As I mentioned the other day on my plus account, last Thursday we held a small conference on the Future of Puget Sound. The guest panelists were Amy Snover and Howard Frumkin from the University of Washington, the chief analyst technical fellow at Boeing, Bob Peterson, and Diana Gale of the Puget Sound Leadership Council (though she is also a lecturer at the Evans School of Public Affairs at UW). Larry Susskind closed out the day with a keynote on collaborative decision-making methods.
Marina opened up the day by presenting a short talk on how deeply uncertainty is intertwined with our decision making processes, and how we may be going about the question of how to deal with it the wrong way. Her argument is pretty simple, at its core: We cannot pretend that we can dismiss uncertainty and reach an 'optimum' solution; rather we need to explore and embrace the uncertainty that is a part of our knowledge processes and try to find solutions that are robust and adaptive.
One of the tools for tackling this problem is scenario analysis, and Michal gave a brief (but very informative) presentation on the Snohomish Basin 2060 Scenarios as an introduction to this way of analyzing uncertainty. The thing that makes scenario development interesting is how it combines quantitative technical knowledge derived from research, qualitative and quantitative local knowledge, a fistful of models, and synthesizes them into a series of digestible, diverging narratives. The importance of narrative in presenting information to the public cannot be underestimated, as I have said before.
This was followed by a discussion from the panelists, who each gave a short statement about dealing with uncertainty in decision making, and then took questions. Each of the panelists had a very distinct view of the world, but all tended to mention a point that I've heard before: genuine dialog between participants in decision-making processes is key. All of them tended to emphasize this for different reasons.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Sunday, October 30, 2011
SXSW: Finally my Final Thoughts.
My apologies, loyal readers.
Among the varied reasons I rarely travel is that fact that it tends to throw the rest of my life into some disarray. Missing an entire week of classes and research responsibilities added substantially to that disarray, and the process of catching up.
I have also been turning over the conference, and attempting to figure out what I actually thought of the experience. Even now, nearly a month after the fact, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
The last day of the conference, I did not attend any of the morning sessions, but took the time to mosey around Austin a bit, and see more of the city. The final keynote was delivered by Philippe Cousteau Jr., and he did a fine job. He told a few very good stories about how he arrived on the scene, beginning with the events that turned his grandfather from someone who was first an explorer into an environmentalist. His delivery sagged in a few points, and he dodged a fewer of the tougher questions put to him by the audience, but effectively delivered the core of his message, which lined up well with a lot of what was put forward by many at the conference: That as a movement, environmentalism has stalled out because of the cultural divide in the US, and that if we wish to make progress, we have to put aside ideology to find common goals, and regain some lost ground.
And it's here that I run aground. It's not that I disagree, because I don't. But this is actually an incredibly difficult proposition, for individuals as well as organizations. The political atmosphere in the US might be termed "ionizing"; even the most neutral proposition will be struck by outside forces and laden with charged political issues. SXSWEco was full of rhetoric and statements about making common ground, setting aside ideological issues, and being practical... and that is all well and good. But how are we supposed to do this?
This is a strategy that one uses because of a lack of power and leverage. It requires finding allies within the edifices of power to be effective. This does not appear to be possible on a great many issues. Anthropogenic Climate Change is regard as more or less a fact of life by the US military, who plan accordingly, but denied by the majority of hawks in the US government, to the extent of altering or suppressing EPA scientific reports for political ends. How does one find common ground on issues with this crowd? Particularly when working with an environmental group may open them up to criticism from within their own ranks?
So I remain torn. I think that many of the discussion that were had at SXSWEco were useful, and needed to happen. But the over arching theme of diversifying the message and setting aside ideological positions ultimately lacks practicality and vital substance.
I would consider attending again next year, on the hopes that more practical issues could be addressed (and assuming the costs come down, given that it was far more expensive than an event like ESA). This might be unlikely to occur, given that SXSW as an organixation tends to focus on ideas and innovation, but implementation is incredibly important, and cannot be ignored in these discussions.
Among the varied reasons I rarely travel is that fact that it tends to throw the rest of my life into some disarray. Missing an entire week of classes and research responsibilities added substantially to that disarray, and the process of catching up.
I have also been turning over the conference, and attempting to figure out what I actually thought of the experience. Even now, nearly a month after the fact, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
The last day of the conference, I did not attend any of the morning sessions, but took the time to mosey around Austin a bit, and see more of the city. The final keynote was delivered by Philippe Cousteau Jr., and he did a fine job. He told a few very good stories about how he arrived on the scene, beginning with the events that turned his grandfather from someone who was first an explorer into an environmentalist. His delivery sagged in a few points, and he dodged a fewer of the tougher questions put to him by the audience, but effectively delivered the core of his message, which lined up well with a lot of what was put forward by many at the conference: That as a movement, environmentalism has stalled out because of the cultural divide in the US, and that if we wish to make progress, we have to put aside ideology to find common goals, and regain some lost ground.
And it's here that I run aground. It's not that I disagree, because I don't. But this is actually an incredibly difficult proposition, for individuals as well as organizations. The political atmosphere in the US might be termed "ionizing"; even the most neutral proposition will be struck by outside forces and laden with charged political issues. SXSWEco was full of rhetoric and statements about making common ground, setting aside ideological issues, and being practical... and that is all well and good. But how are we supposed to do this?
This is a strategy that one uses because of a lack of power and leverage. It requires finding allies within the edifices of power to be effective. This does not appear to be possible on a great many issues. Anthropogenic Climate Change is regard as more or less a fact of life by the US military, who plan accordingly, but denied by the majority of hawks in the US government, to the extent of altering or suppressing EPA scientific reports for political ends. How does one find common ground on issues with this crowd? Particularly when working with an environmental group may open them up to criticism from within their own ranks?
So I remain torn. I think that many of the discussion that were had at SXSWEco were useful, and needed to happen. But the over arching theme of diversifying the message and setting aside ideological positions ultimately lacks practicality and vital substance.
I would consider attending again next year, on the hopes that more practical issues could be addressed (and assuming the costs come down, given that it was far more expensive than an event like ESA). This might be unlikely to occur, given that SXSW as an organixation tends to focus on ideas and innovation, but implementation is incredibly important, and cannot be ignored in these discussions.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Day One Part Two (All about Coal and Grass)
So, lunch time here at the conference, just saw a very interesting presentation about how bad people are at consuming less. But! First I want to update about the end of the day yesterday.
One of the talks I was looking forward to seeing the most was also one of the shortest.
With the provocative title of "No More Coal: The business case of ending an industry", it was presented by Gil Friend, of Natural Logic. He was apparently prepared to give an hour, but only had fifteen minutes, and so didn't bother with slides, and just read things off his phone.
For all that, his presentation was pretty good, as he clearly knew the material backwards and forwards.
Mr. Friend posited the idea that if we look at the global subsidies for the coal industry, they may amount to something like 200 billion US dollars (there are apparently not good data, so it's a ball park figure). However, the industry only has a worth of approximately 150 billion US. Which means that we, as a species, sink 50 billion dollars a year into an industry that ultimately is causing us a lot of problems, and which isn't even economically viable without subsidies. Thus, he suggests we could do several things. The most radical is to use that same subsidy money to buy out the mines, and shut them down. This strikes me as phenomenally unlikely. Another, potentially more viable option would be to simply end all subsidies, period. This would do a couple of things: it would drastically drive up the cost of coal, drive many mines out of business, and potentially level the playing field in the energy sector, giving renewables an opening to grab some market share.
However, and maybe he didn't discuss this because of time issues, it would also have the impact of driving up energy prices. Many, many parts of the country use coal to generate electricity. A drastic increase in price or decrease in availability would impact electricity production in ugly ways. This would have the net effect of reducing consumption, but probably not in a way that would be beneficial to society, at least in the near term.
The next talk was also a fifteen minute number, delivered by Mark Simmons, from the SITES initiative talk. He recycled some material, particularly about his desire to live in Middle Earth, rather than some ultra urbanized future. In something of a recurring theme at this convention, he opened by talking about the carbon storage capacity of grasslands (which is only surpassed by wetlands), but then shifted gears to talk about other ecosystem services, and restoration projects. In particular, he pointed out how much more durable and resistant to drought lawns made up of a mix of local grasses are than imported turf grasses. He also discussed a restoration project here in Austin, bringing back some of the blackland prairie that has almost disappeared from the Texas landscape. Perhaps the most interesting part, for me, were the slides showing the superior performance here in Texas of a mix of local grasses to the sedums typically used for green roof installations. This wasn't too surprising, given some of the green roof literature I've seen, showing that a suite of local species often perform better than the generic sedum mix widely used, but it was nice to see none the less.
It was not, shall we say, a presentation that invoked deep thinking, but showed how relatively simple it can be to address a lot of the issues that we face as an increasingly urban species.
Later this evening, I'll post some updates about today's events, which so far are shaping up to be excellent.
One of the talks I was looking forward to seeing the most was also one of the shortest.
With the provocative title of "No More Coal: The business case of ending an industry", it was presented by Gil Friend, of Natural Logic. He was apparently prepared to give an hour, but only had fifteen minutes, and so didn't bother with slides, and just read things off his phone.
For all that, his presentation was pretty good, as he clearly knew the material backwards and forwards.
Mr. Friend posited the idea that if we look at the global subsidies for the coal industry, they may amount to something like 200 billion US dollars (there are apparently not good data, so it's a ball park figure). However, the industry only has a worth of approximately 150 billion US. Which means that we, as a species, sink 50 billion dollars a year into an industry that ultimately is causing us a lot of problems, and which isn't even economically viable without subsidies. Thus, he suggests we could do several things. The most radical is to use that same subsidy money to buy out the mines, and shut them down. This strikes me as phenomenally unlikely. Another, potentially more viable option would be to simply end all subsidies, period. This would do a couple of things: it would drastically drive up the cost of coal, drive many mines out of business, and potentially level the playing field in the energy sector, giving renewables an opening to grab some market share.
However, and maybe he didn't discuss this because of time issues, it would also have the impact of driving up energy prices. Many, many parts of the country use coal to generate electricity. A drastic increase in price or decrease in availability would impact electricity production in ugly ways. This would have the net effect of reducing consumption, but probably not in a way that would be beneficial to society, at least in the near term.
The next talk was also a fifteen minute number, delivered by Mark Simmons, from the SITES initiative talk. He recycled some material, particularly about his desire to live in Middle Earth, rather than some ultra urbanized future. In something of a recurring theme at this convention, he opened by talking about the carbon storage capacity of grasslands (which is only surpassed by wetlands), but then shifted gears to talk about other ecosystem services, and restoration projects. In particular, he pointed out how much more durable and resistant to drought lawns made up of a mix of local grasses are than imported turf grasses. He also discussed a restoration project here in Austin, bringing back some of the blackland prairie that has almost disappeared from the Texas landscape. Perhaps the most interesting part, for me, were the slides showing the superior performance here in Texas of a mix of local grasses to the sedums typically used for green roof installations. This wasn't too surprising, given some of the green roof literature I've seen, showing that a suite of local species often perform better than the generic sedum mix widely used, but it was nice to see none the less.
It was not, shall we say, a presentation that invoked deep thinking, but showed how relatively simple it can be to address a lot of the issues that we face as an increasingly urban species.
Later this evening, I'll post some updates about today's events, which so far are shaping up to be excellent.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Day One
So, Day One of SXSWEco, in lovely Austin, Texas. Today was only a half day of content, perhaps to give attendees traveling into the city an opportunity to arrive today and not miss anything.
The first panel I decided to attend was "Living Laboratories: How Landscapes Give Back". This was put on by some of the organizers of the Sustainable SITES Intiative.
SITES is essentially a LEED certification system for the great outdoors, intended to deal with the fact that most developed landscapes are something of a nightmare, ecologically speaking. SITES is currently in the pilot phase, with approximately 150 projects scattered throughout the US, and a few in Europe (including Iceland, interesting enough). Based on the results from the pilot projects, the guidelines and scoring system will be revised, and then released for general use. One of the very interesting things about SITES is the a focus on function and ecosystem services; it's not necessarily about restoring the original landscape, but creating and maintaining one that provides value to the human occupants by being a functional ecosystem. One can get bonus points by planting natives, but it's not necessary and in a lot of cases, simply won't be practical. And because landscape architects are involved, you can be certain there will also be an emphasis on aesthetics on most projects. The main points of the program deal with the green part of the landscape (through a biomass density index, which is similar to leaf area index, but the scale has average values for eco-regions) and water.
The water issues addressed by the certification process are those most familiar to anyone who has worked with surface water in urban areas: controlling and reducing runoff from storm events, improving and protecting water quality, and restoring natural/appropriate stream geomorphology. There is also a focus on water usage, particularly reducing the use of potable water for irrigation. This provides a balance to the plant side of the equation, by penalizing for installing more biomass than the site can support without additional water inputs.
Soil was also dealt with briefly in the discussion (as I asked about it). 'Prime farmland' will not eligible for the program, unless it has already been developed or otherwise degraded and is no longer in agricultural use, and it sounded like some sort of soil management plan will need to be put in place along with the management and monitoring plans for the plant community and water components of the landscape.
One thing SITES will not deal with (at least immediately) is animal life. This, according to Mark Simmons (when asked a challenging landscape ecology question), was because there was simply too much regional complexity for the program to deal with immediately. Over time he thought it was likely that regionally focused animal habitat components will be developed and integrated into the certification.
Personally, I think SITES is extremely promising, and has potential to really deeply affect the way outdoor spaces are designed and maintained in the future. We can hope--as Mr. Simmons said on more than one occasion--to at least do things less wrong.
The first panel I decided to attend was "Living Laboratories: How Landscapes Give Back". This was put on by some of the organizers of the Sustainable SITES Intiative.
SITES is essentially a LEED certification system for the great outdoors, intended to deal with the fact that most developed landscapes are something of a nightmare, ecologically speaking. SITES is currently in the pilot phase, with approximately 150 projects scattered throughout the US, and a few in Europe (including Iceland, interesting enough). Based on the results from the pilot projects, the guidelines and scoring system will be revised, and then released for general use. One of the very interesting things about SITES is the a focus on function and ecosystem services; it's not necessarily about restoring the original landscape, but creating and maintaining one that provides value to the human occupants by being a functional ecosystem. One can get bonus points by planting natives, but it's not necessary and in a lot of cases, simply won't be practical. And because landscape architects are involved, you can be certain there will also be an emphasis on aesthetics on most projects. The main points of the program deal with the green part of the landscape (through a biomass density index, which is similar to leaf area index, but the scale has average values for eco-regions) and water.
The water issues addressed by the certification process are those most familiar to anyone who has worked with surface water in urban areas: controlling and reducing runoff from storm events, improving and protecting water quality, and restoring natural/appropriate stream geomorphology. There is also a focus on water usage, particularly reducing the use of potable water for irrigation. This provides a balance to the plant side of the equation, by penalizing for installing more biomass than the site can support without additional water inputs.
Soil was also dealt with briefly in the discussion (as I asked about it). 'Prime farmland' will not eligible for the program, unless it has already been developed or otherwise degraded and is no longer in agricultural use, and it sounded like some sort of soil management plan will need to be put in place along with the management and monitoring plans for the plant community and water components of the landscape.
One thing SITES will not deal with (at least immediately) is animal life. This, according to Mark Simmons (when asked a challenging landscape ecology question), was because there was simply too much regional complexity for the program to deal with immediately. Over time he thought it was likely that regionally focused animal habitat components will be developed and integrated into the certification.
Personally, I think SITES is extremely promising, and has potential to really deeply affect the way outdoor spaces are designed and maintained in the future. We can hope--as Mr. Simmons said on more than one occasion--to at least do things less wrong.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Bad News: Now in Video Form
Just to expand on the Arctic Ice Minimum issue a little bit:
A pretty nice (if depressing) little summation.
One of the things I think is very peculiar, and that seems to receive infrequent commentary is that the US military has no doubts about climate change issues. Here we see a Navy scientist discussing an impending ice free Arctic in the summer. This, of course, has serious strategic consequences for the Navy, and they take it seriously. It's bizarre to me that one of the most trusted components of the US government could internally take a position different from that of the government at large, and that the public doesn't seem to know, or to care. Very strange to me.
Of course, the unwillingness of people to accept data for what are ultimately political reasons is strange to me as well, even though it shouldn't be.
We are, after all, only a bunch of irrational, clannish primates.
(tip of the hat to P.Z. Myers for the video)
A pretty nice (if depressing) little summation.
One of the things I think is very peculiar, and that seems to receive infrequent commentary is that the US military has no doubts about climate change issues. Here we see a Navy scientist discussing an impending ice free Arctic in the summer. This, of course, has serious strategic consequences for the Navy, and they take it seriously. It's bizarre to me that one of the most trusted components of the US government could internally take a position different from that of the government at large, and that the public doesn't seem to know, or to care. Very strange to me.
Of course, the unwillingness of people to accept data for what are ultimately political reasons is strange to me as well, even though it shouldn't be.
We are, after all, only a bunch of irrational, clannish primates.
(tip of the hat to P.Z. Myers for the video)
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Good News, Bad News
One of the drawbacks of working in an environmental field and paying attention to the news in these fields, is that you don't often come into contact with much in the way of good news.
In the last few weeks, the Franklin's Bumblebee (Bombus franklini) was suggested for listing as an endangered species, though it may already be extinct. If you happen to live in its range (Northern California and Southwestern Oregon, including urban areas) keep your eyes peeled for them. None have been officially documented since 2006.
 |
| Image from the USFWS |
Also recently, the Arctic sea ice may have reached a new record minimum.
Reports on this are slightly conflicting, with a German research group stating (not the best translation, but totally readable) that this year is a new record low, and the US National Snow and Ice Data Center stating this is the second lowest extent. Likely the two, slightly conflicting, findings will be ironed out in the near future, once the NSIDC release their more detailed analysis in October. But the trend of thinning ice and shrinking area is undeniable. Another record was set in July this year, according to NOAA.
It's difficult to say how this will ultimately impact the global climate, if the trend doesn't reverse itself (something that seems unlikely, but is possible). But there will be almost certainly be an impact, as reflective sea ice is replaced by sunlight-absorbing open water, dramatically altering the energy budget of the top of the world.
One bit of news on the positive side: the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) re-introduction program seems to be doing well, and recently marked its 30 year anniversary. Because the ecosystem of the American plains evolved with black-footed ferrets as part of it, returning the ferrets will do a little bit of work in returning parts of the prairie to a more natural, balanced state. This is only a small piece of the puzzle, of course. Much of the land that makes up the Great Plains is still missing natural fire cycles, bison, and nomadic hunter-gatherers (as the people who lived on the plains shaped that ecosystem long before the arrival of Europeans). Not to mention that it has been inundated with non-native plants that we will never be able to remove.
But I'll take a small victory any day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)