dharmathroughkarma asked: Thoughts on Gina McCarthy?

She’s fine. Nothing special. From an administrator/managerial perspective, she’s a bit weak on the business side, and too narrowly focused on one type of environmental harm (air pollution). The EPA does way more than air, and a proper head should have broader experience. She’s from Massachusetts, and plays up that tough, Beantown angle a lot. I’m partial to National Journal’s 4pt bio:

1. She’s a tough-talking and enthusiastic Bostonian. McCarthy, who hails from Dorchester, Mass., is Irish Catholic and speaks with a pronounced Boston accent. The approach she’s taken to her work at EPA earned her the nickname“Obama’s green quarterback” from some environmentalists.

   McCarthy once described in a speech getting to yell “Play ball!” at a Red Sox game. “Now, there’s nothing cooler than that,” she said. “I did it with real gusto. Should I do it again? Play balllll!” (McCarthy is also is known for her sense of humor.)

2. She’s an anthropologist. McCarthy studied social anthropologyas an undergraduate at the University of Massachusetts (Boston) before going on to receive a joint M.S. degree in environmental health engineering and planning and policy from Tufts University.

   The former degree may seem less relevant to her current post than the latter. “People ask me why did social anthropology prepare you for the work that you’re doing in government? Well, everyone who asked me that, I wondered if they had ever been in the Massachusetts Legislature, whether they had ever been in the Connecticut Legislature, and whether they had ever visited Congress recently, because it is a primitive society into itself,” McCarthy joked. But really, she said, it taught her to “relish diversity.” 

3. She’s a longtime government official — and even worked for Mitt Romney. All told, McCarthy has been working for federal and state governments for more than 25 years. Her career has spanned five Massachusetts governors, including former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, one Connecticut governor, Jodi Rell, under whom she ran the state’s Environmental Protection Department. She was confirmed to EPA and came to Washington in 2009. 
4. Her confirmation won’t be a picnic. Obama, who vowed to make tackling the threat of climate change a second-term priority, is likely to rely heavily on EPA to carry out that agenda, at least initially, which is likely to thrust the agency into the political spotlight. McCarthy will have to answer for her agency, which isn’t the most popular among congressional Republicans, who have criticized the regulations it has rolled out in recent years as job-killers. The Washington Post reports that the coal industry could raise some opposition to her nomination, as may Senate Republicans, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

   On the other hand, McCarthy is popular with environmentalists, and she even has support within the energy industry, including from groups that don’t tend to see eye to eye with EPA.

Daily climate change/politics news source: “Clean Start”

Anonymous asked: Do you ever feel like giving up?

Never. Ever. I’m not an activist, so I don’t have to struggle with hope. I’m more like a firefighter - I deal with the impacts. I help protect people, cities, and the environment.  And I see real results. m

Anonymous asked: Do you have any tips for how to stay informed about climate change without getting into a depressive spiral? When I read the news and see how our politicians still aren't willing to take meaningful action, it's difficult not to be angry and just generally distraught. How does a person fighting for change remain hopeful? (sorry if this has been asked before)

Hey anon,

No worries - I get asked this all the time. My two best responses are here (on how I don’t explode when dealing with climate deniers) and here (on how I see my self in the context of environmentalism). Note that both are answers to reader mail, but the answer you seek (hopefully) is sandwiched in the middle of my replies.

But, the toll on environmentalist’s emotional health is very real. In,  Do Environmentalists Need Shrinks?, the writer interviews a psychologist whose research focuses on environmentalism and depression.

Hope that helps!

m

Anonymous asked: Hello! What are your thoughts on nuclear energy? Do you believe it's a viable alternative to oil/coal? I've read some of your older posts on nuclear energy, but I couldn't quite sense your position on it. Thanks!

Hey anon!

Thanks for your nice question. I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy in general. The reality is that really no one is seriously building new nuclear power plants, so there’s that.

Generally, nuclear energy is tough to comprehend for a lot of folks. It’s scary, the media sucks at covering it, and it’s hard to comprehend how it really works.

Take human harm for one example - I’ve posted this chart on my tumblr a few times. It shows that coal and oil are far, far more dangerous to people (let alone the environment) than nuclear, yet no one is protesting their local coal power plant (there’s probably one right near your house). Yet despite the facts, my inbox fills with standard anti-nuke rah rah from my fellow enviros (also, I hate blogging about energy, I prefer what to discuss the topic of my blog - environmental risks from climate).

Anywayyyy, it’s the “viable alternative” part of your question that’s an issue.

What does “viable” really mean? If it means “capable” - as in, is nuclear energy is capable of replacing coal/oil? - then yes of course it’s capable. There’s simply no way to argue that it’s not capable - after all, it’s a math question not a socio-economic one.

But, if we discuss “viable” in terms of reality, like in terms of actually making the switch from fossil to nuke? Then no way, it’s just not viable. There’s not enough support from the public, politicians, or energy companies - even environmentalists hate it (despite the facts it’s less harmful, and despite the impending CO2 doom).

I wrote earlier today that the last time a nuclear power plant was built in the US was way back in 1978. One new plant was permitted in 2012, but it will not come online for at least 20 years. Considering that the US has thousands of operational fossil fuel power plants, with hundreds more being built or proposed, nuclear is just not “viable” in a realistic way. It’s the same for the EU, China, and India.

There is simply no shift towards nuclear energy anywhere in the world. And literally thousands of coal and natural gas power plants are being built or will be built in the coming decades. 

So, yes, it’s mathematically brilliant, but in reality it’s not viable because societies aren’t interested in figuring it out.

Please no more energy questions!

Cheers!

m

Anonymous asked: Hi, after reading your response to the previous post about thorium reactors, and your link to the UK rejection, I think you will find it says that "world-wide there remains interest in thorium fuel cycles and this is not likely to diminish in the near future." Surely this suggests not currently. As a physicist I find it hard to understand how an educated person, such as yourself, can dismiss nuclear so easily, yet it is the most viable and efficient future energy source...

There are 194 countries in the world. Other than the occasional, novel research project, zero countries are building thorium reactors as part of their energy mix.

Educated indeed.

You’re also wrong about the UK. The Brits have dismissed thorium as an option.

It is incumbent upon you to convince policy makers of the so-called benefits of thorium rather than, as I wrote earlier, harass bloggers and hang out in the comment sections of news sites…

sosungalittleclodofclay asked: What are your thoughts on Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors?

Hey sosungalittleclodofclay! There’s a lot of talk about thorium becoming a better, safer alternative fuel source to uranium in nuclear power plants. I don’t see it. The energy sector generally is not taking it seriously (indeed, the UK has dismissed thorium when the gvt analyzed their energy options last year). Thorium is written off as infeasible with no ultimate benefits. True, there are one or three boutique research projects. In reality, it is more than difficult to build a nuclear power plant. The last time a nuclear power plant was licensed in the US was in 1978 (one proposal was approved recently, but won’t be online for nearly 20 years). Worse, natural gas from Obama’s fracking boom has shut down dozens of new bids for nuclear power plants, never mind thorium. There are zero plans for (serious) thorium power plants anywhere in the developed world. To me, talk of thorium is gibberish and fantasy. I’ve watched a few prezos and talks on thorium. Thus far, thorium researchers haven’t convinced anyone in the energy sector, and supporters of the technology seem to propagate in the comment sections of energy news articles. So, it’s just a fringe issue.  m

journalwoman asked: Are you drinking tea or coffee in your profile pic?

Coffee in Seattle. :)

fuq-auffe asked: Do you actually read the articles you share? Or just share them because they fit your blog's category? Discussion with you about a topic you cover almost always ends in "reread the article" or "I didn't see that in the article". You have little to no personal input on anything you share, and so bares my question.

Hey fuq-auffe! Yep, I read every article. I also cross reference sources and check researchers’ backgrounds on the majority of the more complicated stories. You’re right about my terse replies. Two things about this, first the answer really is in the article/link (often times the answer is right in my post!). I recently posted about a free climate change class. The post literally had “free…class” in the title and got several questions asking if the class is free. Blows my mind. Second, holy cow I am busy! I have contracts around the world, and juggle so many projects that I cannot fully interact. m

Ask box is open for a bit. Rapid fire style! ›

Anonymous asked: I saw the HarvardX free course you posted and i was wondering if you are familiar with any other free courses like this on the subject of ecology. I am studying biology currently so background knowledge wouldnt be a problem. Thanks in advance.

Thanks. Maybe check Open Culture. It lists about 1,000 free courses. There’s also Youtube/Education, where universities post free lectures.

Update: KnowledgeAndLove points to Academic Earth.

secondtrainofthought asked: As far as a planet's mass. How much does the planet's core affect the temperature of a planet's surface? I just want a perspective in the physics of mass in space.

Hey secondtrainofthought,

Thanks and nope. As far as I know, there’s no correlation between the Earth’s mass and surface or atmospheric temperatures. And none of the climate literature discusses this, that I’ve seen.

The only thing I can think of is the length of a day fluctuates a tiny bit in part due to the core’s relationship with the spin of the earth. The speculation is that this fluctuation exposes the earth to the sun by a tiny bit, which maybe possibly affects temperature. Some scientists at NASA did a minor study on core spin and the length of a day a couple of years ago. There findings were inconclusive.

And it seems to me the study spurned little interest because the results were not very interesting. Bottom line, prior to 1930 (e.g., prior to anthropogenic climate change), they believe that over thousands of years, the variations in the earth’s temperature possibly, maybe, but-no-one-really-knows may have been influenced by the length of a day, which shifted by a few milliseconds. Over thousands of years, these fluctuations shorten and lengthen a day (e.g., the 24 hours that comprise an earth’s rotation around the sun). Thus, a one second shorter or longer day may have affected the earth’s temperature, but the effects the researchers found were nearly immeasurable, perhaps even meaningless.

Again, core-spin is not in the climate literature and there’s no correlation to speak of.

m

Finally got around to creating a FAQs page. Let me know if I should add something or if you find punctuation/grammar issues. ›

k-til asked: Hello! I glanced your CV and saw you have a Masters in Urban and Regional planning. I have just been accepted to University of Maryland, Virginia Tech, and VCU to pursue a masters in planning. I was wondering your opinion on any of those programs? Currently I'm waiting to see what funding I can get before making a decision.

Hey k-til,

Congrats. But are you sure you want advice from grumpy ol’ me??

Which school has the best job placement for your interests? Which professors have real world experience? Which programs have projects in real cities? Which school is located in the most demographically diverse region?

Answer those, and you’ve got your answer…

From my perspective, it’s not the school, it’s where you want to be when you finish. If you’re a planner at heart, then plan your outcome. Some other tips for planning school:

Develop relationships in the real world with city planners while you’re in school. Who’s your urban planning idol? Find a mentor and copy them.

Present at the APA and regional conferences (you must do this). Try to land a spot on a planning, conservation, housing, or some other board (urban planners spend a lot of time on boards. Get a leg up).

Dress well (get over it).

Take and pay attention to classes in art history, advanced writing, and philosophy. These will prove invaluable throughout your life.

Learn the basics of GIS, but overall avoid this software like the plague. If you want to be a city planner, just contract GIS specialists for this type of work - they’re a dime a dozen (a terrible truth). GIS is a vortex of doom. Avoid the dooms.

And my gods learn how to print. Buy a cheap color laser printer. I bought an HP 2600n in 2008 for $150 and have replaced the black ink once(!). Laser printers are reliable workhorses. They never break. Never. And ink lasts forever. School printers are vortexes of expensive, embarrassing, timesucks of doom. You are a professional, buy a damn professional printer. (This made me curious. I just checked how many pages I’ve printed on my trusty HP - 2541 total, 1707 color. It has never, ever let me down.). If you want fancy prints, skip the extra beers and spend the money at your local printshop.

Your cohort is your enemy come last semester. Why? B/c they will all be applying for the same exact jobs. Multiply that by all the other schools then add all the unemployed planners out there and you’ll see landing a job is ruthless business. Your peers are nice - spend time with them, but in the end they’re in your way.

I chose UMass b/c the advisers and profs focused on developing practical, pragmatic skills. I landed solid assistantships while there, and turned some of them into consulting gigs on the side.

I developed relationships with local government officials. I went to planning board, zoning appeals, conservation, housing, and city budget meetings to learn the ropes and shake hands and ask questions. I even went to court to sit in on land disputes. This put classroom learning into context For example, you will hear a lot about NIMBYism in the classroom, and profs tend to dismiss and even laugh at their arguments. Don’t do that. NIMBYs must be taken seriously. If you plan on staying in one community for a while, they you’ll be working with the same NIMBYS for years and years! Befriend them. Learn this early by witnessing a NIMBY argue in front of a planning board or dispute a permit at city council. 

Check out my reader mail tag for other grouchy student advice.

Keep in touch and let me know how it goes!

m

USGS Climate Studies- Paleo Lessons