GREEN WEB SLIDESHOW

Green Web

view presentation (tags: writ340sum08)

GLOBAL WARMING... WHAT LIES AHEAD

It’s time to get acquainted with some of the less advertised consequences of global warming. Pesky problems, compared to the broader disasters of widespread famine, weather extremes, and an exploding refugee population. But these ripples of woe bring home how interconnected and far-reaching the tentacles of climate change truly are.

Say hello to toxic mold …the result of frequent, severe flooding caused by warmer water in the oceans, which “pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them stronger and potentially more destructive” (NRDC.org). The EPA states that flood-induced mold produces “allergens, irritants, and in some cases potentially toxic substances (mycotoxins).” It links these mycotoxins to “skin rashes, nausea, immune system suppression, acutre or chronic liver damage, acute or chronic central nervous system damage, endocrine effects, and cancer.”

Say hello to Lyme disease. As temperatures rise, the Lyme tick’s range is expanding, into regions far north and west of its original habitat. The CDC describes typical symptoms of Lyme disease as “fever, headache, fatigue, and a skin rash. If left untreated, infection can spread to joints, the heart, and the nervous system.”

Say hello to artificial Christmas trees. Like the Lyme tick, the pine bark beetle is expanding its habitat range northward as temperatures rise. It feeds off pine trees, and as it encroaches into British Columbia, it is decimating swaths of pine forests.

Say hello to a tsunami of homeless kittens. Global warming is already extending the cat-breeding season beyond its usual springtime cycle, and putting cats in heat more often. Animal shelters are reportedly in crisis, deluged with abandoned kittens in ever increasing numbers.

Say hello to rampant poison ivy. The Los Angeles Times reports that “rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are driving noxious poison ivy and those annoying patches of dandelion to grow taller, lusher and more resilient.” In a test lab, poison ivy grew twice as large under present CO2 levels as samples grown under 1950 levels.

Say hello to dengue fever. Science Daily reports that “scientists…have predicted that rising global temperatures will increase the range of a mosquito that transmits the dengue fever virus. Dengue fever is now considered the most serious viral infection transmitted in man by insects, whether measured in terms of the number of human infections or the number of deaths.”

Say hello to heart disease. Dr. Gordon Tomaselli of the American Heart Association explains, “Rust develops much more quickly at warm temperatures, and so does atherosclerosis.”

Say hello to no sense of smell. Chronic air pollution damages the nose’s olfactory receptors, severely limiting the ability to smell even strong odors like coffee and bad eggs. Reuters reports that people in Mexico City are harbingers of this phenomenon. It quotes a researcher lamenting that “their noses are so badly damaged from a life inhaling toxic particles, they find it hard to detect the scent of rotten food.”

As these scenarios loom ever larger, who are the real terrorists? Environmental activists, who risk their lives to thwart the calamities of climate change? Or the political and corporate interests who dismiss global warming, and imperil our future?

"ECO-TERRORISM" ON GREEN WEB

If you follow environmental activism of the radical kind, you know that the federal government’s anti-environment campaign of fear and loathing labels it “eco-terrorism.” And if you’re interested in the full spectrum of debate on this controversial term, Green Web is a particularly good research resource. Searching the hot-button phrase on Green Web brings up a great mix of pro and con material. Through its swicki formula of user frequency and voting, Green Web’s results cover both sides in nearly equal measure—and come up with material that doesn’t appear in “eco-terrorism” searches on other search engines like Greenmaven or Google.

On one side, for example, appears a provocative blog by conservative philosopher Onkar Ghate, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He argues that eco-saboteurs are terrorists because they attack the forces of social progress:

…It remains worrisome that we still dismiss such terrorists as deranged individuals who pervert the ideology of environmentalism. Even more worrisome is that few of us intellectually grasp, and then rise to defend, the irreplaceable values under attack by environmental terrorists. Their targets are not, fundamentally, a particular ski resort, logging company, meatpacking center or medical research project, but what these represent: human technology, human progress, human life.
Man's life is sustained--and made longer, healthier, happier--by industrial development and technological progress.

And on the opposing side is an op ed piece by David Roberts, a popular environmental blogger. Roberts attacks the faulty logic behind the FBI’s labeling of eco sabotage as terrorism:

"Terrorism is terrorism -- no matter what the motive," declared FBI director Robert Mueller.

What's the difference between burning trucks for kicks and burning trucks as an "eco-terrorist"? The motive. What's the difference between burning down an abortion clinic (crime) and burning down an animal-testing lab (terrorism)? The motive. Of course the motive matters -- that's how terrorism is defined. "Eco-terrorists" are being specially targeted precisely because of their motives. Mueller doth protest too much.

And finally, Green Web’s link to Bookrags provides a list of scholarly articles that weigh in with more objective views on the issue. Many of these pieces come from compendiums, encyclopedias and journals. An article in The St. James Encyclopedia neatly summarizes why the term “terrorism” applied to eco-sabotage prompts conflicting reactions:

…eco-terrorism is a highly contested term. Ron Arnold, a leader of the anti-environmental "Wise Use" movement, argues for a broad definition of eco-terrorism that includes almost every crime committed on behalf of the environment, even acts of civil disobedience. Many environmentalists, however, passionately disagree with this usage, preferring to distinguish between "eco-sabotage" (an assault on inanimate objects) and terrorism (an assault on living things). The environmentalist David Brower, for instance, has argued that the real terrorists are those who pollute and despoil the earth, not those who seek to protect it.

These examples provide a range of fresh, credible information and opinions on the subject of “eco-terrorism.” And they all appear within the first three pages of an “eco-terrorism” search result on Green Web. By comparison, only David Roberts’ blog appears on Google—and only after slogging through over 30 pages of search results for “eco-terrorism.” Such is the beauty of a customized eco search engine like Green Web.

GREEN WEB SEARCH: A SWICKI IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

It can be pretty frustrating to search for eco information on the web. Even if you’re interested in something basic, like “greening” your house. Say you fancy making some modest changes to reduce its carbon footprint and increase its self-sufficiency. You logically Google the term “green house,” expecting to find a wealth of material on how to install solar panels and water conservation toilets. Instead, you get 19 pages of links that reference the term “green” in other contexts of the word. So you learn how to build a Victorian greenhouse…and how greenhouse gases are warming the earth…but you’ll have to Google less obvious terms like “greening house” or “house green,” to get the home improvement advice you’re really looking for.

Green Web attempts to address this predicament. It’s a swicki, which is a customized search engine, and it’s dedicated to gathering and prioritizing green information on the web. Green Web relies on the collaborative input of its users, who can “vote” on an entry by clicking a plus or minus sign, and thereby move that entry up or down the listing. Vote tallies are posted next to each entry.

Standard swicki features on Green Web include a “Comment Box” for users to post on a particular search, and a “Hot Searches” box, which is a sampler of recommended search terms. Some of these “hot searches” are unexpected, if not odd, though they’re based on user popularity. For example, alongside “green architecture” and “eco-organic” are bizarrely tangential terms like “tae bo” and “yoga mats.”

This quirky combination of high and low makes for entertaining browsing, but Green Web’s search and sorting ability can also deliver spot-on results. Type in “green house” on Green Web, and you’ll instantly access a treasure trove of helpful eco-oriented material. Unlike Google, this web tool speaks your language. Up pop links to catalogs with products for greening your home, an article on the “green” church architecture movement, another on organic gardening and one on solar roofing, and a video tour of the 2008 “Ultimate ‘Green’ House” contest winner. Bingo.

The occasional missteps in Green Web’s search results are due to its swicki reliance on user frequency and user voting, which puts the most popular entries at the top of the result list. This can lead to some off-topic segues, but at least they have a green twist. For example, a search for the journalist Will Potter (who covers environmental activism) brings up a dozen articles on Harry Potter before anything concerning Will Potter appears. So you may get pleasantly sidetracked, reading eco-minded pieces on Harry Potter, even though they’re not remotely related to your search. You may find it interesting that the publishing industry’s green revolution was jumpstarted by J.K Rowlings, when she learned that each Harry Potter installment uses 250,000 trees, and decided that the last one would use recycled paper. Following this kind of quirky chafe, however, the wheat awaits—a comprehensive list of Will Potter’s writings and website.

Aside from Green Web, there is at least one other worthwhile green search engine, www.greenmaven.com. The latter is a smartly packaged website rather than a swicki, so it lacks the user interaction that makes Green Web so personal and charmingly eccentric. As adjunct tools for environmental research, both searches deliver an abundance of valuable green information. But if you have the time and inclination for perusing an eclectic body of eco material, Green Web is a good place to start.

WHAT NOW...?

It’s likely that James Hansen’s House speech made enough of a splash to spur positive change in American environmental policies. The late June timing of the speech may have already influenced the international stage as well. For just two weeks after Hansen’s warm reception in Washington, President Bush did something quite uncharacteristic and unexpected at the Group of 8 conference in Tokyo. At this gathering of the world’s eight richest nations, the president led a pledge to “move toward a low-carbon society” by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 (NY Times). As the New York Times noted, “The declaration by the Group of 8—the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia—was the first time that the Bush White House had publicly backed an explicit long-term target for eliminating the gases that scientists have said are warming the planet.” Coincidence? Or an attempt to catch the wave of attention and adulation that Hansen’s recent House appearance generated in the media?

Bush’s proposal wasn’t ideal. It didn’t set a goal for cutting emissions over the next decade, and that angered environmentalists. However, it was a surprising reversal for the president, who had previously dismissed global warming as a speculative threat, and perhaps “naturally caused.” (tv clip link) The NY Times suggested that “For Mr. Bush, who has just six months left in office, (his Group of 8) declaration was part of a concerted effort to salvage his legacy on climate change before the next administration comes in.” It’s nice to think that Hansen’s House speech—which catalyzed the country into an urgent dialogue on climate change—helped inspire the president’s reversal. Whether his about-face was out of conviction or capitulation.

WHY HANSEN, WHY NOW?

Would James Hansen’s speech to the House last week have inspired national headlines (and a wave of blogs) if it hadn’t coincided with the twentieth anniversary of his first address to Congress? Probably not. If it weren’t for its dramatic timing, the maverick scientist’s return to Washington would have made barely a bleep on the national radar.

In the twenty years since his groundbreaking predictions met with almost total skepticism, Hansen has become known and respected for his work on climate change—but his symbolically charged House appearance became a magnet for media coverage. The press loves the dramatic hook of an anniversary, especially when it has apocalyptic imagery and the urgency of a ticking bomb.

That Hansen’s recent address occurred in an election year makes it all the more newsworthy. With the price of gas rising to stratospheric heights, and a general consensus about the need for energy conservation, the public is more than ever tuned into the environmental agendas of their local and national politicians. So when an eminent scientist like Hansen warns an assembly of politicians that we are on the brink of a “global cataclysm,” it makes for great copy.

And Hansen was more than forthright on environmental politics. Arguing for immediate and bold energy initiatives, he declared to the House that:

The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation…. I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.

With his impeccable science, fire and brimstone message and symbolic timing, it’s no wonder that Hansen’s House speech has captured the media’s attention and imagination.