Book Review by Eric J. Olson, PhD/ Special To The Tab
Book Review
Divine Wind, The Science and History of Hurricanes, by Kerry Emanuel, copyright 2005, Osford University Press.
If there is one must-learn phrase in Kerry Emanuel’s magnificent book it is this: hurricane amnesia. This is not what victims of hurricanes suffer after being struck by flying debris, this is the more widespread drift and denial that our seacoast culture slips into soon after the storm surge has receded and the insurance adjusters have written their reports. We stand witness to the tragedy of New Orleans--for now. We point fingers at the government--for now. We speculate on the role of global warming in all this, as if insanely powerful hurricanes were some new phenomenon on the scene. All of this diverts our attention from the real tough question, which is what should New Orleans become? And what about Florida, that vast low-lying peninsula with one of the higher growth rates of any state in the US? Do we really want to put so many families and dreams and treasure in harm’s way over and over again? This is the essence of hurricane amnesia: when a nation has such a profound attachment to place and growth and warm sandy beaches that we must forget just so we can move on. Addicts have their relatives as enablers, and we have…Uncle Sam’s flood insurance program?
Thankfully, Kerry Emanuel has written an antidote to hurricane amnesia, and in spite of his recent fame as herald of global warming (more on that below), his book also serves as a rebuttal to the notion that Katrina is retribution for the fact we’ve heated up the globe. What we get from Divine Wind is a very different image of these storms – one that we could relish if we would just pull our cities back from our subtropical coasts and watch the sea and the sun and swirling tropical air perform their ancient dance. People travel the world over to see a full eclipse of the sun or improve their look at a passing comet, why not be spectators (via satellite and pilotless planes) of the hurricane?
Here’s a pity of our modern age: we so dread these mighty winds we can’t enjoy them more. Dr. Emanuel shows the way, he is a storm-meister, a wind fanatic, a reveler in the power and the glory and the beauty of the hurricane. Read him -- you will be won over. Fond of literature? Interspersed throughout are poems, ballads, excerpts from The Tempest, snippets of great storm prose. Enjoy paintings? He has tracked down the world’s best storm-wracked work and here they are, rendered in superb color. Relish a good disaster tale? Every third or so chapter tells the story of one of the truly Great Storms of the past several centuries. Or perhaps you’re an engineer, or appreciate fine science writing? Dr. Emanuel the MIT professor patiently explains in words, with just a touch of algebra, how a hurricane is the closest thing nature offers to the ideal heat engine first described by Carnot. He even turns chaos theory into a human-interest story by telling the tale of its serendipitous discovery.
So great hurricanes have always been with us, and by building in their path we’re just asking for trouble. But there is something new, so new it’s scarcely mentioned in the book: humans are decisively fanning the flames that feed these storms. Dr. Emanuel was launched to fame this year on the basis of his August report in the prestigious journal Nature showing that hurricane intensity and duration are both increasing, in lock step with the warming of the oceans. Coming out just two weeks before Katrina, the report naturally led to a media surge on his office throughout the fall. That was when I first heard of him, interviewed on NPR, then again this January profiled in the NY Times. Sadly, the splendor of his book is lost in the intense focus on the conclusions of his Nature paper. But denial about climate change is perhaps even deeper than denial about hurricanes. Just maybe Kerry Emanuel will help us come to terms with both. We need more centrist scientists to come forward, now that the data are in. Here, listen: “There is no doubt that in the last 20 years, the earth has been warming up. And it's warming up much too fast to ascribe to any natural process we know about”. (Kerry Emanuel, NY Times, 10 January, 2006).
Hurricanes have indeed always been with us, they have always been born from hot tropical seas, and they have often slammed into land. But thanks to Dr. Emanuel we can all learn more about their savage beauty. And now he has shown us there is something new about them, that hurricane power in the Atlantic has more than doubled in the past 30 years. He and his colleagues are still working out how things could have gotten so much worse so fast, but Dr. Emanuel regretfully concludes that we humans are partly to blame. We warmed the seas, and that has changed the hurricane. Let’s not forget.
Eric Olson, PhD, Adjunct Professor of Ecology in the Sustainable International Development Program at the Heller School, Brandeis University, is Chair of the Energy Committee of the Green Decade Coalition.
This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Learning Lessons From the Wind
0
comments
Topics:
Climate and Energy
Keeping stormwater out of the Charles
By Anna Eleria / Special To The Tab
Stormwater pollution, also referred to as non-point source pollution, is one of the most significant sources of pollution of the Charles River today. CRWA is taking the lead in reducing it with a new volunteer program called the Charles River “Find It and Fix It”
Stormwater Program.<!--[if gte vml 1]>
Dave Kaplan, CRWA scientist, doing a Charles River shoreline survey in Newton |
For the next two and a half years with funding from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, the “Find It and Fix It” Program will recruit and train volunteers to assist in inspecting the river through visual surveying and water quality monitoring in order to identify areas in need of repair. Their reports will direct CRWA scientists to areas with pressing problems and help pinpoint the areas needing further study or initiate immediate calls for action so that municipalities and landowners can fix the problems.CRWA volunteers from Newton and other watershed communities will be conducting “shoreline surveys” or visual monitoring along a 45-mile river corridor from Farm Road in Sherborn to New Charles River Dam in Boston. This spring, river surveyors will assess the river’
s baseline physical conditions and identify current or potential problems in the river, along its banks, and within the riverfront area. Volunteers will survey by canoeing or walking a half to two-mile stretch of river looking for areas of environmental degradation, erosion, and non-point source pollution. They will note the characteristics of the water, such as color, odor, and flow, in-stream and shoreline vegetation, nearby land use, and fisheries and wildlife habitat conditions. They will photograph their survey area, and they will map and characterize stormwater pipes discharging to the river.Finding every source of pollution is a big job. The visual survey information will provide the basis for CRWA’
s next steps in dealing with stormwater pollution. After compiling and reviewing this essential baseline data of river conditions, our staff will identify and prioritize the areas of most concern and determine the next steps for addressing problem areas, which may include water quality monitoring by CRWA.The water quality monitoring will allow us to focus on wet weather problems and specific sources of pollution, including stormwater pipes and other source-specific sampling locations areas, using a new set of ears, noses and eyes to pinpoint problems. Pollutants of most concern in the urbanized Charles River watershed include- but are not limited to- bacteria and viruses from combined sewage, waterfowl waste and pet waste, sediment and sand from winter de-icing applications and erosion, gasoline and oil and grease from vehicles, fuel dispensing stations and vehicle maintenance stations, and nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from fertilizers, detergents and wastewater.
The ‘fix it’
step of the program involves sharing the results of our shoreline survey and water quality monitoring work with municipalities and other responsible parties and working closely with them to develop specific remediation measures, such as removing illicit connections to stormwater pipes, reducing use of pollutant products or equipment that generate pollutants, implementing stormwater best management practices, educating the public about stormwater impacts to the river and recommending measures to reduce them.CRWA’
s extensive monitoring efforts, including the volunteer monthly monitoring program, habitat assessments and fish studies, have shown that stormwater pollution causes degradation of water quality, wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreational uses and aesthetic beauty. With help from a network of more than 70 volunteers, we monitor the health of the river on a monthly basis at 37 sites along the 80-mile long river.Our data indicate that the river’
s water quality is generally very good over its entire length when no rain falls prior to sampling. However, during and after a rain event, water quality conditions in the river degrade and the river violates the state bacterial standards for swimming and boating. The problem is acute in Newton and other middle and lower watershed communities where urbanization and development invariably mean more impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings, streets, parking lots, driveways, etc.). This causes rainwater to flow over paved surfaces, instead of recharging into the ground, picking up manmade pollutants before flowing into storm drains that discharge into the Charles River and other bodies of water.“The Find It and Fix It”
program will get us one step closer to achieving our goal of a swimmable-fishable river.Prospective volunteers should contact Pallavi Mande pmande@crwa.org, (781) 788-0007 x 232 or see www.charlesriver.org/projects/METwMyRWA/METFF.html. For tips on what you can do to keep the river clean, see www.crwa.org/projects/stormwater/bleedsmallbrochure%20FINAL.pdf
Program and the Charles River Targeted Watershed Initiative ProjectsAn IPM Primer
By Ed Cunningham/ Special To The Tab
March, by mayoral proclamation, is Alternatives to Pesticides Month in Newton. It’s an opportunity for us to think about the consequences of our habit of adding unnecessary toxins to our city environment, to learn about alternatives, and to do something to reduce our use of toxins in our homes, our yards, our places of worship, and our places of business. The city has been trying to do its part. Ten years ago it became the first municipality in the state to adopt an Integrated Pest Management Policy to be followed in the maintenance of city buildings, parks, and grounds.
The term Integrated Pest Management sounds abstract and technical, and, in a sense, it is. The science of IPM is sophisticated, utilizing advances in computing, operations research, systems analysis, and modeling. But in the end it is common sense: it is safer, more effective, and more economical to “outsmart” pests with non-toxic methods than it is to apply pesticides and herbicides reflexively.
IPM is a set of practices and strategies that evolved from extensive agricultural research initiated in the early 1950s in response to pesticide misuse problems, reduced effectiveness of pesticide and herbicide treatments, and unintended consequences. Poisoning pests is not only a dangerous approach with unintended adverse affects, but long term it is less effective than IPM strategies.
The genesis of IPM is long and interesting. For at least 5000 years, a mixture of cultural, biological, and chemical methods have been used in agriculture to control crop-destroying pests. Cultural methods include the rotation of crops and manipulation of the dates when planting is done. Biological methods include using predatory ants to control caterpillars and beetles, as the Chinese did as early as 300 AD. Chemical intervention can be traced back to 2500 BC, when the Sumerians used sulphur compounds to control insects and mites. Late in the nineteenth century the use of inorganic chemicals emerged as the most popular means of pest control. By the 1890s it was found that lead arsenate provided very effective insect control, by 1930 synthetic organic compounds began being used for plant pathogen control, and in 1939 the pesticide properties of DDT were recognized. Based on the insecticidal properties of DDT and benezene hexachloride, the early 1940s were seen as the dawn of a new era of blissful insect control in agriculture, horticulture, and public health.
The first report of resistance to DDT was published in 1946, followed in the 50s and 60s by evidence of widespread pest resistance to DDT and other pesticides. Against this backdrop that systems analysis was first applied to efforts to control crop pests. Economic entomologists and agricultural economists weighed the cost of chemical treatment against the cost of crop loss. Chemicals were increasingly perceived as being expensive and ineffective, and alternative methods of control began to emerge under the moniker “integrated control.” In 1959 a group of entomologists from UC Berkley and UC Riverside published a landmark paper which documented pest resistance to pesticides, the destruction of natural enemies, the resurgence of treated species, the appearance of new pests, as well as health hazards resulting from toxic residues and the misuse of chemicals. By 1967 “integrated control” had broadened to encompass not only biological and chemical control, but also climatic factors, cultural control, plant growth analysis, and modeling. UC Berkley entomologists RF Smith and R van der Bosch introduced the term “Integrated Pest Management” to reflect the broadened scope of the science. Two years later the US National Academy of Sciences formalized the term, and within a few more years BS, MS, and PhD degrees were offered in the subject.
In the 1980s the principles and practices which had been developed for agricultural and forestry applications began to be used in urban sites such as schools, parks, hospitals, and nursing homes. The list of what was categorized as pests had grown to include rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, cockroaches, wasps, yellow jackets, mosquitoes, lice, bed bugs, bats, moths, fleas, flies, birds, ants, termites, grubs, crabgrass, poison ivy--any living thing which causes a problem when it shows up where we don’t want it to be.
IPM deals with pests by identifying the problem pest and then formulating the best plan for removing the problem. Techniques include regular cleaning, eliminating access, controlling the temperature of the environment, removing water sources, ensuring that food is properly stored, and routine monitoring. EPA and USDA (Department of Agriculture) websites provide copious information on IPM symposiums, grants, and newsletters, as well as a Pest Management Strategic Plans database, an IPM Expertise database, and links to topics such as “Current PM Research” and “Information on pesticide use.” When necessary, careful and judicious chemical treatments are part of the IPM program, but they are only used when natural mortality agents are inadequate and the pesticides used allow natural enemies of the target pest to survive treatment.
Look for an article next month on Newton’s IPM policy, the work that has been done over the past ten years, and the work which remains.
0
comments
Topics:
Health and Pollution
Don’t Poison Your Children and Pets
By Gilbert Woolley/ Special To The Tab
This is the time of year when the poison salesmen are at their most active. They want to sign you up to have your lawn regularly sprayed with a liquid that contains synthetic fertilizers and also chemical poisons dangerous to children and pets. Of course these chemicals are also harmful to adults, but children and pets typically come into more and closer contact with a lawn, and children are more sensitive to small amounts of poisons. The poisons are also tracked into the home on footwear and by pets, so that a baby playing on the carpet can come in contact with them.
The lawn care industry warns you to keep off the lawn until the grass is dry and for 24 hours after application. However, when the lawn is watered either by rain or sprinkler the dry ingredients become liquid again. Furthermore, if the ingredients are "safe" after 24 hours, then presumably they are also ineffective against insects.
The non-fertilizer ingredients of lawn care products are designed to kill insects and "undesirable" broad-leaved plants, such as dandelions. As some of the same "building blocks" of life are present in humans, mammals, insects and even plants, it is a good conservative assumption that any chemical harmful to one form of life is likely to be harmful to other forms, including pets and humans and, most critically, to humans still in the womb. Also, when you kill insect predators that eat the undesirable insects and the birds that eat the insects, you must then rely exclusively on chemicals to keep undesirable insects in check.
Half of the 32 pesticides typically used by lawn care providers are recognized as likely or potential carcinogens, and there are many documented cases of children and animals becoming ill after coming into contact with treated lawns. It has been claimed, although not yet statistically validated, that women living in suburban homes with lawns subjected to "lawn care "have a higher rate of breast cancer and perhaps other cancers.
In the United States more than seventy million pounds of pesticides and herbicides are sprayed on lawns, trees and shrubs each year, and much of this finds its way into groundwater, rivers and streams and drinking water. Lawn care products are a major source of chemical pollution in the US, but the use of these products is simply not necessary. Organic treatments are available which do not poison your lawn or the environment, and there are many contractors who apply them, utilizing "Integrated Pest Management" (IPM). An article describing how IPM is being implemented by the City of Newton can be found in this month’s Environment page.
How important is it to have a "perfect lawn" and does it justify the dangers to yourself, children and pets? My lawn has never been treated with pesticides or herbicides. It's not "perfect"; there are small patches of clover, but no dandelions. The secret is that every morning I look for dandelion flowers, which are not hard to see. When I am in a hurry, I just pull off the flowers and put them in the trash. If I have time, I uproot the plant with a small two-pronged tool. At first, when there were a lot of dandelions, this required some time and effort but now, one or two dandelions a day is the most I see. If you stop them seeding they cannot reproduce. My neighbor has dandelions, but the flying seeds rarely travel very far. Sometimes I deflower my neighbor's dandelions that are near my driveway.
If you want to have a beautiful lawn and don't want to use poisons, the first thing to do is to make sure that you have sufficient depth of healthy soil to support a healthy lawn. The builder of my house had dumped debris on the garden and covered it with a couple of inches of soil. I replaced this muck with six inches of topsoil and compost, and seeded it. With a sufficient depth of healthy soil you need to water much less. In the summer of 2005 I did not have to water the lawn even once.
Toxics Action Center, www.toxicsaction.org, is leading the campaign in New England to stop the use of possible carcinogens in lawn care treatment.
0
comments
Topics:
Health and Pollution
