The Natural Fix?: The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation

The title of this post is also the title of a new report from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The bottom line = The ability of the Earth's living systems to store carbon could play a vital role in the mitigation of climate change. The report, a PDF of which can be downloaded from here, suggests that safeguarding and restoring carbon in ecosystems has the potential to prevent huge amounts of carbon entering the atmosphere - some estimates say well over 50 gigatonnes (Gt).

The three priority ecosystems for carbon conservation and management are forests, peatlands and agriculture. For example, reducing deforestation rates by 50 per cent by 2050 could avoid the release of up to 50 Gt of carbon this century. Emissions from deforestation are equivalent to about 15 per cent of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions. Similarly, the draining of peatland for agricultural land and other land uses emits up to 0.8 Gt of carbon a year. And in agriculture, if best management practices were adopted it could save up to 6 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year by 2030.

The report suggests that the management of carbon storage and uptake is achievable if the right policy framework is in place. It suggests we need to change our perception of the natural world from an offset mechanism, though the authors do note that there is some uncertainty about the amounts of carbon that can be sequestered and that all stores could eventually reach saturation.

See the report here. As I've reported before, we have to start finding solutions to climate change.

Green Businesses Now Generate More Revenue Than the Aerospace and Defense Sectors Combined

That's right. It pays to be green. According to a story by Fiona Harvey published in the September 18, 2009 Financial Times (the London version of the Wall Street Journal), "[b]usinesses selling low-carbon goods and services now generate more revenue than the aerospace and defence sectors combined, making the sector one of the new linchpins of the global economy."

And that global turnover reached $534bn for "companies in the climate change sector - including renewable-power generators, nuclear, energy management, water and waste companies," versus about $530bn total for the other two sectors. And the numbers are increasing at rates far beyond the initial predictions, which hadn't figured on reaching this level until 2050.

So it seems the smart and innovative money is on the low carbon industry. Guess those climate change denialists are going to lose out on the big bucks.

Read Fiona Harvey's full article here.

Scientist Norman Borlaug, "Father of the Green Revolution," Has Died

The man known as the "father of the green revolution," agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, has died at the age of 95.

Many probably have never heard of Norman Borlaug, but he arguably did more to increase crop yields and reduce hunger in developing countries than any other individual. His research and activism in bringing the benefits of that research direct to the farmers both here and abroad led to a movement that came to be known as the "green revolution." And because of it, world food production more than doubled in the thirty years between 1960 and 1990. In two countries that benefited most from the new crop varieties, Pakistan and India, yields of wheat and other grains more than quadrupled over that period.

While most scientists toil without recognition for most of their careers, Borlaug was one of only five people who have won all of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. To that he can add the Padma Vibhushan, which is awarded by the President of India to "recognize exceptional and distinguished service to the nation in any field..." According to his Wiki article, Borlaug's discoveries have been estimated to have saved over 245 million lives worldwide (others estimate the green revolution averted global famine during the second half of the 20th century, which saved perhaps 1 billion lives worldwide). His work in India and Mexico are well known in agricultural, scientific, and humanitarian circles.

Needless to say, with an impact that large there were also criticisms. The green revolution, and Borlaug's programs involving genetic cross-breeding of plant species, were seen by some as being unnatural. In addition, large scale monocultures (picture a large expanse of wheat or corn fields) tend to reduce biodiversity, in addition to often increasing the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used, which can be damaging to the top soil and the subsistence farming of rural families in under-developed areas. Another concern is that these techniques create large profits for agribusiness and agrichemical corporations while widening social inequality in the recipient countries. While these concerns may be valid, Borlaug felt that keeping people from starving more than compensated for any of these drawbacks.

Scientists who speak out for the science (even if it's just to correct the misrepresentations that others make of that science), are sometimes looked on with disdain both by those for whom the science is ideologically inconvenient and by pure scientists who feel the scientist should remain in the lab and let others handle policy. Borlaug had a different philosophy. According to a wonderful article just published about him:

Equal parts scientist and humanitarian, the Iowa-born Borlaug realized improved crop varieties were just part of the answer, and pressed governments for farmer-friendly economic policies and improved infrastructure to make markets accessible.

We should remember that without scientists informing our policy-makers, our rivers would still be catching fire, our neighborhoods would still be exposing us to toxic waste, our country would have never made it to the moon, our air would still be thick enough to see (and kill), and our existence and that of many other species on this planet would come into question.

Should all sushi be banned to save the bluefin tuna? The EU thinks so!

Okay, technically the European Union isn't saying that sushi should be banned. But the EU has recommended listing bluefin tuna as an endangered species. And that could eventually mean that trade of the tuna most used in sushi does get banned. Which means we might all have to live with eating eel.

Most marine scientists agree that many fish species are severely over-fished. This had led to stocks so low that populations are no longer sustainable. Scientific advisors to the EU this week warned EU ministers of collapsing stocks of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea and the larger Atlantic Ocean. And with the EU behind banning trade of the delectable fish, it is highly likely that the same will happen next March at the next CITES meeting. For those who aren't familiar with it, CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and is an international agreement between governments. According to its web site, its "aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival."

Not everyone agrees, of course. It should come as no surprise that Japan is actively lobbying to keep the current restrictions in place. These restrictions are much less onerous, something obviously more to the liking of a country that imports about 80% of the bluefin tuna retrieved in waters of the EU (not to mention elsewhere). Spain, Italy and Malta, all with large bluefin fisheries, are also not happy with the idea of any restrictions. On the flip side, several EU members, including France, the UK and the Netherlands, have publicly supported ending or suspending the fishing of bluefin tuna. In the end, the EU, however, votes as a block at CITES - fully 25% of the votes - so it is difficult for any one country to overturn a ban.

The EU’s position isn't final though, and may be revised pending additional information related to ongoing conservation efforts due later this year. And while the environmental unit of the Commission is strongly in favor of a complete ban, the Commission's fisheries unit is not keen on introducing additional regulation that could hurt the EU's fishing industry. Some argue that if the conservation efforts solve the over-fishing problem, a complete trade ban might not be necessary. In any case, the decision will be made in March 2010.

According to the European Commission's position paper, “[f]rom a scientific and technical point of view, the criteria for the listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna [as an endangered species] appear to be met...There is no doubt about the link between international trade and overexploitation of the species.”

Given my own marine fisheries experience, sometimes you have to just say no to fishing.

Schwarzenegger's Climate Summit Bags Some White House Staff

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reprise the tradition he started last year and host the second annual “Governors' Global Climate Summit 2” in Los Angeles from September 30 to October 3, 2009. This year he will boast some representatives from the current Administration in Washington, DC. The summit is being held in partnership with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley are expected to attend. Jackson will be keynote speaker. Joining them are expected to be UNICEF Executive Director Ann Veneman, UN Assistant Secretary-General Olav Kjørven, journalist and author Thomas Friedman (Hot, Flat and Crowded), and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

This second annual summit is being co-hosted by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D), Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), New York Gov. David Paterson (D) and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R). Doyle also co-hosted last year's event, but the others are new as the other 2008 sponsors have moved on (Florida's Governor Crist to a run for a Senate seat, Kansas Governor Sebelius to Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Illinois Governor Blagojevich to talk radio [and perhaps jail])

The summit in part aims to gain UN recognition for so-called “sub-national” agreements between states and developing countries meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Featured discussions and announcements at the summit are expected to include: reaching a new global deal in Copenhagen; the essential role of progressive states and provinces; urban area contributions and solutions to climate change; forestry solutions and recommendations to negotiators in Copenhagen; global strategies to address the inevitable impacts of climate change; and climate leadership in driving technological innovation and economic growth.

Is the agency charged with ensuring chemical safety running out of money?

Chemicals are on everyone's mind these days, it seems. In the US there is talk of "reforming TSCA," the chemical control law that has been in force for over 30 years. In Canada they are prioritizing chemicals for further review. And in Europe, the chemicals agency created to manage the REACH process is struggling to keep its roughly $30 million a year budget.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is based in Helsinki, Finland, is tasked with managing the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) program. The problem is that its funding is dependent on registration fees that haven't started coming in yet. So to help fund it the European Union member states agreed to provide up front money, but due to the worldwide recession states are trying to cut back everywhere they can. And that might include ECHA.

Last year companies who manufacture or important chemicals in quantities of one tonne or more were required to "pre-register" their intent to keep the chemicals on the market. Pre-registration, which ended December 1, 2008, was free to companies, which meant no funds to ECHA. Registration fees vary by tonnage produced but can range up to around $70,000 per chemical and per legal entity. Given that many companies have several legal entities in Europe (e.g., different affiliates manufacturing the chemical in France, Germany and Italy, each one considered a legal entity), the fees going to ECHA can be large per chemical. While ECHA expected about 300,000 pre-registrations, the actual number was on the order of 2.7 million. So ECHA should be well-funded to handle the registrations once they come in.

But what about the period until then. The first registration deadline (for high quantity or more hazardous chemicals) isn't until November 30, 2010, and most of the pre-registered chemicals are slated for later deadlines. So until then ECHA is running on borrowed money, which according to ECHA's Executive Director, Geert Dancet, is barely sufficient to hire and train the needed staff (and get them to move to Finland).

All is not lost, as the European parliament’s environment committee voted recently to maintain ECHA’s annual budget, but this must still be approved by two other committees and the full Parliament. Dancet is relatively confident that he will get full funding for another year, just long enough for the large numbers of registration fees expected to arrive in mid 2010 as companies finish compiling the vast amounts of data needed to support the safety of their chemicals.

Our Floating Plastics Legacy

At a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society, the worlds largest professional scientific society, a researcher from Japan presented a paper demonstrating that plastics floating in the ocean break down faster than expected. Previously it was thought that plastics broke down very slowly (hundreds of years) and at very high temperatures.

Normally we like chemicals that break down, that is, degrade into smaller chemicals and eventually (hopefully) into carbon dioxide and water. But the study by Dr. Katsuhiko Saido of Nihon University suggests that when the plastics break down they release contaminants - some of them potentially very toxic.

The problem is more urgent because the oceans are now filled with plastic, which the New York Times called in a recent editorial, "...an amorphous, floating mass of waste plastic trapped in a gyre of currents..." Dr. Saido reports that these floating masses of plastic are releasing similar contaminants in seawater samples collected near Malaysia and the Pacific Northwest in addition to the northern Pacific between Hawaii and Japan. The northern Pacific patch is estimated to be on the order of twice the size of the state of Texas and may contain as much as 100 million tons of plastic debris.

Since plastic waste has long been known to trap up to a million seabirds every year and some 100,000 marine mammals, the discovery that degradation of the plastic releases contaminants is an added concern.

A video of the north Pacific gyre and plastic can be seen here.

[Note: Photograph by René Ehrhardt: attribution license]

Dissecting a False Climate Denialist Claim (aka, Why Credibility Matters, aka How Science Works)

The following quote was from a climate denialist on another site:

Alarmists actually believe if you can dig up dirt on someone--that falsifies all his science. An example would be what they did to S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with credentials out the wazoo! They associated him with oil and tobacco interests, so now all his science is allegedly out the window!

This quote intentionally lies. Why? Because no one says that if you can dig up dirt on someone it falsifies his science. The poster than goes on to lie more by creating a completely fabricated series of stories to "prove" his false - and irrelevant - point.

Let's dissect the statement into its pieces:

"Alarmists actually believe if you can dig up dirt on someone--that falsifies all his science."

False. The poster steers the reader into ridiculous territory, suggesting as one of a series of similar examples that somehow Einstein's science would be ignored because he cheated on his wife. The fact is that none of the discussions of credibility have anything to do with the personal lives of the people being offered as "experts in climate science" by the denialists. Steering the conversation toward a false straw man is one of the denialists most common ploys. It allows them to pose some ridiculous and untrue premise that they then shoot down. The idea is to distract from the lack of credibility and veracity of their positions.

Needless to say, most people would not even have known if Einstein was cheating on his wife when he proposed the theory of relativity. Certainly no scientist would care at all what Einstein's marital arrangements were. And no one today cares whether S. Fred Singer cheated on his wife. Or even if he has a wife.

The important point is that the significance of Einstein's proposal wasn't established until Einstein had done much more research and that research had been confirmed by others. Which took many many years of research, mathematical proofs, and tweaking to his theory. His credibility wasn't determined because one day he said "eureka." It was determined only after the tests of scrutiny and time were met. That is a critical point that I will come back to shortly.

"An example would be what they did to S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with credentials out the wazoo!

The part about "what they did to S. Fred Singer" is false. The assertions of S. Fred Singer's credentials are mostly false, though one could stretch the case enough to give him some credit for studies in the field. The claim by another denialist that Singer is "one of the most authored expert climate scientist around!" is patently false. Singer, who will be 86 in September, has a degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in physics. He helped design the first instruments to be used in satellites for measuring ozone and other atmospheric parameters. His focus was more on space and the hardware of satellites and instruments, not on climate science itself, though certainly the instruments were used by others to assess climatological and meteorological parameters (which are not the same thing, nor is building instruments the same as studying climate). So while Singer has credentials, mostly they aren't actually in climate science, though he can assume some credit in those areas, primarily later in life and more as a consultant than as a scientist.

It's also interesting to note that Singer lists himself as Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, which may be true (I wasn't able to confirm the Emeritus status, though he certainly was a professor) and if so he has every right to make the claim. But Singer hasn't been an actual professor at the University of Virginia since 1994. Since then (and actually, well before then) he has been a consultant to the tobacco and oil industries and has served as "founder" for several "science sounding" organizations fronting for free market lobbying groups. So why doesn't he introduce himself as President of SEPP or one of the other organizations? Well, because SEPP is well known as being a front group and not a real science organization. Relying on the "Professor Emeritus" label rather than his current affiliations is just one of the common tricks used by denialists to presume greater credibility than they deserve. [One denialist, Dr. David Evans, claims prominently at the top of his resume to be "Rocket Scientist," though he is an electrical engineer that hasn't done any research in rocket science, or for that matter, climate science.]

"They associated him with oil and tobacco interests,..."

False. Singer associated himself with oil and tobacco interests. He wrote opinion pieces on their behalf that claimed smoking didn't cause cancer, all while the tobacco companies own scientists were telling them that smoking did cause cancer. He also worked for the oil industry in a similar controversial capacity, including the infamous API strategy report that documented how they would go about hiding the truth about global warming. Now, I happen to know that many scientists who work for the oil and tobacco industries who are absolutely committed to ensuring the safety of their products (within the inherent risks of the products themselves, obviously smoking causes cancer no matter what you do with it). So why is it important that Singer is associated with these industries? It actually isn't because of the association, but because he has done so in a way that tries to hide and deny the scientific truth instead of inform the science. He has acted as more as their PR (Public Relations) front man on science issues rather than as a scientist. It turns out Singer isn't alone, as all of the most cited climate skeptic scientists are associated with free market lobbying groups whose charters require them to fight anything that might lead to policy options they don't like (and thus require them to deny the science).

..."so now all his science is allegedly out the window!"

False. Singer's "science" must stand on its own merits just like any other scientist. The controversy about his "science" arises because 1) he hasn't actually done much science, 2) what he did do was long ago and in another field, and 3) what he has done related to climate science largely hasn't stood the tests of scrutiny and time. Singer designed instruments for satellites based on his expertise in electrical engineering and physics. His actual research in climate science has been limited, and he hasn't done real research in quite some time. He has, however, become one of the most visible skeptic scientists because he's been around so long. His credibility really is limited to those in the free market groups and to the public who assume that he must be an expert because the free market groups saturate the airwaves with him. In truth, he's often wrong on the science he supports, including thinking that Phobos (a moon of Mars) was artificial (and hollow!)[it isn't], that passive smoke doesn't cause cancer [it does], that CFCs were irrelevant to ozone depletion [again wrong], and that the impacts of the Kuwaiti oil fires would be local and over in 3 days [they weren't]. It seems Singer's "science" is more related to who he is consulting for at the time then the actual science. In short, he is a professional contrarian, i.e., someone who will always be willing to say the opposite of what the science community says.

I should make the distinction between Singer's "science" and Singer's science. Actual science comes about through the peer-review process. "Sciency sounding" opinions are not science, they are opinions. Much of what people call Singer's "science" is actually blog articles, op-eds, speculation, contrarian testimony, etc. However, Singer does have some actual science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. There actually isn't that much of it, but just like other scientists if it has undergone real peer-review it can be called science (which like all individual papers, must pass the tests of scrutiny and time, of which peer-review is actually only the first step). As such, Singer's actual science is already part of the data on which the consensus is based, or for any newer stuff, will be based on as we move forward. His actual peer-reviewed work will join the thousands of other relevant peer-reviewed papers that are being published by other scientists, including those who are actually working in climate science.


So, to wrap this up, let's come back to credibility. The poster whose comment I've used above is suggesting that scientists are "digging up dirt" on skeptic scientists in an attempt to "demean the science." That is false. No one cares about "dirt" on anyone else (except perhaps the poster). The truth is that credibility matters.

Would you trust your brain surgery to a brain surgeon (i.e., someone who has been trained in brain surgery and has performed several brain surgeries) or to a podiatrist (i.e., someone who might know where the skull is but not the difference between a cerebellum and an antebellum)?

Certainly no one would trust a non-scientific free market lobbying organization over every major scientific organization in the world when it comes to climate science.

That's point one.

Point two is the shear farce of proposing that any one scientist, or any one paper, can invalidate the entire history of climate science. That just isn't how science works.

Science works incrementally. That means that every single peer-reviewed paper represents some scientific experiment or concept that someone has been able to document enough to pass the initial scrutiny of many other scientists expert in that same field. But that paper may only look at one tiny piece of the puzzle. Think of a 1000 piece puzzle. Each paper may look closely at one piece of the puzzle, or perhaps a small section of pieces (say, the tip of the top of the Empire State Building in a puzzle of the New York City skyline). In fact, there may be many papers that look closely at that same piece to get a complete picture of what that piece looks like (e.g., looking at the tip of the Empire State Building from the North, the South, the East, the West, close up, further away, from the base, from a plane flying overhead, etc.). Only when you put all the papers related to that tip of the Building together will scientists fully understand that the one piece of the puzzle is the tip of the Empire State Building.

Now do that same thing for each of the other 999 pieces in the puzzle.

Only after each piece has been thoroughly examined and pieced together can scientists finally feel confident that the puzzle is of the New York City skyline. Only when there is overwhelming evidence that the puzzle is a NYC skyline will the scientists feel confident to say there is a scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus is not like taking a poll. Personal opinions are irrelevant to science. You have to prove each piece along the way, and so does every other scientist. The science must stand the test of scrutiny. And this takes time. Sometimes a long time. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, took many years and many experiments and mathematical proofs before it became accepted by the scientific community.


So the denialists say, well, my guy is another Einstein and the world just hasn't caught up to his brilliance yet. False. The point is that the skeptics put themselves forth as more of "The Terminator" than as scientists. They exclaim that their paper (or more often than not, their blog article) completely invalidates all the other work. As noted above, the idea that one paper can invalidate all the other work is not scientifically defensible. For two reasons.

First, because no one study or paper is science. Einstein's first paper on relativity was merely a proposal of his theory. He then followed it up with many other papers and many other experiments and mathematical calculations. Other scientists also added their experiments, calculations, and theories. Only after there was sufficient supporting evidence to confirm the original was it considered valid. In fact, the theory was tweaked quite a bit along the way, as newer experiments helped fine tune and correct for inaccuracies. That is how science works. It is incremental, and it is collaborative. And it takes time.

Secondly, the skeptics papers cannot pass even the initial tests of scrutiny. Many cannot even get past the initial peer-review process and are merely posted on blogs, which other skeptics then cut-and-paste and pass along as the "be all and end all." Most are drivel, fraudulent, or merely unsupportable. That is why science has a peer-review process. Anyone can write a paper and claim whatever they want. And unfortunately some do. So the papers are screened to ensure that the methods are documented, the results are fully presented, and the conclusions reflect the reality of the data.

And peer-review is only the first step. Papers that pass peer-review and get published must then continue to withstand the scrutiny of a broader community of scientists. Any questions raised must be answered. Further study must confirm the initial findings.

Only the sum of the relevant and reliable data from peer-reviewed publications can lead to a conclusion of what the data tell us. Only after all the pieces of the puzzle have been examined can one reach a scientific consensus. You most certainly cannot hold up one piece of a puzzle that looks like a brick in the Empire State Building and claim that the Empire State Building has no windows.

That doesn't mean that all the pieces must fit exactly. If you put together a 1000 piece puzzle of the NYC skyline and find that 10 pieces are missing randomly from it, you can still tell that it is a puzzle of the NYC skyline. Even if a few of the pieces seem to be from the wrong puzzle, you can still tell it is a NYC skyline. Scientific consensus does not have be unanimous. Some scientists need more information to feel confident in the conclusion, others may disagree for some reason even when it is obvious to most other scientists. And as we've seen, some scientists are just contrarians (some legitimately, others because free market organizations pay hefty consulting fees).

But the bottom line is that it is the sum total of all of the peer-reviewed papers on a scientific topic that lead to the conclusions.

Unfortunately, the skeptics seem to be following the wishes of the free market lobbying groups, who simply don't like the possible policy options and therefore have retroactively concluded the science must be wrong. They start with a conclusion and then cherry pick the data (or simply lie about it) to support their predetermined conclusions.

Science starts with a question, which leads to other questions, which leads to some answers and lots more questions. Eventually, there are enough answers to lead to a scientific consensus. In the case of climate change, it was tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of researchers from every scientific organization imaginable over more then three decades that eventually led to confidence enough in what was going on to reach a scientific consensus.

They certainly didn't copy it off some blog one day.

Climate Denialists Grasp for Straws and Come Up Sipping (Warmer) Air

Not long ago I wrote an article demonstrating that the most cited climate skeptic scientists were all associated with free market lobbying groups. I compiled a chart that showed these connections, including color coding so that the mash-pit of lines between the boxes could be discerned. The summary of that article, sans comments, can be read here, and is good for those who don't want to wait the 10-20 seconds it takes for the original article to load, complete with its 647 comments when I shut it down because it was too slow (which, of course, is why the denialists tried to saturate it with repetitive comments).

Apparently the local denialists felt a little threatened by the verifiably accurate chart showing connections between these skeptics and the free market lobbying organizations, because there has been a mad scramble to find new names that don't show up on the list (despite the list being the names they most often cited). One such denialist is now touting a Dr. David Evans (not to be confused with Gather's own David Evans, who is an actual marine scientist).

Unfortunately, the copy-and-paster denialists don't seem to worry too much about credibility, and have said as much.

So, how does Dr. David Evans fit into the chart?

First off, Dr. David Evans is a bit of a fraud. He claims to be a "rocket scientist" in an effort to manufacture credibility, which takes a nose dive when he was exposed for what he really is, a PhD in Electrical Engineering who has never published one peer-reviewed paper in climate science, rocket science, or any science. [Other aspects of his posted resume also lack credibility, but we'll stick just to those that are relevant for climate science.] His climate change "credentials" include some blog articles on climate change, which have been debunked widely. He "produced" (meaning he wrote the line code) for carbon counting software used by the Australian government.

And gee, he even has a company called Science Speak with Joanna Nova, the performance speaker who wrote the Climate Skeptics comic book so widely used by denialists. Oddly enough, Science Speak bills itself as "a scientific modeling and mathematical research company, and we speak about some science issues." [Notice the phrasing, which is designed to suggest more than it actually says. In reality, the fact that David and Joanna "speak" about science doesn't mean they know about climate science at all. And the "scientific modeling and mathematical research" turns out to be more about "Our investment interests led to goldnerds.com.au, which sells subscriptions to spreadsheets that analyze gold and silver companies listed on the North American and Australian stock exchanges. David wrote "Why Invest in Gold Now?" in 2004, foreshadowing the current financial crisis and explaining why gold is a good investment during such times."

Climate change? Not so much.

Ah, but the chart. Where is David Evans?

In the chart I had listed 8 organizations that were either free market lobbying organizations or their front groups, with all the interconnections. Dr. Evans is associated with only 2 of the 8 organizations - SPPI (who published his non-peer reviewed opinion paper) and Icecap (who published a blog on his non-peer reviewed paper). Wow, only 2. That's not bad. Just like Jim D'Aleo and Lord Monckton.

Oh wait, Dr. David Evans says he is Australian, right?

Well, mate, that explains why he is associated with The Lavoisier Group, a global warming skeptic organization based in Australia. The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (no information on whether Dr. David Evans and Ray Evans are related). Like the Heartland Institute in the US, the Lavoisier Group is a free market group that denies the science because "any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry." [Yep, don't like the possible policy options, so the science just must be wrong, right, mate]

Dr. Evans also has written for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is another free market lobbying group that bills itself as "the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." Not much climate science going on there either.

So, why mention Dr. Evans? Well, because in their desperation to cite anyone else besides the usual crew of skeptic scientists who are all associated with free market groups, they have latched on to the Australian version of a free market skeptic. In other words, Dr. Evans has no real expertise (or even experience) studying climate science, but he does have a free market ideology (and a penchant for resume padding).

And despite what denialists claim, credibility matters.

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I’ll start by highly recommending this book. Especially to scientists or those interested in science. As suggested by the title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - the book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information. More on that later.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist (who together write a blog called The Intersection), assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable (I read it in it’s entirety on a cross-Atlantic flight) and surprisingly insightful. I highly recommend the book; it is definitely worth the read.

Other book reviews

Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)

Climate skeptics like to claim that there are many independent scientists who refute the consensus of climate change. They love to cite folks like S. Fred Singer, Robert Carter, Roy Spencer (ahem, Dr. Roy Spencer), Pat Michaels, and Willie Soon. Each of these people is asserted to be some independent minded scientist bucking the trend.

Except it isn't true.

There really are only a handful of climate skeptic scientists. Some, Lord Monckton for example, have no real science background at all (the closest Monckton gets to science training is he is a certified Day Skipper for his yacht). Others have a scientific background, though only a few have any actual expertise in climate science. Others, S. Fred Singer for example, are merely figureheads who act as spokesmen for the industry. In any case, qualified climate scientist dissenters must put their data into peer review for incorporation into the analysis, just like every other scientist. Their data must be persuasive. To date it has not. Which may be why they post more on blogs than in the peer-reviewed literature.

Ah, but the climate skeptics (denialists or realists depending on if you are a real scientist or not) point to the vast array of organizations that prove that climate change is not real and/or a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The skeptics aver that these are scientific organizations, usually in a desperate effort to counter Steve B, who has demonstrated unequivocally that no scientific organization has refuted the IPCC consensus statement on climate change.

Except that the skeptics organizations are not scientific organizations at all.

On the right side of the chart below are the organizations most often touted by the climate skeptics (click the chart to enlarge). Some are essentially just blogs, some are actual organizations, but none are scientific organizations. All are advocacy groups. The numbers in the boxes indicate the number of the 11 scientists who are associated with them (e.g., Icecap has 8 of the 11 scientists associated with it).



The boxes on the left side of the graphic represent some of the most often cited skeptic scientists. The numbers indicate how many of the 8 organizations to which each scientist is associated (e.g., Sally Baliunas is associated with 5 of the organizations).

The color-coded lines tie together each of these "independent" scientists to the organizations to which they are most often associated.

As can be clearly seen, there is quite a traffic jam of lines in the middle, which is why I used color-coding (otherwise it becomes impossible to tell one scientist and organization from another).

Which, of course, is the point. These organizations all hire the same handful of scientists that either agree with them or are willing to shill for them. The fact that the scientists are associated with so many organizations suggests that independence is really not particularly important.

But let's take a closer look at the organizations.

Several of the organizations - George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Greening Earth Society - are free market lobbying organizations that have no expertise or mission regarding climate science. Except of course that these organizations promote free market and free enterprise business principles (which roughly translates to externalizing much of the societal costs to the taxpayers). Thus, since their own mission statements promote free markets, they obviously are only interested in trying to keep Congress and others from taking action that they feel will hurt their organizational goals. That in itself is part of their mission, but they try to sell it as if it were science. It isn't.

The other organizations sound more scientific, but then that is part of the playbook first used successfully by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health effects of smoking. Folks like S. Fred Singer are no stranger to the playbook as they also were "experts" on tobacco before becoming experts on climate change. The bottom line is that these organizations are front groups for the other free market organizations and the industries most likely to be effected by any policy remedies designed to deal with climate change.

One last point. You'll see in the chart that 8 of the 11 skeptic scientists are associated with the Heartland Institute (whose mission is promoting free market strategies). A significant number of the skeptic scientists are also associated with other free market groups. This begs the obvious question:

Why would supposedly reputable, independent scientists be associated with free market lobbying organizations? What benefit would the Heartland Institute be to a scientist who is studying climate change? I mean, scientists belong to scientific organizations. Organizations where they can present their research, listen to others presenting their research, and engage in scientific debate about that research. After all, that is how science is done. Scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed literature and discuss their research in scientific conferences and other venues designed for the exchange of data and ideas. Heartland Institute meetings are all about economics and free market principles (and lobbying Congressmen).

So what reason is there that "independent scientists" would be associated with free market organizations whose entire objective is to defeat any possible regulatory remedy that they feel will negatively impact free enterprise?

NGO Reaction to the Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As previously noted, the Obama EPA suddenly suspended its ChAMP program last week. ChAMP was the Agency's mechanism for evaluating the data received during the voluntary HPV Challenge, in which industry agreed to provide available health and safety data on about 2200 high production volume chemicals (i.e., those produced or imported in excess of 1 million pounds per year in the US).

Yesterday I gave some of the reaction from industry. Most felt that ChAMP was a good program and didn't understand its sudden suspension. Some feel it was so the Obama administration could institute more "command-and-control" regulation over chemicals, rather than the more voluntary (and EPA-onused) ChAMP.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) reaction, on the other hand, has been generally in favor of the move. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), whose 1997 report "Toxic Ignorance" was the catalyst that led to the HPV Challenge in the first place, has been very critical of the ChAMP program. According to EDF's Richard Dennison,"[i]t probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)." Dennison has been writing a series of blog posts in recent months in which he notes some of the failings of ChAMP, arguing "that ChAMP's "rush to risk" has taken EPA badly off-track." He claims, however, that "we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not)," and that EDF looked "forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems."

Another environmental advocacy group that has been following ChAMP, and in particular has been very supportive of the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG recently launched an interactive online site "featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies." According to EWG, the site "will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues." A major focus of the site "will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."

Another group interested in the ChAMP and TSCA reform is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Commenting on the EDF blog, Gina Solomon of NRDC notes that "[t]his is a very important step toward meaningful chemical reform. It was clear that EPA needed to sweep the house clean before bringing in the new furniture, and the elimination of ChAMP does exactly that. Now we can get on with the job of really reforming U.S. chemical policy." She also congratulated EDF for its series of blog stories, saying "I really think this blog brought down ChAMP!"

Many in the NGO community feel that the administration's decision to suspend ChAMP is a clear signal that "ChAMP is grossly, indefensibly ineffective." EDF's Dennison says the decision is "implicit acknowledgement" that the ChAMP prioritization process needed an overhaul. According to the ChAMP web site, as of March 2009, EPA had "developed and posted risk-based prioritizations for 220 HPV chemicals and has posted hazard-based prioritizations for 83 chemicals." The goal of the program was to develop "screening-level hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for an estimated 6,750 chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or greater a year" by 2012.

Clearly the administration felt that the program could not accomplish those goals and that a better way was needed. According to EPA, they expect to offer a new direction some time this summer.

Industry Reaction to Obama Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As noted a few days ago, the Obama EPA has decided to suspend its voluntary Chemical Assessment & Management Program (ChAMP). The news came as a bit of a shock to most policy watchers, both on the industry and NGO side (and apparently also within the Agency).

Industry reaction has been mixed, some attacking the decision as "less about science and more about the new administration's desire for a command-and-control approach to chemicals management policy." For example, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) attacked the move in a statement issued June 18th by accusing the EPA of remaining “silent about its full intentions, contradicting President Obama's commitment to transparency and support for scientific integrity.” NPRA's President, Charles Drevna further noted that “[i]t is extremely disheartening that the administration would abandon its priority-setting chemicals management process before it is even given the opportunity to work.” Drevna further "urge[d] the administration to reconsider its abandonment of both the scientifically sound ChAMP initiative and the United States’ commitments to Canada and Mexico under the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Similarly, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) issued a statement in which indicated that the suspension of ChAMP “is creating confusion over how or whether to continue activities already begun by industry in this effort.” In the SOCMA statement, Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations, urged "EPA to not delay the forward progress it has been making under ChAMP. We applaud the agency for wishing to strengthen its chemicals management program, but we’re concerned that, in order to do so, they’re stopping it altogether. We hope that EPA’s evaluation of ChAMP will be brief and maintain the program’s original intent.”

Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also issued a statement, though perhaps with a less strident tone. ACC says “[W]e are confident that any changes to ChAMP do not signal a reversal of the U.S. government’s commitment, but rather to further strengthen the program.” ACC seems to believe that the initial reports are overreactive and that EPA will find a way to get chemical reviews moving again. ACC was the original industry lead in developing the voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program, from which ChAMP evolved as a means to evaluate the collected data.

Consistent with ACC's view is the fact that EPA has requested an additional $3 million for the program in its fiscal year 2010 budget proposal. The budget request includes monies to hire additional employee resources in order to accelerate the development of the ChAMP prioritization documents. Now, according to an EPA spokesman, the EPA is looking at options “to determine how best to ramp up efforts to assess, prioritize and take risk management action on chemicals of concern. EPA plans to announce the specifics of this effort this summer and will seek public input into the discussion.”

So it seems that EPA already has some idea in mind about how it prefers to proceed. Expect more updates and potential options for moving forward as information continues to become available.

Obama Administration Shuts Down ChAMP Chemical Program?

EPA sources report that the Obama administration and EPA leadership are shutting down EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP). ChAMP was initiated as a mechanism to implement the Montebello Agreement, also called the Security & Prosperity Partnership between the three countries (Canada, Mexico and the US), signed in August 2007 by former President Bush.

Apparently EPA staff were told of this decision in an internal meeting within the last two weeks. It remains unclear what might replace it. However, it should be known that highly placed EPA executives believe the report misrepresents what is actually happening, which is merely to "renovate" the program rather than shut it down completely.

If the decision is to shut ChAMP down completely, it would come as a bit of a surprise to EPA watchers. Just a few months ago EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had indicated that she wanted to accelerate the full assessments of high priority chemicals. For the time being it actually looks like the risk-based prioritization activities have ceased pending further review. Jackson also suggested that she had been leaning toward a ChAMP like program rather than the original Kid Safe Chemical Act concept previously introduced to Congress by Senator Lautenberg and Congressman Waxman. TSCA reform has been a hot topic of discussion in Congress and Lautenberg repeated only a few days ago that he plans to reintroduce the bill later this year, though the bill is expected to be substantially altered from the original to incorporate new ideas...and some thought, ChAMP-like provisions.

According to the Montebello Agreement, the United States agreed to complete risk characterizations by 2012 on more than 9,000 chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds per year. The regional agreement also provided for the sharing of scientific information and technical understanding, best practices and research on new approaches to chemical testing and assessment. The agreement established additional goals to be met by 2020, which include creating and updating chemical inventories in all three countries, as well as coordinating the management of chemicals in North America as outlined in other international agreements. ChAMP was on its way toward meeting those goals, and in fact was anticipated to be expanded to take on additional enhancements that would look at inorganic chemicals and reset the TSCA Inventory.

Obstensibly a voluntary program which put much of the onus for evaluation on EPA, ChAMP is the second large voluntary program that has been shut down by the current administration - the first being the Performance Track program. There is no question that the ChAMP program takes substantial EPA resources, and this announcement may simply be a sign that the administration is intending to revamp the program in a way that allows its stated goals to be pursued within a revised Kid Safe Act when it is reintroduced later this year.

I will continue to update as I get more information.