Good planets are hard to find

On Friday I attended the NOVA Climate Change Symposium on the Annandale Campus of Northern Virginia Community College, and despite the weather's earnest attempts to drown the attendees (and drill through the roof of the auditorium, from what I could hear), it was a great event. The speakers were engaging and earnest, the audience listened intently (and took lots of notes), and the questions at the end were thoughtful and received just as well-considered answers. The event reminded me of what I miss about being in college - getting to learn a lot of fascinating things from a variety of people in a very short time. (The Powerpoints made me all nostalgic...)

My main impression, having seen An Inconvenient Truth, was that this event was a similar presentation to the movie...only much better. After all, it was coming straight from the experts themselves, and it concentrated more on science and solutions than an ex-VP with a slick Powerpoint (who couldn't help injecting far too many clips of himself looking thoughtful while traveling around DC.) I certainly took lots of notes, and here are a few of the things that struck me:

Jill Corporale's biology perspective: Not only is climate change affecting humans, it's affecting species everywhere. It's not very often that people connect species extinction with climate change - mostly, it's some sort of vague reference to deforestation or over-hunting. I was particularly struck by her recollection of visiting coral reefs twenty years ago, then returning to the same reefs recently, only to find them blighted and dead. That makes it personal and immediate; I've swum among reefs that may someday end up like that. As she said, "Climate change is more than a warm day in January."

Callan Bentley's "Meltdown": That's the kind of talk I want to see! He used a very simple set of facts to demonstrate exactly why CO2 is doing to the atmosphere, and why the "climate change skeptics" have no ground to argue that anything other than human activity is responsible for the current dramatic changes we're seeing. I especially liked seeing the Mauna Loa measurements presented in conjunction with the output of volcanic eruptions - it's so easy to hold one or the other up for inspection, but I rarely see the two compared. The slide about Naomi Oreskes' literature search (published in the Dec. 2004 edition of Science) especially made me want to laugh at the "skeptics". If you don't believe human-driven climate change is happening after almost 700 studies say it is - and NO studies say it isn't - then you're pretty dense. Kudos to Callan! (I feel jealous that his students get to see talks of that caliber in class every day. I really need to get back to school.)

Craig Jensen's "Nuclear option": I was somewhat distressed by my lack of knowledge in this area - particularly since my college campus was fairly close to a nuclear power plant. I didn't know, for instance, that it was impossible for a nuclear plant to explode; that even if one experiences a meltdown, containment (at least in US plants) is so good that it harmful aftereffects are minimal; and that Chernobyl was such a disaster because it had substandard - meaning little to no - containment. (The last one didn't surprise me, but it was sad.) I was especially interested to hear that the reporters flying to Pennsylvania to cover the Three Mile Island meltdown received more radiation from being in a plane than residents living near the plant did from the incident. I was also ignorant of the time it would take for nuclear waste to decay sufficiently to be harmless - the scale is actually hundreds of years, not tens of thousands, as is usually bandied about by opponents of nuclear power.

Scott Sklar's solar power options: This talk excited me sheerly for the cool factor of the technology he was talking about. I, for one, am definitely going to pony up the money for solar-voltaic roof shingles when I finally get around to buying a house, and I really want to try out those LED light bulbs. On a more practical note, he made me think about the way I use energy in my house right now, and I've already begun to alter my habits to try and conserve electricity. (Replacing the crappy insulation in the roof will take a little more effort, unfortunately.) Mostly I want one of those "Solar Patriot" homes he was talking about, but I'm going to be on the renting side of the housing market for a while yet, so that will have to wait.

There were other great talks, and a lot of excited, motivated people at the end of the event, but I hope next year's Symposium is even better. This is exactly what we need: an way for individuals to become informed about climate change and active in mitigation efforts, rather than the status quo of sitting back and letting politicians and industry be the only important players.

Al Gore may have won the Nobel, but there are a lot of people out there who care about climate change - and when they get together for wonderful events like this one, we all need to join in. Congratulations to the organizers and participants of the first annual NOVA Climate Change Symposium!

The Union's State is: Strong

It's that time again! Yes, the annual ritual of the State of the Union address, which could be viewed as a time-honored tradition (wherein the President has an opportunity to speak frankly with the nation about its present and future), with utter disgust (since it wastes valuable airtime that could be devoted to the new "American Idol"), as an opportunity for a really hardcore drinking game ("freedom" is a suggested word only for those with a high alcohol tolerance), or (in my case), as a solid hour of talking that alternately makes me want to laugh until I choke and wish that shouting angrily at the television actually had an effect.

There were the usual "our nation is strong" platitudes, appeals to patriotism and attempts to guilt us into approving of billions of dollars being spent on a war that Congress never officially declared, but my favorite bit was when he got to talking about climate change. This, the president who refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because other countries weren't doing ENOUGH to curb emissions. I.E., we shouldn't have to do ANYTHING. Ah, the logic. But wait! In last night's State of the Union speech, President Bush seems to have made a neat little turnaround:

"To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.) Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)"

Oh really? The Kyoto accords obviously weren't good enough for us (although they seem to have been for most of the rest of the world), so we're going to create our own "fund" (out of what money, might I ask) and an "international agreement" designed for essentially the same thing. Not to mention that this statement included a nice little out:

"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.) The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. (Applause.)"

In other words, we'll lead the world in cleaning up the mess we've made of it, but if things don't work the way we like, it's not our fault that we're not doing anything to fix the problem - it's everyone else's for not agreeing with US. Same old same old - nothing serious is going to get done because not everyone wants to do it our way. It's the same problem that came up when California wanted to set more stringent emissions restrictions than the rest of the country and was denied permission to do so (twice).

And then there was this gem (earlier in the speech):

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth. (Applause.)"

Now, wait. Is this the same president whose administration has repeatedly tried to squelch the climate scientists who were trying to share their knowledge and warn us that we're in deep trouble? I am of course happy about this statement if it means that there's a better chance I'll get my grants funded in the future, but the hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

Living near DC - and having done that for my entire life - I get really sick of politics in general. But this kind of arrogance (which results in the people in power ignoring what they consider inconvenient and then spinning the resulting disastrous situation to make themselves look good), really makes me mad. But that's politics; also, I didn't actually have to listen to the address.

Then again, if you realize that the speech is essentially grandstanding, nothing ever really results from it and no one's used it to announce anything radical for years, it's a lot of fun to play "What's the catchphrase" and speculate on whether the printed copies of the speech come with party-lines-appropriate "Clap here" and "Standing ovation" cues. (I also had a great deal of fun listening to the reaction my mother, an elementary school teacher, had when the No Child Left Behind Except When It Comes To Actually Learning Something Other Than How To Take Standardized Tests Act was mentioned.)

By the way, the word of the day was "empower."

NOVA Climate Change Symposium

In lieu of posting pretty photos this Friday, I'm putting in a plug for an exciting event going on in Northern Virginia (and across the country, actually). It's a Climate Change Symposium being held on the campuses of Northern Virginia Community College from January 31st to February 1st, and you should definitely participate. Our own Callan Bently of NOVA Geoblog will be hosting the Annandale portion of the events. Here's an excerpt from the main event webpage:

"How worried should we be? How sound is the science? What changes is the planet already “committed to”? How much has Earth's climate changed in the past? What can we expect? What can we do?

"As you may have heard in this week’s news, 2007 was the second warmest year on record, and the eight warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. Global warming is one of the great challenges that humanity will face in the coming centuries. For three days, events on NOVA campuses will explore human-caused climate change and what it means for our society. These events are part of the larger national day of learning about Climate Change called "Focus The Nation." Experts from our faculty and from area universities, government, media, and NGOs will be on hand to answer your questions about climate change.

"Start off by joining the Annandale campus' RPK Society for a live webcast of "The 2% Solution" on Wednesday night. On Thursday, the Alexandria, Loudoun, Manassas, Medical Education, and Woodbridge campuses will be hosting individual events. Return to Annandale on Friday afternoon for the big event: a series of short talks by experts on different aspects of climate change, followed by a roundtable discussion emphasizing audience questions.

"Join us to explore the largest challenge of the coming years."

I highly recommend attending if you're in the DC metro area; or, if you're not, to find one of the other nationwide events going on as part of the "Focus the Nation National Teach-In". (In light of a Republican Senate staffer's apparently uninformed opposition of the recent AGU climate change statement, this is definitely an important set of events to help promote!)

I hope everyone will get out there and attend one of the events closest to you. I'll be at NOVA Annandale on February 1st!