Of Prizes, Nobel and Ig Nobel

Last Friday, Time Magazine called Al Gore's Nobel Prize a "Green Tipping Point." I've heard that some critics are pointing out that he shouldn't get to share the Peace Prize for his work, as what does climate change have to do with peace? I'm too lazy to track down the aforementioned critics (besides, it would be pointless--I already know they would have a stunted worldview from the ignorance of that comment), but Time's article concisely pointed out the link between climate and war. But what I liked best was the article's close:

""We face a true planetary emergency," [Gore] said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a more and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." But Gore is wrong. Climate change absolutely is a political issue, the greatest political issue of our time, and it will only be solved in the political arena, with all the mess and compromise that entails. Environmentalists hate to hear this; they think that global warming is so important it should transcend politics, as the IPCC does, and as Gore himself has in many ways these past seven years. But the final war on global warming will be fought not with PowerPoint but with politics, and it will be fought in the halls of power around the world."

Too many times, we scientists think that research and facts will provide change; time and time again, they merely provide the opening salvos. Scientists who care about this world and the people and places that make it wonderful should spend more time communicating to public audiences--as Gore and the IPCC have--about the issues we study.

We humans have a long, long way to go on the issue of climate change, but I am happy to see it finally on the world's stage--if not center, at least out of the wings...

...

If all this talk of climate change leaves you feeling, ummm, indifferent, well, check out this site, on a guy who actually built a periodic table. Plus, I think getting the Ig Nobel Prize is probably more fun, overall. :-) Be sure to read why he did all this, too--it's a great story.

Are Salmon done for in the Lower 48?

I just read Sevan's recent blog on salmon recovery and factors other than dam removal that we should consider. It reminded me of a very interesting (and controversial) essay by Robert Lackey a few years ago called Pacific Northwest Salmon: Forecasting Their Status in 2100.

Lackey argues that while many efforts have been made to restore runs of wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest, "few have shown much success. " He points out that:

"Society’s failure to restore wild salmon is a policy conundrum characterized by: (1) claims by a strong majority to be supportive of restoring wild salmon runs; (2) competing societal priorities which are at least partially mutually exclusive; (3) the region’s rapidly growing human population and its pressure on all natural resources (including salmon and their habitats); (4) entrenched policy stances in the salmon restoration debate, usually supported by established bureaucracies; (5) society’s expectation that experts should be able to solve the salmon problem by using a technological scheme and without massive cultural or economic sacrifices (e.g., life style changes); (6) use of experts and scientific “facts” by political proponents to bolster their policy positions; (7) inability of salmon scientists to avoid being placed in particular policy or political camps; and (8) confusion in discussing policy options caused by couching policy preferences in scientific terms or imperatives rather than value-based criteria."

He continues by suggesting that "Given the appreciable costs and social dislocation, coupled with the dubious probability of success, candid public dialog is warranted to decide whether restoration of wild salmon is an appropriate, much less feasible, public policy objective."

He closes with this assessment of the overall policy picture, as he sees it:

"It may appear that political institutions are unable to act, but, in fact, decisions are made daily by institutions (and individuals) on the relative importance of maintaining or restoring wild salmon compared to competing societal priorities. Although few people appear to be happy with the present situation and a strong majority publicly professes support for maintaining wild salmon, there is little indication that society is inclined to confront the root agents of decline (Black, 1995). Those causes deal with both individual life style and sheer numbers of people. Thus, it is likely that society will continue to chase the illusion that wild salmon runs can be restored without massive changes in the number, lifestyle, and philosophy of the human occupants of the western United States and Canada."

Lackey calls this view realistic, neither optimist nor pessimistic... After skimming his main points, I am now going back to read the (73 page) argument a little more carefully... because he might just have a very good point.

I can't wait to see THIS on campus...

A Wi-Fi Dectector T-shirt!

You can see all the fun details at http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/991e/