People seeking scientific proof of anthropogenic global climate change are barking up the wrong tree. The goal of science is not to prove, but to explain aspects of the natural world. Following is a brief explanation of climate change.
Around 1850, physicist John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide traps heat in our atmosphere, producing the greenhouse effect, which enables all of creation as we know it to live on Earth.
Carbon dioxide increased as a percentage of our atmosphere since Tyndall’s time at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As a result, Earth’s average temperature increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
The disturbance of the global carbon cycle and related increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is identifiably anthropogenic because of the isotope signature of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
We can also observe the effects of global warming in worldwide glacier retreat, declining Arctic ice sheets, sea level rise, warming oceans, ocean acidification, and increased intensity of weather events.
It is no wonder 97 percent of climate scientists and all of the national academies of science in the world agree climate change is real, it is happening now, it’s caused by humans, and is cause for immediate action before it is too late.
LAKE MACBRIDE— It’s no secret that when wind turbines began to be constructed, there was an unintended consequence of killing animals that collided with the large blades. Birds and bats made most of the news, endangered species particularly. On Friday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it will be extending the maximum length of the permits it’s granting wind energy facility operators for the ability to injure or kill bald and golden eagles. The move to increase the length of the permits from five to 30 years is intended to more closely match the life cycle of wind turbines and is said to be consistent with the department’s Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. The so-called “eagle-take permits,” that accept the inevitable deaths of the national bird and other species, has begun to get conservationists in an uproar. It is only beginning.
First on deck to take action have been the National Audubon Society, the Environmental Working Group and the American Bird Conservancy. A friend who worked for the latter organization indicated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has put the cart before the horse in some cases. In Wyoming, a “record of decision” regarding an eagle-take permit on a wind farm was signed by the Department of the Interior before knowing where the turbines would be sited. It speaks of shoddy work by the department, even though the decision was more than a year in the works.
My experience in developing wind farms was a consulting engagement that was part of the Criterion Wind Project near Oakland, Maryland. At the time I was involved, we hadn’t hear of an incidental take permit for birds and bats, and it wasn’t until the project was completed that the subsequent owners of California based Clipper Windpower, United Technologies Corporation, were required to get one for Criterion, and that only after legal proceedings.
What I know for personal observations was that the developers were very much like the desperadoes of the 19th Century West in that they dealt with regulatory issues, only as they came up, not in a pro-active manner, and with an eye toward completing the project above all else. If corners could be cut, they were. There was a race to take advantage of expiring wind energy tax credits from the federal government, and that drove the implementation schedule, with its corner cutting. In the case of Criterion, public opposition grew, and the project was delayed because of it. Eventually, Criterion was scaled down and completed in December 2010. My understanding is that the take permit issue with regard to Indiana bats at this location is unresolved at this writing.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife eagle take permitting re-emerged in the corporate media yesterday, and large environmental groups intend to fight the decision. Battle lines are being drawn between American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and conservation groups, and somewhere Charles and David Koch are smiling as it serves their agenda for the nascent wind energy industry to experience challenges. For someone like me, it’s tough to pick sides between people I know and respect on all sides of the issue. What I do know is the issue of our time is the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the deleterious effects it is having on life as we know it. There is no time for side skirmishes like the eagle take permitting, and one hopes for a speedy resolution to the conflict.
LAKE MACBRIDE— The stack of holiday requests for money is growing, and this year there is not much extra to spread around, which makes the picking easy. In fact, besides paying annual dues to a couple of national organizations, no other organization will be getting anything. That’s the way it is going this year.
The last of the red delicious apples were used for a family dinner on Sunday, ending the Thanksgiving holiday season cooking with a few extra pounds of weight and a refrigerator full of leftovers. Or, as I posted on twitter, “baking apple crisp for family dinner across town. #localfood is great, but done with cooking in favor of leftovers for a long, long while.” While preparing a menu for our Thanksgiving meal, I realized how much food we have in the house, and it’s a lot, especially if one likes daikon radishes. We won’t have to buy many groceries except milk, lemons and limes between now and New Year’s Day. That frees up time for other things.
What are those other things? A short list includes finalizing a decision about our health and dental insurance during the annual open enrollment period (I’ll post about that when I do), cleaning house with my spouse, decorating for the holidays, and most importantly building a business plan for 2014. If 2013 was a hodgepodge of turbulent activities, I expect next year to be more orderly and sensible. The key aspect of the research and development of a business plan is networking with people to identify opportunities. In practical terms, that means becoming more social, and instead of turning down invitations, accepting them more. The agenda will rapidly become packed.
This also means keeping to my schedule of devoting a few hours each morning to writing. Not only here, but a larger project, the results of which I hope to self publish on Amazon.com. More on that as the plot thickens, literally.
Lastly, I attended an event with our U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack yesterday. It is something to see the changes in him since he was a college professor challenging a 30-year incumbent, and he got excited and involved every time a person wrote a letter to the editor supporting his campaign, to someone who wants to get re-elected and has to deal with more than 750,000 constituents.
The League of Conservation Voters, that evaluates members of congress on environmental issues, gave Loebsack an 87 percent lifetime score, which means his views are similar to mine when it comes to his voting record. The only higher score in the Iowa delegation is Rep. Bruce Braley at 88 percent. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin is rated at 93 percent in 2012, with a lifetime score of 83 percent. The Republicans in the delegation are scored very low. Loebsack’s 2012 score is 69 percent, which reflects his growing movement to the center based upon having a much different district than he did when we first elected him in 2006.
What that means is on rare occasions like yesterday, when I get one-on-one time with him, I feel a need to briefly and succinctly talk about the need to put a price on carbon. I believe he shares my views, but has to suppress them in a move to the center to get re-elected. Among the many things he said during his remarks yesterday, was that he wanted to get re-elected, and the district has diverse views. I too would like to see him re-elected.
December will soon be gone, but there is a lot of living to do before it ends. Better get to some of that post haste.
LAKE MACBRIDE— At a holiday gathering, talk was about the billionaire who came to Iowa to meet with people about the possibility of spending some of his/her fortune on environmental advocacy, and not the climate denier type. There had been a successful campaign to identify environmental voters during the recent election in Virginia, so what about Iowa and it’s first in the nation caucuses? I was told about, but not invited to the meeting.
The trouble with this kind of money is non-profits and consultants will fight over it like there is no tomorrow, especially when the prospect is seven figures as this is reputed to be. That’s been the history: a dog-eat-dog contest to woo and sway donors to support one cause or organization over others. There is no time for the parochial concerns of a few non-profit environmental groups or consultants fighting over donations. In my opinion only one concern matters most: climate change is real, it’s happening now, it’s not too late to do something about it, and we should do something about it before it’s too late. We need to stay focused on what’s most important.
My agreement with The Climate Reality Project restricts me from accepting funds for my advocacy, so in any case, I would be out of the fray. It doesn’t make me impartial, just less able to be diverted by advocacy funding and its work-products. While funding an environmental advocacy effort is an important part of an overall effort to solve the climate crisis, there is hardly agreement among Iowa environmental groups about what is the most important legislative objective, let alone consensus. It’s safe to say there won’t ever be consensus.
Some group or groups may secure funds, along with their expectations, deliverables and arc of expenditure. They’ll develop a plan, engage paid and unpaid staff, and set objectives to meet the requirements of the funder. All well and good, but tying the project to the Iowa caucuses would not be as productive as other use of the funds could be. Case in point: what ever happened to the Sensible Priorities of Ben and Jerry, the Vermont ice cream purveyors? There are photographs and memories, but the government continues to spend more money on the military industrial complex than is needed, the Sensible Priorities project notwithstanding. My fear is adding a well funded environmental advocacy group to the Iowa caucus process would be akin to adding another clown car in the parade, and Iowa doesn’t need that.
What would be better is to channel the positive efforts that are emerging on a number of fronts into a concerted, non-partisan effort, something advocacy funding seems unlikely to do.
One should be thankful that groups are working on various aspects of the climate crisis, but in the end, the recent mold of political advocacy needs to be broken and re-invented to be more inclusive. Common ground must be found with the climate deniers, whether we like it or not, and the way to do that is not by matching the Koch brothers and others, dollar for dollar. We’ll see what happens, but the conversation was a lot more interesting than the game on the T.V. screens ever could be. It mattered more as well.
LAKE MACBRIDE— Spending the weekend with 25 or so environmental organizers and activists kept me busy, and engaged. Meeting new people and matching names with faces is important to any social justice effort, and the weekend did not disappoint in that regard.
Erin Pratt and Patty O’Keefe from Minnesota 350, and Erika Thorne of Training for Change arrived in Iowa Friday night, and led the workshop Saturday and Sunday. The focus of the workshop included planning strategic actions and campaigns, leadership skills, and tools for building a local team. The logistics were well organized, but the stars of the show were the Iowans who participated for part or all of the workshop. Old friendships were renewed, and new ones initiated. It was all good.
That said, it’s Monday, and the recurring, and ever present question, what’s next, needs answering… again.
Is there anyone on the planet that believes something positive will come from COP 19, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of the parties in Warsaw? The web page on decisions coming from the conference hopefully says, “decisions will be available shortly.” I doubt it.
In order for COP 19 to take substantial steps to mitigate the causes of global warming after Warsaw, the United States and other security council members have to lead. Ours is a country where a significant number of people are pro-life, anti-UN, anti-taxes, and tuned out to most of what the rest of the world does. Because of the influence of this small, but powerful minority view, the chances of the U.S. government leading this year are between slim and none.
A lot of the conversations at our workshop were around political influence to address climate change. Political change is important, but do we have time to implement a carbon tax and dividend, or to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United? Both seem to be good intentioned, but hopeless pursuits. Investing our time and resources in such endeavors occupies bandwidth that could be used for other needed activities, the most important of which is organizing and educating our communities about the existential threat to our way of life represented by greenhouse gas emissions. For me, some part of today will be working toward that end.
LAKE MACBRIDE— Taking down the fences and mowing the garden plots brought a sense of closure to this year’s growing season. It’s over, and it was time. The remaining fall task is to plant garlic, and while it is late for that calendar-wise, if the warmth continues, the roots may get a couple of week’s growth before frigid temperatures set in and produce normally. With the variability in our weather, all bets are off about predictability. Why not plant garlic? The worst that could happen is it fails to grow, and we have plenty for winter eating.
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to reduce the renewable fuel standard for ethanol. This is a first, and within hours, Iowa governor Branstad reacted negatively toward the idea (statement here). The New York Times posted a valuable article on the issue here. The EPA’s proposed 2014 renewable fuel standard program is here. The Wikipedia article on ethanol is here. While widely expected, the EPA announcement kicks off what is expected to be resounding resistance here in corn country.
The world has changed since ethanol was first blended with gasoline, and it is appropriate to re-evaluate the percentage mixed with motor fuels. Following is my take on the matter from a Big Grove perspective.
It is hard to argue with governor Branstad’s statement, “the EPA has turned its back on rural America, and our economy and family farms will suffer as a result. Corn prices have already dropped to the cost of production, and this will likely further squeeze corn producers and negatively impact income growth in rural America. We have more than 50 ethanol and biodiesel plants in Iowa, and these EPA reductions would negatively impact thousands of Iowa jobs.” All of this is true, but what the governor didn’t say is that if anything, Iowa farmers are resilient. Re-directing growing patterns to deal with the over-abundance of corn is possible and should be done.
People seem to forget that the gasoline gallon equivalency of ethanol is 1.5:1. This means it takes one and a half gallons of ethanol to create the energy of one gallon of gasoline. The reason ethanol blended motor fuel costs less at the gasoline pump has little to do with the energy it produces, and everything to do with the current structure of federal government subsidies. Ethanol is not cheap by this standard, or by any reckoning.
This week, U.S. crude oil production exceeded imports for the first time in more than 20 years (USA Today story here). To the extent ethanol use increased in response to domestic oil production declines, that trend appears to have been reversed, precipitating a need to re-evaluate the renewable fuel standards. The bad news is the increase in domestic crude production is due to the environmentally questionable process of hydraulic fracturing. In any case, as a society, we should reduce the amount of fuel we burn to supply energy, so this is a red herring argument. We should divest ourselves of fossil fuels.
Ethanol has provided a market for corn growers, comprising as much as 40 percent of sales. Some argue corn for ethanol has less market share when the value of distillers grain and other by products are considered, but in any case, a lot of the corn crop goes to ethanol production. This market is at the core of governor Branstad’s argument against revising the fuel standards. The thing is, either Republicans want society to suck at the pap of big government, or they don’t. This is the core hypocrisy of a group that seeks favorable treatment on only those issues that effect their segment of society. The EPA rules, once finalized may impact corn markets, and in the end, the markets will set an appropriate price. Farmers, like everyone else, will have to deal with it.
Finally, there is a criticism that the corn crop should be going to food, not fuels. In a self-serving way, industrial farmers tout their ability to feed the world. Freeing up some of the corn crop to serve a growing global population should be a suitable market, right? Have you ever bitten into a kernel of No. 2 field corn? Without processing it’s hardly food for humans. The overall trend for food production will be to produce it locally and sustainably, something that sending vessels full of Iowa grain to Asia and Africa does not accomplish. While a short term market for grain exports may exist, in the end, large scale buyers, will produce the same crops much closer to home.
Anyone who has studied the matter can’t believe corn ethanol production is good for the environment. The EPA is on the right track, and the public comment period enables people who are impacted by the proposed rules to have their say. Not sure what ore we want from our democracy.
Following are prepared remarks for my talk at the Iowa United Nations Association event, “Speaking of… The Environment!” held at Prairie Lights Bookstore in Iowa City, Iowa on Tuesday, Nov. 12.
Thank you Iowa United Nations Association for organizing this event, and to Prairie Lights Bookstore for hosting us tonight.
Climate change is real. It’s happening now. Just ask a farmer. There are few people as close to the intersection between the natural world and human activities as they are. Any conversation I have had with a farmer, included discussion of long term changes in our climate, and how they dealt with them.
Recently, I had a conversation with farmers about this year’s crazy weather: a wet spring that delayed planting, followed by drought conditions in July through September. It was bad, but the worse news was that we can expect more of the same during the next several years.
What does this mean? For one thing, this year’s soybean crop is in and reports from the field are that pods formed on the plants, but didn’t fill out with beans because of the lack of rain. What could have been a great year for soybeans turned into an average one because of drought conditions related to our changing climate.
According to a group of Iowa climate scientists and academicians, the consequences of climate change on farmers are easy to understand. “As Iowa farmers continue to adjust to more intense rain events, they must also manage the negative effects of hot and dry weather. The increase in hot nights that accompanies hot, dry periods reduces dairy and egg production, weight gain of meat animals, and conception rates in breeding stock. Warmer winters and earlier springs allow disease-causing agents and parasites to proliferate, and these then require greater use of agricultural pesticides.” In addition, changes in our hydrological cycle cause increased soil and water runoff, and complications with manure applications. There is also pressure on crop yields.
Everything I mentioned puts pressure on our food system. We can expect more of the same going forward.
There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, or caused by humans, yet most farmers don’t accept it, even as they deal with its effects.
Scientists don’t know where the tipping point lies, but the effects of climate change on farm operations are clear, and getting worse. Yet, even as we adapt, and farmers do adapt, we can do something about the causes of global warming and climate change without changing our way of life or hurting our economy.
We could start by dealing with the fact that globally, each day we dump 90 million tons of CO2 pollution into the atmosphere as if it were an open sewer. That has to change.
I’m not alone when I say we can do something about the causes of global warming and climate change to protect our food system before it’s too late. We should. Thank you.
LAKE MACBRIDE— The news about Typhoon Haiyan is horrifying. For the moment, it is hard to determine the exact damage, but these quotes from the corporate media provide preliminary estimates.
CNN: “No building in this coastal city of 200,000 residents (Tacloban, Philippines) appears to have escaped damage from Super Typhoon Haiyan.”
USA TODAY: “As many as 10,000 people are feared dead in one city alone after Super Typhoon Haiyan— one of the most powerful storms ever recorded— slammed into the central islands of the Philippines, officials said.”
CBS NEWS: “The central Philippine city of Tacloban was in ruins Saturday, a day after being ravaged by one of the strongest typhoons on record, as horrified residents spoke of storm surges as high as trees and authorities said they were expecting a ‘very high number of fatalities.'”
REUTERS: “The death toll is expected to rise sharply from the fast-moving storm, whose circumference eclipsed the whole country and which late on Saturday was heading for Vietnam.”
LOS ANGELES TIMES: “What may be the fiercest typhoon in recorded history smashed into the Philippines early Friday morning, carrying winds that make Superstorm Sandy look like a weak relative. Even Hurricane Katrina, the modern measure of nature’s disastrous force on the United States, pales when compared to the punch and expected devastation from Typhoon Haiyan.”
Typhoon Haiyan was the second category 5 typhoon in the Pacific Ocean this year. While we consider the damage, and what it means, it’s time for a moment of prayer for the dead, and for the survivors.
RURAL CEDAR COUNTY— On a tour of an organic farm in Cedar County yesterday, talk turned to the impact recent unusual and severe weather events we have had. The story is similar to what others in the agricultural community have been saying.
Farmers are talking about two main weather events this year. The late, wet spring that delayed planting, and drought conditions during August and September. According to a recent gathering at the Farm Bureau, there will be more of the same during the next several years.
The late, wet spring caused some localized flooding on the property, but did not significantly impact the overall operations. They dealt with the weather. The apple crop was abundant because spring pollination conditions were almost perfect after a tough 2012, with the buds flowering after the last hard frost. A lot of apples were still on some of the trees.
Locally we lived through a period of six weeks without any rain. The effects of the summer drought on the vegetable crop were mitigated by irrigation using a drip tape system. There was plenty of water for irrigation, although like most farmers, he didn’t know how deep his well was dug. There was a farm pond should the well go dry.
Drought will reduce corn yield. We examined some ears on the stalk, and a second ear failed to form on many of them. What ears of corn were present did not fill out with kernels. Both conditions were attributable to the drought.
For the last several years, the ability to harvest vegetables later into the year exists because it was warmer later. Food can be harvested directly from the field, rather than drawn from storage and preserves during November and into December. My tour guide said he had only just begun to realize the persistent change, and was beginning to rethink his food planning for the 80 or so people who rely upon the farm for daily meals.
Farmers, more than most people, are sensitive to changes in the weather and climate. For 10,000 years the climate on earth has been stable, and this stability enabled the rise of agriculture, and along with it, our civilization. In Iowa, agricultural success is predicated on our assumptions about rainfall and the hydrological cycle. Things are changing, and what I saw yesterday is more evidence of that.
The era of climate stability is at an end, due largely to human activity. We continue to dump 90 million tons of CO2 pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere each day as if it were an open sewer. Without action on our part, adaptations like those on this farm will be ineffective over the long term. Whatever we were used to as normal has been disrupted by changing climate.
It may be evident to a farmer that the ecology of agriculture is changing in new ways. Yesterday’s farm tour was another example of why. Taking collective action to mitigate the causes of climate change has become the moral challenge of our time. We didn’t ask for this, but our personal involvement is as important as it has ever been as we work to sustain our lives in a turbulent world.
DES MOINES— In the wake of 2013’s extreme weather roller coaster, marked by the wettest spring on record, followed by the second-driest July through September ever, a statewide group of leading Iowa science faculty and researchers released the Iowa Climate Statement 2013: A Rising Challenge to Iowa Agriculture at Drake University in Des Moines on Oct. 18. Below is the text of the statement. The document with the names of Iowa scientists endorsing it is here.
Iowa Climate Statement 2013: A Rising Challenge to Iowa Agriculture
Our state has long held a proud tradition of helping to “feed the world.” Our ability to do so is now increasingly threatened by rising greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change. Our climate has disrupted agricultural production profoundly during the past two years and is projected to become even more harmful in coming decades as our climate continues to warm and change.
Swings from one extreme to another have characterized Iowa’s 2013 weather patterns. Iowa started the year under the widespread drought that began in 2011 and persisted throughout 2012. But the spring of 2013 (March‐May) was the wettest in the 140 years of record‐keeping, creating conditions that hampered the timely planting of corn and soybean fields. During those months, sixty‐two Iowa counties experienced storms and flooding severe enough to result in federal disaster declarations.
By mid‐August, very dry conditions had returned to Iowa, subjecting many of the state’s croplands to moderate drought. These types of weather extremes, which are highly detrimental to Iowa’s crops, were discussed in our 2012 Iowa Climate Statement, where we also noted that globally over the past 30 years extreme high temperatures are becoming increasingly more common than extreme low temperatures. In a warming climate, wet years get wetter and dry years get dryer and hotter. The climate likely will continue to warm due to increasing emissions of heat‐trapping gases.
Climate change damages agriculture in additional ways. Intense rain events, the most notable evidence of climate change in Iowa, dramatically increase soil erosion, which degrades the future of agricultural production. As Iowa farmers continue to adjust to more intense rain events, they must also manage the negative effects of hot and dry weather. The increase in hot nights that accompanies hot, dry periods reduces dairy and egg production, weight gain of meat animals, and conception rates in breeding stock. Warmer winters and earlier springs allow disease‐causing agents and parasites to proliferate, and these then require greater use of agricultural pesticides.
Local food producers, fruit producers, plant‐nursery owners, and even gardeners have also felt the stresses of recent weather extremes. Following on the heels of the disastrous 2012 loss of 90 percent of Iowa’s apple crop, the 2013 cool March and record‐breaking March‐through‐May rainfall set most ornamental and garden plants back well behind seasonal norms. Events such as these are bringing climate change home to the many Iowans who work the land on a small scale, visit the Farmer’s Market, or simply love Iowa’s sweet corn and tomatoes.
Iowa’s soils and agriculture remain our most important economic resources, but these resources are threatened by climate change. It is time for all Iowans to work together to limit future climate change and make Iowa more resilient to extreme weather. Doing so will allow us to pass on to future generations our proud tradition of helping to feed the world.
People seeking scientific proof of anthropogenic global climate change are barking up the wrong tree. The goal of science is not to prove, but to explain aspects of the natural world. Following is a brief explanation of climate change.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.