Steven Chu on the Daily Show

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Steven Chu
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

New Jersey Beaches, anyone?

Image courtesy of Len Pietrafesa: Groins built at right angles to the shore at Cape May, New Jersey, ostensibly to slow the migration of sand. The groins interrupt the flow of longshore currents, so sand is trapped on their upcurrent sides. This view is toward the south, and south of the groins, on the downcurrent sides. The effect of the groins is that sand is eroded away from the beaches.

We've blogged this before. Unfortunately, when it comes to coastal management, it's like a broken record over at the General Assembly. Even though scientists, environmental groups, and the state environmental agency DENR have expressed opposition to the use of "hardened" structures - jetties, sea walls, terminal groins - on the North Carolina coast, the indecent proposal comes up year after year.

The most recent legislation, SB 832, just passed out of the Senate.

Let's review:

• Jetties and groins beget more jetties and groins (take a look at the picture)
• Hardened structures protect buildings where they are located, but exponentially increase erosion on adjacent properties or islands.
• We manage our beaches pretty well here in NC. SB 832 will punch a hole in our sound, science-based coastal management policies.
• We need a more comprehensive look at how to deal with sea level rise, especially in light of climate change projections for the coast (interactive sea level map, EPA 2030 projections). We need beach management that doesn't reflexively call for hardened structures.

The natural beauty and economic value of North Carolina’s public beaches and inlets exists today in large measure because our state leaders long ago adopted a conservative management policy that bans the use of hardened structures—seawalls, jetties and groins of any kind—from our coast.

More Sierra Coal Victories

President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will reconsider the midnight memo issued by former EPA Administrator Steven Johnson which sought to prohibit controls on global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. The decision should halt virtually all new coal plant development until the EPA decides how to address global warming pollution from coal plants (Washington Post, NYTimes).

David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club, had this to say:

This decision stops the Bush Administration's final, last-minute effort to saddle President Obama with its do-nothing policy on global warming.

Moreover, in response to a Sierra Club petition concerning a Utah coal plant, EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that the EPA would revisit the permit and solicit public comment.

It never ends...

I was going to ignore George Will's article in this weekend's Washington Post, but as the piece a) wrongly cites research, and b) has made its way into the News & Observer, alas, I cannot.

Naturally, the article provides almost zero source links but does have a soundbite:

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center [UIACRC], global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

The piece has been thoroughly skewered elsewhere - Denialism, The Island of Doubt - so I just want to make sure two things are noted.

• The UIACRC almost immediately responded to the Post's article:

"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined. [emphasis mine]"

The National Snow and Ice Data Center also should have been consulted, one would think, but of course thinking and unconditionally denying climate change don't really go together.

• Climate change is not about the entire earth feeling warmer all at once; regional evidence, i.e. "It's cold in [my town] today, colder than this time last year. Guess climate change isn't really happening.", does not disprove climate change theory, but more often than not bears out peer-reviewed research. The scientific consensus is that an average raise in global temperature will have unusual effects on local weather.

Climate Change: The Pricetag

Today, in the Big Money, Eric Pooley discussed how journalists cover the economics of climate change. His main point: while the media tends to report a widespread scientific consensus on climate change - i.e. it's happening, it's man-made, and that we'd better reduce our emissions - they tend to downplay any economic consensus on the monetary costs of climate change.

Pooley calls on journalists to stop treating junk forecasts and industry PR campaigns like they are credible and scientific.

What I like about the piece is its candidness - Pooley doesn't pull any punches. He calls on journalists to tell the climate story like eminent economists see it. How do those economists see the costs of climate change? A science-based domestic climate policy will not be nearly as challenging as the recent economic meltdown; said cost, however, will rise the longer we wait to take action. [economists listed in Pooley's article]

Action on climate change will not be easy, but it is doable. See what Sierra Club member have decided as our climate priorities.

In this video, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (spelling?) defends the California Emissions Standards, which the Bush Administration has challenged. Hmm, emissions standards...what does California have to do with me?

Well, in the past session, state legislators passed the Clean Cars Study Bill, which examines the California emissions as they would be applied in NC. So, what the Governator is saying holds true to our Carolina Blue Skies, and the country at large, for that matter.

Ocean acidity rising 10x faster than previously thought

Picture: Dead - well, mostly dead - mussels that have noticeably weakened shells. An oceanic shift in pH levels due to, you guessed it, the rise in atmospheric carbon has led many scientists to describe shelled marine life the 'canary in the coal mine' of the oceans.

Uh oh. If it seemed that this climate change thing couldn't get any worse, University of Chicago researchers have some bad news for you, and me, and our days at the beach: the pH of our saltwater is becoming way too acidic way too fast.

What's causing the rise?

"Of the variables the study examined that are linked to changes in ocean acidity, only atmospheric carbon dioxide exhibited a corresponding steady change," said J. Timothy Wootton, the lead author of the study and Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

In regular English: more CO2 equals higher acidity in our oceans.

What are the concerns with a pH change?

Foodchain health. A lot of fish depend on shelled animals, coral, and algae for sustenance, and a lot of people depend on fish for proper nutrition.

Ecosystem health, (e.g. coral reef bleaching [follow this link to a ton of interesting empirical research]).

What's the solution?

Not pumping CO2 into the air in such immense quantities.

GHG Emissions somewhat "terminated" in California, Part II

From Wired:

"Setting California ahead of the curve on global warming will give our state a competitive advantage," said Mary Nichols, chair of the Air Resources Board. (Check out this Wired blog of how California decided to slash its emissions)

Backing up, let's take a look at what lurks under the waters of this West Coast initiative:

1. A "cap-and-trade" system, wherein the state would grant a limited number of permits (i.e. cap) for carbon emissions to industry. The titans then buy and sell (i.e. trade) said permits.
2. Renewables will power 1/3 of the state's grid.

What does this mean for North Carolina? Well, if anything, at least legislators will have a model to help craft state policy. And it seems common sense that a program where, "the savings...outweigh the costs" would work just as well here.

GHG Emissions somewhat "terminated" in California

By now, you've most likely heard about the legislature in California proposing the most comprehensive emissions standards in the country (30% of state emissions slashed by 2020). If not, check it out here (Wallstreet Journal), here (Los Angeles Times), here (Reuters UK), and here (AFP). Hopefully, this bold move will set a precedent soon to be followed across the US (and, cross your fingers, here in the Southeast, which - were it a country - would be the seventh largest GHG contributor in the world).

Under Gov Schwarzenneger, California has a reputation for quick and decisive environmental action, which is often highlighted by reluctant federal leadership. But what isn't getting press (not that much anyways) is that this act sets California ahead of the curve economically. In fact, economists predict that in light of these new rules, California will have 1% greater economic growth (compared to business as usual) by 2020 if it enables this legislation.

Energy-Climate Debate

Recently, an emissions bill before Congress died a legistative death. While said bill may not have had the emissions targets many wanted, it was important for obvious reasons. Whether or not it was effective is now moot.

You can watch the US Senate Debate on DotEarth.

Other countries are playing hardball. Japan recently announced its plans to slash 80% of all carbon emissions by 2050, vowing to usher in a "low-carbon revolution." Read about it here (AP), here (BBC), here (Reuters UK), and read of its far-reaching economic and environmental implications here (The Australian).

Producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' answers questions

Nothing overly profound that our members weren't already aware of, but Laurie David's phrasing is good and concise. Her calling card - she says it all the time and again in the interview - is that lowering one's impact on climate change isn't about being perfect; it's about doing something, anything, to lower one's personal impact.

On another note, for nuclear news in NC:

Nuclear Power in the News & Observer

Shearon Hearis Facility coverage in the News & Observer