Climategate

I apparently have not been tuned in this holiday week, as I am just becoming aware of the escalation of ClimateGate.  For those who have also been under a rock (or a heaping pile of culinary delights to be thankful for), take a quick gander at what the link above has to say.  Or better yet google "Climategate" and take a look at what the online media has to say about it. 

In short, over a thousand emails from the Climactic Research Unit in the UK were leaked, and the conversations show some tinkering around with the data used to prove that climate change is a severe threat caused by human activity.  The  CRU, referred to by one website as the "Pentagon of climate change science," is an important institution in the effort to understand global warming.  According to some, the emails represent a "veritable who’s who in climate science."

The emails are pretty incriminating, even when one acknowledges the lack of context and the need for further examination.  Essentially the statements show evidence that some scientists have been trying to hide data showing a global cooling trend in recent years, refuting the theory that temperatures have undergone a more significant swing since the industrial revolution than at any measurable time in the past.  It is a horrible offense in the world of scientific research, in my opinion, to seek results to prove a theory, rather than performing an unbiased analysis and honestly interpreting results.  The former seems to be what occurred here, and whether the actions are considered a misguided attempt to do right by defending a belief that contradicts evidence, or outright dishonesty and self preservation, will be debated.

At first google, one might believe that this proves without a doubt what climate skeptics have been arguing for years: either global warming is blatant nonsense, or if it is happening, it is a natural process independent from human effect.  The first few pages of search results are a showering of I told you so's from those who have objected to the money and time spent on fighting global warming.  The general consensus from this camp are that the lies of the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth have finally been exposed in the biggest conspiracy of the century and that any legislation regarding limiting greenhouse gas emissions and limiting access to cheap fossil fuel should be stopped immediately.

I had to dig pretty deep to find any response from the liberal side of the table, indeed a big criticism voiced by the conservative media is that the news has been all but ignored by those that it incriminates, including the mainstream media.  But the radical conclusions expressed by skeptics are pretty severe. Those from the left that have responded point to the overwhelming evidence that already exists that climate change is human-made, and that although these scientists may have exercised bad judgment, this is not the whole story. 

As a former researcher and one who has and will continue to base my understandings on scientific evidence, I am very alarmed by this apparent abuse of power and mission.  I am saddened by the dishonesty that will significantly impact the credibility of what I believe to be an honorable branch of scientific inquiry, whatever the investigation results.  Ultimately, I tend to work from the general principal that efficiency itself is a noble cause.  Even if we are not causing global warming as rapidly as the researchers at CRU expected to show, sustainability has many more dimensions that just carbon emissions.  Regardless, we deserve to have accurate information, ethics and objectivity present in the pursuit of science.

The Density Debate Pt. 1: Evolving Definitions

While looking into what has been written about the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan debate (see my post on October 17) I came across a very interesting article called "You're Not an Environmentalist If You're Also a NIMBY."  It was written by Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express.  For me, it shed considerable light on the density debate and the evolution of environmentalism.

Most people curious about planning issues have heard the term NIMBY, which stands for "Not in My Backyard."  If you google the definition you will find that it describes the type of person who resists new development or changes in their own neighborhood.  Some definitions mention that it is often used pejoritavely, or that the same person would not object to that development occurring elsewhere.  In my experience it has been extended to describe those who might concede that something may be neccesary or worthwhile as long as the inconvenience stays off of their lawn (or out of their sightline, or out of earshot etc.).

As Mr. Gammon points out, for years city dwellers have adopted a NIMBY-esque attitude against development under the umbrella of environmentalism,  preventing new apartments and condominiums from being built.  He describes this mostly liberal group as presenting their "eco-conscious" position to reduce traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character.  In actuality, this attitude has contributed to suburban sprawl and increased commute miles, the effects of which few could hardly argue to be supported by the environmentalist community.  In addition, the lack of new housing left urban areas such as Berkeley and Oakland underdeveloped, further weakening the economic corner of the sustainability triangle (right).

I have personally heard this debate on the streets of downtown Berkeley, when volunteers opposed to the current DAP were collecting signatures for the petition to put it on the ballot.   Livable Berkeley is a group active in the DAP debate who consider themselves green and oppose the NIMBY attitude.  Erin Rhoades, the organization's volunteer executive director, tells Gammon: "Our goal is to shift the idea of what it means to be an environmentalist when living in a city, away from the protection of land to the more efficient use of land." 

This idea essentially moves the preservation vs. conservation debate as defined in the Progressive Era into modern urban/rural context: preservation of what has not been developed requires conservation of resources and compromise in personal benefits.  That we will grow is inevitable.  How we will grow is up to us.

Resilient and Biophilic Cities

On October 26th I attended a lecture hosted by the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, called Green Urbanism: Planning for Resilient and Biophilic Cities.  It was given by Dr. Tim Beatley, a professor at the University of Virginia.  He is a published author of many books on land use and sustainability, most recently Resilient Cities, Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change.   

    Dr. Beatley initially outlined his current focus to be one of understanding existing and possible strategies for cities and towns to reduce their carbon footprint as well as become more equitable.  He proposed that we look at our buildings like trees and our cities as forests, closing the loop of inward and outward flows.  In this spirit, most of the lecture highlighted strategies that he uncovered while researching two recent books, Green Urbanism, learning from European Cities, and Green Urbanism Down Under.  

Here are just a few of the strategies that Dr. Beatley discovered in Europe and Australia.  

• Copenhagen set the goal be Carbon Neutral by 2025 by exploring alternative energy sources and encouraging people to spend more time outside, as well as exploring ways to offset their carbon production elsewhere. 

 

• Almost every city in Australia has a Public Art Master Plan (examples here, here, and here) to encourage residents to get outside and explore parts of the city they might not otherwise visit.  In some cases they provide small grants to local artists to entice residents into alley ways.

• Brisbane Australia has facilitated the decoration of over 900 traffic signal boxes by local artists.

• Stockholm has invested into transit infrastructure so that stops are available before people even move into new flats.

• Public bike programs have become very popular in Paris (20,000 bikes) and Stockholm (6000 bikes) for both resident and tourist use.  Smart cards facilitate use and popularity has lead to additional infrastructure investment that encourages use of personal bikes as well.

• Barcelona has mandated that 65% of water heating be provided by solar hot water and outfits public buildings such as city hall with PVs to supply power to the grid.

• The Vauban development in Freiburg, the “Eco-Capital” of Germany, is a neighborhood facilitated by trams that is car free.  If you own a car it must be parked at a peripheral lot which costs over $20,000 at the outset. 

• Technologies are being implemented near Sydney to extract biogas solid waste for fuel and facilitate wastewater collection and reuse.

• In Australia Toy Libraries are common, at least one or two per city.

• Montreal has a rooftop gardening project, and a nonprofit that makes a “balcony kit” from recycling bins to help people grow their own food even with limited outdoor space.

• In the London Borough of Croyden a goal was set for the neighborhood to source 50% of their building materials in a 35 mile radius, which they did from a local municipal forest.  The urban city of Croyden is now FSC certified.

For more exciting innovations underway at home and abroad, refer to the books mentioned above, and look for Dr. Beatley's soon to be released film: The Nature of Cities.