A tropical storm system over Haiti

Long before Haiti’s January 12, 2010 earthquake devastated the capital Port-Au-Prince and much of the surrounding towns and villages, the country was already wrestling with a legacy of environmental degradation and deforestation that has denuded what was once a richly forested landscape. This deforestation has been identified as a primary culprit in Haiti’s stunted development. It has limited crop production and agricultural output, minimizing the country’s capacity to not only feed itself, but also export agricultural goods. It has also left much of the country vulnerable to flooding, erosion, and landslides, with people frequently in the path of the resulting devastation.

A vicious cycle of resource depletion, economic poverty, and human suffering has been the result. But now some research is suggesting that the consequences may have been even more grave than that.

Last December at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, a team of Earth Scientists at the University of Miami presented the idea that rapid erosion and sediment transfer caused by a succession of powerful tropical storm systems (that pounded Haiti from August to September 2008) may have placed enough stress on the Leogane Fault zone to cause it to rupture. The implications of their research are that hurricanes, and human caused deforestation which exacerbated the storms’ damage, may have played a role in inducing the January 12, 2010 earthquake that killed roughly 200,000 people and displaced millions. (You can read more about the research here at Wired.com).

While there is still more research and inquiry required to fully understand the interplay between tropical storm systems, deforestation, and the stress that surface level changes have on fault lines, the implications for responsible land use management and curbing deforestation are clear. The negative impacts of a mismanaged environment were starkly apparent long before thier connection with earthquakes was put forth.

Check out this short and effective documentary about ocean acidification, an issue that we are just really beginning to grasp the gravity of. The video is the work of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and highlights what has been called the “other carbon problem”.

Still hungry? The next segment in the Harvest series is here! This week we are straddling both coasts with photo submissions from Seattle, Washingon, and Erie, Pennsylvania.

Who is setting the table this week?

Seattle: Mr. Larsen calls Seattle home these days. Plenty of moisture in that part of the world, probably explains the exemplary fungi. As some may have suspected, S. also provided us fish photos, but I believe that will be another segment.

Erie: Our photos from Erie come from Project Groundswell friends: the Welsh family. Not only do they grow their own, they are out surveying the local food scene and keeping us in the know. Thanks!

Seattle, WA

Seattle Lobster Mushrooms - Seattle, WA (Photo: S. Neil Larsen)

Honeycrisp apples in Seattle, WA (Photo: S. Neil Larsen)

Rainbow Chard in Seattle, WA (Photo: S. Neil Larsen)

Erie, PA

Mixed Vegetables from a Welsh Garden in Pennsylvania - Erie, PA (Photo: Welsh Family)

Tomatoes and peppers from an Uncle's garden - Erie, PA (Photo: Welsh family)

Sunflowers in Erie, PA (Photo: Welsh Family)

Mixed pepper in Erie, PA (Photo: Welsh Family)

What do Americans REALLY think?

Dr. Jon Krosnick, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, is a social psychologist who studies how the American public’s beliefs and attitudes regarding environmental policy issues form, change over time, and influence peoples’s behavior. His most recent work offers some important clarity to what has become a confusing public discourse, how Americans feel about global warming and climate change, and what they feel should be done about it.

Making sense of the noise

The last couple years have seemed full of claims that the science behind global warming and climate change is rife with “sloppy” and “half-baked” research, conniving scientists trying to shut out dissenting voices, and “cap-and-tax” schemes that will only empty your pockets and hurt the economy. You may have heard that “The science just isn’t there yet,” or that “there are still considerable doubts about whether the observed changes are man-made.” You may have even heard that the percentage of the population that believe global warming is real and happening is significantly declining.

If you suspect that the noise being generated by those who are skeptical of climate change has grown louder and louder, that would be an accurate observation. But are assertions that a majority of Americans do not believe global warming and climate change are indeed happening actually true?

A clearer look at public opinion

If you are performing the surveys correctly, and being precise with your language to eliminate ambiguity, you’ll more than likely find what Dr. Jon Krosnick has been telling us for several years: a substantially large majority of Americans DO believe climate change is occurring AND they think both government and businesses should be doing something about it.

In his most recent work published this last August, Dr. Krosnick conducted surveys to assess public attitudes about global warming and climate change in three states: Maine, Massachusets, and Florida. He then compared the results of those findings to prior surveys conducted in the same states during the last 5 years, as well with a national survey conducted in June of this year (2010).

He found that the three states closely resembled each other and the nation in that large majorities of the population believe global warming is happening, is human caused, will be problematic for the United States and the world, and should be addressed by both government and business.

The results also show that while Americans are unsure of gas and utility tax schemes as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, large majorities supported tax incentives and rebates for investments in renewable energy as well as carbon capture and storage. They also doubt that taking action will have a negative impact on the economy, and expect both government and business to tackle the issue.

So, why all the confusion?

According to Dr. Krosnick’s national survey in June 2010, the cooler seasonal variations of the last two years increased doubts among skeptics and people with low-trust in climate scientists, making that minority more vocal. “Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today,” Krosnick says on the Woods Institute website. “Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists.”

Dr. Krosnick also points out that this finding is significant since it is tied to weather patterns over the last two years, and is likely to be temporary as temperatures go back up again (as they have this year) and some of the skeptical voices “rejoin the large majority who still think warming is real.”

Another consideration is the role of featuring skeptics (and deniers) in the news media, and their increasing vocality across multiple media platforms and outlets. Although some media outlets have presented side by side perspectives to present both sides of an issue and increase objectivity and fairness, in the case of climate change, the majority attitude among scientists is overwhelmingly accepting of the view that climate change is occurring. By presenting scientists who accept that climate change is occurring and skeptics side by side, viewers’ perception of a disagreement within the scientific community increases, even though that is a false representation of the broader consensus.

It is a safe bet that Dr. Krosnick is not the only one who is aware of that finding.

The important take-away

Global warming and climate change is not as taboo as you may think, nor is it as controversial as some might want you to believe. Indeed, large majorities believe it is occurring, think we should be doing something about it, and don’t think we will adversely impact the economy or jobs by doing so. It is our role to offer clarity to the public discourse surrounding the issue, drown out the disproportional “noise” created by skeptics, and interpret the specifics with sound science, clear language, and consistently firm but respectful messaging.

In other words: “This is real, we know you care about it and want to do something, so lets do it.”

Learn more

For more information about Dr. Krosnick’s research, visit his research page at the Woods Institute website.

What does the Harvest yield look like? Show us!

Everyone eats, so we can all appreciate what good food means to us. Right? If you are anything like me, some of the best moments and memories are defined by the food that shapes the occasion.

Over the coming weeks, we will be featuring food from farmers markets across the country – food from the Harvest. What better place to start than with my own hometown, and one of the country’s top farmers markets: Davis, CA. If you have ever been to the Davis Farmers Market (or sampled the fine food offered there), you are probably already salivating. It’s the best. Just take a peak at the photos below.

Please send us photos of the food at your locals farmers market, tell us about what makes it unique, and what it means to you. We would like to feature as many different parts of the country as we can! So if you in New York, D.C., in Chicago, in Austin or L.A., we are talking to you (and everybody else of course) — show us what you got, and what you are eating! Let us set the table for a national display of freshness, from one side of this country to the next. Its time for the Harvest!

Chilis and Sunflowers - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Berries of the rainbow - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Avocados ready for the table - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Beans, squash, and cabbage - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Cherry tomatoes - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Mixed peppers - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Radishes - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Eggplant - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Cranberry beans - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Sunlit peppers and basil - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Sweet peppers - Davis, CA

Flowers - Davis, CA (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

Sylvia Earle at the Tennessee Aquarium from Nature Films Network on Vimeo.

An Ocean Advocate extraordinaire provides a wonderful and insightful talk about the state of the Oceans, and the inspiration she derives from it. Very cool.

Photo credit: NOAA

Roughly 80% of greenhouse gas emissions are absorbed by the oceans, contributing to this warming trend. As the Ocean warms, it also expands, contributing to sea-level rise.

Photo: Scott MacKenzie

This year’s record heat has been devastating to coral reefs, and scientists are worried about widespread die-offs with devastating implications for marine ecosystems and fisheries across the planet, reports the New York Times. High temperatures cause cause coral bleaching, a shedding of their color, which often leads to their death. In 1998, the hottest recorded year on record, an estimated 16% of shallow water coral reefs died globally. Seeing as 2010 is on pace to be hotter than 1998, there is considerable cause for concern.

Coral reefs are among the richest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet. They provide habitat to some 20% of marine life even though they comprise a much smaller percentage of the ocean as a whole. Their health offers an indicator of how climate change is impacting the ocean – and a foreboding of continued things to come.

More great material from The New Security Beat.

Photo Credit: "KE139S11 World Bank" courtesy of flickr user World Bank Photo Collection.

This time it is a critique from Marc Levy, a former professor of mine, about the linkages between climate change and security. Marc responds to a reporter’s misrepresentation of a recent research paper’s findings about the connections between climate and security. He also makes some excellent points about the importance of precision and clarity in communicating this field beyond the community of researchers and practitioners who are immersed in it. In so doing, Marc identifies the need for expanded study of the many economic, political, and scientific variables that shape our understanding of how climate affects society.

We would love to hear from you. Please send us your thoughts.