While We Wait for Trump's Arrest, The IPCC Report is Dire

 

I never wanted to spend my senior years on a dying planet, but that's what it looks like to me. The supposed leadership of the most industrialized countries are doing the very least to curb global warming, and have even decided, it seems, to promote the short-term benefits of fossil fuel usage for their electoral cycle (yes, I'm criticizing Biden over the Willow project). 

We're looking at the results of climate change in the eye all the time--take the weird winter of California's discontent: that isn't some freak global cooling, but a predictable weirding of the weather because patterns are disrupted. But we are still stuck with the effects of warming in the usually cooler places. We can see the devastation of our ecosystems in the deaths of fish due to heat waves in Australia. The southern hemisphere has been through it this past season. 

Climate change isn't predicting the future, but describing our present, now. And we are still jaded and in denial. Lives will be lost if action is not taken, but a look around social media indicates that loads of people still believe climate science is some kind of hoax. A conspiracy theory. 

I'm just a D-list blogger--I don't expect what I say to gain any traction and actually, my climate-related posts aren't even the ones that do any numbers. But what I do know is, changing people's POV via messaging and "flooding the zone" can be done--because the denialists have been doing it all this time. Solutions exist and funding them (like actually just fully comping changeover to solar energy or heat pumps) are within the reach of government actions. (Programs totally exist and are inadequate for many homeowners.) 

We can do more, and more aggressively. The political will has to be there, and the idea that the fossil fuel industry and the denialist-propagandist complex (like Fox News, who are known liars) needs to be called out for being the problem that they are. 

I think we still have the opportunity to make a better future. But that opportunity can't be pissed away--it must be vigorously and intelligently seized. 

Climate Sunday: Rough Winds do Shake the Early Buds of...February?

 

At some point this past week, I exited my car for the half-block walk from the parking lot to my office building without a jacket at all, because it was well and truly warm enough. I even ran the fan in my car on my commute home because it got warm in the parking lot sun. And there have been a few days like this--in February. This isn't usual--my early remembrances of February here in the upper Mid-Atlantic is it snows and gets really freaking cold.

It did not do that here. Well, not yet, but as we mosey into March and advance into April, while I know we've had bad storms in these months, I feel like the ghost of winter starts to vanish--and maybe it isn't a good augur for those of us aware of climate change. Spring has been springing early for a while--as if some areas aren't getting the winter we've been used to. 

Now, California--they are having a winter! That's also not a great sign.

Both of these scenarios feed into the denialist vortex in that they create possible "debunking" narratives: either mild winters in the NE aren't so bad, or blizzards in California prove there's no climate change at all. I guess the question is: when does weird weather get weird enough for the jaded and denialist mind to see it? 

And how do changing weather patterns affect wildlife? When crops and flowers start to habitually bloom too early, and the actual wild of winter bullshit starts a bit too late? 

The rhythm we expected from nature is thrown off, and the dancers can't pick up the pace when it too rapidly changes. This will affect crops we eat and animals like wild fish we rely upon for food. We will notice higher prices for foods--at first, because most people don't understand the relationship between nature and what's at the end of their fork. Then we will be scared. 

I don't want to wait until we are scared about where our food is coming from to get concerned about climate change. It's bad enough we tolerate the growing threat of disease and violence. We should not be so stupid we forget that we need to eat. 

Fascinating Sea Stuff!

I hide it pretty well, but I am a big old animal lover and sometime-science freak. I find the ocean especially fascinating because there is so much to be explored, and because of the extremes of temperature and pressure at which we find sea life. (I also find there to be a kind of race-against-time aspect in oceanic zoology in that we are in the midst of a great anthropogenic extinction--but the realization that creatures can and have adapted to conditions we would consider bizarre is somewhat heartening.)

So bear with my geeking out over a handful of stories I came across this week--like, what on earth is up with the octopus genome? Some scientists have declared that the octopus is like an alien, having great genetic complexity (something like 10K more genes than your humble homo sapiens has), a fairly clever brain and remarkable camouflage skills. I remember Paul the octopus, who predicted soccer games, which is not even something you'd think an octopus would be especially informed about. Frankly, it makes me feel a little guilty about how much I like eating the buggers. (I'm also a fan of calamari fritti, although I don't think a plate of architeuthis would go down well, even with breading and marinara!)

Sort of speaking of my Italian accented eating habits--a flying (swimming?) spaghetti monster has been spotted. A bundle of rhyzophysid siphoniphores (say that five times real fast, I dare you!) might look like an organized pot of vermicelli, but I don't think I'm eating them--once again, not even with marinara and bread crumbs. These guys were found at 4K feet under the ocean. They don't seem like a likely pasta-substitute for paleo peeps anyway. I'm reasonably sure cavemen never, uh, fathomed they existed.

Here's another sea-science tidbit--it seems like some marine animals might be adapting to ocean acidification by taking more time to nurture their young. This is kind of fascinating, because we actually have a changing environment and it gives us ample opportunity to view how species do adapt, or don't and might die. But there is an interesting turn here--as mammals ourselves, we take nurturing of young for granted, but it is the basis for transmission of a kind of culture. Imagine how it might work out for clever animals like octopi to transmit acquired knowledge from generation to generation. One thing we have seen over time is that some animals respond evolutionarily by breeding larger, with an understood increase in brain weight and complexity.

I'm not exactly saying "Hail our new giant octopus overlords!", but I'm not exactly not saying it. If this goes as I'm modeling, I just want to say I am all the sorry emotionally possible about enjoying my niece-in-law's tuna and octopus salad so much that I ate three plates of it. If I do get to Italy this year, I probably will still eat all the damn fish (there may be a hiccup in my intended travel plans--which I trust means at least I don't have an undue hiatus in my bloggery), but I guess I'll do it mindfully? Our life aquatic could also be sentient-adjacent. Which is wild and troubling to contemplate.

Happy Earth Day, If You Want It

It makes sense that President Obama gave an address about global warming on Earth Day in the Everglades National Park, because this sensitive region has dozens of species of plant and animal life that would be impacted by sea level rise. But let's make no mistake: even if we discount the loss of irreplaceable habitat, the advance of climate change will have significant impact on the livelihood of people living in regions like Florida, with impacts to fishing, tourism, agriculture and real estate.

Addressing climate change isn't the job-killer--climate change is.

It also makes me a little happy to see the President take a message about climate change to Florida in light of word that "climate change" is forbidden as a topic of conversation for officials in that state. That strikes me as nonsensical, and even a little chilling. (Really? Recommending someone seek a mental health evaluation for indulging in a little "politically incorrect" truth-telling? That seems like some kind of Soviet tactic, to me.)  I hope the whole affair gave Governor Scott the vapors.

In other news, WI Governor and likely 2016 GOP Presidential Primary contestant Scott Walker decided Earth Day is exactly when you propose to cut 57 employees from the Department of Natural Resources. (Gov. Walker does not seem especially sentimental regarding his state's natural resources or popular input regarding them.) Wisconsin is another state where discussion of climate change has been, well, chilled. Which is a damn shame, because ground water is at risk in case of climate-change related drought even if WI is a land of lakes and streams--and as dairy country, watering and having lush grazing land for livestock is at a premium. I am a bit of a cheese fan. I would like my supply guaranteed, please.

One might take a moment to reflect that, while climate change is global, all politics is local. Responsible conservation begins with people electing responsible state government to act as stewards of the people's resources. Making the Earth cleaner, safer, less-polluted, and less at-risk of large-scale awfulness seems remote, but in many ways involves managing what you can--like not having people who regard your state as so many saleable resources to unload, as opposed to a precious place to sustain for your family and future generations to enjoy, as your governor.

Not Looking Away

I have to demur from the opinion of Michael Tomasky, whom I agree with regularly--but, well. I just don't think one actually abandons a whole bloc of states and still considers the possibility of having a national party. If the Democrats kiss off Florida and Texas, and don't even try to play their cards in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia et al, we set up to lose future rounds in those states also, because we don't have party infrastructure, we aren't cultivating voters, and we aren't delivering a meaningful message.

I guess I am pretty much at the "acceptance"  stage of grief where geographical party representation stands as it does because I think that, once we really codified "red" and "blue" states in the past decade or so? Multiple maps only reinforced the idea that red states necessarily concentrate in the South, and many people tend to accept broad generalizations. But I tend to look at what's possible, and I see possibilities.

I don't think it should sit well with people in the south that the fossil fuel industries are paying their employees less to accept more risk to eke out less cost-effective fuels, that spoil the land and way of life in the region for farmers and fishermen. I think there is a real reason for people to want to speak out about systems that protect people who poison water, and punish people who speak out about it. I think there isn't any room for equivocating that we believe there should be a strong border and clear rules about who gets to stay here, but industries have to do their part by hiring US citizens on a preferential basis. I think states need to look to fairer pay structures for a tide that rises all boats, and not continuously look for tax cuts that benefit elites and screw regular people.

I still think there is a number of common interests that truly Democratic politicians could speak to in the South, if they tried. I don't see it as a national party concern, necessarily, but if local politicians build it, I guess the national party should behoove itself to come.  So I think, to put it plainly, there's no benefit in cutting and running from a challenge--no matter how challenging it may seem. I suggested some avenues of opening up a legitimate "refreshed" dialog with southern states for Democratic candidates, but up-and-coming local politicians will probably know better than I what they're about. I just don't see giving up on them.

Climate Monday: What is Killing the Fish in Alaska?

If you guessed "climate change", you might very well be on to what my "Climate *Day of the Week*" posts are on about. It looks like unusually warm weather combined with drought is doing a number on the Alaskan fish population (like, more than over-fishing and oil spills have already done.) This post is by no means about gloating over any state's misfortune--this is about acknowledging that there is a problem and it definitely does affect indistries such as commercial fishing and tourism (because people do go up to Alaska for the fishing).

That said, it is a little bit about pointing out that, while some might point to the really amazingly temperate and beautiful weather we're having right now in the Mid-Atlantic states and comment that this somehow just doesn't look like global warming is a thing based on our local weather--but this is weather. Weather changes. But what is happening in Alaska is part of a trend of higher temperatures that definitely impacts its unique ecosystem, and threatens the way of life of the people who live there.  It's always important to keep in mind that climate change isn't just about environmental changes, but has economic and social ramifications. That sometimes gets missed while people are "discussing the controversy" or whatever they like to call it.