Blue Marble

Meteorologists Take Geoengineering Seriously

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 6:02 PM EDT

Geoengineering received a big boost this week. The American Meteorological Society released a major statement Monday on the topic, making these recommendations:

1. Enhanced research on the scientific and technological potential for geoengineering the climate system, including research on intended and unintended environmental responses.
2. Coordinated study of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering that integrates international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational issues and perspectives and includes lessons from past efforts to modify weather and climate.
3. Development and analysis of policy options to promote transparency and international cooperation in exploring geoengineering options along with restrictions on reckless efforts to manipulate the climate system.

The AMS is a respected scientific body here in the US, and a statement of this kind certainly gives credence to the possibility of a major, well-funded, possibly federal geoengineering research program. It also comes on the heels of a National Academy of Sciences workshop in which leading experts debated the merits of such a research program.

Some geoengineering critics (and there are plenty of them) say investment in this kind of research will only distract from mitigation efforts. I disagree, and now, so does AMS. And I think the Society responds well to that argument with this point:

Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation, and transparent deliberation.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Compromise for Condoms?

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 3:05 PM EDT

In government health care reform debates, abortion coverage is the third rail. Should some abortion be implicitly, if not explicitly, covered? Should Congress promote the use of contraception? And if abortion were covered, would Barack Obama's mother have had one?

Those hoping for compromise on the issue suffered a setback yesterday when Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was "booted" from Democrats for Life, the anti-choice arm of the Democratic Party, for sponsoring legislation that would have supported the use of contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

In a statement last week, Ryan said, "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem."

As Atrios writes, Ryan's effort seems like a good faith attempt to find common ground on the abortion issue, but the anti-choice movement proved once again that it is against "any sex without a good chance of 'consequences' for the woman taking part."

Neither health care reform bill in the House or Senate mentions abortion explicitly. But the discussion raises a larger question about DC compromise on social issues. Since he began his campaign for president more than two years ago, Barack Obama has been consistent in advocating "common ground" on divisive issues like abortion. But the anti-choice rejection of contraception indicates that common ground on this particular issue may be impossible.

Can conservatives, for example, accept compromise on health care if it includes contraception or (gasp!) abortion? And will liberals accept compromise without it?

Creationist Girl Scout Honored

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 2:42 PM EDT

If you were a nine-year-old girl in the year 1989 like I was, you might remember the movie Troop Beverly Hills, wherein a star-studded cast of scouts (including Tori Spelling, singer Jenny Lewis, and Margeaux from Punky Brewster) earns badges in accessorizing, shopping, and other mall-related pursuits. I mention this fine film not just because I wanted to (though that was part of it) but because today I heard about another non-traditional scout discipline: creationism.

Answers in Genesis blog reports that the Girl Scouts of America has bestowed its highest honor, the Gold Award, on Wisconsin teen Annie Wichman. Her winning accomplishments: amassing a library of creation literature for her church, building a model of Noah's ark, and teaching creationism to elementary schoolers. She called her project Alternate Universe.

I'm not convinced that this is an implicit endorsement of creationism on the part of the Girl Scouts of America. According to the Gold Award website, a winning projects is:

...something that a girl can be passionate about—in thought, deed, and action. The project is something that fulfills a need within a girl's community (whether local or global), creates change, and hopefully, is something that becomes ongoing.

The goal isn't scientific accuracy. It's personal fulfillment and community involvement. The teaching component irks me a little, especially if it was part of a science lesson in a public school instead of Sunday school at church. But overall, Wichman's project seems pretty innocuous.

And it's unlikely that scouts will soon add creationism badges to their sashes, though given the panoply of activities that can earn you an insignia these days (my favorite: Couch Potato. "Watching TV can be a fun, educational activity, a way to de-stress and relax sometimes. Or it can be a very unhealthy way to pass the time. It all depends on how and what you watch.") it's not entirely out of the question.

So: If you were to design a creationism badge, what might it look like? I favor dinosaur with rider.


Eco-News Roundup: Wednesday, July 22

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 7:00 AM EDT

Looking for more health, science, and environment news today? Look no further:

Wary of Waxman-Markey? Kevin Drum on why carbon cap-and-trade is not just another subprime debacle waiting to happen.

Sketchy green jobs skeptic: An ExxonMobil-funded Spanish economist claims that for every green job created, 20 jobs are lost. Turns out he has it backwards.

The hard sell: How do you convince Americans who already have health insurance to support healthcare reform? Scare them with the facts.

Cell phone driving data, finally: The government has known since 2003 that at least 1,000 people die on the road every year because a driver was talking on a cell phone (and hands-free devices don't help). So why are they only telling the public now?

Report Finds Huge Potential for Conservation to End California's Water Crisis

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 2:11 AM EDT | Scheduled to publish Wed Jul. 22, 2009 8:00 AM EDT

 A report released today by California's Pacific Institute estimates that reasonable water conservation improvements on the state's farms could save a huge amount of water--far more than what farmers have been forced to relinquish to protect fish habitat during the state's ongoing drought. The amount that could be saved, 1.8 trillion gallons annually, is more than 15 times the size of the municipal supply of San Francisco. 

The report, Sustaining California Agriculture in an Uncertain Future, provides considerable ammunition to environmentalists in their fight with farmers over the West's dwindling water resources. In the midst of the third year of drought in California, growers are blaming endangered species laws for crimping their water supply and contributing to $1 billion in lost revenue this season. Though they've used their plight to call for weakening environmental regulations and building more dams and reservoirs, the report suggests their efforts are misplaced. Smarter conservation has allowed some growers "to increase their income, crop yields, and production, even during drought," says Pacific Institute president Peter Gleick. "Such success stories offer the state a vision of what a healthy agricultural future might look like."

The water conservation methods that the Gleick studied are already in use in the state, though many farmers cling to older practices. For example, 60 percent of crops in California are still irrigated by flooding the field, even though drip irrigation methods can easily halve water use. The report also suggests that farmers apply less water to crops during drought-tolerant growth stages and use sensors that can detect when soil is dry. 

These ideas can seem far-removed from our lives until we realize that the products we consume account for more than 90 percent of our daily water use, far more than what comes out of our taps. I explore this idea in "What's Your Water Footprint," a piece in the current issue.  The Pacific Institute and other environmental groups eventually hope the concept of a water footprint will catch on much as carbon footprints have. The idea could be used to reward farmers who do the right thing, either with tax breaks, loans, or a premium for the products they sell. 

The case for looking at carbon footprints and water footprints together is stronger than ever. A new study from the University of Colorado found that climate change creates a 50 percent chance that the reservoirs supplied by the Colorado River, the West's main water source, could run dry by 2057. And a study released today by UC Davis found that California's $10 billion fruit and nut industry is under threat from higher temperatues, which could make it impossible to grow walnuts, pistacios, peaches, apricots, plums, and cherries almost everywhere in the Central Valley. If that happens, all the water conservation technology in the world probably won't save us.

Mom Eats For Two Forever

| Tue Jul. 21, 2009 6:01 PM EDT

A series of reports from the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction reinforce the growing notion that our health is affected by the actions and choices of our forefathers—or foremothers.

It's all about epigenetic inheritance: the nongenetic variations acquired during the life of an organism that can be passed on to offspring.

We already know—and I've already written—that fruit flies exposed to certain chemicals transmit changes down at least 13 generations. And that people malnourished in adolescence transmit higher rates of heart disease and diabetes to their children and even their grandchildren.

Now the following studies demonstrate how maternal nutrition, protein intake, and fat in the diet cause epigenetic changes in developing fetuses, with long-term health consequences. Some changes occur before pregnancy, some during—some don't manifest for a long time:

  • Mouse studies suggest that subtle differences in maternal metabolism have long-lasting effects. When embryos were transferred from a diabetic mouse to a nondiabetic mouse, all kinds of birth defects ensued (neural tube defects, heart defects, limb deformities, and growth defects in offspring)—suggesting we need to redirect ideas about maternal health to prior to pregnancy.
  • Maternal nutrition at the time of conception alters fetal development. Sheep and rodent studies reveal that offspring of mothers with vitamin B12 and folic acid deficiencies are fatter, become insulin resistant, and have higher blood pressure by the time they reach middle-age—proving that early molecular changes may not manifest for many years.
  • Low protein levels in female mice during the first few moments of conception caused abnormal growth, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and jumpy behavior in their offspring. They also grew bigger, extracting as many nutrients as they could to compensate for poor nutrition in the womb.
  • According to epigenetic theory, changes in the genome can happen at any time through the impact of environmental factors on the expression of genes over time. One of the most critical periods is early life when epigenetic memories are created that may impact a person's susceptibility to disease later in life. These "memories" may lie dormant until an environmental trigger brings them to the surface and modifies disease risk.

 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Bright Green Idea: Trash Track

| Tue Jul. 21, 2009 5:54 PM EDT

Ever wonder what happens to your trash after you toss it? If you live in New York City or Seattle, you may soon get the chance to find out.

The cities are hosting Trash Track, an MIT project enlisting volunteers to trace their waste's odyssey via electronic tags. By forcing people to confront how their garbage impacts the environment, program directors hope to inspire more recycling. Come September, the project will culminate with an exhibit at the Architectural League in New York City and the Seattle Public Library.

Any cool, eco-friendly ideas you've heard about recently? Post in the comments section below.

Pesticides Worse For Kids

| Tue Jul. 21, 2009 5:13 PM EDT

Scientists have suspected for a while that like many substances, pesticides affect children and adults differently. It stands to reason: Kids have less mass to absorb chemicals, and their organs are still developing. But it's hard to figure out exactly how toxins interact with children's bodies—or how dangerous they are.

Some encouraging news: A team of U.C. Berkeley researchers  pinpointed an enzyme—called paraoxonase—that helps the body break down organophosphate pesticides. They found that until children reach age seven, they don't have nearly as much of the enzyme as adults do:

Although it has been known that newborns have low levels of the paraoxonase enzyme, it was previously believed that paraoxonase concentrations reached adult levels by 2 years of age.

This assumption was based on one earlier study of 9 children. Now a new study of 458 children followed from birth to age 7 shows that paraoxonase levels continue to increase steadily until age 7. At age 7, the average paraoxonase level in children was similar to, but still lower than, adult levels.

The bad news: Organophosphates are cheap, and this mosquito season, an inexpensive pesticide will look awfully appealing to financially strapped cities.


 

 

VIDEO: Hard Times Hit Zoos

| Tue Jul. 21, 2009 2:32 PM EDT

 July has been a month of tough choices for everybody:  summer unemployment is soaring and several states are still struggling to balance their budgets. But even amid the chaos, at least one oft-overlooked element of society is suffering more than usual. As it turns out, July has been especially rough for the nation's zoo animals. 

The Los Angeles Zoo (home of Gracie the great escaping ape and Ruby, the elephant whose retirement home is nicer than your Nana's) paid out $3,281 to the USDA in wrongful death settlements involving Gita the elephant and Judeo the chimpanzee, who both died under mysterious circumstances while in the zoo's care, it was reported Tuesday. The Zoo said both cases were freak accidents (Judeo died after being bitten by a rattlesnake) and paid the fine without admitting wrongdoing. 

 

Senate Hearing: Jobs & the Climate Bill

| Tue Jul. 21, 2009 10:24 AM EDT

A hearing is getting underway before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: "Climate-Related Policies and Economic Growth - State and Local Views." You can watch it live, here.

Panel 1 is governors; panel 2 is mostly mayors. For a list of panel members, see here.

First comments: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calls for an energy revolution.

For detailed coverage of one important aspect of this hearing -- the reappearance and slapdown of the Spanish Prisoner -- click here.