Yesterday, I got an update from Axios that there are now Federal charges against David DePape (he had already been charged at the state level). This does not constitute double jeopardy because federal and state are separate “sovereigns.” This is a good sign. Also Faithful America (you mem remember they recently put up a web page against false peophets) now has a new page – 20 Resources to Resist Christian Nationalism. And, I’m sorry to say, even if we win the midterms in landslides, we are going to need every oone of those 20. Well, at least I gor=t confirmed to see Virgil this Sunday. I really like having the confirmation early.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Civil Discourse – In Praise of the Federal Judiciary
Quote – Judge Berman Jackson unflinchingly defined who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. That’s a line that has become blurred in public discourse as the former president and his supporters make claims about the people who overran the Capitol and engaged in violence that range from calling them tourists to insisting they were patriots exercising their rights. But today Mr. Head heard the truth from the bench about Officer Fanone, and it’s important for all of us to hear it too: “[Fanone] was protecting the very essence of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power after a democratic election. He was protecting America. That’s who Officer Fanone was. That’s what Officer Fanone was doing. You made choices over and over again to go after him and not disengage.” Click through for essay. Judge Berman Jackson is, sadly, not the entire Federal Judiciary (if only they were all at least as good as she), but she is certainly a fine representative of it. Her name has come up repeatedly this year, and always for something praiseworthy.
Project on Government Oversight – Study Shows POGO’s Oversight Trainings Increase Congressional Capacity
Quote – Designed for veterans and beginners alike, our monthly seminars feature lessons from some of the most accomplished current and former congressional oversight experts and practitioners, and provide opportunities for congressional staff to ask questions in an off-the-record environment. Although seminars are generally targeted toward committee staff, much of the information shared during these seminars is also helpful to staff in personal offices in their investigations. These nonpartisan training sessions are open to Hill staff regardless of party, chamber, or position, and we also welcome staffers from the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service. These seminars feature current and former members of Congress or congressional staffers from both parties, and we do our best to get panelists from both the House and Senate. Click through for article. POGO is justifiably proud of their training program(s). It’s too bad that, if the GOP takes over, it will probably have to be scrapped.
Yesterday, the lead article in Colorado Public Radio news was that the state House Minority Leader (Republican) had died, suddenly and unexpectedly, at the age of 55. Nine days before the election. Cue conspiracy theories in 3… 2… 1…. When he took that office, he was described as “right in the middle,” which in today’s Republican party I would normally translate to “maybe halfway sane.” But according the the Speaker, the Marjority Leader, and the Governor, he was better than that. This is not good news. Also yesterday, it was announced that Bolsonaro LOST in Brazil. Com one, Americans – if Brazil can do it, we can too!
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Well, we did not start soon enough to try to reduce our production od carbon to slow or stop climate change. And even bringing our production of carbon to a complete standstill would now not be enough. So, now, scioence is looking at ways to pull carbon fron the air and store it somewhere else. Earlier this year, the Erinyes looked at working to incorporate carbon pulled from the air into products which people use anyway (such as concrete and carbonated beverages.) That’s creative, but it would not be enough. So other storge solutions are also being studied. One of them is the ocean (all the oceans).
Science tends to ask questions like “Could we?” Two educators, one from Arizona and the other from British Columbia, think we had better, before we jump into action, answer more questions like “Should we?”
==============================================================
Using the ocean to fight climate change raises serious environmental justice and technical questions
Heat waves, droughts and extreme weather are endangering people and ecosystems somewhere in the world almost every day. These extremes are exacerbated by climate change, driven primarily by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases that build up in the atmosphere and trap heat at the Earth’s surface.
With that in mind, researchers are exploring ways to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it away – including using the ocean. But while these techniques might work, they raise serious technical, social and ethical questions, many of which have no clear answers yet.
We study climate change policy, sustainability and environmental justice. Before people start experimenting with the health of the ocean, there are several key questions to consider.
Ocean carbon dioxide removal is any action designed to use the ocean to remove even more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it already does and store it.
It spans a wide range of techniques – from increasing the amount and vitality of carbon dioxide-absorbing mangrove forests to using ocean fertilization to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton that absorb carbon dioxide to building pipelines that pump liquid carbon dioxide into formations under the seabed, where it can eventually solidify as carbonate rock.
There are other forms of carbon dioxide removal – planting trees, for example. But they require large amounts of land that is needed for other essential uses, such as agriculture.
The first crucial question is whether ocean carbon dioxide removal techniques could significantly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it long term, beyond what the ocean already does. Greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing globally, which means that ocean carbon dioxide removal would need to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for a long time, at least until greenhouse gas emissions have fallen.
Initial evidence suggests that some forms of ocean carbon dioxide removal, such as those that rely on short-lived biomass like kelp forests or phytoplankton, may not keep captured carbon stored for more than a few decades. That’s because most plant tissues are quickly recycled by decay or by sea creatures grazing on them.
In contrast, mechanisms that form minerals, like the interaction when carbon dioxide is pumped into basalt formations, or that alter the way seawater retains carbon dioxide, such as increasing its alkalinity, prevent carbon from escaping and are much more likely to keep it out of the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
Ecological risks and benefits
Another key question is what ecological benefits or risks accompany different ocean carbon dioxide removal approaches.
However, other options could introduce novel risks. For example, growing and then sinking large amounts of kelp or algae could bring in invasive species. Dissolving certain types of rock in the ocean could reduce ocean acidity. This would enhance the ocean’s ability to store carbon dioxide, but these rocks could also contain trace amounts of metals that could harm marine life, and these risks are not well understood.
Phytoplankton can grow explosively over a few days or weeks. Ocean fertilization is designed to supercharge that process to capture carbon dioxide, but it can have harmful affects for other marine life. Robert Simmon and Jesse Allen/NOAA/MODIS
Each process could also release some greenhouse gases, reducing its overall effectiveness.
Interfering with nature is a social question
The ocean affects everyone on the planet, but not everyone will have the same relationship to it or the same opportunities to have their opinions heard.
Much of the global population lives near the ocean, and some interventions might impinge on places that support jobs and communities. For example, boosting algae growth could affect nearby wild fisheries or interfere with recreation. People and communities are going to evaluate these risks differently depending on how they are personally affected.
In addition, people’s trust in decision-makers often shapes their views of technologies. Some ways of using the ocean to remove carbon, such as those close to the shore, could be governed locally. It’s less clear how decisions about the high seas or deep ocean would be made, since these areas are not under the jurisdiction of any one country or global governing body.
Ocean carbon dioxide removal also raises a variety of ethical questions that do not have straightforward answers.
For example, it forces people to consider the relationship between humans and nonhumans. Are humans obliged to intervene to reduce the impact on the climate, or ought we avoid ocean interventions? Do people have the right to purposefully intervene in the ocean or not? Are there specific obligations that humans ought to recognize when considering such options?
Other ethical questions revolve around who makes decisions about ocean carbon dioxide removal and the consequences. For example, who should be involved in decision-making about the ocean? Could relying on ocean carbon dioxide removal reduce societies’ commitment to reducing emissions through other means, such as by reducing consumption, increasing efficiency and transforming energy systems?
Who pays?
Finally, ocean carbon dioxide removal could be very expensive.
For example, mining and then adding rocks to reduce the ocean’s acidity has been estimated to cost between US$60 and $200 per ton of carbon dioxide removed. To put that into context, the world produced more than 36 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from energy alone in 2021.
Even macroalgae cultivation could be in the tens of billions of dollars if done at the scale likely necessary to have an impact.
These methods are more expensive than many actions that reduce emissions right now. For instance, using solar panels to avoid carbon emissions can range from saving money to a cost of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, while actions like reducing methane emissions are even less expensive. But the harm from continued climate change has been estimated to be in the hundreds of billions annually in the United States alone.
These costs raise more questions. For example, how much debt is fair for future generations to carry, and how should the costs be distributed globally to fix a global problem?
Ocean carbon dioxide removal could become a useful method for keeping global warming in check, but it should not be seen as a silver bullet, especially since there isn’t an effective global system for making decisions about the ocean.
Sarah Cooley, a former research scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and director of climate science at the Ocean Conservancy, contributed to this article.
==============================================================
AMT, I’d be very much in favor of establishing a “global governing body” to protect the “high seas and deep ocean” – and by extension, us. I think I would want such a body to be estalished through, or at the very lear with the cooperation of, both the United Nations and the International Court. I’d like for it to be formed and staffed with people who are extremely conscious of the relationships between species, and the effects they all have on each other. (For example, I think I could probably live without poisonous jellyfish. But I might be wrong, Their disappearance might have a huge effect on the disappearance of tuna. I would not like to have to live without tuna. I’d want this body to have, both as members and staff, people who are smarter than me about this.)
The authors do allude to the cost of doing nothing (they don’t use that term, but that’s what “the harm from continued climate chages” refers to.) But, other than saying there is currently no governing body over the oceans, they don’t go in that direction at all. I suspect that, had they attempted to do so, the rest of the article might have gotten lost in the discussion of those complexities. Perhaps you, dear Furies, can shed more light (with a minimum of heat) on this.
Yesterday, the radio opera was Aida, by Verdi, from the Los Angeles Opera. Several years ago, the Met broadcast Aida one Saturday with Violeta Urmana (who is absolutely competent, but not, IMO, terribly exciting.) Peter Gelb announced from the stage that Ms. Urmana was unwell and the role would be sung by Latonia Moore (of whom I hd never heard, and that was probably true for most of the audience.) Before the first act was over, I was on Google looking her up – I was that impressed. I knew she would, before too long, be a star in her own right, not a backup. In this broadast, she was the star, singing Aida as an established diva in her own right. I’m not always right in my predictions – but boy, was I right about this. The opera is so well known I don’t think I have to say much about it. It’s set in ancient Egypt because it was commissioned for and premiered for the openong of the Suez Canal. It doesn’t exactly make the Egyptians look like the good guys – but that’s also true of the Ethiopians – the only really good guys are Aida herself and Radames, both of whom are torn by conflicting loyalties. Amneris is pretty sneaky – but she is torn also. The opera is famous for the Triumphal March and for all the animals on stage (sometimes including elephants.) With these broadcasts, one can go on line and see some still photos from the production – sometimes just one or two, sometimes more. This one had 20. But if you were to look at them, if you tried to figure out the relarionships from what they looked like, you’d be fooled. The casting is the most color-blind I think I have ever seen. It warms my heart.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
International Campaign for Tibet – Chinese woman’s racist WeChat post calls for Tibetans in Lhasa to be “wiped out”
Quote – Tibet is one of the clearest cases of institutional racism in the world today. Chinese authorities have spread racist narratives about Tibetans. A Chinese state media report on Tibet in 2008 asserted that prior to its “liberation” (meaning Tibet’s conquest by Chinese armies), “Tibet remained a society of feudal serfdom under a theocracy, one even darker and more backward than medieval Europe.” A Chinese state media report also claimed in 2021 that Chinese rule has taken Tibet “from a society under feudal serfdom to socialism, from poverty and backwardness to civility and progress.” Click through for article. Nothing is ever black and white – and that includes racidm, or tribalism. It must once have had some survivak vakue, since it’s apparently hard wired – at least in some of us. If only there were an easy answer.
Wonkette – We Wish We Were Half As Fierce As This Tennessee Mom Throwing Out The Homophobic Christian Trash
Quote – Those [six examples given] are just the local news stories our pal JoeMyGod has aggregated about (white heterosexual) conservative Christian leaders abusing children in the past week. It’s kind of a thing he does, aggregaing those stories. And the numbers are staggering. And [censored] MAGA trash wants to lead a Nazi-style campaign against drag queens and trans kids and public school teachers who tell those kids it’s OK and that they’re not going to hell for who they are? Want to call drag queens and loving teachers “groomers”? Go eat a sidewalk. Click through for story and video. I put this here because it so perfectly expresses what I feel (and you probably do also) about Christofascism and those who peddle it. And it has CC. If you cannot see Twitter videos, cuts from it are on YouTube here and here, but not the complete version.
Nameless for the animation
