post Globe story, Kim Radtke, who’s just plain angry. Like me, she made all the right personal decisions about her health and her pregnancy—she eats organic foods, she’s been meticulous about the products she uses, she's a midwife who's very conscious about healthy choices. Naturally, she was dismayed to learn she rated worst among the West Coast women tested for a particular class of chemicals: perfluorinated compounds. They’re used to make Teflon pans, clothing, furniture, and food packaging such as pizza boxes and fast-food containers. “That really kills me as a mom,” Radtke told the Post Globe. “I took the best care I could possible, yet this was beyond my control.”

Every woman tested was found to have been exposed to bisphenol A, delivered in such things as the lining of food cans. Each woman’s body carried two to four “Teflon chemicals”-- PFCs. All had detectable levels of mercury, known to harm brain development. And every woman was exposed to at least four phthalates, a class of chemicals that includes plasticizers and fragrance carriers found in ordinary items such as vinyl shower curtains and scented shampoos.

As the study points out, “the developing fetus is exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals,” as it possesses “only a small proportion of the adult’s ability to detoxify foreign chemicals” while it “develops at a breakneck pace in the womb.”

The research project, by Washington Toxics Coalition staff scientist Erika Shreder, was conducted to spur legislators in Washington State and Washington, DC, to continue to rein in harmful chemicals in consumer products--and at the very least demand responsible labeling and disclosure by manufacturers. As the Post Globe reports, Washington State Rep. Mary Lou
Dickerson, D-Seattle, says she will push for passage of the Safe Baby
Bottle Act, which she introduced last year. (Yes, there are harmful chemicals in baby bottles--of all things!) It passed the House, but not Senate. It would prohibit Bisphenol A in baby bottles, children's food containers and sports water bottles. (The bill doesn’t extend to the Bisphenol A in the linings of canned foods.)

These are baby steps toward wombs that aren’t tainted with chemicals--and toward healthier moms and babies. But this is exactly the kind of policy where moms and moms-to-be should direct their energy—whether it’s panic- or anger-driven...or something else.

This piece originally appeared on Sightline Daily.

Image Credit: Mahalie via Flickr, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Health at 10:31 AM)

How Carbon Markets Work in Europe

WorldChanging Team — 2009-11-20T10:28:51-08:00

by Eric de Place

In spite of what you may have heard, Europe's carbon market is working beautifully. The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been operational since 2005 and we're now getting a good look at how it functions. It turns out, it's a remarkable success story, both environmentally and economically.

Let's briefly review the major pieces of evidence.

1. European Environment Agency. A November 2009 report finds that the continent is well on its way to meeting its Kyoto targets thanks in large part to its cap-and-trade program. In fact, by 2007,14 countries had already exceeded their reduction goals, including the wealthy industrial giants of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. To wit:

EU‑wide policies are expected to contribute towards most of the planned emissions savings by the end of the period 2008–2012, in particular the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the promotion of renewable energy sources, policies targeting the energy performance of buildings and internal energy market policies.

Here's a nickel summary from Joe Romm:

...the Europeans are poised to surpass their targets under the terms of the Protocol. It is no longer plausible for those who don’t want a U.S. cap-and-trade system to point to the European Trading System (ETS) as a failure. Quite the reverse.

...the EEA analysis concludes the EU-15 will not need to rely on offsets to meet their Kyoto target

(There's more good stuff at Treehugger.) Importantly, the reductions analyzed in the EEA report do not include the effects of the global economic downturn, which has unintentionally provided much steeper reductions.

2. The German Marshall Fund of the United States. A July 2009 report is a goldmine of valuable lessons from the European experience, but for now I'm going to focus just on the carbon market aspects.

From the executive summary:

1. Emissions trading works

MIT estimates that the EU ETS has cut European emissions by 120–300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) during its first, highly imperfect phase—up to 5 percent of emissions from the covered sectors, despite excessive allocations of emissions allowances. It captured private sector attention like no other climate initiative, and its rapid introduction and impact contrasted with a decade of dispute over (failed) attempts to introduce a European carbon tax.

Recommendation: Develop an emissions trading system that learns from and improves upon the EU experience.

This is a hugely important point. The EU's cap-and-trade program was, indeed, highly imperfect. It relied on inaccurate estimates of emissions, it distributed too many carbon permits, and it distributed permits in a way that conferred windfall profits on polluters. But here's the kicker: it still worked! The ETS is ironing out its flaws and a future US program stands to benefit from Europe's lessons.

There's more good reading on this report at Climate Progress and Treehugger.

3. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. A May 2008 report provides additional context for understanding the ETS. There's too much in the Pew report to fully explicate in a short blog post, but I want to highlight some of the findings about the carbon markets:

The EUA market has exhibited the same characteristics as markets for tradable permits in the U.S., such as those for SO2 and NOx. Notably, a market developed relatively quickly without special effort on the part of the government beyond creating the scarcity, distributing the permits, and enforcing compliance. In all cases, there has been no lack of intermediaries to facilitate trading among parties with either long or short positions and to create a single price at any one moment in time for trading instruments with similar attributes.

In other words, Europe's carbon markets are functioning relatively smoothly. Despite the fact that Europe had virtually no experience with implementing a cap-and-trade program, and despite the fact that the program includes numerous sovereign nations, the cap-and-trade program works. It reduces emissions -- and it does so inexpensively and efficiently.

The success of the EU's cap-and-trade program shouldn't be surprising. It's entirely consistent with what we've seen in the US. Carbon markets working in the northeast states and cap-and-trade programs have worked across the nation for reducing air pollution.

****

Two updates (11/19/09): Jill Duggan at World Resources Institute has a good blog post on the subject.

Back in February, my colleague Clark also had a smart post about about the ETS. In fact, it's worth repeating the quote that Clark pulled from the New York Times:

In a boost for the system on Monday, however, a prominent research company, New Carbon Finance, said its calculations showed that the largest cause of a reduction in emissions in the European Union last year was attributable to the trading system — because it had encouraged greater use of gas in power generation rather than dirtier fuels like coal.

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Daily

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Politics at 10:28 AM)

Will Women's Voices be Heard in Copenhagen?

WorldChanging Team — 2009-11-20T09:51:22-08:00

from The Worldwatch Institute, a Lead Author of the United Nations Population Fund's State of the World Population 2009

Report finds that women will be most affected by climate change but remain noticeably absent from Copenhagen agenda

Washington, D.C.-Women will bear the greatest burden of a changing climate but so far have received little attention from negotiators working toward a new global climate deal, according to the 2009 edition of the United Nations Population Fund's State of World Population. Robert Engelman, Worldwatch Institute's Vice President for Programs, was lead author of the report, which argues that women's issues, and especially women's health issues, have been largely overlooked in discussions leading up to the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, this December.

"This is the first report in which a United Nations agency has connected climate change to human population and the status of women," Engelman said. "Its main finding-that investing in women and erasing the constraints on their achievement will slow climate change and build social resilience-is powerful and hopeful."

In addition to exploring the inherent connections between population and climate change, the report examines the climate issue as it pertains to multiple aspects of health, development, and the global environment. These connections have long remained at the forefront of Worldwatch's research.

State of World Population 2009 shows that investments that empower women and girls-particularly investments in education and health-also bolster economic development and reduce poverty. But these investments have an additional beneficial impact on climate. Girls with higher levels of education, for example, tend to have smaller families as adults, and the ensuing lower fertility rates contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions and improved adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

A recent report published by Worldwatch and the United Nations Foundation, Global Environmental Change: The Threat to Human Health, notes that 200 million women worldwide currently lack access to the family planning services they want or need, ranging from contraception to reproductive health counseling. The report's author, Dr. Samuel S. Myers of Harvard University, asserts that providing these services and allowing women to decide for themselves whether, when, and how often to give birth is an adaptive strategy against many of the predicted impacts of climate change-all of which will be exacerbated by larger populations needing access to resources, secure homes, and productive lands.

"No other intervention would provide more benefits across the health and environmental sectors than providing global access to family planning services," says Dr. Myers.

According to State of the World Population 2009, the poor are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and the majority of the 1.5 billion people living on $1 a day or less are women. The poor are more likely to depend on agriculture for a living and therefore risk going hungry or losing their livelihoods when droughts strike, rains become unpredictable and hurricanes move with unprecedented force. The poor also tend to live in marginal areas that are vulnerable to floods, rising seas, and storms. Research cited in the report shows that women are more likely than men to die in natural disasters-including those related to extreme weather-with this gap most pronounced where incomes are low and status differences between men and women are high.

"We can't successfully confront climate change if we neglect the needs, challenges, and potential of half the people on this planet," said UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid in a UNFPA release announcing the State of the World Population report. "If we are really serious about halting climate change, then we must get serious about eliminating inequalities between the sexes and empowering women to persevere in our warming world."

For more information or to download State of the World Population 2009, please visit http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/

This piece originally appeared on Worldwatch Institute.

Photo Credit: mckaysavage via Flickr, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Empowering Women at 9:51 AM)

Norway to Help Protect Guyana's Forests

Ben Block — 2009-11-18T11:45:47-08:00

For the past year, President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana has traveled the world offering to place his nation's forests under international supervision if other countries paid his citizens not to deforest the tropical landscapes.

The campaign received major support last week when Norway announced a $30 million commitment on Monday for the small South American nation to implement an "avoided deforestation" plan. If the program demonstrates success, Guyana will receive an additional $250 million through 2015.

"We are giving the world a workable model for climate change collaboration between North and South," said Erik Solheim, Norway's minister of environment and international development, in a statement. "It's not perfect, but it's good, and it will be improved upon as we learn and develop together."

Much of Guyana's forestland is zoned for logging activities, and avoided deforestation schemes in neighboring Brazil could push logging into Guyana. The Guyanese
government has therefore insisted that deforestation is a real threat unless international carbon funding provides an economic incentive for residents to keep forests intact.

"Our country is at a stage where our population is no less materialistic [than industrialized countries] and no less wanting to improve their lives," said Carolyn
Rodrigues-Birkett, the country's minister of foreign affairs, in an interview at the World Wilderness Congress in Mérida, Mexico. "We want to continue our development, but we can't do that without a form of payment."

When international negotiators meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December to develop a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, governments will seek to limit the nearly 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions related to forest loss through an initiative known as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

"REDD needs to be comprehensive to avoid leakage of foresters going to countries that currently have high forest cover but a low deforestation rate," said Brendan Mackey, a forest ecologist with the Australian National University. "If we don't start paying people for the ecosystem services that forests provide, they'll be used for other economic activities that result in deforestation and degradation."

For carbon-offset programs such as REDD to succeed, developing countries will need to regulate their forests in a manner that ensures that the greenhouse gas emissions are sequestered on forested land. The emissions stored in trees and soil would also need to equal the emissions emitted from the industrialized countries and companies that pay for the carbon offsets.

Concerns about accountability and project monitoring are valid but should be addressed at a later time, Rodrigues-Birkett said. "These are details. Principles have to be addressed first," she said.

Guyana is unique among REDD participants. Unlike in Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the vast forests of Guyana do not currently
face significant deforestation pressure. The country maintained consistent levels of national forest cover between 1990 and 2005, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Several conservation groups are supporting highly forested countries such as Guyana in their efforts to collect REDD funding. Although deforestation threats are currently
low in these nations, the growing demand for wood products, minerals, and cattle is likely to increase pressures in the next few decades.

"The most effective, cost-efficient REDD designs balance incentives to reduce historically high rates of deforestation emissions with incentives to maintain historically low rates of deforestation emissions," said Jonah Busch, an economist with Conservation International, an organization that has helped Guyana apply for carbon offset payments.

Norway has already committed 1.2 billion Norwegian crowns (about US$214 million) annually to support REDD efforts in Brazil and Tanzania.
Such investments would offset Norway's emissions as part of the country's plan to reduce domestic emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Guyana plans to direct the Norwegian funds toward a development plan that shifts energy generation away from fossil fuel burning and toward hydropower, sustainable forest management, and climate change adaptation measures.

"Most of our people live below sea level," Rodrigues-Birkett said. "The sea walls on our coast are extremely expensive to maintain. We can build 25 schools for our
children for the cost of half a mile of sea wall."

In hopes of following Guyana's success in attracting investment, Suriname announced earlier this month a similar plan to avoid deforestation with international support.

With 90-percent forest cover, Suriname brands itself as the "greenest country on this Earth." The plan noted that the country's reliance on bauxite, gold, and aluminum
mining for foreign exchange earnings cannot be maintained sustainably. REDD payments would help diversify the economy, according to Michael Pierre Jong Tjien Fa, minister of physical planning, land, and forest management.

"Suriname's forests embody a range of wildlife services," Jong Tjien Fa said at the World Wilderness Congress. "Intact forests provide important climate beneficial
services and must be part of endeavors for global sustainable development."

This piece originally appeared on Worldwatch Institute.

Photo Credit: Sam Rich, Creative Commons License

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 11:45 AM)

With Copenhagen Pact Stalled, Leaders Look for Climate Treaty in 2010

Yale Environment 360 — 2009-11-18T11:44:47-08:00

With the announcement by President Obama and other world leaders this weekend that no binding climate agreement will be reached in Copenhagen next month, numerous officials expressed hopes that a treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions could be signed by mid- to late-2010. Meeting in Singapore, Obama and other leaders agreed that lack of accord on setting precise emissions reductions targets would prevent the signing of a binding climate treaty in Copenhagen. But in a process that Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen labeled as “one agreement, two steps,” climate negotiators are hopeful that the 192 nations meeting in Copenhagen will sign a non-binding political agreement calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and for aid to developing nations to help them adapt to a warming world. Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said he hoped a final agreement could then be reached by mid-2010 at a meeting in Bonn. The host of the Copenhagen meeting, Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard, said officials should set a clear deadline for signing a climate treaty, possibly in time for a December 2010 meeting scheduled for Mexico City. Some environmentalists criticized Obama for the treaty delay, but others said he could not commit to firm greenhouse gas reductions until Congress acts on a pending climate change bill.

This piece originally appeared on Yale Environment 360.

Photo Credit: net_efekt via Flickr, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Yale Environment 360 in Politics at 11:44 AM)

Feedforward. The Angle of History. Part 1: Wreckage and Countermeasures

Regine Debatty — 2009-11-18T10:49:14-08:00

Previous posts about this exhibition: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-2006 and Smoke and Hot Air.

Feedforward. The Angel of History, a compelling exhibition that opened a few weeks ago at LABoral in Gijón, addresses the current moment in history where the wreckage of political conflict and economic inequality is piling up, while globalized forces--largely enabled by the "progress" of digital information technologies--inexorably feed us forward. The exhibition title references Paul Klee's watercolor Angelus Novus. Walter Benjamin saw it as depicting "the angel of history" transfixed by the wreckage of the past that is accumulating in front of him while being propelled into the uncertain future by progress.

View of the exhibition space: upstairs

Curated by Steve Dietz and Christiane Paul, the show explores a 21st century made of deep inequalities, complex tensions and a general feeling of instability. Can we count on the media to reflect accurately the political and cultural landscape? Are the media addressing and monitoring the disturbances that surround us? Or are they instead accomplice to the situation?

View of the exhibition space: downstairs

If the media do not do what we expect from them, can art step in? Which kind of role can artists play in this scenario? Is providing feedback to what they observe enough? Shouldn't we instead hope that they will adopt a more "feed-forward" attitude and inspire greater awareness and collective reaction?

The 29 artworks on show do not pretend to provide all the answers nor to cover the full spectrum of the dilemmas and tensions of our time but they explore them under many different angles. The art pieces are distributed according to five themes. One of them investigates the "wreckage" of the 21th century created by conflicts, corruption, economical inequalities, terrorism and corporatism.

Proyecto Coche: excavando el final del siglo XX. Image Barbara Fluxá

Proyecto Coche explores the wreckage quite literally. A few years ago, Barbara Fluxá discovered a Seat 127 car in the Nalón River, Asturias. Together with an archaeologist she excavated the car and documented its removal, conservation and transformation into a beautifully polished debris.

The car's specific re-discovery parallels the dawning realization of the automobile's unsustainable cultural role at the beginning of the 21st century. After the exhibition, the car will be abandoned yet again, this time at a scrap yard where it will be dismantled for re-use. Proyecto Coche is part of a series of projects that focuses on material culture as a reflection of consumer society.

Baghdad In No Particular Order, Paul Chan, photograph 2003

Baghdad in No Particular Order consists of footage that Paul Chan shot when visiting Baghdad in 2002 as a member of Voices in the Wilderness, a group formed to nonviolently challenge the economic warfare being waged by the US against the people of Iraq. The video essay of life in Baghdad shows Iraqis engaged in everyday activities. The images are almost shockingly banal. They shows Iraqis in their homes, at work, among friends, in places of worship. It's the daily, unthreatening life newspaper don't show us. Six year after the beginning of the war, Chan's film amplifies awareness of the damage inflicted on human lives. The people that appear in the movie have survived the first Gulf War. They've been dragged into another war, into oppression and occupation. Are they still alive today?

Another theme explored by the exhibition is the countermeasures of surveillance and repression that the state as well as global capital set up in an to attempt to maintain control and clean up or minimize the wreckage.

DMSP 5B/F4 from Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation (military Meteorological Satellite; 1973-054A), 2009. © Trevor Paglen

Trevor Paglan's Limit Telephotography photo series uses high powered telescopes to picture US government "black" sites and spy satellites. Paradoxically his images deepen the secrecy of their subject rather than uncover it. Limit-telephotography most closely resembles astrophotography, a technique that astronomers use to photograph objects that might be trillions of miles from Earth. Paglen's subjects are much closer but also even more difficult to photograph. To physical distance, one has indeed to add the obstacle of informational obfuscation.

FEEDFORWARD - The Angel of History is on view until April 5, 2010 at Laboral Centro de Arte y Creación Industrial in Gijón, Spain.

This piece originally appeared on We Make Money Not Art.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Regine Debatty in Arts at 10:49 AM)

"Building Cities Shouldn't be a Partisan Issue"

WorldChanging Team — 2009-11-18T10:08:31-08:00

by Sarah Goodyear

Over the weekend, we came across an article from the Isthmus of Madison, Wisconsin, reporting on a conservative scaremongering campaign against a commuter rail proposal.

It quotes a leader in the Wisconsin Republican Party painting transit-oriented development as a red menace: "This has been done before," Dane County Republican Party spokesman Bill Richardson said on a Madison radio show. "The Soviet Union and in East Berlin and all those places. They built these ... very ugly high-rise apartments, and they jammed people into these."

We were happy to see that Streetsblog Network member The Overhead Wire posted a quick response to this nonsense:

[E]veryone who reads here knows the histories and the market distortions of sprawl, which has absolutely dominated the market over the last 60 years. If anything, it's they who are forcing everyone to live their lifestyle, a sick distortion of the actual desires of at least some Americans, such as myself, who want to live in an urban walkable environment. By not providing a choice in living, or
transportation, the opponents of livable communities are telling us that the actual market doesn't matter and that they know what is best...

We know that not all in their circle believe this way, and ultimately building cities shouldn't be a partisan issue. The road towards transit and walkability is a sustainable one from a fiscal and environmental standpoint. I think many times we overlook the power of fiscal arguments for the movement at our own peril. The research on sprawl is not good, and people are starting to get it, a bit late, but at least they are starting to see how value is created by cities and urbanism is a fiscally responsible choice.

It will be interesting to see how the division over transportation policy among conservatives develops in the next few months. Will the ideology of fear trump more evidence-based economic analysis? What do you think?

This piece originally appeared on Streetsblog New York City.

Photo Credit: co_plex via Flickr, Creative Commons License

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Urban Design and Planning at 10:08 AM)

U.S. and China Announce "Positive, Cooperative and Comprehensive" Plan for Collaboration on Clean Energy and Climate Change

Joe Romm — 2009-11-18T09:17:25-08:00

"Very exciting day here in Beijing. There's enormous interest in both governments in working together to fight climate change. The package announced today is far-reaching and can make a real difference in cutting emissions."

That's an exclusive quote from David Sandalow, DOE's Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs, who just emailed me from China about the newly announced U.S.-China cooperation plan. Sandalow is going to be in Copenhagen, so I hope to have a real interview with him then. For details on this plan (with links) and what it means, here is analysis by Andrew Light and Julian L. Wong of the Center for American Progress. Note that the deal goes beyond "obvious" areas like efficiency and renewables to include things like shale gas, which appears to exist in abundance in China and could allow repowering of existing Chinese coal plants and more rapid medium-term reductions than people have thought possible.

This morning, a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:

1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. A memorandum of cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China’s National Development and Reform Commission sets out avenues for collaboration on capacity building in climate change, with an initial focus on helping China to develop a robust, transparent and accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

2. Joint Clean Energy Research Center. Originally announced this July, more details were provided on the joint center that will “facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.” Financial support from public and private sources of at least $150 million over five years, split evenly between the two countries, will be provided. The Center’s research will initially focus on building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. (Factsheet)

3. Electric Vehicles. Those initiative will “include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects.” (Factsheet)

4. Energy Efficiency. Building on the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation, government officials of both countries will “work together and with the private sector to develop energy efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonize test procedures and performance metrics for energy efficient consumer products, [and] exchange best practices in energy efficient labeling systems.” (Factsheet)

5. Renewable Energy. The two countries will develop roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment in both countries. The Partnership will also provide technical and analytical resources to states and regions in both countries to support renewable energy deployment and will facilitate state-to-state and region-to-region partnerships to share experience and best practices. (Factsheet)

6. 21st Century Coal. The two countries will “launch a program of technical cooperation to bring teams of U.S. and Chinese scientists and engineers together in developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies.” The Presidents also welcomed a package of announcements on public-private partnerships in advanced coal technologies. (Factsheet)

7. Shale Gas. Under a new Shale Gas Initiative, the U.S. and China will “use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.” (Factsheet)

8. Nuclear. The two countries reaffirmed the goals of the recently-concluded Third Executive Committee Meeting of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to promote the peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy, and "agreed to consult with one another in order to explore such approaches—including assurance of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power while minimizing the risks of proliferation."

9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy. A new U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) will “leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.” The ECP, consisting of at least 22 founding member companies, will work on collaborative projects in renewable energy, smart grid, clean transportation, green building, clean coal, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.

In a joint statement, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (emphasis added in bold):

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.
In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.

Taken together, these commitments and statements represent an important step forward towards agreeing on a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of China’s policies for achieving the necessary emissions reductions that science requires. They will also hopefully start to satisfy those skeptical that China will agree to a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of its impressive array of policies for achieving emissions reductions.

The announcements also suggest that the United States and China are on the same page when it comes to both the necessity of aggressively moving forward on an affirmative agenda to reduce carbon pollution and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The agreement contains concrete measures for sustained and meaningful collaboration and demonstrates that the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases are prepared to move beyond the tired narrative of developed versus developing country responsibilities on climate action toward a more "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship on clean energy and climate change.

We hope that the upcoming United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen will follow this example and focus as much on bottom-up technological strategies for achieving real reductions in emissions as it will on top-down targets for carbon caps.

This piece originally appeared on Climate Progress.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joe Romm in Climate Change at 9:17 AM)

The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future

Alex Steffen — 2009-11-17T14:12:08-08:00

That which is unsustainable cannot go on. Unsustainable things that are propped up too long snap and collapse suddenly. Our way of life is unsustainable. The sooner we transform our economy into one that can generate sustainable prosperity, the better off we’ll be, and with every passing day, the risks of catastrophe grow larger and more certain. We need change now.

These shouldn’t be radical statements; they’re all demonstrably true. Yet they cleave right down the middle of what is fast becoming the largest generation gap in at least 40 years, a growing split between people under 30 and people over 60.

When confronted with generational conflict, we naturally tend to see the elders as seasoned and realistic, and the youth as passionate and ethical, and to seek a middle ground of tempered realism. Middle ground is going to become increasingly hard to find in this debate, though. That’s because realism now means very different, incompatible things to the two generations.

And this is what most older observers seem to refuse to understand: The world looks dramatically different if the year 2050 is one you’re likely to be alive to see. To younger people, Copenhagen isn’t some do-gooder meeting; it’s the first major battle in a war for the future. Their future. I’m in my middle years, in between the two groups, yet even I can see that this war is about to get a lot more heated—far more heated than anything we’ve seen in half a century. To younger people, this isn’t just policy, it’s personal.

To be young and aware today is to see your elders burning our civilization down around our ears. To hear scientists tell us we’re in the final countdown, with the risk of runaway climate change (along with the ecosystem collapses and horrific human suffering it will bring) mounting with every day we run business as usual. To hear nearly a chorus of credible voices—from doctors and scientists to retired generals and former bankers— warning that to lose this fight is to lose everything that makes our world livable and gives the future hope.
You wouldn’t think a war could start over such simple ideas.

To be young and aware is to see old people—from the U.S. Senate to Wall Street, from newspaper editorial desks to corporate boardrooms—stalling action on every front, spouting platitudes about “balance,” committing themselves wholeheartedly to actions to be undertaken long after they’ve retired and died. To be told that the world’s scientists are participating in a giant hoax; to be chided for not understanding how the real world works; to be warned that doing the right thing will bankrupt us; to be told that not wanting to melt the ice caps and circle the equator in deserts makes you too radical to take seriously.

To be young and aware is to know you’re being lied to; to know that a bright green future is possible; to know that we can reimagine the world, rebuild our cities, redesign our lives, retool our factories, distribute innovation and creativity and all live in a world that is not only better than the alternative, but much better than the world we have now.

To be young and aware is to suspect that, in the end, the debate about climate action isn’t about substance, but about rich old men trying to squeeze every last dollar, euro, and yen from their investments in outdated industries. It is to agree with the environmentalist Paul Hawken that we have an economy that steals the future, sells it in the present, and calls it GDP. It is to begin to see your elders as cannibals with golf clubs.

Myself, I worry: not that the young grow radical—hell, if I were 10 years younger, I’d be on the barricades myself—but that they grow despondent. Because what the world needs now, more than ever, is what the young have always given most: their optimism.

So if nothing else happens in Copenhagen, I pray that all of us who have years and a voice and a conscience will say at least this to the world’s youth: Your fight is ours, too. Don’t give up.

This piece is a part of

Image credit: GOOD Magazine

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Features at 2:12 PM)

Dutch Cabinet Okays Tax Based on Miles Driven by Motorists

Yale Environment 360 — 2009-11-17T10:43:20-08:00

In an effort to reduce automobile usage and greenhouse gas emissions, the Dutch cabinet has approved a driving tax that would charge motorists seven cents a mile. The plan, which must still be approved by parliament, would use GPS systems installed in each car to keep track of mileage and automatically bill drivers. The mileage charges would be higher at rush hour, for large cars, and for commercial vehicles. Dutch officials said the driving tax, which would replace existing road taxes and duties on new car purchases, is designed to cut traffic by 15 percent and reduce emissions from transport by 10 percent. Other European nations are considering similar driving taxes, and a driving tax experiment was recently tried in Oregon in the United States. The chances of a tax comparable to the Dutch tax being levied in the U.S. are slim, however, as that would more than triple the $260 a year that the average U.S. driver now pays in state and federal gasoline taxes.

This piece originally appeared on Yale Environment 360.

Photo Credit: Ytse Jam Photography via Flickr, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Yale Environment 360 in Transportation at 10:43 AM)

Straight Talk for the Planetary Era: A Trio of Book Reviews

WorldChanging Team — 2009-11-17T10:23:31-08:00

by Edward Wolf

Bikes, boats, and bodies align to spell “350” at events in 181 countries, sounding a worldwide call for climate stability. Congress takes halting steps toward passing a law to limit U.S. carbon emissions and advance clean energy. Diplomats from 193 countries prepare to hammer out a global climate treaty in Copenhagen. But few expect this year’s activism, politics, or diplomacy to change the game. The 21st century to-do list keeps growing. What will it take to accelerate change?

Three recent books say that it’s all about thinking. In The End of the Long Summer, Dianne Dumanoski tells how our thinking got us in planet-scale hot water; in Whole Earth Discipline, Stewart Brand advocates heresy to get us out; in Thinking in Systems, the late Donella Meadows teaches a different way of thinking altogether.

While the subject matter of this trio of titles may sound familiar to Worldchanging readers, all three books deserve a careful read. Each of these authors is an elder with wisdom to impart. It’s up to the generation building a bright green future to match that wisdom to new challenges.

THE END OF THE LONG SUMMER: Why We Must Remake Our Civilization to Survive on a Volatile Earth
by Dianne Dumanoski; Crown Publishers

Award-winning science journalist Dianne Dumanoski considered her 1985 story on the science of the Antarctic ozone hole, published on the front page of the Boston Globe, “the most important story I had ever written.” Humanity had narrowly escaped full-scale disruption of a stratospheric chemical shield essential to our survival. Faulty assumptions and outright mistakes brought us – and all higher life – to the brink of calamity. How, Dumanoski wondered, could a banal, supposedly inert synthetic compound have triggered global jeopardy? How could its chemistry have been so thoroughly misunderstood, mis-measured, and misjudged?

Later, puzzling over the story’s meaning, she came to see it signaling “a new and ominous epoch when human activity began to disrupt the essential but invisible planetary systems that sustain a dynamic, living Earth.” Dumanoski was among the first journalists to break the news to general readers: Disrupting the planet’s metabolism was no longer a theoretical possibility. It was a fact. The ozone story called for new institutions, new economic arrangements, and a new understanding of the Earth.

In The End of the Long Summer, Dumanoski applies the lessons of the ozone story to the challenge she calls “a planetary emergency . . . that involves far more than the pressing problem of climate change.” She examines evolutionary and modern history for clues about our capacity – as a species and as a civilization – to act. Dumanoski’s criterion for success in the coming century is not prosperity, but survival. If she is right, success will boil down to our ability to “shockproof” societies to withstand changes unlike any confronted during the 10,000-year run of the civilization project.

Her storyline is not for the faint of heart. Human activities have destabilized several fundamental flows of the Earth system. The comparative climate stability experienced during the “long summer” of the last 10,700 years is the exception in Earth’s history. Big changes in climate are underway, no matter what actions societies take to control emissions. Abrupt climate changes are possible and growing more likely as carbon emissions rise. The thinking that built a globalized civilization capable of disrupting planetary systems also makes that civilization more vulnerable to the consequences of instability.

Against this sobering backdrop, Dumanoski embarks on a “search for honest hope.” She finds grounds for hope in three places: the fruits of science, the legacy of our species’ evolutionary past, and the creative gift of culture.

Dumanoski is well versed in the Earth system sciences. Reporting the ozone hole and other big picture stories, she’s acquainted with many prominent chemists, biologists, and climate scientists responsible for the emerging understanding of the Earth. She is especially sympathetic to the views of James Lovelock, originator of the theory that life in the aggregate is a creative partner in the planetary cycles that maintain conditions conducive to life. She reminds us that Lovelock invented the electron capture device first used to detect trace quantities of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere, a discovery that helped solve the mystery of the ozone hole. In Lovelock’s Gaia theory, Dumanoski sees contours on a new conceptual map for the planetary era.

She examines the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens during the chaotic Pleistocene climate swings that preceded recent millennia of stability. She notes three distinctive adaptations – large brains, skillful environmental manipulation, and cooking – that helped the species survive turbulent times. In the shifting climates and habitats of the Pleistocene, humankind became a “stormworthy species” with a smart generalist’s flexibility rather than the fine-tuned fitness of a specialist.

Finally, she considers the creative gift of culture, the means humankind forged to escape the constraints of purely biological evolution and to accelerate adjustment to changing circumstances. Brains and cultures evolved in tandem, bootstrapping change and setting the stage for civilization.

But culture is a paradox, both adaptive and maladaptive. Cultures have inertial tendencies that create dangerous inflexibility. Certain of those tendencies, designed to protect the integrity of distinct groups but exaggerated in the arrangements of a globalized economy, lock humanity into conflict with the planet. It’s a battle humanity cannot win. “Through most of our history, the human species has sailed into the storm in many boats,” Dumanoski writes. “Today, through globalization, we are all becoming passengers on one Titanic.”

Against this backdrop, Dumanoski surveys our options. A lengthy chapter devoted to geoengineering finds little merit in leading proposals to shade the Earth, boost biological absorption of carbon dioxide, or capture and sequester carbon where fuel is burned. She finds such proposals dangerous but alluring distractions from the work that must be done, products of the linear logic that put humankind afoul of nonlinear systems.

Instead, Dumanoski urges a strategy of survivability: deliberate steps to reduce our disruption of planetary systems coupled with efforts to reconfigure patterns in human systems that make our civilization dangerously vulnerable to shocks. In a nutshell, she counsels steps to reverse the “hypercoherence” of globalization, to pursue resilience, and to apply design features from natural systems to human arrangements. Through such adjustments she sees the best chance for shepherding the achievements of civilization through a disruptive century she expects to shake human arrangements to their foundations.

In the end, Dumanoski’s “honest hope” feels anemic. She doesn’t tell readers how to draw on the adaptive capacity she considers our species’ birthright, the hard-wired abilities that once made us “stormworthy.” Perhaps no one can tell us that. But the challenges of guiding a globalized civilization of 7 billion souls through global climate disruption are in any case hardly comparable to the challenges that faced migratory hominin bands enduring the whip-saw climates of the Pleistocene.

Yet like Rachel Carson before her, Dumanoski presents a compelling case. Her honesty is stark: “Bitter truths serve better than sweet lies.” As for hope, she quotes systems scientist C.S. “Buzz” Holling, who urges readers “to experiment and act inventively and exuberantly via diverse adventures in living.”

WHOLE EARTH DISCIPLINE: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto
Stewart Brand; Viking

Cue Stewart Brand, self-described “ecologist by training, futurist by profession, and hacker (lazy engineer) at heart.” Brand founded and published The Whole Earth Catalog, edited CoEvolution Quarterly (later Whole Earth Review), and has founded organizations including The Long Now Foundation and the Global Business Network, where he works part-time. Brand is a playful, inquisitive gadfly who wears a heretic’s robes with relish, challenging readers to reexamine assumptions and to change their minds.

Framed as a challenge to environmentalists, his new book Whole Earth Discipline presents four heresies: Cities are Green! Nukes are Green! Gene modification is Green! Geoengineering is Probably Necessary!

At first glance, Brand would seem to personify Dumanoski’s nightmare. His motto, “We are as gods, and HAVE to get good at it!” positively drips with the hubris that Dumanoski detects at the heart of the planet’s emergency. But there is much the two authors agree on, beginning with their assessment of the climate crisis; in a TED Talk outlining the four heresies, Brand calls climate change “worse than we think, and coming faster than we think.” The two share heroes. Brand, like Dumanoski, is close to Gaia originator James Lovelock, and he is on friendly terms with prominent scientists including climatologist Paul Crutzen, biologists E.O. Wilson and Peter Raven, restoration ecologist Dan Janzen, genome decoder Craig Venter. When it comes to assessment of the planetary challenge and the people who understand it best, Dumanoski and Brand are on the same page.

Where Brand differs, and what makes Whole Earth Discipline a provocative companion to The End of the Long Summer, is his orientation. Brand admits to the “engineer’s bias”: the world is a set of design problems. Framed this way, the world’s problems a priori have solutions; the solutions must simply be found and applied. If his tone seems unusually chipper given the weight of those problems, it’s because Brand is at heart a gadget guy, eager to choose the right tool and get on with the job.

Brand claims that he is not out to convince anyone. He states flatly: “My opinion is not important, it’s just a tool.” He is out to force readers to examine their assumptions, a desirable talent in a world shifting at its foundations. Thus in his chapter titled “New Nukes,” Brand spars cheerfully with his friend Amory Lovins over the economic viability of nuclear power. Brand is unlikely to win this particular debate with Lovins, who has been engaged with nuclear issues about as long as the country’s oldest nuclear reactor (Oyster Creek in New Jersey) has been generating power, but if he has even dented the armor of reflexive opponents of nuclear expansion, then he has achieved his purpose.

Solar and renewable power appeal to Brand, and he contends “energy efficiency and conservation come first, last, and always.” He just doesn’t believe that clean, non-nuclear power sources can scale fast enough to meet the baseload demand of growing megacities or shut down coal fast enough to avoid climate disaster. He bases his views in part on the work of Saul Griffith, who has calculated the physical scale of renewable and nuclear power expansion needed to supply 17.5 terawatts of global power demand within 25 years. It’s an area the size of the United States – “Call it Renewistan,” Griffith says – and Brand thinks we’re unlikely to do that, but might go nuclear if we consider it Green.

“Science is the only news,” Brand proclaims with relish, brandishing headlines from Nature, Science, and specialized journals. His footnotes and annotations (available here online) are a treasure trove, and most readers will discover “hidden in plain sight” surprises from new research in his chapters on cities, genetic science, and the large-scale ecosystem restoration strategies he likes the term “megagardening” to describe. Sometimes, however, Brand’s enthusiasm for data blinds him to context. Brand sees “a ray of hope” in news that the abundant phytoplankton Emiliana huxleyi increases its rate of calcification at higher carbon dioxide concentrations – a finding that would portend increasing carbon capture by the oceans as climate change advanced. But he fails to mention reasons this laboratory result may not pertain under natural conditions in the ocean (where acidification puts other, larger shellfish at risk). His wish for an elegant negative feedback mechanism reaches farther than available data can support.

Brand attempts to push “ecopragmatism” on a green movement he considers overly prone to sentiment and ideology. The critique rings true to me, and there is much to learn from Brand’s eclectic appetite for solutions. Doom fills the book, but not gloom; his favorite adjective is “thrilling.” Seeing vitality where others see only chaos and decay, Brand is a sort of countercultural Tom Friedman. One senses that his first response to disastrous news like a “methane burp” from the melting permafrost of Siberia would be “Wow! Cool! What are we gonna do now?”

Echoing Pogo’s famous line, Brand points out that “the key positive feedback in the current earth system is us.” To understand feedbacks and their influence on the structures, stocks, and flows of systems of all kinds is a central aim of Donella Meadows’s posthumous Thinking in Systems. Trained as a biophysicist, Meadows was lead author of The Limits to Growth (1973) and achieved distinction as a professor, author, syndicated columnist, and organic farmer. Though she died unexpectedly after a short illness in 2001, her work remains timely and exceptionally relevant to challenges of the scale and urgency laid out by Dumanoski and Brand.

THINKING IN SYSTEMS: A Primer
Donella Meadows (edited by Diana Wright); Chelsea Green

Meadows’s long-time associate Diana Wright has edited an unfinished 1993 manuscript into humane, pertinent, and delightful book. Thinking in Systems reflects Meadows’s lifelong effort to understand systems at all scales – their resilience, their pathologies, their response to perturbations, their capacity to defy prediction. A reader seeking to understand the anomalies of our time and to prepare mentally for the likelihood of disruptive change needs this book.

“A system,” Meadows writes, “is a set of things – people, cells, molecules, or whatever – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time.” Systems thinking can reveal interconnections, explain behavior, and anticipate outcomes. Changing outcomes – slowing climate disruption, spreading new crop varieties, containing an epidemic – requires action to change a system’s elements, the interconnections among them, or (more likely) both.

Much of the book is devoted to introducing and illustrating systems concepts. Early chapters combine taut explanation with well-chosen examples to make a palatable primer. The book’s final section, “Creating Change – in Systems and in our Philosophy,” sheds welcome light on topics covered in The End of the Long Summer and Whole Earth Discipline. Chapter 6, “Leverage Points – Places to Intervene in a System” (first published in essay form in Brand’s Whole Earth Review) outlines twelve points of influence over the behavior of complex systems. Chapter 7, “Living in a World of Systems,” takes a step toward an ethics for a new human story, offering a humble acknowledgment that the systems view entails new responsibilities exercised in unfamiliar ways.

Dianne Dumanoski is afraid a stable earth can’t live with us; Stewart Brand is pretty sure it can’t live without us. Do systems thinkers have the chops to guide us through the treacherous straits that separate those views? Can a systems-savvy ecopragmatism yield honest hope? Dana Meadows counsels that “systems thinking by itself cannot bridge that gap (between understanding and action), but it can lead us to the edge of what analysis can do and then point beyond – to what can and must be done by the human spirit.” Just past that edge is where the activism, politics, diplomacy – and innovation – of this century really begins.

Edward Wolf was a contributing author of Worldchanging: A User’s Guide for the Twenty-First Century. A board member of Focus the Nation, he lives in Portland, Oregon.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Features at 10:23 AM)

Graphic Series: Earthly Ideas, CCS

Andy Lubershane — 2009-11-17T10:09:04-08:00

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is a proposed (and controversial) solution to powerplant pollution that captures carbon from smokestacks and stores those emissions underground.

Although some believe this idea would help provide the amount of power currently demanded while reducing pollution, it has others scratching their heads. Many feel confused about the science, as there are are still technical challenges to overcome, and others feel outraged as they believe CCS could be used as another industry-created excuse not to move forward on important renewable energy discussions and investments.

What do you think? Is CCS an idea worthy of time and implementation? Whatever your opinion, we think it's worth understanding the concept of CCS and hope this week's cartoon will help.

Click image to enlarge

Editor's note: This post is part of a series featuring Worldchanging ally Andy Lubershane's original graphics. While many of the issues covered in the comics have been discussed on Worldchanging in the past, we hope that you'll be able to use this new medium in a different way … whether it's in your classroom, on your office wall, or to help explain ideas to friends and family.

Andy Lubershane researches writes and cartoons about sustainability from his home in Ann Arbor, MI. He is currently pursuing a master's degree at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment. Check out more of his illustrations at www.earthlycomics.com.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Andy Lubershane in Features at 10:09 AM)