Many moons ago, in the pre-parenthood and pre-other things stage of life, I lived happily in a small apartment right on a bike path and just a few miles from work. Biking was recreational and an easy (occasional) choice to take to the office or go to some event. Times have changed … children, changed body weight, and living a good distance (four miles) from that bike path and roughly a good distance commute (perhaps 10 miles one-way, by bike, to my previous employer and now a 15 mile one-way commute). Biking — used for that quick hop to the grocery store when waking up to discover no milk in the refrigerator and a small amount of recreation — really wasn’t in the equation.
The new work situation, however, increased the temptation. No longer free parking. Real flexibility in work times. A great bicycle lock area in the parking lot essentially right next to a shower area. And, well, mounting concern over an aging body intersect with desires to cut another weight problem (CO2 footprint) to enhance that biking desirability.
For awhile, I’ve been contemplating investing in an electric-assist bicycle to enable leaping to long-distance commuting from the hop on the bike to buy bread riding. The $2500+ buy-in options for getting a decent quality electric bike was enough of a sticker shock that this remained idle fantasy rather than an action plan. Then, on beautiful 2011 spring day, in came a Performance Bicycle catalogue with the Schwinn Tailwind electric-assist bike on sale from $2679 to $999 (can we say clearance sale???). Okay, that got my attention … and I started to use de Google to search out Schwinn Tailwind review after review after review after review after … . Basic conclusion, across all of them: “a heavy and cumbersome bike” that should be able to enable me to do the long-range commute but “with a $3200 price tag it’s hard to justify buying this bike”. For $999, on the other hand …
Time to get to a store and see the bike in person. Have to say, I don’t think it took 15 seconds on the bike before I was in love. While heavy, the bike rode well without the electric assist and, well, it was a hoot when the electric assist hit in.
The $1200, all told, was a sizable bill. The calculation, however: every bike commute would be $15 in savings ($4.50 Metro parking, $7.60 in Metro fees, $3 in mileage costs), some Co2 not put in the atmosphere, and perhaps 1000 lost calories. All in all, not a bad calculation. 80 or so commutes and the bike would pay for itself in cash and there would be other returns on the investment.
The order went in and then a wait — an anxious wait — to get the bike.
It finally came and I rode it home on the store along a route that I wouldn’t have attempted on my old road bike affirming my choice to buy.
The next day, a Saturday, I decided to take a ride to see what it was like. Planning to do 30 minutes or so, 40 minutes later, I was on Key Bridge (from Virginia to Washington, DC), having done perhaps ten miles. And, the battery monitor showed roughly a half charge. Time to head home … and, well, the battery died out halfway home. Riding those five miles made it clear why reviewers hadn’t cheered the bike’s riding performance (certainly not uphill) without the electric assist.
Okay, the literature (depending on which item) promised 20 to 30 miles of riding and, on my first ride, it died at less than 15. Okay, I’m not in top biking shape and perhaps overly depended on the battery. But, my roundtrip commute is roughly 30 miles — no way did I want to do the return trip, with 20 lbs or so in the paniers (clothing, computer, …), without electric assist. Thus, a choice to take the unique charger with me to recharge at the office. The first trip to the office: 60 minutes as opposed to 45 or so using Metro. Not too bad, arriving with what seemed to be about a 25 percent charge. And, well, having charged at the office, the return trip went well until the battery died out about four miles from home. A doable four miles, but that up and downhill burned more calories than planned. Thinking it through, the office (over 15 miles) is about 400 feet lower than my home: trip in is downhill, trip back is uphill.
Hmmm … the current solution: a rest stop roughly halfway at a Starbuck’s, where that battery charger gets plugged in and I get recharged as well. (Note: this cuts the $15 savings to $11 per bike trip …) This works, enabling me a moment to catch my breath and arriving at home with at least some battery charge to spare.
For the first time, ever, then I was set up to participate in Washington’s Bike-to-Work Day, looking forward to meeting other bikers to learn from and ready to pick up a bike-to-work t-shirt at one of the ‘rest stops’. After threatened thunderstorms, 20 May turned out to be a beautiful day. And, I set off feeling rather great about biking in until … less than a mile from my home … a sudden jolt and ugly noise when I tried to peddle.
Stopping, I discovered that the luggage straps that came with the bike had snapped and had gotten entwined into the electric assist system.
A simple word: MERDE!
A $2700 (okay, $999, on sale) bike and one of its accessories snaps before its been used ten times? Don’t consider me, at that moment, a satisfied customer.
There went a beautiful ride, a desired t-shirt, and a day in the office. The luck: no fall, the bike could roll (this only stopped pedaling), flexible telecommuting meant no income lost, and I was only a mile from the home.
Rather than biking to work, the 20th, I worked from home and spent part of the day at Performance Bikes where the staff prioritized looking at and fixing my (near brand new) bike so that I could use it. A chance to spend a few $s (on-sale bike socks) didn’t fully compensate for the missed t-shirt but the bike was in order for riding the following Monday and got used instead of a car several times over the weekend.
And, that is what I did Monday the 23rd … I took the bike into the office. And, for the first time, I used the bike to move around town for a meeting. (Appropriately, for a session with the USGBC Center for Green Schools’ leadership.) But this is the real point about Bike to Work Day … it shouldn’t be about “a” day but an impetus to create change to foster biking-to-work as a way of life for ever more of us rather than an occasional stunt.
My professional life enables telecommuting with only perhaps half the time going into the office. Roughly, I’d been doing about 60 percent of trips by Metro and the rest by car (often dependent on late meetings, carrying things, etc). Since having the bicycle, I have yet to drive into the office and used Metro only once. I doubt that this will be the full-time experience. Honestly, across the year, with good and bad weather, my base target is for about 30-40 percent of trips are by bike and perhaps the same by Metro, hopefully cutting car trips down by half.
Honestly, I wouldn’t have even attempted this without an electric-assist bike. With the Schwinn Tailwind, doing a 3o mile roundtrip (hilly) bike commute requires exertion and is exercise but is absolutely achievable and enjoyable (rather than a travail). As I explain to people, with a 56 lb bicycle and about 25 lbs of gear (including a couple lbs for a battery recharger), the bike goes downhill really well — without an electricity assist. On level terrain, I am able to maintain good speed (range of 12-18 mph) with some electric assist. And, going uphill, the electric assist enables moving along (even with the baggage) at decent speeds with effort but not draining exertion. (There is one short stretch on the return trip that resembles Lombard Street in San Francisco — perhaps 80 feet of vertical climb in several tight switchbacks. Without the electric assist and my work gear, I’d likely walk that stretch. With electric assist, likely do this at 8 mph with effort). Very roughly, without serious measurement to back it up, I’m estimating that the electric assist is taking perhaps 30 percent of the load through the commute. Over time, I expect that this will drop as I get in better shape. The battery is rated for 2000 uses before meaningful deterioration. Perhaps, by that point, I won’t require any electric assist.
What is return on investment?
Acquisition cost: About $1350 for bike, panniers, good lock, and some bike clothing.
Savings: $11 each bike commute … estimated minimum, 50 times per year.
Financial Payback: Roughly less than 2.25 years with 50 trips / year (savings $550/year)
Non-Fiscal Issues (for me):
Reducing carbon emissions about 1-2 tons per year: roughly $75-150 at a sensible social cost of carbon (SCC)
Removing a commuter from Metro / roads 50 times per year: community value of $200+/year (estimated)
Losing some weight and being in better shape. Priceless.
Arriving at the office feeling good and without a headache (side effect of Metro for me). Priceless.
Putting money and sweat where mouth is re need to cut carbon emissions. Priceless.
Notes:
1. This was originally drafted 23 May. Related events, to be discussed in a different post, disrupted its publication.
June 10th, 2011 · Comments Off on Not an “Orange” Cent!
Last month, Daily Kos’ front page boldly proclaimed Orange-to-Blue: Our new questionaire. These seven questions, while “not a litmus test”, set a clear standard for judging whether that progressive policy / politics community should or shouldn’t put it resources to bear in support of a political candidate.
Notably (and far from just to me) these seven questions gave no hint of priority to energy, environmental, or climate disruption issues.
How many good Dems don’t believe in climate change? RT @drgrist: Daily Kos’s new questionnaire for candidates doesn’t have a single Q about climate or energy
Markos’ flippant response missef the issue … entirely.
First, this is not a question of “belief”.
Second, there are Democratic politicians who would score well on the Orange-to-Blue test and who ‘believe in climate change’ but who are obstacles to meaningful action to mitigate climate disruption.
Third, among others, President Obama has commented that he needs others to create the political space for action to address climate disruption. Putting aside the question of whether this is a legitimate response, a simple question:
How is the political mandate for action fostered if contributors and activists don’t make this part of the political calculus?
Action to mitigate climate change must be the single top agenda item for our political system if we are to have any hope to navigate the Perfect Storm (Peak Oil, Peak Water, Economic Disparity, Economic Downtown, Financial Stresses, Global Warming, etc …) that we have created.
I — hopefully not for one — will not contribute an Orange cent to a political candidate, at any level or for any office, that does not provide a path to emphasize the importance of Energy Smart decision-making and policy.
[Note: This is repost and the original has a substantial (and rich) commentary stream.] [Read more →]
June 10th, 2011 · Comments Off on “do not wonder …”
CAUTION!
It is vitally important not to make connections!
Here is a video that cannot be watched by anyone who believes it is verboten to ask questions and think …
You should not wonder …
This merits watching / liking at Youtube to help get more eyeballs on it: here. (Full text below the fold.)
While it remains impossible to state, with authority, that any specific (or single) weather event is “because of global warming”, it has passed the point where it is possible to remain a serious commentator without recognizing how climate disruption is (increasingly) becoming the norm, with seeming unending 500-year floods, record temperatures, record precipitation events (both rainfall and snow), droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and other weather “events” showing changed patterns that fit within what climate science lays out as what would occur in a warming world.
“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.
The editorial continued:
None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change
It was — and remains — a devastating editorial damning the Republican Party’s political elite for their anti-science syndrome attitudes and actions. The editorial’s greatest fault was the failure to take The Washington Post to account for its failure to ask the 2010 crop of Climate Zombies questions about climate science and report how those attitudes diverged (often 180 degrees) from what actual scientists are telling us. (That was left, primarily, to bloggers.)
It seemed like a straightforward question on a second-tier issue: Would Mitt Romney disavow the science behind global warming?
The putative Republican presidential front-runner, eager to prove his conservative bona fides, could easily have said what he knew many in his party’s base wanted to hear.
Instead, the former Massachusetts governor stuck to the position he has held for many years — that he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern.
What follows is a political story showing how Romney’s rather wishy-washy comments about humanity’s contribution to climate change have outraged “conservative” pundits and the anti-science rabble dominating the Republican Party. What did Romney say?
“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer,” he said. “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to that.”
Rush Limbaugh’s response?
“Bye-bye, nomination. Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”
Okay, so Romney’s marginal acknowledgment of reality sent Limbaugh and others quoted in The Washington Post into apoletic shock. Truly, not a surprise.
What is a surprise (actually, more disappointing than surprising considering the Post’s actual record) is the utter failure of this major (front-page) article to discuss the actual science rather than quoting pundits and citing polls about “belief”.
A month ago, The Washington Post emphasized a report from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”
Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.
This report, however, did not merit discussion in today’s article. Nor, as would be appropriate, did The Washington Post apply its Pinocchio nose grading from its Fact Checker efforts to those it quoted in the article.
Let us seek to grade The Washington Post by the standards that they, themselves, laid out less than a month ago:
Every candidate for political office in the next cycle, including for president, should be asked whether they disagree with the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group, as reflected in this report; and if so, on what basis they disagree; and if not, what they propose to do about the rising seas, spreading deserts and intensifying storms that, absent a change in policy, loom on America’s horizon.
On this basis, one would have to:
B for reporting on Romney’s statements re climate science
F for their failure to actually state what the science says (quoting, for example, the National Academy of Science)
F for their failure to cite actual science and scientists in the article
B for their documentation of statements from anti-science ideologues
F for their utter failure to place these anti-science ideology statements within a context of science
As a parent, I would not be thrilled with a two B and three F (a 1.2 grade point average) report card (the silver lining: this leaves room for real improvement). As a paying subscriber, I am disgusting by yet another Washington Post failure to abide by the journalistic standards that it — itself — advocates.
June 1st, 2011 · Comments Off on CAP stepping up the climate game (blogging edition)
The Center for American Progress, led by John Podesta, has made a real mark since its founding just eight years ago in credible and authortative discussions of how (often mildly) progressive policy options (in education, agriculture, industry, etc …) represent not just viable but more cost-effective paths forward to solving problems and creating advantage — for Americans and America.
CAP has also developed a meaningful web presence, ranging from short and quick catches of items with political impact, solid original investigative reporting, and (often) top-notch analytical pieces.
Amid a period when too many in the political field seem all too ready to run from climate issues — seeing them (incorrectly, not just in my opinion) as ‘losing’ issues — CAP merits credit for putting in substantive resources for developing multiple ‘voices’ on climate and energy issues.
Yesterday, CAP’s Think Progress restructured with a new format (more on that later) that reinforces that meaningful investment in the discussion of and focus on climate and energy issues.
When it comes to climate issues, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE/RE) and PhD Physicist Joe Romm‘s Climate Progress has become a go-to place for hard-hitting and (extremely) well-documented take-downs of climate deniers’ out-right falsehoods and self-proclaimed “skeptics'” truthiness. While taking on this dangerously deceptive material easily represents more than full time work, Romm has also kept his readers abreast of the science and discussed many of key energy technologies (among other subjects). While Romm has supplmented his work with some repostings, CAP recently upped its investment with the hiring of Stephen Lacey. The new Think Progress format calls out Romm on its front page which could, potentially drive more eyeballs to his work and help foster movement of climate / environmental out of niche discussions into the center stage that they merit.
While Climate Progress has developed a (very) healthy readership, the creation of “Think Progress Green,” edited by Brad Johnson, might end providing more ‘eyeballs’ on Brad’s high-quality work. While Think Progress Green will likely be dominated by experts blogging on arenas like mountaintop removal and wind power and …, Brad has done some of the best work highlighting how the Republican Party’s elite has moved into the embrace of science denial when it comes to climate change (among other issues). Brad’s opening editorial salvo, The New Reality, highlights that we — 20 years later — in an even more perilous situation when it comes to climate change. However, we have the necessary tools to act even as there is a missing something …
The necessary elements for defending civilization in a more dangerous, rapidly changing world all exist. Insurance companies are reconfiguring their policies as seas rise and disasters increase. Hedge funds are developing new financial instruments to handle the effects of climate instability. City planners are examining the security of transit and utility systems. Military officials are drawing up new war scenarios. Scientists and entrepreneurs are inventing, refining, and deploying technologies to sustainably power civilization. Activists are putting their freedom on the line to challenge the forces of inaction. But these efforts are haphazard and uncoordinated. They are insufficient to ensure that the human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are realized on our polluted planet.
The missing piece, often described euphemistically as “political will,” involves a complete rethinking of the threat of global warming. Most Americans see global warming as a real problem, but one that is distant in time and space: that will only affect their children or grandchildren, one that will affect far reaches of the planet first and foremost. That misunderstanding is utterly natural, since that is the presumption of the existing framework, reinforced by the rhetoric and actions of political leaders like President Barack Obama. The greatest culpability, of course, lies in the immoral acts of powerful polluters and their allies to deny the threat entirely.
In light of this, Brad lays out four basic principles for addressing the “political will” gap when it comes to meaningful action on climate change:
Humanity is responsible for climate disasters.
Climate change is not only a future threat but an active enemy to societal progress.
All investments must take into account the reality of increasing uncertainty and risk as the climate system becomes more unstable.
All existing infrastructures — physical, legal, economic, political, cultural — need to be re-examined for resilience in our changing world.
Four basic truths … inconvenient truths that we — as individuals and society — must address to reduce climate disruption’s extent and impact(s).
Again, CAP and Think Progress merit praise for their past investments in serious climate and energy blogging … and for ‘doubling down’ on that investment.
NOTE: While the investment merits praise and the work is high quality, several items in this new site disappoint. First of all, all of the rich comment history has disappeared. Those comments range from Romm slicing through deceit to other experts commenting on and enriching the dicussion. I’ve certainly learned through these threads, which often include some of the best climate and energy bloggers making a point or providing links to relevant work.. Certainly not his choice, Romm is struggling to get this rich history restored. Secondly, the comments used to be username & email driven, with an ability to deal with ‘spam’. Now, this is Facebook driven with a limited set of paths for signing in — paths that will turn some people off and perhaps reduce the richness and value of the comments’ section.
Comments Off on CAP stepping up the climate game (blogging edition)Tags:Energy
May 30th, 2011 · Comments Off on Why We Fight (rail edition)
Yet another guest post from the thoughtful BruceMcF highlighting the linkage between rail investment and fundamental national security issues.
“Why We Fight” is a common feature of propaganda in support of a war. Here, it is a double entendre. In honor of Memorial Day, with two wars launched in the past decade and still ongoing (though in one, “combat operations” by US forces have finished, so any fighting and dying is of the support and training type of fighting and dying), and another recently started up, what it means when we notice that “why we fight” has a simple answer: oil.
And also, politically, why we fight for Living Energy Independence …
Since I bike to my office (in my PHEV — an electric assist bike), those times where I might require a car for several hours in the day for a meeting far afield from the office cause me to drive in to the office or lead to taxi cab use. Starting now, electric vehicles from Hertz are going to be a first choice option.
The Connect by Hertz EV option is a car sharing program … rent by the hour, rent by the day, vehicles available as necessary.
The opening of the Union Station EV sharing location is being announced on the Hill tomorrow morning.
EV Launch – first Capitol Hill EV carsharing platform
Where: 366 Dirksen Senate Energy Committee room
When: May 25th, 10am – 12 noon – EV ride and drive after the presser
Key companies: GM, Hertz, GE, NRG and others.
I will try to make this event and, well, report on it afterwards … hopefully having had a chance to get a few rides in four-wheel EVs.
Pedestrian-only streets and blocks are typically among my favorite places when I visit a new city … and favorite places of life amid urban life. This guest post from CitiSven shows how this is true in San Francisco … with citizens and merchants.
It isn’t hard to do!
This year’s third Sunday Streets, the City of San Francisco’s closing off stretches of a neighborhood’s streets to automobile traffic, and opening them to pedestrians, bicyclists, and activities for several hours on a predetermined Sunday, happened last weekend. While the series of events was met by healthy skepticism — especially from business owners — when it was first launched three years ago, any lingering doubts about its benefit to all corners of urban society were removed as soon as blocks across the city started closing down on Sundays.
And really, who would have a problem with this scene?
If you had told anyone here five years ago that local businesses would be begging to have their streets closed down to traffic more often, you would have been asked what you were smoking. Humans, after all, are creatures of habit, and for the last half century or so our modern American version of homo sapiens has become quite accustomed to hauling 3000 pounds of metal to the grocery store.
Except for this guy who didn’t get the memo:
No one alive today in the U.S. has ever lived in a non car-dominated city. Our whole environment has been shaped around the car, so it’s hard to imagine that life would even be possible without it.
Sometimes though, seeing is believing…
On Sunday, The City expanded the closures to 20 city blocks and an estimated 25,000 people turned out, riding, walking, playing, and dancing in the streets.
“This is freedom. This is liberation,” Mayor Ed Lee told Streetsblog as he strolled down a car-free Valencia Street. “Everyone’s having a great time, and I’m out here seeing how people feel and maybe generating some ideas of how we can keep more of this going.”
Well, he better get to it because people are demanding this not just 8 times a year, but maybe once a week, or Lord really have mercy on us, all the time. You know you’ve got to do something when the merchants are screaming at you to keep the bands marching and the hula hoops swinging…
The good news is that the winds have shifted so drastically that everybody seems to have forgotten how completely dreamy-eyed and inconceivable this would have sounded just a few years ago. Now this is just becoming just another day in the city, and my feeling is that whichever candidate can come up with the best plan for a Monday-thru-Saturday-Streets stands the best chance of wining in this year’s mayoral election.
David Chiu, the only current Supervisor who rides his bike to work every day, is planning on pedaling to victory…
I think our fossil fuel habit has caused us to automatically assume that anything short of being carried door to door by internal combustion engines equates a toilsome and dreary existence.
Like this:
Like so many things, it’s really a matter of perception and attitude. For example, common perception dictates that we can get to our destination faster by driving. But within a city, this often proves to be a false assumption. David Chiu for example told a story at a public meeting a few weeks ago of challenging his driving colleagues to a race to work during the morning rush hour. Behold, he got there first on his bike.
Changing perception and shifting consciousness might be the most important accomplishment of events like Sunday Streets. It shows us what’s possible and offers us a look into a world we may dream of but dare not to invoke. Because really, if we did this two days ago, what’s keeping us from doing it every week? Stranger things have happened…
We face challenges in communicating energy, climate, and other resource challenges and opportunities for moving forward toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future. Considering the recent climate scientists’ rap video, Who’s a climate scientist?, perhaps it is past time to more regularly sharing videos ‘with a message’.
A basic challenge in complex modern society: how does one translate expert opinion on complex issues into broader discussion? This is true for almost every domain of our society, whether discussing nutrition or infrastructure investment requirements or budgetary issues or climate disruption. As for the last, many have been seeking to foster paths for scientists to communicate better with the public. (An excellent (eminently readable and insightful) example of this is Randy Olsen‘s Don’t Be Such a Scientist. Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum‘s Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future is another top of the reading list choice looking at this challenge.)
One of the key challenges: helping the public understand the difference between pseudo-experts and true specialists to help foster an understanding as to who to listen to amid the truthiness- and falsehood-laden discussions seeking to confuse the public about climate disruption threats and climate mitigation opportunities. Many paths are occurring to take this on, such as the Google Climate Communicators to the Climate Rapid Response Team to efforts for including public communications as part of the graduate-level educational programs for scientists. Some people take a different path, such as these rapping climate scientists asking — and answering — a simple question: Who is a climate scientist?
yo….we’re climate scientists.. and there’s no denying this Climate Change Is REEEEALL..
The problem, of course, is that there is a robust industry of misdirection and deception seeking to make us question that reality and to forestall meaningful action that would threaten the status quo (and the mega-profits of fossil-foolish industries).
I said Burn! it’s hot in here..
32% more carbon in the atmosphere.
Oh Eee Ohh Eee oh wee ice ice ice
Raisin’ sea levels twice by twice
We’re scientists, what we speak is True.
Unlike Andrew Bolt our work is Peer Reviewed… ooohhh
For those unaware, an appropriate analogy would be that Andrew Bolt is Australian media’s George Will.
Let’s be clear, there are a lot of complicated issues in the world and perhaps none more than climate science. And, well, many of the scientific terms translate with difficulty into the general discussion. “Positive Feedback” sounds pretty good, no? Or, well, “Theory” means lots of uncertainty, no?
Feedback is like climate change on crack
The permafrosts subtracts: feedback
Methane release wack : feedback..
Write a letter then burn it: feedback
Denialists deny this in your dreams
Coz climate change means greater extremes,
Shit won’t be the norm
Heatwaves bigger badder storms
The Green house effect is just a theory sucker (Alan Jones)
Yeah so is gravity … float away muther f**cker
And, well, let us be clear that “extremes” is another of those highly complicated issues to consider. “Climate change”, in many ways, is better described as “climate disruption” and “climate chaos” because the ‘change’ won’t necessarily be some incremental shift which enables adaptation and evolution, fostering minor shifts. So what if there is a few percent more rainfall? Oops, what if it doesn’t come as often and, when it comes, it comes in deluges of many inches? More droughts and more floods means disrupted agricultural production, threats to infrastructure, uneven water (and, in many cases, power) supplies, … And, this is true across so many different domains.
Communicating science is difficult — especially when there are legions of people seeking to confuse with disinformation rather than enlighten with truthful discussion. Here are some climate scientists seeking new tools for communication to help us understand who seeks to enlighten and inform.
temptation. No longer free parking. Real flexibility in work times. A great bicycle lock area in the parking lot essentially right next to a shower area. And, well, mounting concern over an aging body intersect with desires to cut another weight problem (CO2 footprint) to enhance that biking desirability.
Washington’s Bike-to-Work Day, looking forward to meeting other bikers to learn from and ready to pick up a bike-to-work t-shirt at one of the ‘rest stops’. After threatened thunderstorms, 20 May turned out to be a beautiful day. And, I set off feeling rather great about biking in until … less than a mile from my home … a sudden jolt and ugly noise when I tried to peddle.
gave no hint of priority to energy, environmental, or climate disruption issues.
