Confronting the Climate Disinformation Campaign at Penn State: Video

Here is the video for the free presentation given on April 30, 2012 on Penn State's University Park Campus. Penn State professors Michael Mann, Donald Brown, Janet Swim and Rick Schuhmann, and graduate student Peter Buckland spoke Monday evening at “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change,” a talk that focused on climate change denial. Mann is director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and part of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Susannah Barsom, with the university’s Center for Sustainability, moderated the event, which included a question and answer session.

Higher Education in a Warming World

Last night about 200 people came to Thomas building to hear and see "Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change."  The Centre Daily Times reports today:

Penn State professors Michael Mann, Donald Brown, Janet Swim and Rick Schuhmann, and graduate student Peter Buckland spoke Monday evening at “Changing the Moral Climate on Climate Change,” a talk that focused on climate change denial. Mann is director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center and part of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Susannah Barsom, with the university’s Center for Sustainability, moderated the event, which included a question and answer session.  

See images of the event here or our sister publication, Voices of Central Pennsylvania.

The five speakers walked the audience through the dilemmas climate change, climate change disinformation and various kinds of climate change denial create. In particular,  they addressed why and how universities should do better to confront these issues.

How Should Bob Stop the Train from Hitting that Child and Dog?

Let’s start with a little thought experiment from Peter Singer’s “Singer Solution to World Poverty.”

Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is running down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed —but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti and the financial security it represents (picture courtesy of Eastern Horizon).

Bob's conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children.

Most of us will respond this way. My students often hem and haw on the matter but when confronted with the actual value of children’s lives versus the value of a Bugatti, they acquiesce and agree that Bob should put the Bugatti in front of the train. We can and should sacrifice for the health of others. I can be happy without a Bugatti.

Now complicate the story a lot. Imagine there were two people who came and talked to Bob. One begins carefully and calmly explaining that there is a train coming well before he can see or even hear it. The train will certainly kill the child but it can be stopped if he goes down the rail and throws some switches that will slow the train down and divert it. There is another man dressed to the nines who shows up and says there is nothing to worry about. The kid will be fine. Everything is fine.

Immersion in Sustainable Science, Politics, and Ethics in Jamaica

Interested in seeing how and why the global political system and economy have affected Jamaica? Are you interested in learning about organic agricultural responses to the global agricultural system? Government? Corporate responses? How do people approach problems on a formerly colonized island?

Enroll in this immersion experience this summer with Dr. Neil Brown, a Jamaican (Ph.D. in Animal Science) of the Office of Global Initiatives. We'd love to see you there.


If you have any questions, you can email me, Peter Buckland: pdb118@psu.edu

Aerial Footage of Marcellus Wells in Northern PA

I watched this today, and I thought of two things. First, what is the value of natural gas? Second, what is the value of the land?



We can get into all of the economic bean counting that compares the total economic value of natural gas and its services. Then we can compare them to the total revenue brought in by people traveling to the land where gas drilling will take place, the revenue of farms, the dollars saved with clean air and water, and the economic value of active farms. Environmental economists can and will spar with each other, with energy economists, and supply chain economists, and so on about the best way to account for natural gas's economic value and the land's value. Doing all of that will require a lot of bean counting, future discounting, statistical modeling, and more to assess its utility or instrumental value. That is no doubt useful for economists and politicians seeking to make a case in a marketed world built on numbers rather than notions like beauty.

When I write value here, I don't just mean the cost in dollars and cents of a volume of natural gas and the taxable value of the land. By land here, I mean what people think of as "the environment" that is in some way productive in and for its own right and has not been mechanically developed...at least not overtly. What's its value? By value I mean something more than revenue. By value I mean its intrinsic worth to itself, its subjective worth in experience or reverence, and its worth as a common thing outside of dollars and cents.

Think of Aldo Leopold, one of the fathers of American conservation, who wrote about this better than anyone. In A Sand County Almanac he wrote:

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for).

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.

This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have
already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species.

A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these 'resources,' but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.

Ethics and morality are a question of value. So I ask you now a third question in light of Leopold and that video: Can we value natural gas and the land in a way that balances our demand for gas with the notion that we ought to cooperate with the land?

I posted a version of this question over on Facebook page. It prompted my friend Aaron to say, "What an absolutely ghastly video!!! Sickening. We belong to the land, its value is us."

What about you?

Tragedies

Today Peter Buckland of Sustainability Now Radio joined Radio Free Penn State's Andy Nagypal and other panelists to talk about the unfolding child sexual abuse case that has enveloped Penn State, State College, and the nation. There is no shortage of stories to read on radio, the web, television, or newspapers covering former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky's alleged sexual predation on 8 boys and a possible high-level cover-up by Penn State officials including football coaching staff, athletics, finance, and the office of the President. The failures reach out into the State College community and beyond. It is nothing shy of crushing.

You can read the Pennsylvania Attorney General Office's Grand Jury indictment here. It is nothing short of awful. Readers should be advised that it contains graphic descriptions of childhood rape.

Mike and Peter at Sustainability Now want to reach out to the young men who were allegedly victimized, their families, and the entire community. Our deepest sympathies are with you and we hope that this Penn State community can serve you by doing better.

Who's responsible for climate change?

A few days ago we posted some video of Dr. Don Brown talking about the eight ethical dimensions of climate change. To go farther into that, we are posting a talk by Peter Singer, the world's most famous living philosopher.

Morality is not Abstract for Climate Change

Former guest, Don Brown, explains the eight moral dimensions he and others have found in the climate change discussion.

Water is Rising

Penn State's Center for the Performing Arts will be showing Water is Rising on November 8th. Water is Rising brings together thirty-six artist from the smallest countries in the world - Kiribati, Tokelau and Tuvalu (population 1000, 1,500 and 12,000 respectively). With elevations of only 2-3 meters above sea level, life on coral atolls requires a deep respect for the forces of nature. Their survival depends on communal values and cooperation; music and dance are a key to developing and expressing these values.

The synchrony and joy of group performance speaks to their collective solidarity, empathy, self confidence and self-awareness of these Pacific Islanders. Gracious gestures describe the abundance of their ocean; forceful movement shows the vitality of a seafaring life; and poems speak of a heroic past. As they tour the U.S. for the first time, these artists will share stories of atoll life amid climate change and rising sea waters.

Their world is threatened by climate change. As ice caps and glaciers melt and oceans rise because from more and warmer water, nations like Tuvalu and Maldives and their cultures in their homelands will probably disappear.

Following the film, a panel will discuss the film's meaning and ramifications. The panelists include Anne Clements from PSU School of Music, Jamison Colburn from Environmental Law and Policy, and former Sustainability Now guest Don Brown of the Rock Ethics Institute and blogger at Climate Ethics.

Climate action in the name of God

This Sunday, September 18, 2 p.m. in the Foster Auditorium of the Pattee library Interfaith Power and Light and the Rock Ethics Institute are teaming up to show “The Human Face of Climate Change: Food, Faith and other necessities of life.” Prof. Bill Easterling, Dean of the Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, and Rev. Jim Deming, Minister for Environmental Justice for the United Church of Christ will be there to discuss the film with attendees.

There will be a Green Fair following the film from 3:30-6:00 p.m.in the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center. It will feature local vendors and non-profit organizations focused on sustainability. There will also be climate change workshops focusing on the drought in East Africa, local farmers, Marcellus Shale, congregational action and what one family can do to make a difference.

Learn more here.

Today's show: Groundswell and Outrage [Updated]

Today at 4 pm, we'll be airing our first show of the fall season. It will be as fresh and local as we can make it.

Braden Crooks, founder of Groundswell will be on to discuss the what and the why of an Environmental Bill of Rights and a ban on hydraulic fracturing proposed for popular vote in State College, Pennsylvania. [For more see last week's blog post.] What rights does the other-than-human environment deserve? What are our responsibilities to it? What are our responsibilities to future generations of people and their living places and the organisms and systems that will support them? It's no small thing to wrap your head around.


After the 4:30 break we'll be joined by Iris Marie Bloom of Protecting Our Waters. She is one of the principle organizers of Shale Gas Outrage rally and demonstration and the Freedom From Fracking conference this Wednesday, September 7th in Philadelphia. They write,

This demonstration is in response to the Marcellus Shale Coalition’s conference in Philadelphia on Sept. 7th and 8th. CEOs from major fracking companies will be plotting to expand their poisonous operations in PA, NY, OH, MD, WV, VA, and NJ. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and former governors Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell will be speaking in support of the industry. Dubbed “Shale Gas Insight,” this is not only a key trade show for the industry, but also a brazen expression of its political muscle.

Today, Bloom will give us the rundown about what we can expect next in the continued wrangling over the natural gas rush in Pennsylvania.

Sustainability Now's Peter Buckland was at the demonstration on Wednesday [read here], doing interviews and getting the inside scoop. People from across the commonwealth were there demanding change, all while being called liars or hysterical by the gas industry.

Perhaps Groundswell's Environmental Bill of Rights is the wave of the future for communities seeking some respite from natural resource extraction, habitat fragmentation, and pollution. Bolivia, following in the footsteps of Ecuador, is set to pass a historic Law of Mother Earth that would grant other-than-human nature equal rights. Is State College next?

Listen this Friday from 4-5 pm on The Lion 90.7 fm. Feel free to call in at 865-9577.

---

Here is a copy of the Environmental Bill of Rights itself.

Some thoughts on the Deepwater Horizon disaster one year later

On April 20, 2010 11 men died on the BP/Transocean Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion, caused by equipment failure and inadequate monitoring and maintenance, led to the worst oil spill in United States history.

As the picture from May 1st, 2010 at below reveals, the spill released roughly 140,000,000 gallons of oil and covered more surface area than Florida, considerably larger than the Exxon Valdez disaster. Though experts say an ecological Armageddon didn't occur, the damage has been severe.


Clearly, the loss of human life on the rig sits in the minds of families and friends. For example, Living on Earth aired a story last week on the human costs of energy. They reported, "Roy Wyatt Kemp of Jonesville, Louisiana, was 27. He worked for Transocean on the Deepwater Horizon. He had two children." There are 10 other such stories.

The plume has cost billions of dollars to the Gulf economy. The Times Picayune reports that fishermen are still having trouble selling their fish on markets. They report,

"Where I'm fishing it all looks pretty much the same," said Glen Swift, a 62-year-old fisherman in Buras. He's catching catfish and gar in the lower Mississippi River again. That's not the problem.

"I can't sell my fish," he said. "The market's no good."

People around the country and the world worry about fish contamination. And their fear may be founded. Biologists worry about cascading effects. What will happen to ecosystems and species that accumulate toxins from either the oil itself or the chemical dispersants used to clear the oil slicks.

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to know the long-term effects to marine life. We have reason to believe that upwards of 5,000 whales and dolphins may have died from the oil spill, approximately 50 times the natural death rate. It threatened thousands more sea birds like pelicans, placed the already threatened Kemp's Ridley turtle in more danger, and killed an unknown number of fish, shrimp, coral, and other sea life. These effects stack on heavily fished areas and an expanding dead zone caused by effluent and nutrient saturation from the Mississippi River.

Meanwhile, the oil industry and the GOP are pushing for more offshore drilling permits. Mother Jones reports

[Three] bills, all from Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, would open new areas for drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans, as well as Alaska's Bristol Bay. They would also speed up the process of approving drilling permits; after 60 days permits will be considered approved regardless of whether an environmental review is complete.

This comes at a time when the EPA is expected to have its funding cut heavily and have its regulatory abilities hampered for Clean Water Act, Clean Water Act, and the CO2 endangerment finding. According to The Center for American Progress, those cuts to EPA could easily be covered by enormous tax subsidies for oil companies that will cost the federal government $45 billion over the next 10 years.

However, the freeze on new offshore permits until this February and a more patient permitting process has slowed domestic oil production according to the Wall Street Journal. This coincides as well with President Obama's call to reduce oil imports by as much as one-third in the next decade. Our energy mixture in this country puts the gulf in a precarious position. First, we have experienced nothing short of an ecological catastrophe. Second, other parts of the economy have suffered horribly for our oil use and a lot of people have not been compensated. Third, people have died and their families and friends suffer from their loss. Fourth, the previous three call for stricter oversight because of a perceived lack of regulation and enforcement capability. But, fifth, domestic oil and gas demand is rising.

There is no simple lesson in an issue as complex as this one. The environmental blogosphere, exemplified by Grist's "10 Reasons to still be pissed off about the BP disaster," arrays streams of invective against BP and the Republican House of Representatives for not tackling this issue seriously. But it's not just the industry or the congress. I drive a Honda Accord that runs on gasoline. Unless we live in a super bicycle-friendly city most of us use cars, trucks, or buses to get to work. With vanishingly few exceptions, that's oil or some natural gas.

What's to be done? What should government do? What should industry do? What should your community do? What should you and I do?

It's hard to know how to be responsible when we are faced with a disaster of this magnitude. To borrow from Andrew Revkin, I hope that we can find a way to drive the car safely around the foggy corner.

Hydraulic fracturing and human rights

The following is a letter submitted by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic on human rights abuses created by hydraulic fracturing. As recent reports about produced water from hydraulic fracturing get more traction, we might see lawsuits appear. This provides a new view on the matter for many. The piece was originally posted at FrackTracker.

---

The Center for Constitutional Rights and Columbia Environmental Law Clinic submit this letter to provide background on hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is based in New York but works throughout the United States and internationally to promote and protect human rights. Supervised by clinical faculty, Columbia Environmental Law Clinic students represent local, regional and national environmental and community organizations working to solve critical environmental challenges facing the New York metropolitan region as well as other parts of the world. The Clinic is part of a team of lawyers from local, state and national organizations who bring their legal resources to address impacts of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, a shale formation that cuts across New York and Pennsylvania. This joint letter with background and recommendations identifies substantial deficiencies in the U.S. Government’s regulation and monitoring hydraulic fracturing.

In the last several decades the United States has experienced political and economic pressure to decrease its dependence on foreign fossil fuels and increase domestic fossil fuel production. New technological developments have allowed the fossil fuel industry to extract natural gas from shale resources previously thought too expensive and difficult to tap. One such development, hydraulic fracturing, has been used in the industry for over 60 years and is now utilized in around 90 percent of the nation’s oil and gas wells.¹ The process involves injecting water, chemicals and natural materials into the well to release trapped gases. Unfortunately, government regulators and industry leaders have historically ignored the substantial health and welfare costs associated with the process.² Government regulators and industry leaders have historically ignored the substantial health and welfare costs associated with the process. Residents living in areas near fracturing sites have higher incidents of cancer and have reported that water itself is often discolored, pungent and contains bubbles because of the high levels of methane gas.³...

Read the rest here.

Animal and Human Welfare

Gene Baur is the co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. He works for food system transparency, for animal well-being, and for healthier living through plant-based diets. In this interview, we discuss problems and solutions toward a more humane and sustainable food system.

Don Brown @ DotEarth

A few months ago we did a show with Don Brown (Asst. Professor of Science, Technology and Society and lead blogger at Climate Ethics) on the ethics of climate change. On that show, we talked about how and why climate change is a moral issue and what people can and ought to be doing about it.

Always a busy man, Don was recently interviewed by Andy Revkin over at Dot Earth about why an academic has started blogging:

My blog is a way of focusing on actual arguments about climate change policies as they unfold, teasing out these arguments the often hidden ethical questions, and inviting the world to see these questions not as “value neutral” scientific or economic questions but as ethical issues. A blog is the only way to do this that I know of that is relevant and timely to many of the climate change issues as they unfold. Most academic environmental ethics is neither relevant to actual public policy disputes nor timely. (It is often also far, far too abstract.) There is a huge need to do ‘applied’ climate change ethics as most ethical analysis in the academy on environmental issues has not engaged policy-makers or the general public. Yet climate change and several other global environmental issues are raising civilization challenging moral, justice and ethical questions that need to be teased out of policy debates.

I (Peter Buckland) have worked with Don on several occasions and have found this to be one of the most rewarding and refreshing aspects of working with him. His work is at the front what might be our largest collective problem - climate change - and it is confronting its hardest challenges. As he did on our show, Don focuses us on how our language controls our thinking about something and how in the case of economics and science our "value neutral" thinking and talking has actually landed us in some big problems.

Read on at DotEarth.

What are people's and nations' responsibilities for climate change?

The press has primarily focused on climate change as a scientific or economic issue. On one hand, we are informed, sometimes quite poorly, about issues of scientific certainty. How do we really know that climate change is real and induced by industrial human activities? On the other, we hear from powerful members of the business community and their allies that responding to climate change will tank the economy. How can you assure us that the American or global economy won't tank if we move from greenhouse gas intense technologies?

Those questions either gloss over or ignore another, and perhaps more fundamental, aspect of climate change. Given that people from Bangladesh to sub-Saharan Africa to the Yukon are being negatively affected by a changing climate, who should help them? Who should pay? Who is responsible? Climate change, more than any other issue in history except perhaps nuclear proliferation, calls into question our global moral duties and responsibilities? Ultimately, this comes down to morality and ethics. What is the right thing to do?

For example, Inuit people are losing their ability to move on their native land because the permafrost is melting. They have not caused this situation and the only explanation available and has been available for some time now is that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wealthy developed nations are the driver. The U.S., Europe, and increasingly the "tiger" economies of Asia have created more than their fair share of greenhouse gas emissions historically with the U.S. taking the lion's share at over 20% of total GHG emissions. Our emissions are tied, now quite directly, to melting permafrost and glaciers in the Arctic. Our flights, cars, agriculture, and industry have caused their difficulties. Should we pay for them? Why? What should we pay them? What is just?

On today's show, our guests include members of a recent panel on Climate Change, Climate Justice from Penn State's Rock Ethics Institute who attended the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Talks in late 2009. Drs. Don Brown, Petra Tschekert, and Nancy Tuana will provide us insights from Copenhagen, what our moral responsibilities are, and what we as a country, a state, a campus, and as individual people can do to act most responsibly on climate change. For some initial insights, visit ClimateEthics.org.

We will also be briefly speaking to students who have helped organize Penn State's first Student Sustainability Summit going off next Wednesday night at 7 pm in Penn State University Park's HUB Heritage Hall. After the break, we will speak to some of the activists working on the Beyond Coal Campaign at Penn State who are trying to get Penn State to move off of coal.