Another view on another view of Fracking

While visiting the Sacramento area, I took a break and read the Sacramento Bee. in it was a rather interesting Op-Ed piece by a Mr. Dave Quast, of Energy in Depth, which I felt I had to address. In it he basically attacks the Center for Biological Diversity and draws strange conclusions about Fracking, a controversial gas extraction process with national (and international) issues. You can see the editorial here, and check out Mr. Quast's LinkedIn page here.

Here is my now, open letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee;

In your May 25th issue on the opinion page, there appeared an interesting editorial from Dave Quast, the California director of Energy in Depth, an organization founded from financial commitments from organizations such as Shell, BP, Chevron and other petroleum leaders. The reason I found it interesting is that it appeared like a 4 year old time capsule was opened in the conversation of fracking.

In the Op-Ed he hyper focuses on the Center for Biological Diversity, one of thousands of organizations nationwide who wants the nation to move beyond oil and fracking. Quast seems especially fixated on a 2009 interview with the organization’s then executive director. Quast takes issue with the fact that the CBD is interested in hiring “philosophers, linguists and poets” to help spread the environmental message. He seems to draw the conclusion that this means that environmentalists are not interested in the science. This is a false conclusion.

The environmental movement, including the fields of conservation, climatology and anything having to do with saving the natural world around us from the destruction we create as a species is all about science and data. Unfortunately, that is the problem. As Kieran Suckling of the CBD mentions in the same interview Quast is referencing, “I think the professionalization of the environmental movement has injured it greatly. These kids get degrees in environmental conservation and wildlife management and come looking for jobs in the environmental movement.”

It is unfortunately true that the same people that can analyze the data and write the studies surrounding conservation and the environmental impacts are not always the best people at spreading the message and showing the impact of what those ramifications are. As one who works in the field of conservation outreach, there is a huge difference between being able to truly understand the data or the scientific jargon and being able to explain it well to others. Most people in their day-to-day lives don’t have time or background to look at a data set and realize that we need to change our practices. Sometimes it takes an alternative and non-science background perspective to be able to shape and format the conversation in a way that people can easily understand and identify with it.  

It is astoundingly ironic that Quast himself doesn’t mention this since (if you take a look at his LinkedIn Profile) he actually comes from a “liberal arts” background of journalism and not science.

What I found most interesting about Quast’s editorial was the fact that the only actual report he mentions is out-dated material stemming from 2009.  The truth of the matter is that there are many studies that have come out since then from both sides of the coin, funded by many different groups. Since 2009 there has been a torrent of studies on the effects of Fracking. Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) published one as recently as this last April. Where are those references in Quast’s editorial? It seems that he, like most in the Petroleum and Gas industries, are stuck in the past.

The long and the short of it is that we, as a nation and as a species, need to rethink our relationship with energy. Our society is addicted to oil. The burning of hydrocarbons has powered our nation from westward expansion to the modern era. Like most addicts, when the supply runs low, we look for ways to get that one last hit before moving to the next source.

What is going to happen when there is nothing more to frack? Are we going to invent a way to convert our dead into petrified liquids to burn off our hydrocarbons? It is time to truly adapt and evolve beyond burning hydrocarbons for energy. It is time to abandon Shell, Chevron, BP and Energy in Depth as relics of a pollutant-heavy era.

As Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org mentioned, "We need a dramatic shift off carbon-based fuel: coal, oil and also gas."

Red Equality Revolution (On Social Media)

A tidal wave has hit in the in the national conversation of homosexual marriage and its true impact would not have been shown without social media. The past two days have shown the issue's "day in court" with a hearing on California's Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA).

The discussion has run the gambit from the absurd to the illogical to the passionate to the spot on points. Sotomayor poked at the concept that Homosexuals were being unfairly treated in the domain of marriage as a class and Kagan has a nice "gotcha" moment. Most of the court seemed to question whether Prop 8 had standing to be in the Supreme Court at all and on the legality of DOMA.

 (By the way, the reason I call Alito's comment that Homosexual Marriage is "newer than Cellphones and the internet" absurd can be found in this beautiful moment on an episode of the Golden Girls which went from 85 to 92.)

   

In satire, the Onion published an article that those in support of equality wished was true and of course Jon Stewart presented the situation beautifully as always.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

I have covered this issue of marriage equality a few times in the past because, as a progressive human being, a system of classes where one class is denied rights by other classes is disgusting to me. Now feels like a special time in that conversation.

 The greatest thing for me, as a social media guy and a political guy and a political organizer, has been the Equality Symbol Meme. You have seen it. It is the red equals sign people have been using as profile pictures, you may have found it disorienting. This brilliant campaign was started by the Human Rights Campaign, an organization attempting to promote equality for gays and lesbians. What first started as a few Facebook friends changing their profile pictures to the standard red equals sign quickly morphed and flowed into a beautiful mosaic of hundreds of different versions of the symbol.

My cousin's friend actually made this one which I like to call "Unleavened Equality."

This campaign that has swept the internet, gone viral and has caught the attention of various news agencies and has been adopted by almost everyone you can think of. The brilliant stroke here is that it is a great way to show support with an amazingly low threshold of adoption (how easy it is for the average person to get involved). It is insanely easy to set your profile picture to a red equals sign, for a short period of time to say to your friends, "this is important to me." This symbol of equality has been adopted by tons of celebrities and entertainment entities, organizations such as the Sierra Club and the attention of Time Magazine.

This social media "Sea of Red" for equality has been pushed by the passion of those supporting it. As George Takei put it;

“For those friends wondering, this special ‘red’ equality symbol signifies that marriage equality really is all about love. Thanks to the Human Rights Campaign for this effort. Please consider changing your profile today in support — esp if you are a straight ally.”

 Ignoring the arguments that yes, not everyone is on social media (though about HALF of the US population is) and true, Facebook may or may not make an effect on the judgement of the courts, it is still reassuring to see your network show solidarity. It comes to a point in the arguments made to the court. We are at a point in time where the national discourse on the issue shows, according to various studies, that more than half of the country, wants equality for all.

 This time also showed how horrifically scary one justice's beliefs were in general. Someone explain to me how you can talk about finding something "Fearful" and loathsome and consider yourself "unbiased?"

Will this campaign affect the decision? Probably not. While Judicial proceedings do chat about the public discourse on what they are hearing, I doubt that they are paying attention to Facebook memes. It does make you feel like you are in good company when the majority of your "friends" and the pages you follow show support and solidarity to a class of people not receiving the same rights as others.

One last note, is it just me or is Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case the most adorable lady ever?

Republicans and The Gay Block

Right now there is a document that is being circulated to be sent to the Supreme Court. It is a legal briefing asserting the constitutional right to equality for marriages between same sex partners. The action is for the upcoming hearings on California's Prop 8 which as you may recall, defined marriage in California as solely between a man and a woman. The surprising or "inconceivable" element here is that it is being supported and pushed by many prominent Republicans.

Republicans, if you will recall, had as a party previously asserted the need to protect traditional marriage for a number of reasons. In fact, many of those who have signed onto this briefing have seemingly completely reversed their position on the subject.

This new-found belief in equality may be a coming of these individuals to conscious. With the upcoming CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) coming up, this may be a breaking away of a moderate conservancy out of the radical right we have been seeing as of late into a new and more evolved party or, it could be a largely political motivated move.

The truth of the mater is that the Republicans lost the most recent Presidential election as a direct result of a few key voting blocks and issues. Social issues that conservatives traditionally oppose, such as Marijuana legalization and Homosexual Marriage won big and had huge National support. Supporting the rights for gays to marry may represent a continuing trend of the Republican party to back-peddle from the platform of the Romney election and seek out ways of attracting blocks that such as the Latino communities (though some may argue they are still bumbling with the women's issues).

The Gay community was, in fact, a critical block for the Obama win. Apparently Republicans in Congress have stated “behind closed doors” that supporting marriage equality is the future of the party but it "wasn't the time" to publicly go there. Apparently  there are those in the party that have started to think the benefit of gaining support from that community by promoting equality outweighs the cost of loosing those staunchly against it but on a Party-Wide platform, they are still the Black Sheep. 

This issue is something I have written about a lot and it is just interesting to see if this becomes an accepted issue. Hope that Climate Change and Eco-Sense is next on the same path towards total American acceptance.

Sea Urchins, Acidification and BioMimicry

There is an awesome development in the world of climate change and ocean acidification news and it comes in the form of a tiny, globular marine animal.

Ocean acidification is a term that refers to the changing pH balance in the ocean as a result of CO2 absorption. The ocean naturally takes in carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, as part of the carbon cycle (see 5th grade science) and is expected to slow down as a result of there being far too much pollution to cope with.


While the concept of acidification is relatively new to the public (according to the almighty Google) it has actually been a fear for a number of years that ocean absorption would fail to keep up with our pollution and been part of the international discourse for a while. Though it seems that the ocean is still guzzling up about 50% of our carbon pollution, the effects have been showing their ugly head.

As more and more CO2 is introduced into the ocean, the very chemistry of the ocean changes putting sea-life at risk. We have been recognizing that the increase in the pH in the ocean makes the habitat inhospitable for many animals, even causing shells to erode or alter drastically,  for years and the effects don't seem to be improving. There is even the fear that the coral reefs may be extinct by 2050.

One animal in particular has recently risen to the national discourse, both for it's surprising resilience to acidification and for a recent discovery of how these spiny creatures convert CO2 from ocean water. Researchers were specifically "looking at how organisms absorb CO2 into their skeletons and in particular the sea urchin which converts the CO2 to calcium carbonate" when the discovery was made and a good thing too as "near-future" CO2 levels may retard the urchin's reproductive cycle and possibly cause them to die out.

This process of looking at nature for scientific innovation is called "Biomimicry" which has affected design in everything from textiles, to social organization, to solar power to many different ways of adapting to the changing climate. The applications of biomimicry seem endless and it would be only fitting if the way we solved our CO2 problem was with the help of the modest and prickly sea urchin.

Online Ocean Symposium

I have been working on this blog, The Green Progressive, for the past 6 years. I have covered issues ranging from Climate Change to how America has become an Oligarchy to the issues facing our participatory government and even threw out some free advice. I've covered events like the bankrupting of California's recycling program and Secret Service prostitution scandals and this year, I have took a new step.

This year, with the help of friends and colleagues  I have built something, something new, the Online Ocean Symposium (OOS). This project involves bringing together the communities involved in Ocean and climate issues to discuss major issues, new events and explaining complicated issues in a more digestible way. The OOS also seeks to help with the process of joining the Ocean community as a whole and build that community.

This project came about from my experiences working with Google Map Maker, the Google Oceans Program and the BLUE Ocean film festival where I used the Google Plus Hangout tool to create new Ocean programing. This programming was filled with interviews, award announcements, interesting walkthroughs of Ocean topography and shipwrecks and great conversations. I loved hosting these micro shows with Ocean celebrities such as some members of the Cousteau family, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Don Walsh and more. You can check out the archives here.

When the BLUE Ocean film festival ended, I was so moved by the community and the work that others were doing that I wanted to create something that would aggregate that passion and those stories in an interesting and unique way and have been working on, amongst other things, setting up the Symposium.  The hope is that this will turn into reoccurring discussions with Ocean and conservation leaders for reoccurring and interesting programming.

The very first Hangout on Air for the Online Ocean Symposium is this Wednesday and it marks the beginning of a new chapter and new adventure. I still plan on posting here, though I may have a more Ocean centric content. Do come check it out if you have the chance.

Point Reyes, Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, Feinstein and the Koch Brothers

A few weeks ago the Drakes Oyster farm in Point Reyes California had exhausted pretty much all of it’s options for survival. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, denied the California oyster farm a renewal on their lease with the National government. The decision also mandated that the company and it’s employees had 90 days to pack up their operation and vacate the land. 

That is until the company sued the US government. for a restraining order on the decision and go on operating using arguments ranging from improper science to illegally not having enough time for public comment on the environmental reviews or the decision making process (even though a simple search finds many including his own).

I have worked on this issue since 2008, four years after the current owner Kevin Lunny bought the Oyster Farm and the remainder of the 40 year lease on the property. Over the years, and in a recent deluge, I  have heard all sorts of arguments on both sides of the Oyster Farm debate. Everything to it’s positive impact on the local economy and culture to the price of oysters to the company’s impact on the local environment the denials of the validity of that science, the reviews of those denials and the money wasted on that process. 

It was one of the first times I had seen such a divisive line between liberal leaning people. The debate split the wilderness conservationist from the localvore/micro-economists. The fight has also brought out of the woodwork free-market groups and even the Koch Brothers. Apparently the current non-profit, Cause of Action,  that is providing free legal service to the Oyster farm is headed by Dan Epstein, a former staffer for the Koch Brother’s Charitable Fund.

The work I did with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin gave me a bit of a perspective on this issue that I feel the need to share. None of the previously mentioned issues (economic, local jobs, even negative environmental impact) are the pivotal point for me.

The lease in question was a 40 year non-renewable lease between the government and the owners of the farm and was set to lapse this year. As the title implies, a non-renewable lease is just that, set to terminate at a certain date and not be renewed.

Kevin Lunny knew this when he bought the farm from the previous owners and hit the ground running by petitioning members of the federal government like Congresswoman Diane Feinstein, who has been working on renewing the non-renewable lease for the past several years. There is no reason the owner should be “shocked” at this news, and should have made preparations for the 31 employees.

As Dr. Sylvia Earle elegantly put it:

For years, the oyster company's leasing deal has been honored by people of the country despite growing awareness of the immense benefits derived from protecting natural areas. Drakes Bay Oyster Company knew the limited terms of use when they bought the business seven years ago from the original owner. It is time for the new owners to honor this historic marine wilderness designation, and stop seeking special favors in order to derive financial gain at the expense of a national treasure.

To really understand what is happening you have to know the history. During the 1960’s and 70’s there was an expansion in the National Parks Service (NPS) and environmental protection laws. This included a law signed by President Kennedy in 1962 establishing a national seashore on the peninsula “to save and preserve, for purposes of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped."

To make a compromise with ranchers and dairy farmers who were upset with their lands becoming protected lands, the federal government bought out the farms and leased the land back to them so the businesses could continue. In ‘72 the then owned Johnson’s Oyster Farm was bought by the government and a special non-renewable agreement was reached. The purpose of this agreement was to eventually allow the area to return to wilderness, area of land and water large enough to sustain biological diversity, which would be given the highest level of federal protection.  In 2004, a local rancher named Kevin Lunny bought the farm from Johnson and gambled on being able to break this government agreement. 

Salazar referenced the original "Congressional designation of Drakes Estero as "potential wilderness" in 1976, it intended the picturesque inlet to become full wilderness once the oyster farm's lease expired in 2012. Indeed, the only reason Congress didn't designate Drakes Estero as full wilderness in 1976 was because of the oyster farm, Salazar added."

While Congresswoman Feinstein is “upset” at Ken Salazar’s decision,  it doesn’t change the fact that there is no legal reason to turn away from this contract and that by breaking this agreement, it can set a precedent to endanger protected lands in the future. That doesn’t seem like something a self described environmentalist should do. An interesting part of this story is that, had Feinstein not interfered with the process through an amendment to existing laws, there wouldn’t even have been a need to make a decision. The area would have just been forced to “return to wilderness” as per the original agreement.

This is the real point of this argument. It isn’ the economic one, or the 31 lost jobs or anything else. It is the precedent. The US government has never extended the lease of a “non-conforming commercial operation,” like Drakes Bay  oyster farm, on national parkland designated by Congress to become wilderness.If the deal can be broken and changed then there would be nothing  to stop logging, mining and other operations in similar situations in other states from continuing perpetually. You better believe that the conservative business movement and the Koch Brothers would love to see this gate opened.

There are plenty of links in this post, plenty of information. There have even been emotional youtube videos made for the Oyster Farm. I have stated my side, please read up on it and decide if having cheap local oysters on your plate is really worth opening this door.

The sky is not falling, the Ocean is rising.

The earth is plummeting away from normal patterns to a chaotic vortex of ever increasing 100 year events and catastrophic chemistry. The climate is changing and while we have been warned since 1990 and before, the global powers that be haven't done much to answer to Climate Change. We should have been preparing, on a global scale, for adaptation and, as part of that adaptation, moving away from our practices that are causing caustic changes on our climate. While we are working on our practice and awareness, as a global people on this blue marble we need to up our game.

I am not trying to be a downer here. Just trying to get your attention.

The latest installment of the United Nations Climate talks, COP18 happend last week. It ended 5 days ago actually. While all of the news was ablaze with Gangnam Style's rapper Psy saying something bad about America once or the White House and decriminalization of Pot or if two people have the right to express their love in the way they choose, the climate talk got little press.

Once again very little was accomplished that needed to be and a lot of groups, needless to say, are unhappy with the results.  While many of the top polluters were absent and some delegates spent the time arguing if prayer was important or not in climate change, an impassioned speech from the ambassador representing the Philippines rang dark tones in our memories of Mohamed Nasheed at Copenhagen.

For those who aren't familiar Mohamed Nasheed. you need to make yourself.

He was the President of the Maldives' and island nation with a culture centuries old and dealing with the fore-front of Climate Change and possibly doomed to be submerged soon. President Nasheed once highlighted this point in a very clever way, by holding a meeting underwater. Here is a clip of him on the Daily Show. After a long fight against the world on Climate Change, the president was ousted by a coup earlier this year and continuously arrested and harassed by police.

There is an amazing movie I had the pleasure of seeing at the BLUE Ocean film festival. When you have the chance you should watch it.

Nasheed was warning the world about ocean levels 3 years ago. and the need for us all to change our practices. While there were some efforts, many of the changes have yet to be made and the future of costal communities seems a little damp.

An easy way to get yourself a little freaked out here is to check out the sea rise map. It was put out by Geology.com and housed on the Google Maps API. It is fairly straight forward and shows what the coastline will look like if the water level rises by a certain amount. Zoom in on San Francisco, or New York or any costal community and crank that baby up to 9.

Back in 2009 - the same year that Nasheed was trying to get attention on the issue, scientists were saying this is what the earth could look like in 100 years. Today, the rates seem to be quicker than that.

The issue of our rapidly rising ocean levels is only one of may frightening things out there. The facts are that arctic ice is at 50% below average and shrinking, ice loss is directly related to sea rise and that the loss of this "white ice" makes the process hotter and possibly faster is staggering.  Bill Mckibbin explains in a (previously mentioned I know, but it was SO GOOD) appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher



Now is the time to come together as a human species and try to deal with these issues and the root causes of Climate Change. Yet the powers that be aren't getting what needs to be done, done.

Why aren't we more upset about this? Why aren't we writing our UN representatives for action, or our Present or our State Representatives?  We, as a whole have bee acting like the frog being slowly boiled, ignoring that the water is getting hotter for a long time now.

Once again we need to remember that each of us out there has a responsibility to learn what we can aout how to curb climate change and inform others of the issues. We need to add to the dialogue and contact our representatives and let people know this needs to be addressed.

And while we can make preparations for adapting New York to be Venice 2.0 we also need to make the changes necessary . We need to be working with our non-profit agencies fighting the good fight but even more, we need apply pressure to our governments,  This needs to be done all the way from our local water districts to the President.

Van Jones, a man whose dedication to climate change and green tech is an inspiration to me, said it truthfully when he said that the Climate is the issue President Obama will be judged on but I would take it further, it is what this generation will be judged on.

Here is where we need to make the difference.