Living a Conscious Life

From Shakespeare to the Matrix

Posted on 29 May 2009
Tags:

From Shakespeare to the Matrix

Marissa Knodel

Marissa Knodel

The Journey”
One day you finally knew
what you had to do, and began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice—
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
“Mend my life!”
each voice cried.
Read the full story

Posted in SpecialComments (0)

Turning the Page

But a Long Way to Go

Posted on 08 May 2009

he Obama administration is once again showing that its renewed commitment to policy based on legitimate science is not just rhetoric. On April 17, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two landmark findings, based on climate science, that increase the regulatory scope of the Clean Air Act and provide the justification for further action to curb the production and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The first report, the “Endangerment Finding,” states that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This finding is based on scientific evidence that the buildup of six major greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare. The second report entitled “Cause or Contribute Finding” proposes that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs into the atmosphere from new motor vehicle engines contribute to climate change.

These two proposals are regulated under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a follow-up to the Supreme Court ruling on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the CAA. After a petition for rulemaking was filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations, the Supreme Court held that the EPA Administrator must determine whether or not climate science provides reasonable certainty that emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. Under the CAA, “welfare” refers to impacts that include effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, climate, personal property, transportation, economic values, and personal comfort and well-being. The scientific evidence comes primarily from assessments made by the U.S. Climate Science Program, the National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientific consensus is that record-high atmospheric levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cannot be explained by natural variability alone, but are the result of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Warming of the global climate is well-documented through increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, retreating glaciers, and rising global average sea level. The effects of climate change include, but are not limited to, heat waves, wildfires, poor air quality, changes in precipitation that include droughts and floods, sea level rise, water pollution, decline in agricultural productivity in some areas, and species extinction. Even without a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of global warming will most likely increase during the next century and include more extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

The impacts of climate change on public health are causally linked to changes in temperature, declining air quality, and extreme weather events. Unless climate change is mitigated, there will certainly be public health crises related to the warming planet. For example, in 2003, Europe experienced one of the hottest summers on record, leading to the deaths of 15,000 people in France. Changes in air quality due to regional ozone pollution aggravate asthma, increase the risk of respiratory infection and can bring about premature death.

Unpredictable and extreme weather will lead to further health crises. As Hurricane Katrina showed us, the U.S. is certainly not immune to the health impacts of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, and fires. These events are expected to increase during the next century, resulting in poor water quality, the spread of disease, physical injury, and death. These events are likely to displace populations and damage property, which will lead to social instability.

Finally, changes in temperature and precipitation are expanding the potential ranges of organisms like disease-carrying ticks. In December of 2008, Didier Raolt, a professor at the University of Marseille School of Medicine in France, published the results of a study that linked a rise in temperatures to the increased likelihood of dog ticks biting humans instead of dogs.

In addition to public health concerns, the government needs to address the adverse impacts climate change will have on public welfare. Rising sea levels will exacerbate storm surge flooding and shoreline erosion in coastal regions. In the Western U.S., the melting snowpack will limit water availability for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological uses. Water scarcity coupled with rising temperatures may increase the frequency and intensity of forest fires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality. As temperatures change, many species of animals will be displaced to northern latitudes and to areas of higher elevation. Our oceans serve as a sink for carbon dioxide, but increasing ocean acidification has led to a decline in marine productivity and the loss of vast areas of coral reef. The study also includes the humanitarian, trade, and national security effects of climate change as a threat to international public welfare.

These two findings are significant not only for their inevitable effect on future climate policy but also because they legitimize the idea of sustainability—the ability to meet our current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs—in public policy discourse. They also assert the need for environmental justice and give credence to environmental security concerns. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that in making these rulings, the agency took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone, minority communities, and indigenous populations.

Incorporating environmental justice concerns into the Clean Air Act recognizes that current environmental protection and land use policies do not equally protect all people and all communities. Dr. Robert Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, made national headlines in the late’80s for a study that found that race, more so than other socioeconomic variables, is the determining factor for where toxic facilities such as landfills, chemical plants, and incinerators are located.

In a follow-up study, “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty:’87-2007,” Bullard found that communities of color are still bearing a disproportionately poisonous burden. For example, when toxins such as mercury enter the environment, they can accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals such as fish that are then consumed by humans. Due to their meat-based diet, the bodies of indigenous people in the Arctic regions have some of the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals ever recorded. The breast milk of women living in Greenland and the high Canadian Arctic should, according to scientific standards, be declared toxic waste. Not only are low-income communities and communities of color experiencing the adverse effects of climate change on their health and welfare more directly, they are the least able to do anything about it; they are often ignored or left behind as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina illustrated.

The EPA also acknowledged the national security implications of climate change. In 2007, eleven retired U.S. generals and admirals from the Center for a New American Security signed a report stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States” from the escalation of violence, displacement, and competition that arises
from the increasing scarcity and exploitation of natural resources.

Local and state governments have, thus far, been the leaders in pushing for and creating legislation and regulations that address global warming pollution and climate change. In 2007, the California Air Resources Board filed a request for a waiver from the EPA to implement the California Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards that call for a 30 percent cut of global warming emissions by 2016 from all new motor vehicles produced in the state beginning in model year 2009. The EPA denied the waiver and California, along with fourteen other states, filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The “Cause or Contribute Finding” acknowledges that 24 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from on-road motor vehicles and that such emissions contribute to climate change and are regulated by section 202(a) of the CAA.

These proposed findings now enter a 60-day public comment period before the EPA can issue its final findings. While both findings do not include any proposals for specific regulations, they represent a crucial first step in bringing progressive municipal and state-level policies, such as renewable portfolio standards for utilities and tailpipe emissions standards for motor vehicles, to a national level. These findings also pave the way for more comprehensive climate legislation that President Obama hopes will include some sort of a cap on carbon emissions. Several bills have already been drafted and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called for a vote on them by Memorial Day.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Science in Politics

A Green New Deal

Posted on 10 April 2009

t appears that the days of Cheney’s closed-door Energy Task Force meetings, abstinence-only sex education, and restrictions on stem cell research are finally over.

In his inaugural address, President Obama pledged to “restore science to its rightful place” and on March 9, 2009, he helped define this “rightful place” in a memorandum on scientific integrity.

This document defines science as the primary informer of public policy decisions, displacing the ideological focus of the Bush administration. It calls for every federal agency to pick science advisers based on expertise, not political ideology. In another rebuke to the Bush administration’s tendency to suppress and misrepresent scientific evidence, the memorandum includes a clause demanding transparency in how scientific evidence is used for policymaking, and how scientists are chosen for federal positions.

Scientific findings can certainly be applied to the political process in a productive way. However, in order to shape scientific data into an effective regulation, standard, or law, legislators must consider a number of objective and subjective factors: How “clear” is the science? What is the level of certainty and consensus? How might a certain policy affect people’s values? How might a certain policy affect other interest groups, businesses, or countries?

Despite these ambiguities, using sound, transparent science in the creation of public policy is integral to a well-functioning government and to maintaining a competitive edge in a globalizing world. Increasing funding for science education, research, and development, for example, helps spur innovation and supports entrepreneurship, making America more globally competitive. According to a report released this year by the non-partisan Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the United States economy placed last in terms of progress made over the last decade in the areas of venture capital investment, funding for scientific researchers, and spending on research and educational achievement. The study recommended federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, including research tax incentives, public investments as well as regulatory incentives in the areas of health care, energy systems, transportation, and education. Fortunately, $21 billion of the $787 billion economic stimulus package is for research and scientific infrastructure, with $10 billion for the National Institute of Health (NIH), $3 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science. This hopefully signals a departure from the dogmatic days of the Bush administration to a more pragmatic, science-based government.

Furthermore, science can help policy makers and the public to understand and adapt to changing circumstances. For example, the research that Rachel Carson published in the book Silent Spring on the adverse impacts of the pesticide DDT on human health, wildlife, and the environment, led to its ban by the EPA in’72.

However data that has broad scientific consensus and is supported with empirical evidence clearly does not always compel public acceptance or effective and timely policies. The most recent, and potentially dangerous, example of this gap pertains to global warming. The scientific debate about humanity’s contribution to climate change is over: people are clearly contributing to global warming. While debate may persist over the accuracy of climate modeling and the degree of climate change, there is no longer any doubt that humans are changing the climate in ways and at speeds beyond what is “natural.”

In an effort to help bridge the gap between the scientific consensus and the public’s perception of climate change, Thayer Engineering School recently launched a Great Issues in Energy Symposium with climate change as its focus. The two guest speakers were Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists and director of the Goddard Space Institute, and Jason Grumet, director of the Bipartisan Policy Institute and an environment and energy advisor to President Obama during his campaign. Dr. Hansen made headlines with his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in’88, when he said human activities, such as the burning fossil fuels, contribute to the greenhouse effect. Twenty years later, Dr. Hansen returned to Capitol Hill to reiterate the connection between human-produced greenhouse gas emissions and long-term global warming. This time, he said, we have passed the 350 parts per million (ppm) safe threshold of atmospheric carbon dioxide. At this rate, millions of environmental refugees could be created due to rising sea levels. We could lose agricultural productivity in some areas of the world, biodiversity could decline, infectious diseases could have a greater chance of spreading, and many other serious, climate related changes could occur.

Unfortunately, this “doom and gloom” refrain has failed to generate national will to act. In a telephone survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 1,500 adults were asked to prioritize the issues they thought the government should tackle in 2009. Among the 20 policy issues people were asked to rate, global warming ranked last. During his talk at Thayer, Dr. Hansen lamented the knowledge gap between what is understood by scientists and what is known by the public and policymakers. Like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, Dr. Hansen reminded his audience that addressing global warming is also about intergenerational equity and the idea of sustainability: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Likewise, Jason Grumet’s lecture emphasized the importance of reframing the global warming debate in terms more accessible to average Americans. He spoke of the immediate need to create legislation that caps carbon emissions and is willing to give up the fight to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to get such a bill passed. He also argued that the environmental community has traded the difficult art of compromise for a vague environmental bottom line that differs depending on whether you’re talking to the Natural Resources Defense Council or Greenpeace.

I understand this from personal experience. Last summer I was in Washington D.C. working for Environment America when gas prices rose above $4.00 per gallon. Here was an opportunity to talk about our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, on creating stricter fuel economy standards, and promoting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Instead of coming together to provide a clear direction for lawmakers, much of my summer was spent lobbying against offshore drilling and writing fact sheets about Big Oil’s dirty history. It wasn’t that these environmental advocacy groups failed to provide solutions; what they lacked was a narrative that appealed to the opposition for bipartisan support. Ironically, one of the most successful campaigns last summer was the Pickens’ Plan. Developed by T. Boone Pickens, a man who made millions in the oil industry, Pickens went to Washington and started a television campaign that began “we send billions of American dollars overseas every year for oil” and concluded “this is a problem we cannot drill our way out of.” It then proposed the largest wind farm development project in the nation.

The politicization of climate science has created a rationale for public ambivalence. What the environmental community needs now more than anything, more than even science, is a narrative for change. The challenge is to move away from a kind of dualistic thinking that pits the economy against the environment and instead reframes the climate policy debate in more holistic terms that highlight the interconnection between the environment, economics, politics, and social justice. With Obama’s cap-and-trade
proposal under threat in the Senate, perhaps environmental coalitions need to take Mr. Grumet’s advice and be more pragmatic in their policy proposals. Perhaps we cannot cap carbon emissions, put billions of dollars into carbon sequestration and storage research, and save ANWR all at once, but we can work to reach a compromise. At the same time, we must also find a balance between political expediency and true, long-term sustainability. The crossroads of environmental, economic, and social crises present an opportunity for a “green New Deal.” Green recovery has become both a necessity and an opportunity. It will be the base of future sustainable growth, building, production, and consumption by becoming the “smartest, most efficient, and lowest-cost way” to go about our daily lives. America and the rest of the world need to come to terms with the pressing need to create a sustainable future that balances the environment, the economy, and our daily lives.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Rethinking How We Eat

Towards a Viable Food Policy and Culture

Posted on 27 February 2009

n the morning of February 14, I, three other Dartmouth students, and Dartmouth Organic Farm Manager Scott Stokoe made the trip to Vermont Technical for the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) of Vermont’s Winter Conference. NOFA-Vermont is a non-profit association of farmers, gardeners, and consumers “working to promote an economically viable and ecologically sound Vermont food system for the benefit of current and future generations.” As I meandered through tables of locally produced wool, honey, apples, seeds, and soil, sipping organic coffee and eating freshly baked bread and homemade cheese, I was moved by how fundamental the production, processing, and consumption of food is to, not just to our survival, but to the economic and ecological health of our communities, nation, and world. Yet food and eating are two of the most misunderstood and underappreciated subjects in our country today.

One generally doesn’t hear much discussion of “food” policy in the mainstream media or on Capitol Hill. Yet health care, energy independence, and climate change, not to mention agricultural policy and skyrocketing food prices, are all directly related to the way we currently grow, process, and eat food in America. The social, political, and economic implications of what and how we eat are hidden by the huge chains of commerce separating producers from consumers, while perverse government subsidies, targeted marketing, and consumer ignorance and apathy perpetuate the problem.

The emphasis on the large-scale production of single crops in our current global food system requires vast amounts of cleared land (which releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere through the destruction of native plants), chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), and fossil fuel-burning machinery. In fact, the American food system uses’ percent more fossil fuels than any other sector except for vehicles, and contributes to as much as 37 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. As Michael Pollan, a journalist and author who writes about food issues, said in The New York Times in October 2008, eating food from this system is analogous to “eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.”

The huge governmental subsidies and fossil fuel inputs required by big agriculture disrupt prices and create serious food insecurity. One need only look to last year’s jump in food prices, a result of growing oil costs, and the subsequent food riots in over 30 nations to see the extent of the problem.

Big agriculture’s effect on the local environment is also devastating. Replacing subsistence-based agriculture with export-based agriculture has contributed to deforestation, soil erosion, air and water pollution, and a dependence on the sometimes unstable world food market, which has left many countries with even higher levels of food insecurity.

Our food culture is further wreaking havoc on human health, both domestically and abroad. Over one-third of U.S. adults are obese and four of the top ten killers of Americans are chronic diseases related to diet: heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, and cancer. As school lunches and kid-friendly advertising continue to emphasize fat and sugar-based food options, childhood obesity and behavioral issues with attention and concentration are becoming all too common. Through the globalization of both fast food restaurants and Western media, obesity and eating disorders are now increasing in developing countries as well. February 22-28 is National Eating Disorders Awareness Week and as someone who has struggled with an eating disorder, I often wonder how much of the problem is abnormal psychology and how much is actually a result of our abnormal food culture.

The majority of Americans are so distant from where and how their food is produced that the consumption of it—the art of eating—has lost meaning and significance. The production process itself has disrupted the land and altered the natural flow of energy and nutrients to an unsustainable and unhealthy degree. If food continues to be produced and marketed in this way, how can we possibly achieve ecological and cultural health and sustainability?

Solar-Based Farming

In a letter written to the next President during the campaign last October, Michael Pollan argued for a new “solar-powered” food system rather than one powered by petroleum-based energy, emphasizing the production of large amounts of diverse crops using only soil and water. Both small- and large-scale farming operations have already demonstrated the benefits of such diversified farming. In Argentina, areas of up to 15,000 acres go through an eight-year rotation that includes periods both of perennial pasture and annual crops: five years of cattle grazing on pasture are followed by three years of grain farming without the addition of fossil fuel fertilizers and pesticides. Instead of subsidizing food quantity, the federal government should start subsidizing quality by encouraging such sustainable practices.

Supporting Farmers

In addition to how food is produced, who produces it matters significantly. Right now, the formerly agrarian United States has only two million farmers that feed a population of 300 million, and only five percent of these farmers are under the age of 35. Agricultural training programs, school gardens, and other educational initiatives should promote sustainable, small-scale farming, even at the home garden scale, as a viable and noble venture.

Food Access

In order to truly address food security, promoting access to good quality, healthy, and affordable food must become a priority. Giving low-income families vouchers for farmers’ markets, offering tax incentives to grocery stores that are located in poor neighborhoods, and promoting food distribution programs and food shelves that use leftover, donated food from restaurants and grocery stores are all ways to give underprivileged people that access. Cooking classes and other workshops can supplement these programs by teaching people the skills that will enable them grow, utilize, and store fresh produce in healthy ways.

A New Food Culture

Changing America’s food culture needs to start with an increase in both food education and awareness. Alice Waters, founder of Chez Panisse restaurant in Berkeley and one of my personal heroines, advocates for “edible education” on the premise that eating well is an important life skill. She believes that the basic growing, cooking, and eating of food should be included in every school curriculum. Pollan recommends including a fossil fuel calorie count on every label and a second barcode that, when scanned, would reveal how the product was produced. By shortening the food chain and increasing its transparency, people can become conscious consumers, better connected to the food they eat and the people that produce it.

For me, the NOFA-Vermont conference was a humbling reminder of what food is ultimately about: community. For Scott Stokoe, the conference was an opportunity to reconnect with some of the pioneers of the organic movement that have devoted their lives to creating and supporting small-scale organic agriculture. In his own words, “Seeing all these earnest, hardworking people in one place is a re-affirmation of the good deeds that can be done by a dedicated few.” But community stretches far beyond the “dedicated few.” Food is a common denominator underlying all of humanity and the people that grow it are our unsung heroes. We all have a common interest in addressing our defective food production system and culture, and in the end, the task will require all of us to solve.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Bringing the Arctic to Dartmouth

A Conversation with Subhanker Banerjee

Posted on 13 February 2009

he Arctic. As you read those two words, what images came to mind? Snow and ice? Oil drilling? Polar bears? Or, as former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton once described it, a “flat, white, nothingness”?

When I envision the Arctic, I too think of vast landscapes of snow and ice. But I also think of spruce-covered mountains, soaring eagles, gigantic grizzly bears, and leaping mountain goats. The Arctic is, in actuality, home to a dizzying array of diversity and color, often overshadowed by characterizations of it as a remote frozen wasteland.

Even the common term “Far North” misrepresents the global interconnections the Arctic provides as a habitat for millions of migratory birds and as an important regulator of the world‘s climate. The Arctic has also become an early indicator of the environmental, political, and social implications climate change will have for the entire globe. Because of the loss of nearly half the ice cap covering the North Pole and changes in albedo—the ability of a surface to reflect the sun’s radiation—the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the lower hemispheres. This enhanced warming trend, caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced primarily in lower latitudes, has already impacted the Arctic environment through reductions in sea ice and snow cover, melting permafrost, increases in precipitation, and shorter and warmer winters. Aside from serving as a warning sign for the rest of the world, these changes will have grave consequences for the people and wildlife of the region. Vegetation zones will shift northward. The range and distribution of animal species’ diversity will change. Melting permafrost will destabilize transportation and building infrastructure. Coastal communities will be forced to relocate due to increasing storm exposure and coastal erosion. Indigenous communities will face continued threats to their local economies and cultural and social identities as weather prediction, travel safety, and subsistence hunting become increasingly difficult.

Challenging the dominant assumption of the Arctic as a frozen wasteland and thus drawing attention to the social and ecological problems being wrought by climate change is just one of the focuses of photographer Subhankar Banerjee’s work, recently on display at the HOP. By incorporating the people, wildlife, and environment of the Arctic, Banerjee is able to capture and preserve not only the natural and cultural ecology of the region, but also themes like justice and ethics that he sees as intrinsically tied to policymaking in the Arctic. Banerjee’s artistic approach is continuously evolving through his experiences of actually being on the land and with the people and animals that inhabit the Arctic. His photos are honest and direct; they tell stories that all at once reveal the deeper issues associated with the complex relationships between people, wildlife, and land at the local, regional, and global levels. In his latest exhibit at the Jaffe-Friede Gallery in the Hopkins Center, Banerjee juxtaposes an aerial photo of the Porcupine River caribou migration with a series of four photos illustrating a caribou hunt. The aerial photo reveals a large landscape of snow and ice with the caribou tracks weaving their way across the frame. In contrast, the four hunting photos are close and intimate, showing the skinning and butchering of the caribou meat on site, the bright red blood standing out against the white backdrop of snow-covered spruce trees. The people in the photos are from the Gwich’in Nation, a group dependent on the Porcupine caribou for its subsistence as well as its cultural livelihood. The complex and pervasive links between the seemingly distant Arctic and the rest of the world are revealed on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the core calving area for the Porcupine caribou herd and the most argued-over public land in United States history. The ANWR controversy has pit proponents of oil and gas development against environmental groups and the Gwich’in that call this land “the sacred place where life begins.”

In “Caribou Tracks on Coal Seams II,” Banerjee explained to me that the coal deposit featured in the photo—with deep caribou tracks revealing its proximity to the surface—is the largest in North America, with an estimated four trillion tons of bituminous coal. The core calving ground of the Western Arctic caribou herd, which provides sustenance and links to the cultural heritage of the Inupiat, Yupik, and Athabascan peoples of Alaska, overlays this coal deposit. With coal accounting for half of the energy used to produce electricity in the United States this photo reflects the direct connection between the energy demands of people living in lower latitudes and the natural resources of the Arctic. The pressure for fossil fuel exploration and extraction in the Arctic produces emissions that both cause global warming and deposit toxins in the tissues of wild animals that is then absorbed by the indigenous people that eat them. The results can be devastating: the bodies of indigenous people contain some of the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals ever recorded in world history. The breast milk of women living in Greenland and the high Canadian Arctic should, according to scientific standards, be declared toxic waste. Similar stories of the Even and the reindeer, the Yukaghir and fish, and the Inupiat and the whales all reveal inequalities in the production and consumption of natural resources and the disproportionate effects global warming is having on the victims of climate change, while the contributors to it are less directly affected. The Arctic is clearly not simply isolated from the rest of the world, but is intricately connected to it.

I asked Banerjee what role he thought art played in bringing about environmental awareness and indigenous representation and what sort of informed action individuals and governments should take to address the threats facing the Arctic. He said art has always played a significant role in society and that artists should work actively to challenge and change common assumptions about the world by using art as a way to explore ethical issues. Banerjee also emphasized the importance of incorporating a historical perspective in the development of short- and long-term policies that favor reducing fossil fuel consumption over increasing its production and the need for creating conservation programs that benefit the ecosystem as a whole, including the land, wildlife, and people. Banerjee’s photos challenge us to view ourselves as fundamentally connected to the Arctic and to then alter our rhetorical assumptions from those of separation to those that bring the Far North closer to home.

Subhanker Banerjee was the Artist-in-Residence at the Jaffe-Friede Gallery in the Hopkins Center from January 13 to February 8. He received the Greenleaf Artist Award from the UN Environmental Programme for his work on land conservation and Native rights in communities from Alaska to Siberia. Next year, his photographs will be displayed in the touring IMPACT: Living in the Age of Climate Change exhibition.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

A Green New Deal

Dartmouth's New Energy Plan

Posted on 30 January 2009

ilton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, once observed:

“Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”

Our world is facing an intersection of economic, environmental, political, and social crises. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. economy officially entered into a recession in December 2007. Since then, approximately 2.6 million jobs have been lost, the housing bubble has burst with untold numbers of foreclosures, several major banks have failed, and the auto industry has nearly collapsed. Climate scientist James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute warned Congress in 2008 that we are at a planetary “tipping point” and must move in a new energy direction within a decade to avoid setting in motion “unstoppable climate change with irreversible effects.”

As unfortunate and frustrating as it is to have to endure the status quo up to the moment of desperation and collapse until any real initiative for change emerges, we are now left with no choice but to pursue alternative policies that will form the foundation of a more sustainable and prosperous future for everyone. President Obama’s $825 billion stimulus package includes a number of green initiatives:

Doubling the generating capacity of renewable energy over three years

Retrofitting two million homes and 75 percent of all federal buildings to be more energy efficient and protect against weather

Building 3,000 miles of new or upgraded transmission wires for a new electrical grid,

Investing $150 billion over the next decade on green job creation,

Leveraging $100 billion for private sector investment in clean energy projects.

These interconnected crises are not just national, but global. At a recent seminar sponsored by the United Nations and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency in Bangkok, Thailand, the U.N stated that the global financial crisis may have a silver, or rather, green lining: many countries are incorporating investments in environmental programs into their stimulus packages that link clean energy development and energy efficiency with economic recovery. South Korea, for example, announced earlier this month it plans to turn the climate crisis into a business opportunity by spending the equivalent of $38.1 billion over the next four years on environmental projects to spur economic growth and create nearly a million jobs.

On a more local scale, Dartmouth College is facing its own financial and environmental challenges. The Dartmouth endowment will show a loss of‘ percent between July and December 2008. President Wright has charged Provost Barry Scherr and Executive Vice President Adam Keller with the difficult task of reducing more than $60 million from a $700 million institution-wide budget. Last term, President Wright also committed Dartmouth to a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. This moment represents an incredible opportunity to simultaneously address Dartmouth’s budget cuts and environmental goals and make a sustainable difference in Dartmouth’s present and future. The solution resembles the same kind of actions being taken by our government and countries around the world: a commitment and financial investment in energy conservation and energy efficiency.

The Dartmouth Energy Conservation Campaign is a collaborative effort between the Sustainability Office, student groups including the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), Student Assembly, the Big Green Bus, and CFS, and is funded jointly by FO&M, the Sustainability Initiative of the Provost’s Office, and ORL. The Energy Conservation Campaign has three specific objectives:

1. The Dartmouth Energy Pledge

The Energy Pledge will educate the Dartmouth community about making wise energy choices and encourage simple actions that reduce the amount of fuel oil we burn for heat and electricity, Dartmouth’s major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Dartmouth College Policies and Operations

Implement operational changes and policy changes for heating and cooling, water use, computers and electronics, and lighting that will reduce energy consumption and conserve College resources.

3. Update Dartmouth’s Buildings and Energy Systems

Implement infrastructure projects in the 20 buildings that use 75 percent of the campus’s energy in the areas of heating and cooling, water use, lighting, and electronics and computing.

The implementation of the Energy Conservation Campaign will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5,000 metric tons per year and save $500,000 per year. The Energy Pledge Campaign will be launched the week of April 10th to April 24th 2009 with a goal of acquiring 2,000 signatories. A new website and on-campus computer monitors will provide feedback on energy and cost savings.

We have the power to make the right kind of energy choices and help change College policies, operations, and infrastructure to be more energy efficient, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while saving money in the process. If you are interested in being a part of this groundbreaking campaign, please contact Marissa Knodel at Marissa.S.Knodel@dartmouth.edu.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

An Eye on Climate Policy

A Shift From Red to Green?

Posted on 16 January 2009

e live in a society that likes to measure, count, and quantify just about everything. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Human Development Index (HDI) try to quantify the economic, political, and social well-being of a country. The Ecological Footprint measures a country’s demand on the biosphere in terms of area of biologically productive land and sea required to provide the resources consumed in each country and absorb the wastes generated. These calculations allow us to make distinctions between rich and poor, developed and developing nations, and form the base of much of our economic and political decision-making. So here are some numbers that our nation, the world, and the Obama administration need to pay close and serious attention to:

6.7 billion: World population. This number is expected to increase to more than 9 billion by mid-century, with the majority of the growth occurring in countries least able to sustain it in terms of infrastructure and resources.

70%: The increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to human activities between’70 and 2004.

11/12: Eleven of the last twelve years, between’95 and 2006, rank among the twelve warmest years in global surface temperature since‘50.

8.5%: The average loss in Arctic sea ice each decade since satellite measurements began in’78.

1 acre per second: The rate of deforestation in the tropics in recent decades.

50 million acres per year: This is the rate at which desertification is occurring, rendering an area the size of Nebraska either too degraded for crop production or lost to urban sprawl every year.

1000: The rate of species extinction is one thousand times faster than normal.

75 percent: Fisheries that are fished to capacity or overfished. In 2006, fisheries scientists projected that under current consumption patterns, all ocean commercial fisheries would collapse by 2050.

1-2 meters: The projected rise in sea level during the next century that will threaten to displace millions of environmental refugees.

450 parts per million (ppm): The amount of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in the atmosphere we need to stabilize at in order to avoid irreversible and harmful climatic changes.

80% by 2050: The reduction needed in GHG emissions in order to stabilize CO2e at 450 ppm.

So what do all of these numbers tell us? First, they tell us that as a society, we are obsessed with growth and expansion. However, increasing population and increasing affluence entails an increasing need for and consumption of natural resources and ecosystem services. Second, these numbers tell us that our current systems of production and consumption are already wreaking havoc on environmental and human health and that they pose a serious threat to our future. Third, the numbers tell us that if we do not recognize how fundamentally connected we are to the natural environment and fail to take immediate action, we will not want to calculate the consequences.

The problem for the United States and the Obama administration is that our current market economy does not value the natural world in which it operates. The American political economy subsidizes resource-depleting and environmentally-polluting activities. By not valuing our open lands, clean air and water, healthy forests, and human connections to the environment, we are turning earth into a “no-cost landfill.” In the absence of secure property rights and an appropriate price for scarce resources, the market fails the environment by externalizing the environmental costs of our polluting activities. The political economy perpetuates these market failures through perverse subsidies that incentivize the use of fossil fuels instead of clean, renewable sources of energy. Consequently, producers and consumers overproduce and overconsume because they do not receive appropriate signals about the scarcity of resources and the costs of environmental damages. A new system of policies that includes market mechanisms and regulations is needed in order to signal to producers and consumers that the price of fossil fuels will remain high and it is time to invest in clean power, energy efficiency, and energy innovation.

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have put forth an excellent set of policies that address global warming by reducing GHG emissions, clean energy development, green job creation, energy efficiency in our buildings, cars, and electrical grid, and the development of more sustainable communities. These policies include:

A pledge to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 through a market-based cap-and-trade program and100 percent allowance auction that ensures polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release. Some of the revenue from the auction allowances will be spent on the development and deployment of clean energy, energy efficiency improvements, and help for lower-income Americans with their energy costs.

New national standards to help different sectors achieve emissions reductions and ensure that less carbon-intensive energy is used to power our vehicles, industries, and buildings. For example, a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) would require fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by 10 percent by 2020. Doubling fuel economy standards within‘ years would ensure our cars receive at least 50 miles per gallon. A national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) would require utilities to provide 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. A National Building Efficiency Code would set a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral (produce zero emissions) by 2030.

Investments in clean technology research and development and the creation of green jobs. President-elect Obama has pledged to invest $150 billion over 10 years for federal science and research funding for clean energy projects, job training and transition programs for workers and industries, a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund, and an extension of the federal production tax credit, which supports renewable energy development, for five years. President-elect Obama has also proposed a Green Job Corps that would create a youth jobs program for disconnected and disadvantaged youth to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation in the homes and buildings of their communities.

Financial incentives including tax credits and grants that prioritize early implementation of building energy efficiency codes, providing incentives for utilities to improve energy efficiency through the creation of a digital smart grid, and advance ultra-efficient vehicles such as plug-in electric hybrids.

Federal resources for public mass transportation projects to promote more livable and sustainable communities.

Even if all of these policies are implemented and enforced successfully, the United States alone cannot achieve the necessary reductions required to avoid irreversible climate change. We must also engage the international community in supporting global greenhouse gas reductions, climate change adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Developed nations contribute 60 percent of today’s emissions; however, developing nations, primarily China and India, were the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions growth in 2004. Developed nations need to provide powerful incentives, technologies, financial assistance, and examples for the developing world to take action on curbing their emissions and pursuing greener, more sustainable paths of development. President-elect Obama plans to re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), create a new forum of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, create a Transfer Technology Program to export climate-friendly technologies to developing countries to help combat climate change, and develop incentives that halt deforestation and promote carbon sequestration.

Climate change is as much a moral and human issue as it is an environmental and economic one and needs to be addressed on
both national and international levels. The most important action the United States can and must take for itself, the world, and future generations is to lead by example and become the most energy-efficient and energy innovative country. The United States must simultaneously engage with the international community in the pursuit of the same goals and help developing nations with climate change adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Transportation Consternation

The Need For Better Energy Policy

Posted on 07 November 2008

n July 2008, gas prices reached record highs of well over $4.00 per gallon, with oil company profits quick to follow. Exxon Mobil’s 2008 second quarter earnings totaled $11.68 billion, the largest quarterly profit earned by a U.S. corporation ever. This sparked a national debate over our energy future, over issues that include offshore drilling versus renewable energy, fuel economy standards versus energy efficiency, and price speculation versus tax incentives. Our standard practice has been to wait until the point of no return to take action on environmental problems, but with public outrage still focused on the gas price hikes of the past summer, there is no better time to address America’s energy crisis than the present.

America is no stranger to energy crises. The oil price shocks in’73-74, the late’70s, and the early’90s were all followed by major economic recessions. In’73, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) put an embargo on shipping petroleum to any nation that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War between Israel, Syria, and Egypt. The resulting near quadrupling of world oil prices severely impacted the United States: schools and office buildings shut down to save on heating oil, long lines formed at gas stations due to gas rationing, and energy sector employees faced major layoffs.

These events acted as catalysts for the Energy Policy Conservation Act of’75, which established the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. CAFE measures the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of fuel consumed; the standard is set by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) to the “maximum feasible level.” That level is calculated by taking into account technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards, and the need to conserve energy.

While this seems like good legislation, there’s something wrong: our cars have continued to grow in size, weight, and inefficiency, with virtually no change in CAFE standards since the ’70s. In December of 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which required new vehicle fuel economies to reach at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. However, this value for the “maximum feasible” standard was derived using an unrealistically low price estimate for a gallon of gasoline of $2.42. If we use a more accurate price of $3.19 in our calculations, we discover that we could reach that standard five years earlier. What does this mean in terms of oil consumed? The amount saved would add up to three times more oil than the U.S. could produce through offshore drilling by 2020.

What lessons did this summer’s energy “crisis” teach us? First of all, there are viable alternatives to driving: The American Public Transportation Association reported increases between five and 15 percent in public transit use. And there are more efficient ways to drive: Sales of pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs fell to less than half of new passenger vehicles sales this year for the first time since 2001, according to a Cambridge Energy report. That report also predicts that demand for more fuel efficient, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles will steadily improve the fuel efficiency of American vehicles. We’ve seen a dramatic change in total vehicle miles traveled: a 3 percent increase every year from’84 to 2004 slowed suddenly in 2005, and the number of miles traveled by Americans have been declining ever since.

Second, Big Oil companies are in the business of producing profit, not oil, and the price Americans pay is often uneven: because the royalties, production, and transportation costs for oil and natural gas extraction are much lower in U.S. than anywhere else in the world, oil companies pocket the difference without consumers seeing a cent in lower gas prices. Low-income households and independent truckers are hurt the most from high gas prices; American households earning less than $10,000 annually spend an average $1,292 per year, or 13 percent of their income, on gas, and the average American spends 4 percent or more of their after-tax income on transportation fuels. But according to a Consumer Federation of America analysis, giving oil companies access to more domestic drilling would just mean more oil for them to sell at the world market price with fewer costs to produce it.

Finally, our society and environment cannot afford to wait for a crisis to spur a political reaction. Band-aid solutions, such as offshore drilling, waste time and resources and ultimately make the situation worse. Due to the time-consuming nature of establishing drilling in new places, no oil is expected to flow from offshore sources before 2020, and peak production would only reach around 100,000 barrels a day for the next decade—and our daily oil consumption is in the millions. The Energy Information Administration states that this amount would have “no significant” impact on gasoline prices. In spite of the fact that domestic drilling permits have gone up by over 300 percent since’99, and domestic production has increased four times as fast as consumption in the last two years, the price of gasoline has still skyrocketed.

America has a limited production capacity and domestic supply of oil to feed our growing addiction. In order to reduce our demand for oil and lay the groundwork for a transition to a less oil-intensive transportation infrastructure, we need to make our cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, utilize alternative transportation options, and invest in more advanced, ultra fuel-efficient vehicles. Solving the oil crisis is possible without drilling and without increasing dependence on dirty fossil fuels, but it requires actions from individuals and the government not just in the long-term, but in the present. Right now, consumers can make sure their cars are in good, working condition and utilize public and alternative transportation options. The federal government can increase fuel economy standards to reflect a realistic price in gasoline, repeal tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and instead fund increases in public transportation. While local and state governments, colleges and universities, and businesses have taken the lead in environmental reform by passing renewable energy standards, offering tax incentives for advanced technology vehicles, mandating 55 miles-per-hour driving zones, and providing transportation alternatives, the federal government needs to step up.

Years of political neglect have left America increasingly dependent on foreign oil and wealthy oil companies, and many promising programs have failed to reach fruition due to lack of governmental initiative. America needs real leadership from our next president and Congress in order to reduce energy costs, curb global warming pollution, and promote clean, efficient transportation alternatives. Now is the time for a change in American energy policy.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

The Arctic Heats Up

"The Earth is Faster Now"

Posted on 28 April 2006

he weather was windy and overcast the morning I set out for the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), located a little over a mile north of campus. I was interviewing for a Women In Science Project (WISP) internship entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Cover in a Changing Environment.” I was first interested in the role of the Arctic in a changing environment, and second, the lack of synergy between the scientists studying climate change and the public policymakers attempting to address the issue. That first meeting with Don Perovich, the scientist sponsoring the internship, turned into less of an interview and more of a discussion on the state of the world; the apathetic, individualistic, short-term attitude of many toward the environment; and the implications of climate change.

The sun was shining when I left CRREL. I was excited and inspired by three central questions that came up during our conversation: How can we tell that the Arctic is warming? Are these changes a climatic trend or a fluctuation? And are these changes caused by anthropogenic (human) actions? These questions were reiterated by Dr. Jackie Richter-Menge, a colleague of Perovich’s at CRREL during her recent talk at Dartmouth, entitled “A Polar Bear’s View of Climate Change.” After months of reading, researching, and staring at satellite pictures of the Arctic sea-ice cover, I have come to the same conclusion that Mabel Toolie, a native Inuit, had come to after weather patterns became impossible to predict using traditional methods of observation: “The Earth is faster now.”

Why study global warming in the Arctic? Although most Arctic scientists enjoy their work, for most people, spending up to ten hours a day unsheltered from negative-40-degree-Fahrenheit temperatures and blistering winds on a boat frozen into the sea-ice is not an appealing career choice. The vital importance of the poles in discussions of climate change is due to their control over the Earth’s heat balance. Since most incoming solar energy is absorbed in the tropics, circulations of water and wind carry and distribute the heat in the northern hemisphere from the southern to the northern latitudes. Upon reaching the Arctic, the snow and ice cover will typically act as a heat sink, cooling the water and reflecting additional solar energy so that the water will eventually sink and flow back towards the equator. Recent changes in the Arctic climate system—shrinking glaciers, melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and a changing growing season and vegetation patterns—are all symptoms and causes of global climate change.

How can one tell the Arctic is warming? The Arctic is unique as a system because it is composed of a number of regional climates: from the boreal forests of Canada to the Siberian tundra, with unique biotic (living) and abiotic (nonliving) components. As a whole, the Arctic can be characterized by a lack of sunlight during the winter months with almost constant sunlight during the summer months. The cryosphere—snow, ice sheets, glaciers, sea ice, and permafrostis the prominent terrestrial feature of the Arctic region, while the marine environment is stratified into snow, sea ice, surface water, warm and cold intrusions from ice-free seas, and deep water. All of these climatic features interact with the global climate system and southern latitudes through the atmosphere, ocean, and river systems.

Warming in the Arctic is evident in a number of changes taking place in these ecosystems. On land, glaciers have been shrinking at an increasing rate for the past several decades. In Alaska, as reported in a study conducted by Don Perovich, Matthew Sturm, and Mark Serreze, the rate of glacial melt has tripled in the last ten years, contributing to a two millimeter rise in sea level, or 10 percent of the total annual rise of 20 millimeters. The Greenland Ice Sheet has also been experiencing overall melting, setting a summer record in 2002 that the winter snowfall was unable to replace. According to glaciologist Eric Rignot of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and University of Kansas professor Pannir Kanagaratnam, the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at twice the rate it was in’96, a rise from 22 cubic miles of water flowing into the oceans to 53 cubic miles. To put this in perspective, one cubic mile of water is five times the amount of water Los Angeles uses in a year.

The thawing of Arctic permafrost—the permanently frozen layer of soil beneath the surface layer—causes infrastructure damage to buildings, roads, and pipelines as the solid foundations that these structures were built upon turn to liquid. Images of collapsed buildings, exposed pipeline, and flat roads twisted into ribbons aren’t unusual. Melting permafrost has also contributed to the discharge of underground freshwater into the oceans—Russian rivers are dumping an extra seven percent of freshwater into the Arctic basin. This increase is disturbing because the Arctic basin has a certain threshold of fresh water that it can withstand before it dilutes the water’s salt content to the point where global circulation patterns are altered. This phenomenon was popularized in the movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” where the slowing down of the Gulf Stream resulted in an Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere.

Further terrestrial evidence of global warming in the Arctic can be seen in the migration of plants further northward. Additionally, the growing season now extends about a week or two later into the fall, with the first bloom occurring several weeks earlier in the spring.

Typically, the Arctic acts as a sink for carbon, storing it as frozen peat across Alaska and Russia. However, as the climate warms, the Arctic could become a net source of greenhouse gases, releasing its carbon and methane stores into the atmosphere.

The most visually striking climatic trend observed in the Arctic, however, is the reduction in sea-ice cover. Since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began monitoring the Arctic sea-ice cover in’72, they have detected an approximate three percent decrease in sea-ice extent each decade. Since the Arctic sea-ice cover is roughly the same size as the United States, this reduction translates into losing a combination of the Colorado and New Hampshire landmasses each decade. During this same period, Arctic sea-ice thickness has undergone a dramatic 40 percent reduction.

Melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels since it displaces water as it floats. However, the loss of sea ice does adversely affect the wildlife and indigenous peoples relying on it for shelter, food, and transportation. The primary climatic concern of reduced sea-ice cover, which is Don Perovich’s main area of research, has to do with its ability to reflect incoming solar radiation, a process called the ice-albedo feedback loop.

Albedo is the measure of the reflectivity of a surface. A surface with an albedo of 1.0 reflects all light, while a surface with an albedo of 0 reflects none. It’s affected by the color of a surface, its texture, slope, and degree, as well as the angle of the incoming light. The Arctic Ocean is unique in that the sea-ice and snow have an albedo of 0.85, the highest of any natural surface on Earth while water has an albedo of only 0.07, the lowest of any natural surface As sea-ice and snow melt, the darker ocean is exposed, absorbing more heat and causing more melting.

This is a positive feedback loop, meaning that the more exposed liquid ocean, the more melting will occur. The ice-albedo loop operates in concert with other feedback mechanisms, making the future state of sea-ice difficult to predict. For example, a warmer climate caused by a lower albedo means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which produces more clouds. More cloud cover shields the surface of the Earth and reduces the amount of sunlight coming through, resulting in cooling. At the same time, however, cl
oud cover prevents long-wave radiation reflecting off the Earth from escaping, resulting in warming.

Yet another concern regarding the loss of sea-ice deals with the opening of new shipping and transportation routes, which creates the possibility for political conflict over the territorial sovereignty of the open ocean and transboundary pollution from shipping, fishing, and tourist vessels.

While the Earth has undergone climate fluctuations before, Arctic data from the past decade that illustrate the melting of glaciers, inflow of freshwater into the Arctic basin, shifting vegetation, and reduction in sea-ice extent and thickness all show not just a gradual trend, but an acceleration in warming that has never before occurred in such a short period of time.

Changes in the Arctic climate have already had repercussions outside of the polar region. Glacial melt’s contribution to sea level rise has been threatening the shorelines of coastal areas. Indeed, in places such as Tuvalu, coastal erosion has already taken its toll and threatens to do even more damage. Tuvalu is the world’s fourth smallest country, consisting of nine islands in the southwest Pacific where the highest point reaches only four meters. A surge in the number of waves exceeding this height, as well as the increased intensity of tropical storms, has resulted in severe erosion and damaged plants, crops, and homes. It is predicted that the entire island chain will be underwater within the next 50 years, requiring the relocation of Tuvalu’s over 11,000 inhabitants.

After more than four months of working with Don Perovich and other scientists at CRREL, I have come to the conclusion that yes, the Arctic is warming, that it is not just a fluctuation, but a climatic trend, and that human practices are undoubtedly a direct cause. 2005 set the record as one of the hottest years in over a century and there are no signs that we should expect a reversal anytime soon. As TIME magazine states in its recent special report on global warming, we should all “Be worried. Be Very Worried.”

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)

Archives

Partner Publications