I originally wrote this in April 2019, and I'm reposting it now because it seems particularly relevant with the Amazon on fire, the Arctic on fire, this past July being the warmest on record, and __.
Relevant recent news stories, as of August 2019:
*The Amazon in Brazil is on fire - how bad is it?
*Amazon fires: G7 to release funds for fire-fighting planes
*Satellite photos show massive swaths of the Arctic engulfed in flames by 'unprecedented' wildfires
*Siberian Wildfires and Heatwaves in Alaska: How the Arctic Is Nearing a Point of No Return
*July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet
*New threat from ocean acidification emerges in the Southern Ocean
*Wildfires Are Turning Important Northern Carbon Sinks Into Major Emitters
REPOST:
I keep hearing people debating about the validity of climate change research. It's 2019, and we're still debating something that has been proven over and over again by many scientists. People still don't "believe in climate change". But belief has no chair at the scientific inquiry table. Something either is proven, or it isn't. In this case, climate change IS proven, and has been proven many times over. So why are we still debating if and belief and what if it's not true and all the rest of those skeptical arguments.
There's 2 options for us humans:
1) Do nothing, keep our head in the sand, and pretend like everything is fine.
2) Do everything, make global changes for a better world, and do our best to solve the problem.
Which option do you think will have a better outcome?
Option #2, obviously.
Indulge me for a second, and let's consider something else. We're barreling along an unsustainable path of planetary abuse - pollution, resource consumption, trash everywhere, plastics everywhere, and the list goes on. Even if you ignore climate change and "don't believe in it", we still have a responsibility to do what is right for the planet.
If you disagree, why? My guess is arrogance. The concept that humans have the right to simply use whatever we want (water, air, trees, fish, sharks, any resource) with no respect and with complete disregard for the resource, ourselves, the future, or others is just plain arrogant. It's also disrespectful. Arrogance in the 20th century has gotten us to where we are today, and it has no place in the 21st century or our future.
Let's pretend for a second that in the year 2219 we find out that 97% of the world's scientists were somehow all wrong and that climate change wasn't true after all (but it is, we're just playing pretend in this scenario), but that in 2019 we chose Option #2 because it was the right thing to do. The situation seemed so dire that we took as much progressive, innovative, and clean action as we could for the next 200 years to save the planet the best we could. So that by the time the year 2219 rolls around, we're sitting pretty in a clean world, with loads of biodiversity, with healthy population, with less pollution, healthy coral reefs, and clean air and water. Maybe we lost some species, or land, or reefs, and are a bit warmer than we'd hoped, but ultimately avoiding a catastrophic outcome is a level of success.
Even if we were wrong about climate change, and it wasn't true, the world in 2219 is a much better place than a world where we continued down our current path. So why are we still debating "if" and not doing everything about "how"?
We have so much amazing technology these days that we have the tools to fight climate change. We just need to ACTUALLY DO IT. Let's go, people. Time is running out.
Choosing to do the right thing is not usually the easy decision. It's hard. But it's the right thing to do.
Showing posts with label climatechange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climatechange. Show all posts
Monday, August 26, 2019
Sunday, June 30, 2019
The Cost of Science
I've spent much of the past month driving, in the name of science. Driving down the highway to the next field site, driving the boat to the next site, driving back to the launch, driving to the next boat launch. And endless number of hours and miles driven by land and water. All in the name of science.
The work we've been doing isn't destructive, exactly, but we are using a lot of fuel to collect the necessary data for our research projects. I often wonder, now and in past projects, if the cost of fuel and the price of emissions is worth the data and the end goal.
Trucks aren't exactly fuel efficient, particularly when towing a trailer, and boats aren't fuel efficient either, particularly not airboats. I've used ATVs in the past as well, and they use less fuel because they're smaller but still use fuel.
In graduate school I studied shorebird usage of rice fields during spring migration, and had to complete my survey rounds every 8 days. I'd drive hundreds of miles every week to visit 100 rice fields every 8 days to do my roadside surveys. I got loads of great data, had some good conclusions, and completed my thesis. But I drove thousands of miles in pursuit of that data.
If I drove 5000 miles in pursuit of that data, the average vehicle emissions is 2.1 metric tons. That's apparently equivalent to 2274 pounds of coal being burned, and 5 barrels oil being consumed.
I used the Car Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate my carbon emission for field work, and the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator to make comparisons.
The thing that is tricky is that to collect data to make informed decisions and to make the world a better place typically requires some on the ground field work. In the case of my current research, we're studying the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, and that information/data/modeling has implications worldwide, not just here. So in the big picture, the fuel we're using and the carbons we're emitting are smaller then the bigger problem we're trying to solve.
Except that the climate is changing, the seas are rising, the temperatures are warming, and all of that has additional complex impacts on coastal restoration and monitoring. Emitting greenhouse gases adds to the atmosphere and adds up to increase climate change.
So it's a double edged sword, really. We need to collect the data to solve the problems and make informed decisions, but doing so also feeds the problem.
What's the answer?
I don't think there is a straightforward direct answer. My own guilt about using so much fuel in the name of science can be assuaged by me personally offsetting the carbon. It's not a total fix for it, but it can help, at least.
Finding a reputable organization to buy carbon offset credits is tricky though. There's a lot of moving parts and it's confusing. There's lots of organizations and websites that seem reputable but I'm really not sure how to tell, and they may all be reputable. However, the UN does have a carbon offset program: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. And because it's the UN I feel like it has a bigger bat to swing here so that seems like a good solution to me and we know it's reputable.
Not every scientific research project though has a cost of carbon emissions. Some studies require taking of animals, or clipping of healthy plants, or modifying the landscape to study how things react. There's an impact to everything we do, science or no, and I think the key is to do it responsibly and with the utmost care. We need to be aware of the impacts of our research beyond what we are actually studying and to be ethical about our work. Those are the keys, in my opinion.
Each month I donate $25 to a worthy cause and for July I will be using that money to offset carbon emissions. I am continuing my journey to a lower waste lifestyle, and this is another step in the right direction.
RESOURCES:
A Short Guide to Carbon Offsets
UN's Climate Neutral Now Offset Program
Gold Standard
The work we've been doing isn't destructive, exactly, but we are using a lot of fuel to collect the necessary data for our research projects. I often wonder, now and in past projects, if the cost of fuel and the price of emissions is worth the data and the end goal.
Trucks aren't exactly fuel efficient, particularly when towing a trailer, and boats aren't fuel efficient either, particularly not airboats. I've used ATVs in the past as well, and they use less fuel because they're smaller but still use fuel.
In graduate school I studied shorebird usage of rice fields during spring migration, and had to complete my survey rounds every 8 days. I'd drive hundreds of miles every week to visit 100 rice fields every 8 days to do my roadside surveys. I got loads of great data, had some good conclusions, and completed my thesis. But I drove thousands of miles in pursuit of that data.
If I drove 5000 miles in pursuit of that data, the average vehicle emissions is 2.1 metric tons. That's apparently equivalent to 2274 pounds of coal being burned, and 5 barrels oil being consumed.
I used the Car Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate my carbon emission for field work, and the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator to make comparisons.
The thing that is tricky is that to collect data to make informed decisions and to make the world a better place typically requires some on the ground field work. In the case of my current research, we're studying the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, and that information/data/modeling has implications worldwide, not just here. So in the big picture, the fuel we're using and the carbons we're emitting are smaller then the bigger problem we're trying to solve.
Except that the climate is changing, the seas are rising, the temperatures are warming, and all of that has additional complex impacts on coastal restoration and monitoring. Emitting greenhouse gases adds to the atmosphere and adds up to increase climate change.
So it's a double edged sword, really. We need to collect the data to solve the problems and make informed decisions, but doing so also feeds the problem.
What's the answer?
I don't think there is a straightforward direct answer. My own guilt about using so much fuel in the name of science can be assuaged by me personally offsetting the carbon. It's not a total fix for it, but it can help, at least.
Finding a reputable organization to buy carbon offset credits is tricky though. There's a lot of moving parts and it's confusing. There's lots of organizations and websites that seem reputable but I'm really not sure how to tell, and they may all be reputable. However, the UN does have a carbon offset program: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. And because it's the UN I feel like it has a bigger bat to swing here so that seems like a good solution to me and we know it's reputable.
Not every scientific research project though has a cost of carbon emissions. Some studies require taking of animals, or clipping of healthy plants, or modifying the landscape to study how things react. There's an impact to everything we do, science or no, and I think the key is to do it responsibly and with the utmost care. We need to be aware of the impacts of our research beyond what we are actually studying and to be ethical about our work. Those are the keys, in my opinion.
Each month I donate $25 to a worthy cause and for July I will be using that money to offset carbon emissions. I am continuing my journey to a lower waste lifestyle, and this is another step in the right direction.
RESOURCES:
A Short Guide to Carbon Offsets
UN's Climate Neutral Now Offset Program
Gold Standard
Sunday, April 7, 2019
Climate Change is Real and This is No Time for Arrogance
I keep hearing people debating about the validity of climate change research. It's 2019, and we're still debating something that has been proven over and over again by many scientists. People still don't "believe in climate change". But belief has no chair at the scientific inquiry table. Something either is proven, or it isn't. In this case, climate change IS proven, and has been proven many times over. So why are we still debating if and belief and what if it's not true and all the rest of those skeptical arguments.
There's 2 options for us humans:
1) Do nothing, keep our head in the sand, and pretend like everything is fine.
2) Do everything, make global changes for a better world, and do our best to solve the problem.
Which option do you think will have a better outcome?
Option #2, obviously.
Indulge me for a second, and let's consider something else. We're barreling along an unsustainable path of planetary abuse - pollution, resource consumption, trash everywhere, plastics everywhere, and the list goes on. Even if you ignore climate change and "don't believe in it", we still have a responsibility to do what is right for the planet.
If you disagree, why? My guess is arrogance. The concept that humans have the right to simply use whatever we want (water, air, trees, fish, sharks, any resource) with no respect and with complete disregard for the resource, ourselves, the future, or others is just plain arrogant. It's also disrespectful. Arrogance in the 20th century has gotten us to where we are today, and it has no place in the 21st century or our future.
Let's pretend for a second that in the year 2219 we find out that 97% of the world's scientists were somehow all wrong and that climate change wasn't true after all (but it is, we're just playing pretend in this scenario), but that in 2019 we chose Option #2 because it was the right thing to do. The situation seemed so dire that we took as much progressive, innovative, and clean action as we could for the next 200 years to save the planet the best we could. So that by the time the year 2219 rolls around, we're sitting pretty in a clean world, with loads of biodiversity, with healthy population, with less pollution, healthy coral reefs, and clean air and water. Maybe we lost some species, or land, or reefs, and are a bit warmer than we'd hoped, but ultimately avoiding a catastrophic outcome is a level of success.
Even if we were wrong about climate change, and it wasn't true, the world in 2219 is a much better place than a world where we continued down our current path. So why are we still debating "if" and not doing everything about "how"?
We have so much amazing technology these days that we have the tools to fight climate change. We just need to ACTUALLY DO IT. Let's go, people. Time is running out.
Choosing to do the right thing is not usually the easy decision. It's hard. But it's the right thing to do.
There's 2 options for us humans:
1) Do nothing, keep our head in the sand, and pretend like everything is fine.
2) Do everything, make global changes for a better world, and do our best to solve the problem.
Which option do you think will have a better outcome?
Option #2, obviously.
Indulge me for a second, and let's consider something else. We're barreling along an unsustainable path of planetary abuse - pollution, resource consumption, trash everywhere, plastics everywhere, and the list goes on. Even if you ignore climate change and "don't believe in it", we still have a responsibility to do what is right for the planet.
If you disagree, why? My guess is arrogance. The concept that humans have the right to simply use whatever we want (water, air, trees, fish, sharks, any resource) with no respect and with complete disregard for the resource, ourselves, the future, or others is just plain arrogant. It's also disrespectful. Arrogance in the 20th century has gotten us to where we are today, and it has no place in the 21st century or our future.
Let's pretend for a second that in the year 2219 we find out that 97% of the world's scientists were somehow all wrong and that climate change wasn't true after all (but it is, we're just playing pretend in this scenario), but that in 2019 we chose Option #2 because it was the right thing to do. The situation seemed so dire that we took as much progressive, innovative, and clean action as we could for the next 200 years to save the planet the best we could. So that by the time the year 2219 rolls around, we're sitting pretty in a clean world, with loads of biodiversity, with healthy population, with less pollution, healthy coral reefs, and clean air and water. Maybe we lost some species, or land, or reefs, and are a bit warmer than we'd hoped, but ultimately avoiding a catastrophic outcome is a level of success.
Even if we were wrong about climate change, and it wasn't true, the world in 2219 is a much better place than a world where we continued down our current path. So why are we still debating "if" and not doing everything about "how"?
We have so much amazing technology these days that we have the tools to fight climate change. We just need to ACTUALLY DO IT. Let's go, people. Time is running out.
Choosing to do the right thing is not usually the easy decision. It's hard. But it's the right thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)