LAKE MACBRIDE— A co-worker and I were talking about the weather on the farm. For city-folk readers, people who work in agriculture do that a lot. I asked her, “when was the last rain?” Without hesitation, she answered, “in July.” And except for a couple of sprinkles, last night’s rain was the first since then. It was luxuriant.
My job at the orchard is related to the u-pick operation, and the rain meant customer activity would be suppressed after a very busy Saturday of temperatures in the 70s and clear skies. No orchard work for me today, so, to the grocery store to pick up some necessities and soon I’ll be at work in the kitchen preserving food.
There is a lot of food to work on. The first crop of apples is ready to be used today or never, so that will happen. It will either be juice or apple butter. Not sure yet. The pears are also in, so I’ll use 4-5 pounds to make a batch of pear butter while the rest ripen.
I have half a gallon of Concord grapes, from which I will make jelly.
From the aging hot and bell peppers, I’ll make pepper sauce with onion, tomato and garlic. Anything tomato-y or onion-y will get added to the pot. It is a variation on my traditional hot sauce mix, and designed to use up produce in the refrigerator. This will be run through the food mill and processed in pint jars.
Tomatoes are everywhere in the kitchen and garden. Some will be canned, some cooked into a batch of chili, and not sure what else. The vines are really producing this year, in my garden and at other local food sources.
So with this tentative plan in place, off to the kitchen and the work of sustaining a life on the Iowa prairie.
Update: 9:19 p.m. The stove was on most of the day, and I made chili and fruit salad for dinner, seven pints of pear butter, three pints of concord grape jelly, two pints of diced tomatoes, and six quarts, one pint and one half pint of hot pepper sauce. Did two loads of dishes and cleaned all the pots and pans before retiring to bed.
RURAL CEDAR TOWNSHIP— A co-worker was asked when the last rain fell. The answer was July. In a community supported agriculture project, there is no option other than to irrigate when drought comes, and that means a series of hydrants spread throughout the farm, and frequent draws on the underground reservoirs. So far, there has been enough water.
In the list of 2014 legislative priorities recently sent to our state representative, I wrote the following paragraph,
Once again Iowa was short on rainfall, especially the last 6-8 weeks. If the dry weather and drought continues, there will be pressure to irrigate row crops in a place where traditionally we have had enough rainfall to do without. In late July, I traveled to Chicago and along Interstate 88 they are already irrigating corn. Water use will be a key issue for Iowa going forward, and if irrigation of Iowa corn and beans starts, I’m not sure how management would be structured, but more attention to water use would be needed. The legislature should play a role, in evaluating the science, and taking appropriate preventive action. Evaluating the science doesn’t mean just calling the folks at Farm Bureau, asking for an opinionaire from their members.
That there is a connection between human activity, climate change and the current drought can be a matter of some discussion in Iowa. For the most part, industrial agricultural producers see the climate changing, but do not attribute it to anthropogenic origins. It is just another thing to deal with while farming. Those of us more familiar with the science of climate change see the direct connection. The two positions haven’t yet been reconciled.
June 2013 was the 340th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. 2012 was the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. On a local level, here in Cedar Township, this translates into wanting rain and wondering what would happen if the well runs dry. The answer to that question, is farmers may give up, especially small scale local producers like the one where I work.
There is a connection between the global climate crisis and extreme weather events like this year’s drought. As global CO2 levels have increased above 400 parts per million, global temperatures rose in tandem. As temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. This makes rainfall and flooding more frequent and intense like spring 2013 was in our area.
The effect of global warming, and the hydrological cycle’s absorption of water vapor, also creates longer intervals between rainfalls, making droughts even worse. Because of the atmosphere’s increased capacity for hold water vapor, the land can become parched without irrigation.
People who live from the land, have to do something, and in Iowa we have relied upon abundant rainfall to grow crops without irrigation. As climate changes, that means considering how to make the land productive absent the conditions that led us to be what we are. It requires us to to adapt to the changing climate, and take action to mitigate the causes of this year’s flooding and drought. Before we begin large scale irrigation, Iowa should consider the consequences of increased water usage.
Locally, the climate changed, when we least needed or expected it. There is little to do now, other than adapt and mitigate the human causes of climate change.
Wednesday, the Washington Post published an Ezra Klein interview with former vice president Al Gore, titled, “Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming.”
Gore finds there is reason to be optimistic that public sentiment is changing regarding the rapidly increasing amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere and the fingerprints of man-made pollution found in severe weather occurring around the world. While climate deniers get upset, even outraged when people mention this fact, Gore believes it is possible to win the conversation on climate change. What does he mean by that? He explained,
I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation.
Winning the conversation on climate change means making it socially unacceptable to deny the science of man-made global warming pollution. According to Gore, “the conversation on global warming has been stalled because a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it’s mentioned.” Focus on the word shrinking.
“… in spite of the continued released of 90 million tons of global warming pollution every day into the atmosphere, as if it’s an open sewer, we are now seeing the approach of a global political tipping point.”
According to Gore, it has already begun among politicians, including conservatives, who have grown weary of politicization of the science of global warming by climate deniers.
Another reason for optimism is the sharp and unexpectedly steep decrease in prices for electricity produced from wind and solar, providing a financially viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Some people really dislike Gore and what he represents. The film “An Inconvenient Truth” prompted some of this reaction,
The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift.
The truth about the man-made contribution to climate change is out. As it is understood, Al Gore’s optimism is expected to be vindicated.
Read the entire Ezra Klein interview with Al Gore on the Washington Post site here.
What will climate change mean for Iowans? That climate change exists and is happening now is accepted by any Iowan who employs a rational thought process and considers scientific evidence. As the crazy talk from Ames last weekend indicated, not all Iowans are included in such a group.
That climate change is happening is also acknowledged by our government. In 2007, Iowa Code established the Climate Change Advisory Council, which produced a panel of reports about climate change and on how the state could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The council was disbanded on July 1, 2011, shortly after the election that brought Terry Branstad back into Terrace Hill.
For now, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maintains a web page that lists climate changes Iowa is already experiencing, and it is worth noting what our government says about the effects of climate change happening now in Iowa. They include:
More Precipitation
Increased frequency of precipitation extremes that lead to flooding.
Increase of eight percent more precipitation from 1873 to 2008.
A larger increase in precipitation in eastern Iowa than in western Iowa.
Higher Temperatures
Long-term winter temperatures have increased six times more than summer temperatures.
Nighttime temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures since 1970.
Iowa’s humidity has risen substantially, especially in summer, which now has 13 percent more atmospheric moisture than 35 years ago as indicated by a 3 – 5 degree F rise in dew-point temperature. This fuels convective thunderstorms that provide more summer precipitation.
Agricultural Challenges
Climate extremes, not averages, have the greater impact on crop and livestock productivity.
Increased soil erosion and water runoff.
Increased challenges associated with manure applications.
Favorable conditions for survival and spread of many unwanted pests and pathogens.
Habitat Changes
Plants are leafing out and flowering sooner.
Birds are arriving earlier in the spring.
Particular animals are now being sighted farther north than in the past.
Public Health Effects
Increases in heart and lung programs from increasing air pollutants of ozone and fine particles enhanced by higher temperatures.
Increases in infectious diseases transmitted by insects that require a warmer, wetter climate.
An increase prevalence of asthma and allergies.
Whether the DNR will continue to maintain this web site is an open question. The influence of agribusiness over Iowa’s government is no secret. Emblematic was the public clash between Iowa board of regents chair Bruce Rastetter, a Branstad campaign contributor and agribusiness leader, and Jerry Schnoor, a University of Iowa professor and former chair of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. It is easy to predict that there will be pressure from agribusiness interests to minimize the importance of climate change. As Blog for Iowa reported, the Farm Bureau idea “they think it’s (climate change) always been happening and therefore is unlikely to have much to do with whatever us humans get up to down at ground level,” is ridiculous.
What Iowans can expect is increased politicization of the science of climate change, especially as President Obama’s plan for climate action is implemented.
There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. Scientists don’t know where the tipping point lies, but the effects of climate change on humans are getting worse, and we can do something about it without changing our way of life or hurting our economy. We should do something about it before it’s too late.
~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.
Public discussions about climate change are closely connected with sales.
Anyone who has taken professional sales training knows creating doubt about a competitor is a key tool used to gain favorable consideration from prospective clients. If there is a legitimate way to point out flaws in a competitor’s product and create a value proposition for a customer, a sale can be made.
A cottage industry has grown up around creating doubt about the reality of climate change, with money flowing from the hydrocarbon business community to fund politicized scientific thought. Unfortunately, it has proven to be effective as was noted in Tuesday’s post.
Most professionals know that in sales, the truth will out and the consequences for future sales depend on a faithful representation of the value proposition. During my recent time with former vice president Al Gore, he displayed an acute awareness of the need to use language in a way to convey truth and not hyperbole. If a salesperson makes false statements about competitors to make sales, or misrepresents the value of his own product during the sales process, the prospective customer will eventually discover the deceit and reject the purchase, and future sales.
Brooke Alexander
The hydrocarbon industry has been very effective in creating doubt about the science of climate change, putting the best face on a dirty source of energy. Most T.V. viewers are familiar with the American Petroleum Institute’s Energy Tomorrow campaign featuring former beauty queen, soap opera star and spokesmodel Brooke Alexander. The value proposition has varied over the years but recently has been safe extraction of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, jobs, energy security and tax revenues to build infrastructure and fund public employees like teachers, fire fighters and law enforcement officers. It all sounds pretty good until we consider the fact that burning fossil fuels adds tens of millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere like it was an open sewer every day. This directly contributes to global warming and a changing climate, putting infrastructure, jobs and energy security at risk. Ms. Alexander doesn’t mention that in the ads.
One business group that has no doubt about the climate crisis is the re-insurance industry, companies who insure catastrophic loss. Check out why Munich Re and Swiss Re support reduction of CO2 emissions in the New York Times article, “For Insurers, No Doubt on Climate Change.”
To learn how the hydrocarbon industry borrowed from the tobacco industry’s 1960s sales campaigns to create doubt about the fact that tobacco use causes cancer, to create doubt about climate change, view the five-minute, 12 second video below. While those of us fighting for climate action believe the truth will out, we also hope it will be told and understood before it’s too late.
~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.
Four former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 until 1973, and again from 1983 until 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 until 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 until 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 until 2003, have called for the United States to move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. They are all Republicans.
They wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, which can be read here. The crux of the letter pertinent to our series of posts on climate change is the following:
“There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ‘locked in.'”
On June 25, 2013, President Obama spoke about climate change at Georgetown University. He said, “as a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.” The president matched his words with a plan for climate action.
On Aug. 11, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote, “unfortunately, too many elected officials in Washington still talk about climate change as if it doesn’t exist. They falsely claim scientists are still debating whether carbon pollution is warming the planet. It’s time for us all— whether we’re leaders in Washington, members of the media, scientists, academics, environmentalists or utility industry executives— to stop acting like those who deny this crisis exists have a valid point of view. They don’t.”
People like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma have begun to line up to fight against President Obama’s agenda on climate change, complaining that the president’s staff created a list of political talking points to support his plan. Lucky for us, Inhofe is using as his moral authority a survey of weathercasters. What do weathercasters, people who read weathercasts on the radio or television, know about the science of climate change? Inhofe obfuscated the difference between weathercasters in the survey and meteorologists, not to mention climate scientists, to make his point. This seems typical of climate change deniers.
From my experience of advocating for the New Start Treaty in the U.S. Senate during 2010, something is beginning to happen regarding climate action in Washington. Politicians, Republican and Democratic, don’t make statements like these unless there is.
While I was in Chicago on Aug. 1, the Climate Reality Project announced a partnership with Organizing for Action to support the president’s climate action plan. Inhofe was right about one thing, the forces for good are lining up to get something done about climate change.
“Something is happening but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?” Well maybe you should, as all the signs are present.
~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.
Global warming is settled science, but one wouldn’t know if from conversations heard in Iowa. Blog for Iowa reported on Congressman Dave Loebsack, who wrote, “as Iowans, the threat of flooding never seems far away, and it’s only getting worse… flooding is costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year for preparation and recovery. The prediction and prevention tools from a National Flood Center would help prevent damage and allow our communities to better allocate resources such as sand bags, machinery, volunteers, and temporary flood walls. Every year flooding costs taxpayers, and the new technologies and methods already being put to use in Iowa could save our country untold millions.”
Loebsack was giving Iowans half a loaf. He did not mention the cause of the worsening weather events, saying Iowans should adapt to a climate that produces more frequent and stronger flooding, without mentioning the fact that mitigating the causes of global warming, which strengthens extreme weather events like Iowa’s recent flooding, is equally important.
This is not surprising for a politician. Inculcated in our culture is the erroneous idea that global warming is a liberal hoax, and to get elected in Iowa’s second congressional district, the liberal moniker is more liability than asset. Global warming is not a hoax. The idea that it is has been the direct result of a conscious effort on the part of American businesses with an interest in perpetuating our carbon culture for short term profits.
Noam Chomsky, linguist and political critic, said, “the chamber of commerce… the American Petroleum industry and other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm, that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax… and it’s succeeded unfortunately. The latest polls I have seen show that maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming.”
It is easy to say Iowa should do something to reduce the cost of increasing and more devastating floods in the state and a National Flood Center, as Loebsack proposes, may help. What would help more is doing something about the causes of these floods, and that falls to what is a politically unmentionable, reducing CO2 emissions drastically and immediately through the assignment of a price on carbon.
Below is a link to the Noam Chomsky YouTube video where he discusses global warming. The part from the beginning up to the 5:43 mark is most relevant.
~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.
Trish Nelson has been enjoying her break from Blog for Iowa and reported that in addition to following coverage of the Kent Sorenson – Michelle Bachmann – Ron Paul affair, she has been checking out the technology of Iowa,
Iowa Leading Edge Technology
looking for and finding Elvis,
Elvis Sighting
and watching sunsets.
Thornberry Park
We miss Trish, and hope she enjoys some rest during her break from Blog for Iowa. Expect to see her back on Sept. 2
That leaves me with sixteen posting days to fulfill my commitment to post about the challenges of temporary workers in Iowa; implications of immigration reform; Iowa’s role in mitigating and adapting to climate change; and occasional posts on energy policy, local food, and peace and justice activities in the state. I have already touched each of those points and want to focus more on the climate crisis.
Since I began posting on July 15, I have written and posted here about climate change exactly five times. Check them out here, here, here,here, and here.
I affiliate with the Climate Reality Project, and our team put together a starting point for the conversation I hope to have about the science of climate change before I fade into the background again on Sept. 1. To understand that climate change is real, and caused by us, it is important to understand the science. This four minute, 34 second video with Bill Nye the Science Guy helps set a scientific framework for the discussion. More follows, but that will be another post.
It must get a Republican’s hackles up when a Democrat talks about the founding fathers. After all, it was Republican Warren G. Harding who coined the term, first using it in his keynote address at the 1916 Republican National Convention. The term is less than one hundred years old, much younger that our family roots in Virginia where ancestors named their male children after well known revolutionaries from the state. Leave it to a Republican to omit women as founders, but women’s suffrage and the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t come until four years later. Harding, while elected as president in a landslide in 1920, was never a visionary, unable to see the scandals in his own administration.
What we know about the founders was they were part of a natural aristocracy, or gentry, as Stow Persons described it in his book “The Decline of American Gentility,” based more on talent and taste than birth or financial status. 13 were merchants, seven were major land speculators, 11 were large scale securities speculators, 14 owned or managed plantations or large farms operated by slaves, eight received a substantial percentage of their income from holding public office and the rest were occupied as small farmers, scientists, physicians, retirees and other occupations. There is no evidence my forbears were included in this group, although they were in Virginia by 1680.
I never thought much about the founders while growing up, focusing on those revolutionary figures who were from Virginia, where my father’s family settled: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison. I also liked Thomas Paine, who while not a Virginian, wrote the practical sounding and popular pamphlet “Common Sense.” He also wrote “The Age of Reason,” his book that advocates deism, promotes reason and freethinking, and argues against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. We’re getting to the point of this post.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen and George Washington were deists, or influenced by them. Deists insisted that religious truth should be subject to the authority of human reason rather than divine revelation. Consequently, they denied that the Bible was the revealed word of God and rejected scripture as a source of religious doctrine.
They were also products of the Age or Enlightenment which was a cultural movement intending “to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method.” These views proved to be unpopular, and emblematic of this was the fact that only six people attended Thomas Paine’s funeral as he had been ostracized for his ridicule of Christianity.
Anyone who knows this history must see the irony of modern day citizens who constantly refer to the founders, yet eschew the scientific method, especially as it pertains to climate change. We know why that is.
In mass society, media plays an important role in educating the public, just as Paine’s “Common Sense” informed the American Revolution. The public’s attention has been bought and sold by the hydrocarbon industry through prolific and continuous advertising. The executives of the oil, coal and gas industry must know the science of climate change, and that they are mortgaging their children’s future to make a buck near term. Yet they continue their work as slaves in the fields of corporatism.
There was an age of enlightenment, but its promotion of scientific inquiry has today been replaced by something else. A combination of misinformation, partisan politics and fundamentalist faith. Arguments about the science of climate change fall on many deaf ears, and opposing voices create a voluminous din that echoes in valleys carved over millennia that predate Europeans on this soil.
As I write this post, I am reminded of William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.
My response is simple, climate change is real, it’s caused by us, the effects on humans are getting worse, and we can do something about it without changing our way of life or hurting our economy. We should do something about it before it’s too late. The founders resolved the issue of their time, now is the time for us to return the favor by solving the climate crisis.
CHICAGO, Ill.– The staff of The Great March for Climate Action was spotted by Blog for Iowa at the Climate Reality Leadership Corps training held in Chicago from July 30 through Aug. 1. (L to R: Shari Hrdina, Zach Heffernen and Courtney Kain). The event was the 23rd training of climate leaders conducted by former vice president Al Gore since exiting politics. As Gore said about himself, “I am a recovering politician.” The Climate Reality Project has become an important part of his life’s work.
On July 31, Gore began a twelve hour day by presenting the latest version of the slide show he developed that became the book and film An Inconvenient Truth. He then explained the slide show, one slide at a time, so attendees could present it themselves. He closed the day with group photos with training attendees. The Great March for Climate Action staff was part of a cadre of 1,200 people from all 50 states and 40 countries who participated in the training.
While the Great March for Climate Action has not been endorsed by the Climate Reality Project, organizers permitted staff to distribute brochures about the march to attendees. During the final day of the training, Mario Molina, Climate Leadership Corps Director, made an announcement about the march to the group, calling attention to the staff, encouraging attendees to seek more information.
Courtney Kain is the Great March for Climate Action operations director, and importantly, in charge of logistics. Her background includes time with Iowa Army National Guard at Camp Dodge, where she worked in supply and logistics. Kain was instrumental in developing the march route, and is developing sustainable methods to move, feed and take care of 1,000 people over the course of their 3,000 mile journey.
According to Zach Heffernen, marcher director, about 20 applications to join the march had been approved. Speaking of the marcher recruitment effort, he said, “sending out the application is very exciting for me. The diversity of individuals who requested an application is impressive. They range in age from nine to 74, originate from all along the West Coast to the Midwest to all along the East Coast, and have backgrounds ranging from college students, to self employed business professionals, to medical doctors, to retirees and everything in between.” Attendees of the Climate Reality Leadership Corps training expressed interest, and some of them had already been approved for the march.
While Courtney and Zach will be joining Ed Fallon and the rest of the marchers, Shari Hrdina will remain in Des Moines providing financial support for the endeavor.
According to the Great March for Climate Action Facebook page, “marchers can look forward to seeing the official updated version of the “Inconvenient Truth” slideshow on the march next year.”
For more information about the Great March for Climate Action, check out their web site by clicking here. To learn more about the Climate Reality Project, click here.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.