American Forests’ Statement on President’s FY20 Budget Proposal Implements Wildfire Funding Fix, But Slashes Cooperative Forestry and Forest Research The White House budget plan released on Monday, March 11, 2019 proposes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts for the Fiscal Year 2020 beginning on October 1, 2019. This includes a proposed 15 percent cut to the Department of Agriculture and 14 percent cut to
This is a thread for collecting the oddball theories, tinfoil hat level conspiracies and other climate-related nonsense in the comments that would otherwise derail substantive discussion. Keeping them all in one spot might be of interest to future researchers.
American Forests Reflects on Florence Harding During 2019 International Women’s Day
Perhaps Florence Mabel Harding isbest remembered as the First Lady of the United States and as the wife of President Warren G. Harding.
However, American Forests would also like to recognize her role as Vice President and board member of our organization during her time as First Lady.
On April 30, 1921, First Lady Florence Harding arrived at the American Forest headquarters at 1214 16th Street NW in Washington, DC, trowel in hand, to lend presidential appeal to a memorial tree ceremony. Later, she used the tool to plant memorial trees in front of the Library of Congress, at her Ohio home and in York, Pennsylvania.
The trowel itself has a storied journey, used at the Pan-American Conference of Women and at other tree plantings throughout the country.
Today, Florence Harding’strowel is kept safe at American Forests’headquarters in Washington, DC. We are grateful tothe former First Lady for her dedication and service and formemorializingthose who have fallen and expressing that gratitude through the power of trees.
American Forests Responds to the CAL FIRE 45-Day Report
On March 5, 2019, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) presented Governor Gavin Newsom with a 45-day reportthat includesa list of 35 strategically defined projects to maximize safety and improve forest health. These projects include immediate opportunities as well as longer-term projects.
“Restoring forest health and resilience in the Sierra Nevada is urgently needed to protect the climate, water, people, and wildlife benefits these forests provide local residents and people across California,” saidJad Daley, President, and CEO of American Forests. “We commend the actions recommended in this report asexcellent steps to immediately begin to protect California’s most vulnerable communities and forests,”
In California, the length of the fire season has increased by 75 days across the Sierra Nevada. And the state can expect to experience longer fire seasons, increase frequency and severity of drought, greater acreage burned and the related impact such as widespread tree mortality and bark beetle infestations. It is estimated that as many as 15 million acres of California fire forest need some form of restoration.
“In some places, we may only have a decade to reverse trends and create healthy and resilient forests into the future,” said Daley. “American Forests is very proud to partner with CAL FIRE as well as other agencies and non-government stakeholders to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration in these challenging times. We look forward to furthering actions based on CAL FIRE’s recent findings.”
American Forests is the nation’s first forest organization, founded in 1875, and has completed more of its forest restoration projects in California than any other state. American Forests is represented in California by Brittany Dyer, California State Director, who is the co-chair of the State of California’s Tree Mortality Task Force.
###
About American Forests
Founded in 1875, American Forests is the nation’s oldest conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring America’s forests, but our work today is more important than ever because forests are a natural climate solution. Since 1990 alone, we have planted over 60 million trees in forest restoration projects in all 50 U.S. states. We have also worked in dozens of cities across America, expanding tree canopy and making our communities more sustainable, beautiful, and livable. Together, these projects recover hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, safeguard vital watersheds, absorb millions of tons of greenhouse gases and protect some of the most stunning landscapes in America.
Sometimes climate change fatigue sets in. It’s a challenge to stay engaged due to the overwhelming scope of the problem and the entrenched forces of greed that promote ignorance. But, three things point to 2019 being the year the tide turns in a big way. First, a seemingly never ending stream of environmental disasters made worse by climate change, convinces people that climate change will affect them personally; second, alternative energy is making big gains in contributing to the world’s energy mix; and third, a new congress, infused with younger representatives with new ideas and an acceptance of the science behind catastrophic climate change will drive political action. In this post we will go over some of the major stories of 2018 that stood out. Read More …
On February 26th, 2019 the House Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies heard from more than 40 witnesses composed of members of the public, nonprofit organizations, and state and local agencies. The ranking chair of the subcommittee Minnesota’s Congresswoman Betty McCollum was eager to hear the priorities from the vast group of witnesses including American Forests’ Vice President of Policy Alix Murdoch.
“I look forward to our discussions on these issues because I believe it will help to inform us as we begin to develop the 2020 appropriations bill,” Congresswoman McCollum said in a statement.
“This year, the nation witnessed loss and destruction from wildfire at levels we have never seen before. In fact, over the last decade, each year has been worse than the last, and this trajectory shows no signs of changing,” Alix Murdoch shared in her testimony. “More active forest management will require increased federal and private investment and level of effort sufficient to halt this crisis.”
Alix encouraged appropriations increases for 6critical programs that together could quickly increase the pace and scale of harvesting dead and dying trees, reforestation, reintroducing controlled fire and other measures needed to address the crisis facing the nation’s forests. The full text of Alix Murdoch’s written testimony is foundhere (external link to house.gov).
Click here to watch the hearing on Youtube beginning at 19:05.
Alix oversees the formation of American Forests’ policy agenda, government relations, and advocacy efforts. She is a graduate of Hamilton College and Catholic University Columbus School of Law and is licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland. She also co-chairs the Agriculture Management Committee for the American Bar Association’s Section on Energy and Environment and is a member of the Women’s Council on Energy and the Environment.
Public Lands Foundation President Edward Shepard and Society of American Foresters CEO Terry Bakertestified on the panel with Alix Murdoch (photo above).
American Forests and Microsoft co-hosted a Native Desert Plant Restoration on the morning of February 26th at North Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona.
In collaboration with the Arizona Sustainability Alliance, American Forests’ local implementation partner, around fifty (50) volunteers from all around the country came together to plant trees, cacti, and other native desert vegetation to help restore the natural landscape at North Mountain Park. The park is a part of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve which offers a wide array of trail options for hikers of all abilities and boasts two of the best summit climbs in Phoenix.
Volunteers included local community members and stakeholders, Microsoft employees, and attendees of GreenBiz 19.
American Forests plants millions of trees each year in eight threatened and endangered priority landscapes and promotes urban forestry in 20 cities across the country.
To achieve these goals, American Forests is proud to partner with good corporate citizens like Microsoft, who take environmental stewardship seriously and help enable American Forests to accomplish its mission to create healthy and resilient forests as a natural climate solution.
The “end of the world” or “good for you” are the two least likely among the spectrum of potential outcomes.
Stephen Schneider
Scientists have been looking at best, middling and worst case scenarios for anthropogenic climate change for decades. For instance, Stephen Schneider himself took a turn back in 2009. And others have postulated both far more rosy and far more catastrophic possibilities as well (with somewhat variable evidentiary bases).
This question came up last year in the wake of a high profile piece “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells in New York magazine. That article was widely read, and heavily discussed on social media – notably by David Roberts, Mike Mann and others, was the subjected to a Climate Feedback audit, a Salon Facebook live show with Kate Marvel and the author, and a Kavli conversation at NYU with Mike Mann this week as well. A book length version is imminent.
In a similar vein, Eric Holthaus wrote “Ice Apocalypse” about worst-case scenarios of Antarctic ice sheet change and the implications for sea level rise. Again, this received a lot of attention and some serious responses (notably one from Tamsin Edwards).
It came up again in discussions about the 4th National Assessment Report which (unsurprisingly) used both high and low end scenarios to bracket plausible trajectories for future climate.
However, I’m not specifically interested in discussing these articles or reports (many others have done so already), but rather why it always so difficult and controversial to write about the worst cases.
There are basically three (somewhat overlapping) reasons:
The credibility problem: What are the plausible worst cases? And how can one tell?
The reticence problem: Are scientists self-censoring to avoid talking about extremely unpleasant outcomes?
The consequentialist problem: Do scientists avoid talking about the most alarming cases to motivate engagement?
These factors all intersect in much of the commentary related to this topic (and in many of the articles linked above), but it’s useful perhaps to tackle them independently.
1. Credibility
It should go without saying that imagination untethered from reality is not a good basis for discussing the future outside of science fiction novels. However, since the worst cases have not yet occurred, some amount of extrapolation, and yes, imagination, is needed to explore what “black swans” or “unknown unknowns” might lurk in our future. But it’s also the case that extrapolations from incorrect or inconsistent premises are less than useful. Unfortunately, this is often hard for even specialists to navigate, let alone journalists.
To be clear, “unknown unknowns” are real. A classic example in environmental science is the Antarctic polar ozone hole which was not predicted ahead of time (see my previous post on that history) and occurred as a result of chemistry that was theoretically known about but not considered salient and thus not implemented in predictions.
Possible candidates for “surprises in the greenhouse”, are shifts in ecosystem functioning because of the climate sensitivity of an under-appreciated key species (think pine bark beetles and the like), under-appreciated sensitivities in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, or the North Atlantic overturning, and/or carbon feedbacks in the Arctic. Perhaps more important are the potential societal feedbacks to climate events – involving system collapses, refugee crises, health service outages etc. Strictly speaking these are “known unknowns” – we know that we don’t know enough about them. Some truly “unknown unknowns” may emerge as we get closer to Pliocene conditions of course…
But some things can be examined and ruled out. Imminent massive methane releases that are large enough to seriously affect global climate are not going to happen (there isn’t that much methane around, the Arctic was warmer than present both in the early Holocene and last interglacial and nothing similar has occurred). Neither will a massive oxygen depletion event in the ocean release clouds of hydrogen sulfide poisoning all life on land. Insta-freeze conditions driven by a collapse in the North Atlantic circulation (cf. “The Day After Tomorrow”) can be equally easily discounted.
Importantly, not every possibility that ever gets into a peer reviewed paper is equally plausible. Assessments do lag the literature by a few years, but generally (but not always) give much more robust summaries.
2. Reticence
The notion that scientists are so conservative that they hesitate to discuss dire outcomes that their science supports is quite prevalent in many treatments of worst case scenarios. It’s a useful idea, since it allows people to discount any scientists that gainsay a particularly exciting doomsday mechanism (see point #1), but is it actually true?
There have been two papers that really tried to make this point, one by Hansen (2007) (discussing the ‘scientific reticence’ among ice sheet modelers to admit to the possibility of rapid dynamic ice loss), and more recently Brysse et al (2013) who suggest that scientists might be ‘erring on the side of least drama’ (ESLD). Ironically, both papers couch their suggestions in the familiar caveats that they are nominally complaining about.
I am however unconvinced by this thesis. The examples put forward (including ice sheet responses and sea level rise, and a failed 1992 prediction of Arctic ozone depletion, etc) demonstrate biases towards quantitative over qualitative reasoning, and serve as a lesson in better caveating contingent predictions, but as evidence for ESLD they are weak tea.
There are plenty of scientists happy to make dramatic predictions (with varying levels of competence). Wadhams and Mislowski made dramatic predictions of imminent Arctic sea ice loss in the 2010s (based on nothing more than exponential extrapolation of a curve) with much misplaced confidence. Their critics (including me) were not ESLD when they pointed out the lack of physical basis in their claims. Similarly, claims by Keenlyside et al in 2008 of imminent global cooling were dramatic, but again, not strongly based in reality. But these critiques were not made out of a fear of more drama. Indeed, we also made dramatic predictions about Arctic ozone loss in 2005 (but that was skillful).
The recent interest in ice shelf calving as a mechanism of rapid ice loss (see Tamsin’s blog) was marked by a dramatic claim based on quantitative modelling, later tempered by better statistical analysis (not by a desire to minimise drama).
Thus while this notion is quite resistant to being debunked (because of course the reticent scientists aren’t going to admit this!), I’m not convinced that there is any such pattern behind the (undoubted) missteps that have occurred in writing the IPCC reports and the like.
3. Consequentialism
The last point is similar in appearance to the previous, but has a very different basis. Recent social science research (for instance, as discussed by Mann and Hasool (also here)) suggests that fear-based messaging is not effective at building engagement for solving (or mitigating) long-term ‘chronic’ problems (indeed, it’s not clear that panic and/or fear are the best motivators for any constructive solutions to problems). Thus an argument has been made that, yes, scientists are downplaying worst case scenarios, but not because they have a personal or professional aversion to drama (point #2), but because they want to motivate the general public to become engaged in climate change solutions and they feel that this is only possible if there is hope of not only averting catastrophe but also of building a better world.
Curiously, on this reading, the scientists could find themselves in a reverse double ethical bind – constrained to minimize the consequences of climate change in order to build support for the kind of actions that could avert them.
However, for this to be a real motivation, many things need to be true. It would have to widely accepted that downplaying seriously bad expected consequences would indeed be a greater motivation to action, despite the risk of losses of credibility should the ruse be rumbled. It would also need the communicators who are expressing hope (and/or courage) in the face of alarming findings to be cynically promoting feelings that they do not share. And of course, it would have to be the case that actually telling the truth would be demotivating. The evidence for any of this seems slim.
Summary
To get to the worst cases, two things have to happen – we have to be incredibly stupid and incredibly unlucky. Dismissing plausible worst case scenarios adds to the likelihood of both. Conversely, dwelling on impossible catastrophes is a massive drain of mental energy and focus. But the fundamental question raised by the three points above is who should be listened to and trusted on these questions?
It seems clear to me that attempts to game the communication/action nexus either through deliberate scientific reticence or consequentialism are mostly pointless because none of us know with any certainty what the consequences of our science communication efforts will be. Does the shift in the Overton window from high profile boldness end up being more effective than technical focus on ‘achievable’ incremental progress or does the backlash shut down possibilities? Examples can be found for both cases. Do the millions of extra eyes that see a dramatic climate change story compensate for technical errors or idiosyncratic framings? Can we get dramatic and widely read stories that don’t have either? These are genuinely difficult questions whose solutions lie far outside the expertise of any individual climate scientist or communicator.
My own view is that scientists generally try to do the right thing, sharing the truth as best they see it, and so, in the main are neither overly reticent nor are they playing a consequentialist game. But it is also clear that with a wickedly complex issue like climate it is easy to go beyond what you know personally to be true and stray into areas where you are less sure-footed. However, if people stick only to their narrow specialties, we are going to miss the issues that arise at their intersections.
Indeed, the true worst case scenario might be one where we don’t venture out from our safe harbors of knowledge to explore the more treacherous shores of uncertainty. As we do, we will need to be careful as well as bold as we map those shoals.
K. Brysse, N. Oreskes, J. O’Reilly, and M. Oppenheimer, “Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?”, Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, pp. 327-337, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008
American Forests Announces Partnership with Microsoft to Host Native Desert Plant Restoration in Arizona
Washington, D.C. February 19, 2019 – American Forests is proud to announce a collaboration with Microsoft to co-host a Native Desert Plant Restoration on the morning of February 26th at North Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona.
In collaboration with the Arizona Sustainability Alliance, American Forests’ local implementation partner, around fifty (50) volunteers from all around the country will come together to plant trees, cacti, and other native desert vegetation to help restore the natural landscape at North Mountain Park. The park is a part of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve which offers a wide array of trail options for hikers of all abilities and boasts two of the best summit climbs in Phoenix.
“We are excited to partner with Microsoft and the Arizona Sustainability Alliance to restore North Mountain Park in Phoenix for better habitat, recreation, climate change resilience, and more,” said Jad Daley, President and CEO of American Forests. “Restoring local landscapes like this one will raise awareness about the significant environmental, societal, and economic benefits of restoring forests and other native vegetation while engaging community stakeholders in improving their community at the same time.”
Volunteers will include local community members and stakeholders, Microsoft employees, and attendees of GreenBiz 19, an innovative sustainable business conference held annually at JW Marriott Phoenix Desert Ridge Resort to promote sustainable business practices across industries.
“Our mission is to assist in the mitigation of the top environmental issues present in our datacenter communities through partnering with community leaders and strengthening local partnerships,” said Holly Beale, Microsoft’s program manager of datacenter community environmental sustainability. “As an integral and contributing member of the communities in which we operate, our vision is to inspire the adoption of innovative approaches to environmental responsibility and ignite action in protecting the natural and human environment.”
American Forests plants millions of trees each year in eight threatened and endangered priority landscapes and promotes urban forestry in 20 cities across the country. To achieve these goals, American Forests is proud to partner with good corporate citizens like Microsoft, who take environmental stewardship seriously and help enable American Forests to accomplish its mission to create healthy and resilient forests as a natural climate solution.
“Building and maintaining a healthy canopy in the Phoenix Metro Area has been successful because of partners like the ones we have today,” says Ashley Camhi, Executive Director of Arizona Sustainability Alliance. “We recognize that sustainability is the core of continued improvement in the lives of Arizonans and the protection of the state’s natural resources.”
To learn more American Forests and all of our generous corporate partners, please visit www.americanforests.org.
###
About American Forests (Event Co-Host)
Founded in 1875, American Forests is the nation’s oldest conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring America’s forests, but our work today is more important than ever because forests are a natural climate solution. Since 1990 alone, we have planted over 60 million trees in forest restoration projects in all 50 U.S. states. We have also worked in dozens of cities across America, expanding tree canopy and making our communities more sustainable, beautiful, and livable. Together, these projects recover hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, safeguard vital watersheds, absorb millions of tons of greenhouse gases and protect some of the most stunning landscapes in America.
About Microsoft (Event Co-Host and Sponsor)
Building strong communities through partnerships and engagement is an essential part of the Microsoft mission to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more. Microsoft is committed to the long-term health of the local communities in which our datacenters are located. Through the Talent, Workforce and Community Development initiative, we work to build community partnerships that deliver economic, social and environmental benefits.
About Arizona Sustainability Alliance (Implementation Partner)
The Arizona Sustainability Alliance is a nonpartisan, nonprofit with the mission to create and support cutting-edge, project-based sustainability solutions in Arizona. We provide help to a number of cities by cleaning up our local parks, planting trees, installing solar panels, and much more. We are committed to protecting our environment and promoting sustainable living through action and advocacy through civic engagement, collaboration and education. Our efforts are focused in 8 priority areas: Renewable Energy, Adopt-a-Park, Education, Sustainable Business, Water Resources Management, Sustainable Food Systems, Urban Forestry, and Cities.
