Blue Marble

Climate Change Will More Than Triple Annual US Heat-Death Toll

| Thu May. 24, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

In an average summer in the United States, there are 1,332 heat-related deaths. But climate change will make that number rise to 4,608 by the end of the century, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. In total, the US can expect 150,000 deaths due to excessive heat by 2100, the report projects.

The paper is based on research recently published in the journal Weather, Climate and Society that looked at the impact that hotter days and nights would have on heat-related deaths. Scientists expect temperatures to rise 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century due to human-induced climate change, and the number of days where the temperature presents a health threat will tick upward. That will be felt most in cities, where all that asphalt and glass amplify the heat and the dense population leaves more people vulnerable. Thirty-seven of 40 cities studied will see increases in heat-related deaths, they predict.

The hardest hit will be Louisville, Detroit, and Cleveland, researchers found. The average number of deaths in Louisville was 39 per summer from 1975 to 2004. That figure is expected to grow to 257 per summer by mid-century and to 376 by 2100. That's a total of 18,988 more deaths than would occur without climate change. Detroit can expect 17,877 additional deaths over the rest of this century, and Cleveland 16,625.  Many of the most affected cities are in the Midwest and Northeast, where the weather is more variable and where populations aren't as adapted to extreme heat. By comparison, Miami currently averages zero heat-related deaths, which researchers expect will continue because the temperature, while hot, is relatively stable and air conditioning is widely available.

"As temperatures continue to rise and climate variability continues to increase, we're going to have some real problems," said Larry Kalkstein, one of the paper's authors and a senior professor of geography and regional studies at the University of Miami. These heat deaths are "a silent killer," he added. It's not like a tornado, where destruction and the death tolls are readily apparent, so the public often doesn't notice escalating body counts.

And those figures might be conservative, according to NRDC's program director for climate, Dan Lashof, because they don't take into account projections on population growth in those cities, or anticipated growth in the number of sick or elderly people, who are often hit hardest in heat waves. Kalkstein also noted that it's often difficult for medical examiners to determine that a death was definitively due to heat, since it often exacerbates preexisting heart or respiratory issues. That means the baseline figures for cities could already be low. (See Mother Jones' interview with climatologist Matthew Huber for more dystopian projections.)

"This is a real wake up call," said NRDC's Lashof. "Carbon pollution has real life or death consequences."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

A Little Anti-Social Behavior With Your Organic Carrots?

| Wed May. 23, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Are people who buy organic food a bunch of selfish, judgmental a-holes? That's basically the conclusion of a new study published in the journal Social Psychology & Personality Science.

The study found that subjects who are exposed to images of organic foods "reduce prosocial behavior" and "harshen moral judgments" of others. The researcher, Kendall Eskine of Loyola University in New Orleans, took 60 people and split them into three groups. The first group was shown photos of clearly-marked organic foods, the second was shown comfort foods like cookies, and the third was shown control foods like rice or oatmeal. Then a variety of situations were laid out for them—like "second cousins having sex" or "a lawyer on the prowl in an ER trying to get people to sue for their injuries"—and they were asked to assign a moral judgment to each, on a scale of 1 to 7.

Eskine found that the organic group was more likely to judge the people in the stories harshly. The organic test subjects averaged a 5.5, while the controls averaged a 5 and the comfort food subjects averaged a 4.89. The scientists also asked the participants to state how much time they would offer to volunteer, from 1 to 30 minutes, and found that the subjects who saw the organic food photos were still jerkier than the rest. The organic food group offered to volunteer 13 minutes, while the rice people offered 19 minutes and the cookie people offered 24.

But why was the organic group meaner than the others? Eskine offers a suggestion:

"People may feel like they've done their good deed," he says. "That they have permission, or license, to act unethically later on. It's like when you go to the gym and run a few miles and you feel good about yourself, so you eat a candy bar."

The study has inspired a number of responses online to the tune of, "See, we knew those pointy-headed argula eaters were a bunch of self-important dicks." But as Jess Zimmerman points out over at Grist, the study is pretty flawed and probably aimed at pissing off organic eaters. For one, it treats shoplifting, eating your dead dog, and cousins engaging in consensual sex as equal moral issues when it averages their judgments. And secondly, it was a tiny sample size and all the subjects were college students.

Most importantly, no one in the study was actually eating food. They weren't even buying it. They were just looking at pictures of it! Staring at pictures of food would probably make me hungry and therefore more judgy and selfish, too.

Fracking: The Music Video

| Wed May. 23, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

Have you been curious what all the hubbub on "fracking" is about? Here is a fabulous music video explaining it:

Here's more about the video, which was done by David Holmes and other talented journalism students at Jay Rosen's NYU's Studio 20. It was part of their collaboration with us to build better explanations for stories. For more on fracking, its lack of regulation, and the potential for drinking water contamination, check out our now nearly three-year running investigation.

Heartland Institute Adviser: "The People That Warm Spells Kill Are Already Moribund"

| Tue May. 22, 2012 4:35 PM PDT

The Heartland Institute

This story first appeard on the Guardian website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

It was an odd choice of icon for the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute. But there he was in round glasses, beard, and halo of curls staring out from T-shirts and coffee mugs at their gathering of climate change contrarians this week, the scientist whose internet sting set Heartland on its current course of collapse.

Heartland's seventh climate conference, which runs until Wednesday, was a much diminished event, compared to earlier lavish gatherings which spilled out over several floors of a hotel in New York City's Times Square and attracted up to 800 followers.

Rich People vs. Wildlife Conservation Trusts

| Tue May. 22, 2012 10:35 AM PDT

It's long been clear that the super rich often believe that the law is just a minor annoyance that expensive lawyers can find away around, especially if it involves off-shore tax havens. Now, apparently, some of them are training their sights on legal restrictions that prevent them from cutting down trees to maximize the panoramic views of their country estates or expand their private jet runways.

Over the past few decades, land owners hoping to preserve wilderness areas or green space have created hundreds of conservation easements that they have then donated to land trusts. This is supposed to ensure that any future owners of the property abide by the environmental conservation restrictions. But lately, according to the New York Times, the nation's land trusts are winding up in epic legal battles with property owners who have bought land covered by such easements and proceeded to ignore them.

The Times reports on cases where wealthy property owners had ignored conservation easements to cut down hundreds of trees on wetlands, built a gravel road over a protected trout stream, and installed a manorial lawn and gardens on land required to remain in a natural wilderness state. Such flagrant violations have forced underfunded land trusts to sue the property owners to prevent more violations and to remedy the damage if possible. The Times notes that the legal battles have a common denominator: "the wealth of the property owners challenging restrictions." The legal battles have become so ubiquitious that the land trusts have been forced to set up an insurance company to help them pay the bills. The trusts typically win the cases, but which can take a decade or more to resolve, as the Times reports:

In East Haddam, Conn., defending one case against a landowner took almost a decade and cost the local trust $415,000, about half of which was covered by insurance. "It nearly brought us to our knees," said Anita Ballek, a co-founder of the East Haddam Land Trust.

The story was buried in the Sunday Times, but was a depressing piece of news, especially for people who had set up the easements in the first place to preserve their little corner of nature. The penalty for cutting down hundreds of protected trees could be a decade of expensive litigation, but the rich offenders will continue to enjoy the unobstructed views from their verandas in the meantime. And of course, once old tress are cut down, it will be decades before they return to their original state, if ever.

Apple Dumps Coal—Sort Of

| Tue May. 22, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Last Thursday, Apple announced that it would meet the energy demands of its massive Maiden, North Carolina, data center—one of the sites providing virtual space for our ever-increasing piles of digital detritus—using entirely renewable sources by the end of 2012. The announcement came one month after Greenpeace released a damning report titled "How Clean Is Your Cloud?" targeting Apple's Maiden facility in particular for its less-than-clean sourcing from utility giant Duke Energy, which produces 60 percent of its electricity in North Carolina from coal. (Watch the Climate Desk's video about the new data center here.)

The "cloud" is slated to increase in size roughly 50-fold by 2020, a fact that Greenpeace argues makes it imperative that IT giants like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple start greening their energy, and soon. Each of these companies has numerous data centers busily converting tons of energy for our data needs, and many are located in regions where they can buy their energy on the cheap. (Check out the map after the jump to see if there's one near you). With Thursday's announcement, Apple joins the two other companies in what Greenpeace has called Duke's "dirty data triangle"—Google and Facebook—in attempting to clean up its image.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Nuclear Regulator Resigns Under Industry Pressure

| Mon May. 21, 2012 12:33 PM PDT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko resigned on Monday, ending what had been months of fighting both over and within the panel charged with regulating the US nuclear industry.

"After an incredibly productive three years as Chairman, I have decided this is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum," he said in a statement. "This is the right time to pass along the public safety torch to a new chairman who will keep a strong focus on carrying out the vital mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Jaczko had served on the commission for nearly 8 years, and Obama tapped him to serve as its chairman in May 2009. He'd been under fire from the nuclear industry, as well as its allies in Congress and on commission. In the past years, battles over building a waste repository at Yucca Mountain and safety changes in response to the Fukushima disaster in Japan had put pressure on Jaczko, a reform-minded regulator who had worked for Rep. Ed Markey and Sen. Harry Reid before joining the NRC, to resign.

Jaczko's main opponent on the panel was William Magwood, an Obama appointee and nuclear industry insider who had waged a campaign to push the chairman out. Magwood had previously worked for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a major provider of nuclear fuel, technology, plant design, and equipment, and had a record of championing expansion of the industry. He and the three other more industry-sympathetic commissioners accused Jaczko of mismanaging the commission. They expressed "grave concerns" about his leadership in a letter to the White House, and said he "intimidated and bullied" NRC staff.

But critics of the nuclear industry were fans of the chairman. "Jaczko did all he could to stand up to the political and economic influence of the nuclear industry and set commonsense reforms to make the industry safer post-Fukushima," said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program in a statement. "But it wasn't enough. The other commissioners didn't want to be so tough on industry."

The White House will need to appoint a new chairman to replace Jaczko.

Unplugging These 6 Gadgets Will Cut Your Electricity Bill

| Mon May. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
desk with gadgets

We all know we're supposed to unplug our technological gadgets when we're not using them, and back in the days when we only had a few home electronics—a TV here, a stereo there—that wasn't so hard to do. But as our devices proliferate (see chart below), this formerly simple task has become increasingly annoying. Who wants to spend an extra 10 minutes every morning stalking around the house and finding phone chargers and cable boxes to unplug like we're on some kind of weird easter egg hunt? And furthermore, would the energy savings from unplugging really be enough to make it worth the effort? I asked a few experts to weigh in.

2007: The Good Old Days

| Fri May. 18, 2012 1:19 PM PDT

While doing some research today, I came across this 2007 blog post from US News & World Reports discussing a Mitt Romney television appearance before he formally announced his intent to run for office:

Romney gave some vague answers regarding his views on dealing with climate change, other than to emphasize that he wanted market-oriented solutions. But Romney, a guy who is trying to portray himself as a follower of Reaganomics, never really contested the underlying science. And probably no major 2008 candidate will either, for fear of being labeled a scientifically illiterate know-nothing.

Oh, 2007. You were so quaint!

Gas Company Goes After Fire-Breathing-Hose Blogger

| Fri May. 18, 2012 1:09 PM PDT

Natural gas company Range Resources Corp. is suing a Texas landowner and environmental consultant for $3 million in damages, and may be coming after a blogger as well for damaging its reputation.

In 2010, Texas landowner Steven Lipsky made a video (see below) that showed a garden hose shooting out fire, which he blamed on nearby natural gas extraction. He sent the video to Texas blogger Sharon Wilson, who posted it online, and he hired environmental consultant Alisa Rich to come test the water and send the results to the EPA.

Bloomberg reports that Range is accusing Lipsky and Rich of a "conspiracy to harm its reputation" in the suit, and demanding information from Wilson to prove it:

Range won one round in its fight this week, when a judge ruled that Wilson had to turn over e-mails she exchanged with the EPA and Lipsky, as she is a "central and recurring character in the conspiracy lawsuit."
“This has everything to do with Range trying to shut me up, and further intimidate opponents,” Wilson said in an interview. Wilson, who said she didn’t even receive the video of Lipsky’s flaming hose until after the EPA acted, said she fears she may be added to the suit against Lipsky and Rich.

Lipsky says he sought Rich's help, along with the EPA's, after state regulators didn't respond to his concerns. EPA staff then came out and did its own tests, finding alarming levels of methan that they believe posed an "imminent and substantial risk of explosion or fire." The agency ordered Range to take immediate action to correct the situation. But then state regulators in Texas decided that the Range wasn't responsible. So Lipsky sued Range, and the company countersued the pair for defamation, accusing Lipsky and Rich of conspiring to get the EPA involved.

It's a fairly complicated back story, but it raises some concerns. For one, should a company be able to sue individuals for raising concerns to the EPA? And second, should the company be able to obtain correspondence between those individuals and an outside blogger? To make things more complicated, Wilson now works for the Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, which the judge used to argue that she should not be afforded any protections as a journalist and thus needs to hand over the emails.

It's certainly a case worth watching. Here's the video that got the whole thing started: