Hope for the Devils

Two years ago, when I wrote Sympathy for the Devils (below) for Sierra's "Critter" department, the Tasmanian devil faced almost certain extinction on the Australian mainland due to a bizarre infectious cancer of the face. Today's good news from Nature is that there is hope for a vaccine, following identification of the mechanism by which the disease bypassed the devils' immune systems:

“It’s probably the most promising lead we’ve had for a vaccine since the initial characterization of the disease,” says immunogeneticist Hannah Siddle of the University of Cambridge, UK, who is first author of the report, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more at Nature. The original article follows: 

When what is now Australia separated from ancient Antarctica in the Miocene era, it became a laboratory for something called convergent evolution. Its marsupial mammals filled many of the same ecological niches dominated elsewhere by the more familiar placental mammals: Wolves were echoed by the (now extinct) thylacine, marmots by the vombatiforms (wombats and koalas), and wolverines by the fierce Tasmanian devil, the largest carnivorous marsupial.

Devils were extirpated from Australia before European contact, probably by dingoes. They survived and thrived, however, in dingo-free Tasmania, only to be nearly eliminated by white settlers who thought them a danger to sheep. Protected since 1941, they now face a new threat: a bizarre infectious cancer called devil facial tumor disease. The sickness is spread when amorous or aggressive devils bite each other on the mouth; the resultant tumors eventually leave the animals unable to eat. As few as 2,000 devils may remain in the wild, and all that stands between them and extinction are a couple of disease-free Australian refuges. Once the disease dies with the last wild devil, these arks could give the species the rarest of gifts: a second chance. —Paul Rauber

Tasmanian Devil in Tasmania's Something Wild Sanctuary by Dave Walsh

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

The Hockey Stick Gets Sharper

That the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed unnaturally since the dawn of the industrial era is accepted by anyone who follows climate issues (except, maybe, by those who think Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is on to something with his “hoax” claims). Now researchers from Oregon State University and Harvard have looked at data going back 11,300 years and confirmed that, yep, we’re in the middle of a massive heat spike. The study, posted today in the journal Science, concludes that temperatures have risen steadily since the end of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago, “leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene.” 

According to Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Sciences, which co-funded the research, “This research shows that we’ve experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history – but this change happened a lot more quickly.”

“The work reveals a fresh, and very long climate ‘hockey stick,’” writes the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin, referencing the now-familiar graph of global temperature changes. Revkin adds: “While the researchers, led by Shaun Marcott of Oregon State, conclude that the globe’s current average temperature has not exceeded the warmth that persisted for thousands of years after the last ice age ended, they say it will do so in this century under almost every postulated scenario for greenhouse gas emissions.” That conclusion is underscored by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, who told Revkin: “The rate of warming appears to be unprecedented as far back as the authors are able to go (to the boundary with the last ice age). And the rate of warming appears to have no analog in the past, as far back as the authors are able to go.”

As if to underscore that sobering news, a recent study concludes that Canada’s Arctic glaciers are melting fast, and the process could be unstoppable. Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers concluded that 10 percent of Canada's Arctic glaciers may vanish by the end of the century, adding 1.4 inches to sea-level rise. According to lead author Dr. Jan Lenaerts of Utrecht University, "Even if we assume that global warming is not happening quite so fast, it is still highly likely that the ice is going to melt at an alarming rate. The chances of it growing back are very slim."

Image of Ellesmere Island, Canada by iStock/jerom400.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

Fox Poll Finds Everyone Loves Keystone XL

Just arrived in my inbox is a missive from Tim Phillips, president of the Koch brother's lobbying organization, Americans for Prosperity:

“President Obama has stalled long enough on Keystone, and is finally out of excuses. The final obstacle to the Keystone Pipeline was removed last month and now over 70% of the public, including 53% of Democrats, support the pipeline and the thousands of American jobs it will bring."

Oh really? Here's the wording of the poll, conducted by Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw Research:

A proposed oil pipeline known as Keystone XL would transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States. Supporters of the pipeline say it would bring needed oil to the U.S., lowering gasoline costs and creating jobs. Opponents of the pipeline have environmental concerns, including the risk of a spill, and also say the pipeline would increase American dependence on oil. What about you -- do you think the pipeline should be built or not? (IF NOT SURE, ASK: Well, if you had to choose would you build it or not?)

Grace McRae, the Sierra Club's resident polling expert, points out the features that make it dubious.  For starters, she says,

this poll fails to mention that the Keystone XL pipeline would carry tar sand oil. In fact, the survey's question-wording could lead people to believe that the "oil" is conventional oil destined for the United States - not toxic tar sands to be exported to foreign countries. Fox claims that pipeline proponents say it would "bring needed oil to the U.S., lowering gasoline costs and creating jobs." The gas price argument is a flawed one, as even TransCanada economists have admitted that the pipeline would have no real impact on U.S. gasoline prices.

Also missing is any indication of the increased climate disruption that would follow from expansion of Canada's tar sands production. Finally, she points out, the poll pressures respondents not to say they are unsure or don't know. What the poll does establish is that a tendentious question can elicit the desired response.

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

Every Country Becomes the Saudi Arabia of Oil

Remember Peak Oil? The idea that we were running out of fossil fuels as early as, er, now -- which made it particularly critical that we ramp up renewables? Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and deepwater drilling techniques, the world is facing a “deluge” of fossil fuels.

“Contrary to what most people believe, oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption,” states Oil: The Next Revolution, a 2012 report by Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. In a recent CNN op-ed, writer and former special assistant to President George W. Bush David Frum notes: “The International Energy Agency predicts that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become (again!) the world's leading oil producer by 2017. If the agency's estimates prove correct, the United States and Canada together will become net energy exporters by about 2030, and the U.S., which uses 20% of the world's energy, will achieve energy self-sufficiency by the mid-2030s.”

And in Pacific Standard, a publication of the Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy, author Vince Beiser offers up a more-than-harrowing tour of oil and gas fields in North Dakota, Southern California, and Brazil, and gives us a hint of what’s in store for Argentina, Australia, Tanzania, Mozambique, China, Israel, several countries in Europe, the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere. Consider it a round-the-globe tour of glop.

Which reminds us that the issue of climate change will be tackled successfully (or not) on its own merits and political will, not because of fears of dry wells and apocalyptically empty fuel tanks. As Frum puts it, “Our oil problem is not that ‘we're running out.’ Our oil problem is that we're producing so much of the stuff that we are changing the planet's climate.” Beiser finds surprisingly helpful voices within the energy industry: “’There’s enough oil and gas out there to last us right through to the end of the next century, without much doubt,’ says David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP. The real problem, Eyton says, is that ‘we’re running out of the carbon-carrying capacity of the atmosphere.’”

Image of oil rig in North Dakota by iStock/mellypage.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

You Can Stop Worrying About Keystone XL!

It's going to be able to cope with climate change just fine, says the State Department. Last Friday's long delayed draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project downplayed the climate effects of building a giant pipeline to transport the world's dirtiest oil from the tar sands hell of Alberta to refineries in Texas. But it also examined the reverse situation: "the potential impact of climate change effects . . . on the construction and operation of the proposed Project itself."

The section starts off with a discussion of what climate model to use. The IPCC's 2012 report is considered, but it's noted that since "actual CO2 levels are currently higher than what was projected in the IPCC models, this analysis has taken a precautionary approach by using the worst-case projections."

What are those projections? "By 2040–2069, the national average annual temperature is predicted to increase above the baseline of 1980 to 2009 by between 2.8°F and 6.6°F. . . . [H]eat waves and warm spells will likely be more frequent, more intense, and longer in duration." The weather's going to be ugly too, acknowledges the State Department:

Annual precipitation is expected to increase across most of the climate regions from the 1980-2009 baseline. . . . More of the precipitation is predicted to be associated with severe storm events, which are projected to increase in frequency over future time periods. . . .Increased rainfall in a shortened time span increases the likelihood of flooding, soil submersion, heavy snow, runoff, sinkholes, riverbed scour, washouts, landslides, and (in mountain regions) avalanches."

 Sounds bad! How is the poor pipeline going to be able to cope with conditions like that?

"Keystone has confirmed that [its] design standards are sufficient to accommodate an increased number of hot days or consecutive hot days. Keystone has also stated that because the proposed pipeline would be buried to at least 4 feet of cover to the top of the pipe [sic], it would be below most surface temperature impacts, including wild fires and frequent freezing and thawing."

The report is similarly reassuring with respect to flooding:

"Keystone has confirmed that the design of pipeline crossings of all waterbodies is required. . . to accommodate lateral stream migration and scour. In addition, areas where subsidence is known to be present will be designed accordingly."

Alrighty then! The upshot is that even in the worst possible scenario, with blistering heat waves, wildfires sweeping the prairies, and deluges scouring the streams and rivers, the Keystone XL pipeline will be able to carry on its business of fueling exactly those catastrophic effects. The public now has 45 days to comment on the project; you can do so here.

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

A Kick-Start for Yellowstone’s Wolves

Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park starting in 1995 and since then have attracted plenty of researchers and wildlife-lovers. Penn State grad student Emily Almberg, a researcher with the Yellowstone Wolf Project, wants to bring those two groups together with an ambitious project: a "crowd sourced" website where wolf-watchers -- many of whom have elaborate photography equipment, natch –- can contribute their sighting information to further scientific study.

Almberg turned to the highly addictive "crowd funding" website Kickstarter.com for help. It's where the makers of Inocente, the documentary short that won an Oscar this past weekend, found funding. Inocente needed $50,000, while Almberg's's only asking for $7,000 -– and she’s already there. With 48 fundraising days remaining, contributors have pledged more than $8,400 as of Tuesday, February 26. Funds above the initial $7,000 will support the site's upkeep and expansion, so you can still chip in for the wolves.

Over the years, researchers have learned some fascinating things thanks to reintroduced Yellowstone wolves (which numbered 98 wolves in 10 packs -- plus two loners -- at the end of 2011). For instance, wolves are buffers against the effects of climate change: While milder winters result in fewer elk deaths and fewer food for scavengers (including bald eagles and grizzly bears), that's less of a problem in areas where wolves are free to hunt elk. For more, take a look at Mother Jones's succinct 10 Reasons We Need Wolves.

Image by iStock/JudiLen.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan's second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb's Mr. Natural, who famously noted: "Twas ever thus."

Electric Vehicles Go The Distance

Last week’s debate between Tesla Motors and the New York Times over whether an electric Tesla Model S could go the distance between Washington, D.C. and Boston had as much range as the 265-mile electric car itself. By the time the dust settled, CNN, CNBC, and some Tesla owners had mounted their own more successful charger-to-charger jaunts up the Eastern Seaboard in the $100,000 EV, and the Times’ public editor had chimed in. (The Times story had “problems with precision and judgment, but not integrity”). What remained this week was just some minor tweeted squabbling between the Times automotive editor, James Cobb, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. (Musk accused the Times journalist of having “enough sour grapes …to start a winery.”)

So it’s time to return our attention to electric vehicles that more modestly affluent consumers might buy. And there’s good news. Nissan now offers a version of its electric Leaf that is some $6,000 cheaper than any 2012 model, and travels more miles between charges. The Nissan Leaf S stickers for $29,650 (including the mandatory $850 delivery charge). Lop off $7,500 for the federal tax credit, and you’re down to $22,150. Live in a state like California, where you can get a $2,500 rebate, and a Leaf can be yours for under $20,000 -- penny pinching by today's standards. And the Leaf’s range, while not as lofty as the top-tier Tesla, is up from 73 to 75. That seems minimal, but the EPA recently changed its testing procedure. Instead of testing batteries at 100 percent charge, it calculates a mix of 100 percent and 80 percent (which extends overall battery life). Had the 2013 Leaf been tested under the old parameters, its range would be up to 84 miles. And the electric-car revolution continues.

Image from Nissan North America.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

The Wind Is Red

"The wind blows where it wishes," says John 3:8, and apparently it has a preference for red states. Below is a map [click to expand] showing mean annual wind speeds-essential information for anyone planning to invest in a wind turbine. The most consistently windy portion of the nation is that running up the center, right through the Republican heartland. That explains why the Republican governors of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and North and South Dakota joined in the-ultimately successful-lobbying effort to convince Congress to renew the wind industry's federal tax credit.

Map: Peter and Maria Hoey; Source: AWS Truepower

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

 

 

Is Vegetarianism Worth It? Part 2

Last week I trolled my friends in the plant-eating community with a post entitled "Is Vegetarianism Worth It?," the basis of which was a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that suggested that the carbon difference between carnivorous and vegetarian diets was much less than is usually assumed. The post prompted a very thoughtful response from Robert Goodland, who has served as lead environmental advisor to the World Bank, as follows:  

A shocking headline, "Plant-based diets may not be environmentally friendly," appeared last week above an article about a new French study (first published January 13, 2013).  Even more surprising was the publisher of that headline -- Occupy Monsanto -- an environmental group that would normally be skeptical of such a study. Hundreds of publications have published similar articles. However, the French study doesn't conclude what most have said it does.

The French study actually compares greenhouse gas emissions said to be attributable to livestock products versus emissions attributable to fruits and vegetables -- and it concludes that a meal consisting of vegetables and fruits low in caloric density could be responsible for as much greenhouse gas as a meal consisting of meat.       

Yet vegetables and fruits are rarely eaten instead of meat. The French study failed to compare analogous products, such as beef versus one of its many plant-based substitutes, which normally consist primarily of calorie-dense grains and legumes, rather than fruits and vegetables. 

Further, the French study relied entirely on estimates by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization that livestock are responsible for up to 18% of worldwide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, while all other food production is responsible for up to 12% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   

Over time, the Sierra Club, like other environmental groups, has publicized a range of environmental perspectives on food.  It's understandable that little seems settled when it comes to food and climate change.  The myriad of views about food -- let alone the range of views about climate change -- make it exceptionally hard to determine the truth when food and climate change are looked at together. 

For example, the Sierra Club has publicized the "Meat Eaters' Guide" published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which pegs greenhouse gas emissions attributable to livestock at about 5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the U.S. The Sierra Club has also publicized the FAO's much higher estimate. 

In fact, the EWG's estimate fails by its assignment of too much weight to methane attributable to ruminants and not enough weight to deforestation for feed production and for grazing cattle, and by its omission to count other amounts of greenhouse gas attributable to all livestock products.   

Those mistakes could be explained by a view that apparently preceded development of the "Meat Eaters' Guide," and which was written into it, stating that most people simply "aren't going to give up meat". It's phrased as a fact -- but it's actually an opinion, and it's as misplaced as a similar opinion would be in a professional environmental assessment of chlorofluorocarbons or coal.  One way to tell that it's not a fact is by viewing a video featuring Bill Gates making a prediction that a large-scale replacement of livestock products with better alternatives could occur within the next five years.   

Similarly, the FAO's widely-cited estimate of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to livestock was published in an FAO report that included no analysis of alternatives, which is a standard tool in environmental assessment.  The FAO report simply prescribed one key action  -- and that's more factory farming (see p. 236): "The principle means of limiting livestock's impact on the environment must be... intensification."   

That FAO prescription was made even though one of its co-authors, Cornelius de Haan, served as lead author of the World Bank's 2001 livestock strategy that advised institutions (see p.65) to "avoid funding large-scale commercial, grain-fed feedlot systems and industrial milk, pork, and poultry production." 

That leap from avoiding factory farming over to expanding it seems inexplicable, especially considering that the FAO report pegged the adverse impacts of livestock at a higher level than the World Bank report did. The best explanation may be that the FAO report was authored by livestock specialists, rather than by environmental specialists. As a rule, environmental assessment of activity entailing significant environmental risk is most reliably performed by environmental specialists. 

On the other hand, reports published by the FAO are normally considered authoritative, given the FAO's status as a UN specialized agency. Yet the Sierra Club has cited in one place after another an assessment of livestock strikingly different from the FAO's -- and which has been authored by environmental specialists employed by two other UN specialized agencies, the World Bank and International Finance Corporation. I'm one of those specialists, and the New York Times published my critique of the FAO's partnership with global meat, dairy, and egg industry associations.     

The latest version of our analysis was published in the January 2013 issue of Nature Climate Change.  There, we've cited the warning from both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) that the next five years may be the world's last real chance to reverse climate change before it's too late.   

We've also cited the IEA's estimate that US$18 trillion of spending is required in the next 20 years to reverse climate change by replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy infrastructure. This suggests that focusing mainly on energy usage while neglecting to address food and agriculture could end up guaranteeing climate catastrophe.  

In the domain of food and agriculture, an astonishing 45% of all land on earth is now estimated to be used for livestock and feed production. Yet reforestation and regeneration of forest can proceed quickly and at relatively low cost, unlike action to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy infrastructure (though such action should still be taken over the long term).   

In fact, we've proposed that large-scale reforestation and regeneration of forest could absorb all of today's excess atmospheric carbon -- while sufficient land can be freed up by replacing at least 25% of today's livestock products with better alternatives (i.e., fulfilment of Bill Gates' aforementioned prediction).  So the food industry is the key to reversing climate change in the short term as needed. 

Indeed, the food industry is more exposed to climate change's risks than any other industry.  Yet food companies develop better foods as a matter of course.  They control lots of land on which livestock and feed production can (and should) be reduced, and they can sell carbon credits from reforesting land.   

One wouldn't know it from most reports on the new French study, but promising activity is actually underway in the food industry to replace livestock products (that is, meat, dairy, and egg products) with better alternatives.  Consumers have an equal role in their capacity to act themselves to replace livestock products with better alternatives. --Robert Goodland

 

Illustration by craftvision/iStock

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

Anti-Keystone Campaigners Doing It All Wrong

Like many 7-year-olds, my daughter Ada has a standard response when faced by a difficult situation: She screams "I GIVE UP!" New York Times columnist Joe Nocera did something similar in his column yesterday, How Not to Fix Climate Change. According to Nocera, the 40,000+ people who had rallied on the Mall in Washington, D.C. the day before to demand that President Obama nix the Keystone XL pipeline were doing it all wrong:

In fact, this should be a no-brainer for the president, for all the reasons I stated earlier, and one more: the strategy of activists like McKibben, Brune and Hansen, who have made the Keystone pipeline their line in the sand, is utterly boneheaded.

Nocera's argument is simple: There's still a big worldwide demand for fossil fuels, Canada has a lot of 'em, so Canada will eventually win. He's good enough to note famed climatologist James Hansen's call for a carbon tax, but concludes that "[I]t would also likely make the expensive tar sands oil more viable,"--an argument demolished by Wonkblog's Brad Plumer.

After dismissing James Hansen, Michael Brune, Bill McKibben and 40,000 others as boneheads, Nocera leaves us hanging as to what we should be doing about climate change. Regarding Canada's dirty tar sands, he says, "The emphasis should be on demand, not supply. If the U.S. stopped consuming so much of the world’s oil, the economic need for the tar sands would evaporate"--ignoring that the whole point of Keystone XL is to export the dirty oil abroad.

It could be that Nocera's right--the immediate economic pressure (as opposed to the far greater economic consequences of ignoring a rapidly warming globe) will win out, and the Keystone XL pipeline will be approved. But for the sake of my kid and all the other 7-year-olds out there, I'm really proud of the folks who braved the cold in D.C. the other day and didn't give up.

Photo by Shadia Fayne Wood/Project Survival Media

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber