Tree of Finches

Little birds chirping about big things

  • Daily Chirping

    November 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Chirps

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,132 hits

Archive for the ‘Global Environment’ Category

From the “Hightening My Cynicism” file..

Posted by A birch tree on July 9, 2008

I’ve been hit with a double-wammy to my faith in the general basic goodness of humanity in just the last twelve hours or so.

Late last night, Aria and I were watching “The Secret Lives of Women: Eating Disorders” on the WE network. It was a pretty good show, following a quartet of women who have various eating disorders, talking to them and their families about their feelings and struggles and treatments. Then we get to the commercials. In the words of Dave Barry, I swear I am not making this up: Weight Watchers. WE sold ad time during a show about eating disorders to a predatory diet company. And then, just when I had finished saying “WTF, mate?”, it gets worse: they run an ad for bariatric surgery. Seriously, what the hell? Are they hoping some poor woman with anorexia might be watching the show and saying “Wow, look at that, maybe I should look into getting some help…” and then see the surgery ad and go “Yes! That’s the help I need! Right there! Sign me up!”? See fig. 3-7.

Then, this morning, Aria points me to an article in the UK’s Daily Mail (found via Life After the Oil Crash). If last nights commercial shock pegged my cynicism needle, this story shattered it.

Just two days ago, Gordon Brown was urging us all to stop wasting food and combat rising prices and a global shortage of provisions.

But yesterday the Prime Minister and other world leaders sat down to an 18-course gastronomic extravaganza at a G8 summit in Japan, which is focusing on the food crisis.

Words, which have never been exactly willing and pliable beasts to my harness, stop in their tracks to nibble grass while I try vainly to prod them into motion.

I’m trying to imagine the conversation at the dinner table.

Bladass Politician A: “So, nom nom nom what do we nom nom think about the nom food crisis? nom nom” [crumbs fall from his stuffed mouth]
Bladass Politician B: “nom nom It’s obviously not nom nom nom all that bad, nom nom, eh?”
[General Bladass Politician Laugher, disgusting chewing and burping sounds.]

Yeah, these people give a shit. Yeah, they’re in touch. Riiiiight.

Advertisements

Posted in Feminism, Food Crisis, Global Environment, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Crude Awakening

Posted by A birch tree on June 21, 2008

One hour and twenty-two minutes of streaming video garaunteed to scare the pants off of you. Great stuff, very well done, but very, very disturbing. Just give it half an hour to hook you.

Peak oil is here. Sky’s fallin’, yo.

A Crude Awakening

Posted in Global Environment, Global Warming, Hard Facts, Humans vs. Planet, Political | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Better Late Than Never

Posted by A birch tree on May 30, 2008

I chose that title only because I’m an optimist at heart.

So it seems that the White House has finally released its most comprehensive Climate Report to date… four years after the deadline. And then only because the court ordered them to release it.

Oddly enough, the report says, yes, there is global warming, yes, it is our fault, and yes, it will have a significant and deadly impact on American lives. There’s a shocker. Would Bush have suppressed it for half his presidency if it had said anything different?

On the upside, at least he didn’t try to stealth-edit this one, right?

There’s a cloud to this, and then there’s a silver lining to this. The cloud is that most of the predictions made back in 2004 have already come true; had we been warned, we might be having a better time of it. The silver lining, unfortunately, is a bit morbid: the report talks about things we’re seeing now, but hadn’t yet seen at the time the report was made. It’s a primo example of the predictive power of properly-applied scientific theory, as opposed to the pseudo-scientific reactionism that opposes it.

If it had come out in ’04, and then we saw the results it predicted, our woefully short national attention span would have completely forgotten that these things were previously forecast, and then came to pass. With the late release, we have sudden attention placed on the report and its predictions while the effects it warns of occur simultaneously.

It’s really hard to call global climate forecasting “junk science” and be taken seriously when such a stark juxtaposition exists, as both prediction and observed effect are lodged in the national consciouness at exactly the same time, ready for anyone with three working neurons and access to Yahoo! News to compare and contrast.

Let’s take a moment to review. The report forecasts:

  1. Increased deaths from heat. Between 1978 and 1999 (19 years), 7421 deaths in the US were heat-related, a median of 274 per year. Between 1999 and 2003 (4 years), 3442 deaths were heat-related, an average of about 688 per year. This one is a “hit”.
  2. Worsening water shortages. If you think it’s bad in Atlanta, you should see the rest of the world. Another “hit”.
  3. Increased electricity demand in the summertime, possibly leading to shortages in the longer term. The peak electricity demand in the US was 12.1% higher than in 2004, and 4.0% higher than in 2005. “Hit”.
  4. Increased wildfires. The number of acres burnt in the last 5 months is already double the 2001-2008 average. “Hit”.
  5. Increasing insect infestations. It’s tough to find accurate data about the US, as this isn’t usually a newsworthy topic, but other countries, like Sweden, are certainly seeing this one. Should I call this one a “hit”?
  6. Increased cases of water- and food-borne disease outbreaks. This is the only one I couldn’t find any supporting statistics on, and more for lack of time than anything else (even though I’m friends with the guy monitoring everyone’s computer time, I can still only ask for a reset so many times in one day).

In the end, Bush may have done more damage to his anti-climate-change crusade by stifling this report for four years than he would have caused had he just released it when the law said he had to. Who remembers anything that was in the news in 2004? We forget major events appallingly quickly around here, maybe as a symptom of a people with such a relatively short history to begin with. But coming out now, just as most of the things it predicted are coming into the limelight as well? In addition to the suspicious-looking skullduggery of sitting on the report until the courts forced him to release it? Ouch.

It’s getting harder and harder to deny that we’re in deep poop. I’m starting to worry if the whole point of said denials is to postpone any significant actions until it’s too late to fix anything, if it isn’t already. I mean, from the time global warming was first proposed in the 1970’s, the forces arrayed against it seem to have been engaged in a delaying action. First, they ignored the idea entirely. Then they said “There is no such thing as global warming.” Now they’re starting to say “Maybe there’s such a thing as global climate change, but it is absolutely not our fault and there’s nothing we can do about it,” and maybe tomorrow it’ll be “Well, I guess you were right, there is global climate change and we did cause it, but it’s too late to stop it now. Oh well!” and all the while the status quo of energy consumption and radical consumption ideology will prevail.

Scary stuff, yo. I’m gonna go hide under my mattress now.

Posted in Global Environment, Global Warming, Hard Facts, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

“But the Earth is so BIG…”

Posted by A birch tree on May 28, 2008

Barf.

Ok, so there’s folks who believe humans had fuck-all to do with climate change. “Big Plant, Little Human!” they scream at the top of their CO2-emitting lungs. “CO2 is a trace gas!” they whine, over and over again, as if that particular combination of words had any meaning. “Cows produce more than cars!” they gripe, oblivious to the fact that it’s humans’ fault that cows are so ubiquitous as to be such a large provider of greenhouse gasses.

Over and over again, they cite “natural cycles” and Earth’s allegedly massive “self-correction” potential as rhetorical proof, minus any scientific backing, that humans are completely blameless for anything that may or may not be happening to the planet, so they can continue the devil-take-tomorrow approach to radical consumption ideology, guilt-free.

Question: How’s this part of a natural cycle? What does it say about the planet’s wonderous miracle-like ability to heal itself from humans’ paltry, negligible enviornmental effects that the ocean has become 30% more acidic since people have started pumping CO2 into the air like it was going out of style? The fact that you’d have to go back through 35 million years worth of ice cores and geological records to find a time when oceans were this acidic due to excess CO2 being dissolved therein is what? An unhappy coincidence? A fluke of timing? Just circumstantial? Shelled critters that have managed to evolve and live for the last twenty-million-and-change years without too much hassle have suddenly noticed their houses getting thin and brittle, and it’s just a very odd, very intriguing turn of events we’re totally not responsible for?

Well, what does it have to do with us, anyway? It’s just a few fish that’ll be screwed, not humans. You know, those completely useless fish like salmon and pollock…

Go on, deniers, try it. You know how many people with an IQ higher than GWB’s are taking you seriously right now? Wanna see what happens to that number when you try to blame oceanic acidification on cow farts?

Oh, and hey, remember those climate forecasts y’all keep saying are “chicken little”-like, or “doomsaying” or otherwise biased to give horrible results as quick as possible in order to serve as a vehicle for some insidious political agenda like… um… something? About how they’re too liberal, play fast and loose with big numbers, and are otherwise vastly inflated? Well, as it turns out, they’re actually too conservative. This wasn’t supposed to happen until around 2100. Surprise!

{Hat tip to Climate Ark}

Posted in Global Environment, Humans vs. Planet, Oceans | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Humans: We Kill Everything, Even Ourselves!

Posted by A birch tree on April 20, 2008

Still no consistent internet, as I’m sure you can surmise. My goal is to have access back by monday afternoon. We’ll see how that works out for me.

Until then, here’s an article for discussion: High Levels of Household Chemicals Found in Pets, which is a bit of an understatement if you read the article. It should be “Killing Puppies and Babies are Bad, Except When Du Pont Does it for Us” or something.

You, friendly adult human, have a certain level of environmental toxins running through your bloodstream. Things like chemicals leached into your soda pop from the plastic bottle it’s contained in (“Forever In A Landfill, Forever In Your Urine”), growth hormones from your beef, fecal coliform in your oysters, flame retardants from your carpets, and whatever the hell that stuff is in perfume that makes it stick to the little hairs inside your nostrils for an hour after you’ve left Bath and Body Works being just a few examples. They all cause cancer, illness, reproductive nonsense, and lots of other happy fun things. Let’s say this level is X.

Your dog, and any other household pet or family member that spends most of its time on the floor putting random objects into its mouth, has a level of toxins that is roughly equivalent to 20X. Give or take.

Lovely, isn’t it? Do we even bother to think a little bit ahead, as humans? I mean, fuck, how long had Teflon been around before we found out it was deadly? And I don’t have time to find the citation yet, but we’ve been using cell phones for how long before we finally admitted they cause cancer? One technician was quoted as saying something like the red blinking light on top of the tower is more stringently regulated than the radiation from the tower itself.

Congratulations, Humanity in general and the Masculine Drive Towards Ever-Increasing Scientific Pogress that we Don’t Want to Wait and Test and Make Sure it’s Safe Before we Inject it Into the Environment in Vast Quantities, specifically. You’re succeeding in the most convoluted long-range suicide attempt in the history of the universe. Which wouldn’t be an issue, really, if you weren’t so hell bent on taking everything else down with you.

Posted in Global Environment, Pollution | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Crying Wolf

Posted by A birch tree on April 13, 2008

[Disclaimer: This blog post is an unedited, unfiltered 100% Pure Finch Rant. I, your birch tree host, had no opportunity to clean it up or sanitize it, or even proofread it, before the finches overwhelmed me with their furious chirping and forced me to take immediate dictation, verbatum. Which is kind of odd, as I didn’t think finches even liked wolves all that much.]

I had planned to do an environmental article today, but I hadn’t intended to find one that enflamed me. I’m not on one of my “high energy binges”, so I figured I’d be lucky if I could coax myself out to bed long enough to post a link to a little global warming blurb.

Instead, I found this NY Times article. It talks about the current controversy surrounding wolves now that they’re off the endangered species list.

I really want to like humanity, but white dudes in the midwest seriously seem to be trying to scuttle that desire. And yeah, I’m calling out white dudes, because, by and large, white dudes are the ones who seem to have this little gnome that crawled up their asses some five-hundred-odd years ago that pulls the “kill things needlessly to establish my superiority over all creation” lever buried somewhere in the equipment room of their prefrontal cortex.

So the very, very, VERY first day Bush makes it legal to kill wolves, what does some dumbass white dude with a bloodlust do? He goes out and shoots the most famous wolf in the country, Wolf 253M. Why? Apparently, just to be a dick.

In fact, pretty much all of the wolf murder that’s currently occuring is because of white dudes who like to spill blood to make their penises bigger. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with protecting livestock, since wolf predation is entirely negligable as a factor in livestock loss. Vultures killed twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005, and domestic dogs killed five times as many.

The article talks about establishing trophy hunts, and keeping the population to a total of 450 wolves. I think I threw up a little in my mouth when I read that. Just the phrase “trophy hunt” makes me want to bash someone in the face with a tire iron. What kind of sick fucker gets pleasure and fun out of watching blood drain from a mortal wound onto the ground from a formerly living creature? If it whines a little, or if its tail is struck by a nervous system spasm that makes it appear to wag, do these assholes cream their camo coveralls? It ain’t like you’re gonna eat it; humans don’t really eat carnivores much. They just kill them, wholesale, take their pelts, heads, tails, or whatever else they want to use to decorate the “My Penis Is Fucking Enormous” room in their hunting lodge.

I suppose a case might be made for deer hunting, or elk hunting, if you’re too poor to afford meat at the supermarket and still need to feed your family. Of course, for the money you spend on hunting licenses, gun licenses, high-powered rifles, scopes, ammo, camoflauged gear, drycleaning the camoflauged gear after you spooge in it, bright orange vests, big trucks, alcohol, and various cheats like doe urine, perpetually-baited treestands, and anything else that virtually ensures Mr. Dudely can walk out of the forest dragging dead animal, it’s more expensive to hunt a deer than just go to Wal-Mart and buy a shitload of ground chuck. So nevermind. It is, in fact, all about having ultimate and total control over another life form, to hold its life in your hands like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, and to then pull that trigger and end that life, to watch the blood spray on the snow and hear the startled sound of an animal surprised to find death, to watch that life drain from their eyes until only death looks up at you, and to stand, towering, over the remaining flesh of the creature whose spirit has so recently departed, and shout “PWND, BITCH!” [Finch, I’ve cut the rest of the paragraph as it was really nothing more than a long string of frothing, rabid, unecessary, and unproductive profanity. I didn’t even know birds could get rabies. Can we get back on track here? -birch tree]

Thanks to the Male Logic(tm) that ignores actual facts and says wolves kill everything in sight just because they are onery and have teeth (projection, much?), Wolf will be back on the Endangered List in six months or less, at this rate, assuming that the EPA can act on the rapidly-declining populations before they go completely extinct in North America.

Until then, a point of information to the asshats from the midwest: They’re not attacking you. They’re not attacking your livestock. Leave them the fuck alone!

Posted in Global Environment | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Brief Filler Article

Posted by A birch tree on April 10, 2008

Ok, so I won’t be done before I have to go on watch. I had such high hopes, too.

So, I’m going to put up a article for you to peruse and think about, and will add my comments and contribution later.

So, without further ado:

Let’s Fuck With the Navajo Just a Little More!

Discuss.

Posted in Global Environment, Pollution | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

A Global Warming Primer

Posted by A birch tree on April 6, 2008

A great synopsis of global warming evidence, courtesy of Infinite Grey over at Mysticwicks. It really needs no introduction or additions. Big thanks to him for doing all that research, and double thanks for his permission to post it over here.

The Global Warming Hype

Over the past decade perhaps longer; global warming has been a bit of a contraversal topic; recently on this forum there have been a few threads devoted to this, and in each case there has been a variety of opinions expressed. Ranging from support of the popular theory to condemnation of of; for a range of reasons – some are valid, others illustrate an acute misunderstanding of how the majority of scientists working the fields of Climate Change arrived to the idea that the most likely cause of global warming is the development of industry. So boys and girls, here is the evidence involved with the theory of Global Warming.

The global average air temperature near the Earth’s surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.

“most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” ~ IPCC

Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.

Human Land Use.

Deforestation:

66% of CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation. For those that do not know, forests are not just there to look pretty; plant life act’s like “air scrubbers” or filters, absorbing carbon dioxide and reducing the levels of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Include the instances of biomass burnings that frequently accompany deforestation and you also get aerosols.

Terrestrial Albedo:

The albedo of an object is the extent to which it diffusely reflects light from the sun. It is therefore a more specific form of the term reflectivity. Albedo is defined as the ratio of diffusely reflected to incident electromagnetic radiation.

Which leads to Radiative force, the warming and cooling of an area.

What does this mean? It means Cities collect heat and warm the surrounding areas – due to the large quantities of cement, metal, glass and asphalt.

Livestock and land use:

70% of all land used for agriculture is used for liverstock, or 30% of non-ice covered land. 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to livestock and livestock-related activities.

  • 9% of global carbon dioxide emissions
  • 35-40% of global methane emissions (chiefly due to enteric fermentation and manure)
  • 64% of global nitrous oxide emissions, chiefly as a result of fertilizer use

Aerosols:

These little bastards are fun, the villian in so many senerios, small particles or droplets suspended in the atmosphere. They can be responsible for warming AND cooling, but where do they come from? Well here are some the cheif hometowns:

  • biomass burning such as slash and burn deforestation. Aerosols produced are primarily black carbon.
  • industrial air pollution, which produces soot and airborne sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium
  • dust produced by land use effects such as desertification

—-

“Anthropogenic warming of the climate system is widespread and can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans. Evidence of the effect of external influences, both anthropogenic and natural, on the climate system has continued to accumulate since the TAR [Third Assessment Report].”

There are external and internal phenomena, such as solar variations and volcanic activity; but the evidence suggests that human activity is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect.

Evidence for this conclusion includes:

  • Estimates of internal variability from climate models, and reconstructions of past temperatures, indicate that the warming is unlikely to be entirely natural.
  • Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not.
  • “Fingerprint” methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change.
  • The plateau in warming from the 1940s to 1960s can be attributed largely to sulphate aerosol cooling

—–

THIS BIT IS IMPORTANT

Detection vs. attribution:

Detection of a signal requires demonstrating that an observed change is statistically significantly different from that which can be explained by natural internal variability.

Attribution requires demonstrating that a signal is:

  • unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability;
  • consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing
  • not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Attribution, as described above, can therefore only be done within some margin of error. For example, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report says “it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750,” where “extremely likely” indicates a probability greater than 95%.

Following the publication of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, “detection and attribution” of climate change has remained an active area of research. Some important results include:

  • A review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group[9] found that “natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that ‘most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.'”
  • Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time
  • Two papers in Science in August 2005 resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details; and the 2006 US CCSP report.
  • Barnett and colleagues say that the observed warming of the oceans “cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models,” concluding that “it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences”
  • Bratcher and Giese observed conditions that “could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions.” Bratcher and Giese conclude: “The results presented here do not preclude the possibility that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases have contributed to global warming. However the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described.”

Ice Core Records:

Ice core record shows that on some occasions temperature starts rising hundreds of years before CO2 increases. Such results confirm that the relationship between CO2 and climate can go in both directions: changes in CO2 concentrations affect climate, while changes in climate can affect CO2 concentrations.

They indicate that he earth had gone through many climate changes over its history, as result of a few natural factors; solar activity, change in orbit, volcanic activity and so on.

But the point is, that since the beginning of the industrial age, CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

—–

Reference:

  1. Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change. IPCC.
  2. (2007) Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers). IPCC.
  3. The Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC.
  4. (2007) Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Technical summary). IPCC.
  5. a b c (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Food and Agricultural Organization of the U.N.
  6. (2007) Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Front matter). IPCC.
  7. Geerts, B.. Aerosols and Climate.
  8. (2001) Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers). IPCC
  9. Barnett, T.; et al. (May 2005). “Detecting and Attributing External Influences on the Climate System: A Review of Recent Advances”. Journal of Climate
  10. gavin (2007-08-11). Et Tu LT?. RealClimate.org.
  11. gavin (2007-08-11). The tropical lapse rate quandary. RealClimate.org.
  12. Wigley, Tom M. L.; et al. (2006-05-02). “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences (Executive Summary)”. NOAA.
  13. Barnett, Tim P.; et al. (2005-07-08). “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans”.
  14. Bratcher, Amy J.; Giese, Benjamin S. (2002-10-08). “Tropical Pacific Decadal Variability and Global Warming”
  15. Geophysical Research Letters.
  16. Lindzen, Richard S. (1997-08-05). “Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  17. Indermühle, Andreas; Monnin, Eric; Stauffer, Bernhard; Stocker, Thomas F.; Wahlen, Martin (2000). “Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica”. Geophysical Research Letters 27.
  18. Fischer, Hubertus; Wahlen, Martin; Smith, Jesse; Mastroianni, Derek; Deck, Bruce (1999). “Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations”.
  19. Skinner, L.C. (2006). “Glacial – interglacial atmospheric CO2 change: a simple “hypsometric effect” on deep-ocean carbon sequestration?”. Climate of the Past Discussions 2.
  20. Paillard, Didier (2000). “Glacial Cycles: Toward a New Paradigm”. Reviews of Geophysics
  21. Liou, K.N. (2002). An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation (2nd ed). Academic Press.
  22. Staley, D.O.; G.M. Jurica (1970). “Flux emissivity tables for water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone”. Journal of Applied Meteorology

—-

So, why do people believe that scientists just make this stuff up? What could there agenda possibly be? There is little money in cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, and little thanks for possibly heralding the end of the world as we know it.

The bigger question I have to wonder, is why some people are so hell bent on insisting that nothing is wrong and our pollution isn’t doing this. Is it personal?

———————————

Tree here, again. That last question is immensely important, and I think there are two prongs to it. The first is profit motive, and the second is personal responsibility motive.

In the first, lots of companies and well-off individuals stand to lose quite a bit of cash if we cut down or eliminate carbon emissions. Setting up a gree power grid, entirely possible according to last moth’s issue of Discover Magazine, would put a lot of people out of business, Big Oil foremost among them. And since Big Oil is a Big Contributor to conservative political campaigns (read: gives out lots of bribes), there’s a lot of people with Big Agendas telling Big Lies and using Big Ridicule to further the goals of Big Oil.

As always, the real science gets lost. A lie can go around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s primarily because it takes three seconds and no thought to say “It’s just a natural warming cycle,” and lots of time, energy, research, and words to say “That’s only a tiny bit of the truth, and is mostly a lie, because x, y, and z, but q, p and r sometimes lead to questions….”

And, well, we live in a sound bit culture. You get two medium-sized sentences to convince an undecided person of any given position, and the first sentence had better be sharp and quotable or nobody will hang around for the second. It had better be witty, interesting, and memorable, and the second line has to cram as many facts as you can get into it without using more than one, MAYBE two commas.

You can put up to two or three other sentences in between them, but that’s kind of pointless because people will only remember the first and last ones, and if you take to long to get to the last one, nobody will be paying attention by the time you say it.

Which makes this blog kind of pointless, since nobody who doesn’t already agree with me will remember anything beyond the first paragraph of any post I make. Oh well. I’ll call it “fighting the sound-bite culture” and get all pretentious about it to make myself feel better.

Tree of Finches – Fighting the Sound-Bite Culture Since 2008!

Posted in Global Environment, Global Warming, Hard Facts | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Spreading Awareness of “Just How Hard We’ve Bitch-Slapped the Planet”, Oceanic Edition

Posted by A birch tree on April 5, 2008

From the “The Planet is so Big, We Couldn’t Possibly Affect it!” file:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0506_040506_oceanplastic.html

So apparently we’ve got tons and tons of microscopic plastic particles floating around in the oceans, sucking up toxic hydrophobic industrial waste chemicals (in addition to the toxic chemicals they’re already made of), and releasing them into the digestive tracts of marine invertibrates, as well as probably causing all sorts of other sundry chaos we haven’t even thought to look for yet, and won’t think to look for until ten years from now we find it and go “Oops, didn’t think of that!”.

And, even scarier:

http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/health-fitness/Our_oceans_are_turning_into_plastic_are_we_2.shtml

The North Pacific gyre contains an ocean of plastic twice the size of Texas, from surface to bottom. Moreover, it’s only one of five oces gyres with similarly depressing plastic dumps, making 40% of the total volume of our oceans consumed by nothing more than waste plastic. Leaching toxic chemicals into the oceans, creating vast marine dead zones, working its way into the food chain, and generally fucking with the environment in monumental ways.

PEOPLE! WAKE THE FUCK UP! THE OCEANS ARE 40% PLASTIC!

Jesus Christ on a bike! Next time I hear someone say anything even remotely like “The planet has these systems, see, that take care of itself and are all self-correcting and shit, so humans are so small and the earth is so big and complex that there’s nothing we could do to REALLY change, damage, or affect it. Have you seen the keys to my Hummer?” I may just have to haul off and kick them in the shins until they cry like a clubbed baby seal.

Some happy-happy-joy-joy quotes:

All sea creatures are threatened by floating plastic, from whales down to zooplankton. There’s a basic moral horror in seeing the pictures: a sea turtle with a plastic band strangling its shell into an hourglass shape; a humpback towing plastic nets that cut into its flesh and make it impossible for the animal to hunt. More than a million seabirds, 100,000 marine mammals, and countless fish die in the North Pacific each year, either from mistakenly eating this junk or from being ensnared in it and drowning.

Bad enough. But Moore soon learned that the big, tentacled balls of trash were only the most visible signs of the problem; others were far less obvious, and far more evil. Dragging a fine-meshed net known as a manta trawl, he discovered minuscule pieces of plastic, some barely visible to the eye, swirling like fish food throughout the water. He and his researchers parsed, measured, and sorted their samples and arrived at the following conclusion: By weight, this swath of sea contains six times as much plastic as it does plankton.

This statistic is grim—for marine animals, of course, but even more so for humans. The more invisible and ubiquitous the pollution, the more likely it will end up inside us. And there’s growing—and disturbing—proof that we’re ingesting plastic toxins constantly, and that even slight doses of these substances can severely disrupt gene activity. “Every one of us has this huge body burden,” Moore says. “You could take your serum to a lab now, and they’d find at least 100 industrial chemicals that weren’t around in 1950.” The fact that these toxins don’t cause violent and immediate reactions does not mean they’re benign: Scientists are just beginning to research the long-term ways in which the chemicals used to make plastic interact with our own biochemistry.

Most alarming, these chemicals may disrupt the endocrine system—the delicately balanced set of hormones and glands that affect virtually every organ and cell—by mimicking the female hormone estrogen. In marine environments, excess estrogen has led to Twilight Zone-esque discoveries of male fish and seagulls that have sprouted female sex organs.

In his opinion, the movie Cast Away was a joke—Tom Hanks could’ve built a village with the crap that would’ve washed ashore during a storm.

Posted in Global Environment, Humans vs. Planet, Oceans | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »