Green Group discussion

Want to get everyone's feedback - trying to think of a book for September, and have a few in mind.

Which one of these sound most interesting, and would you be up to read it?

1) Collapse - Jared Diamond (on climate change)
2) Unstoppable - Bill Nye (also on climate change)
3) Swamplandia - fiction (I've wanted to read this book for awhile now)

I was going to do Neil DeGrasse Tyson's new book as astrophysics but when I looked at it yesterday in the bookstore, I had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. Hard to discuss a book that will go completely over my head. :-)

Let me know!

I have already read Collapse. I love all of Jared Diamond's work.

I would read Bill Nye's book along with you.

I am not sure about Swamplandia.

Pick the one you want though. There is never a guarantee that others will read as well, but I found in my readings, I at least had people following along with the comments. Let me know when you decide, and I will send a group mail.

We'll go with Bill Nye - I need to read it as a possible book for the spring semester so I'll get two things accomplished at once. :-)

We'll start September 1.

I have Collapse here but have not seen the others.

Clare wrote: "I have Collapse here but have not seen the others."

Some other month, we'll do Collapse. It sounds wonderful, and loved his other book: Guns, Germs, and Steel.

As well as a fiction book. We haven't done fiction for awhile, and I personally think that fiction is an importanat way to spread ideas on the environment.

Lynnm wrote: "We'll go with Bill Nye - I need to read it as a possible book for the spring semester so I'll get two things accomplished at once. :-)

We'll start September 1."
I just ordered it from my library. I don't promise to write comments, but I will try to read it.

I read Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World when it first came out and really enjoyed it. Sobering, certainly, but with a healthy dose of Bill Nye's infectious optimism. Made me believe that everything can still turn out all right for the planet and the species!

Brian wrote: "I read Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World when it first came out and really enjoyed it. Sobering, certainly, but with a healthy dose of Bill Nye's infectious optimi..."

That's good to hear - I'm thinking of using it in a college level freshmen class - they don't respond well to doom and gloom - had them read Bill McKibben a couple years ago, and it didn't go over well.

Bill Nye is optimistic - I know that they like his Netflix show - Bill Nye Saves the World. I watched a few episodes, and it is fun.

So, I'm looking forward to reading it here with everyone first.

FYI - I just checked both Amazon and B&N - the paperback (if ordered online) is about $12, the ebook is $9.99. Regular paperback is $16.99.

A quick reminder that we'll be starting Bill Nye's book in a few days...September 1.

As for a reading schedule, I thought 9 chapters each week for each of the 4 weeks. FYI - the chapters are for the most part very short.

And it's much different than I thought. I thought that it would be easy reading, science made simple, most things that I already knew. Nope. Although, even though it's not simple, it is put in terms that would allow a person to understand at least the overall concept, if not the details. Plus, a lot of the concepts he includes analogies which makes it easier to understand.

Wouldn't change a climate denier's mind, but I think would be very helpful in nudging a person who knows climate change is real but isn't paying close enough attention.

Lynnm wrote: "A quick reminder that we'll be starting Bill Nye's book in a few days...September 1.

As for a reading schedule, I thought 9 chapters each week for each of the 4 weeks. FYI - the chapters are for t..."

I'm glad you found the science instructive, I found few gems of new insight and only read about half-way through. There's something about Nye's gee-wizz-look-at-science that didn't appeal to me--reminded me a bit of the NOAVA style of cliff-hangers before each repetitive segment. Perhaps Nye's TV show is more exciting. I do think technology can help us through, but don't think we can just sit back and wait for that miracle.

Chapters 1-9:

One, as I wrote before, one thing that I liked about the first few chapters was that Nye used a powerful analogy: one of a house. Even young folks who don’t own a house can understand that trashing one’s own house isn’t a good idea. And most people wouldn’t even entertain that idea. Now, of course, there are many people who don’t care for those homes, but we can see the house deteriorate when they do.

Two, he talks about the pressure of the ever-increasing world population. I wish he had devoted a chapter to the topic - maybe he will in another chapter - but it’s sadly an enormous problem that no one talks about. Many times, even environmentalists. I remember reading Mark Hertsgaard’s book, Hot, and he definitely minimized population as a problem (but otherwise, an awesome book).

Three, he’s looking for technological solutions. On other side, that seems like a good idea. Technology got us into this mess; technology can get us out of this mess. And Nye is an engineer so we can see where it comes from. But I think it’s also dangerous. Don’t worry, be happy, the science guys will find a way out. Even Nye himself admitted that some of the solutions could create problems that we won’t be aware of before we begin our experiments. But they are interesting - I particularly found the “bubbles” possible solution to be interesting.

Four, he talked about deniers. Good to devote a chapter to them. But I’m more concerned about the people who think climate change is real but who do nothing. Those are the people to aim at. And I think he does that well in the other chapters.

Five, when he gave us the history of how humans began to use modern energy, he lost me with his positive and negative feedback and thermodynamics. Maybe someone else can talk about that.

Six, I did understand the chapter on electricity a bit more. And didn’t know that Queen Victoria was the one who brought electricity to England!

Seven, the last chapter for this week was on fracking. I remember when even environmentalists thought that natural gas was a great solution. Unfortunately, not so much because of the escape of methane.

Anne,

Bill Nye annoys me as well. I have difficulty watching his show.

But ... lots of people like him. I know my students love his show. And if he gets people interested in science and in climate change, it's all good.

Which is why I wanted to read this book. If a person wanted to read more, Bill Nye's book is one of the first they'd reach for. It's also a book I can recommend to people if they want to know more. So I want to know what's in it.

I agree, Lynnm.

One thought about denial. The history of climate change denial dates back to Al Gore's efforts. The Republican party suddenly felt they had to be opponents because climate change was a democratic issue. When I speak to my Republican relatives down south, they always go back to battling Gore. What a shame.

Denials come in all sorts of packages.

Depending on how far advanced we think we are, it could be stated that the people who say their grandchildren are the ones who are going to take the hit from climate change are in denial that it started a long time ago and has been steadily changing the course of history into a program of diminishing returns for anything we have been doing for awhile now.

Thinking that green house gases, dirty power generation, and dirty transportation solutions are the main culprits when they have nothing to do with the micro chip plastic cocoon we have wrapped ourselves in or the steady conversion of the natural land into plots of dead property for uses ranging from industrial, farming, manufacturing, housing, entertainment, retail, parking, dumping things we don't want or can't use anymore.

The population of pathogens is rising in the insect populations' bodies but they are only the messengers not the source of the calamities they signal, and yet a our first response is to wipe them out.

We only address the symptoms of our problems. It seems like the causes of our problems are protected by a very strong system of denials that start where the line is drawn between us making a profit and having to share so much that don't have enough to pay for the price of maintaining a level of comfort that we have confused with the concept of responsibility.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wd4mZgchhik...

https://www.ecowatch.com/bill-nye-hur...

Having trouble getting through this book, and that rarely happens to me.

Too much complicated science (at least for me!)

In the last chapters that I read, he was discussing nuclear energy. I understand why he seems to lean towards nuclear energy at times (no carbon in the air), but the radioactive toxic waste (to me) is a non-starter. He does discuss those issues, but it didn't seem to me that he put enough emphasis on that.

It doesn't appear that others are reading it, but if you are still hanging in there, what do you think?

My library screwed up on their interlibrary loan slip, so I have to wait still. It will be either this Wednesday or the next one. Then I hope to jump in. Hang in there, Lynnm. Keep doing the best you can.

Just received my copy today from the library. By the way, I am a big believer in signing out books from the library because future books are often ordered based on demand.

Bill Nye's goal in his books and videos is to reach a large audience. So if people are not understanding the science, that is not a good sign. I have always predicted that when things get bad, it is so much easier to turn to superstition and ignorance rather than science. Science requires a lot of effort and work to understand it.

I like the idea of a house image to start off. Everyone can understand it. Of course, a lot of people live in messy houses, so maybe it won't work.

He shows overpopulation in indirect ways as well. He sees a sign in Bejing about serving 1 and 1/4 billion servings of "Peking Duck." We get the hint.

I love how he gives a shoutout to cyanobacteria. People have trouble believing we evolved from "apes." Can you imagine how they deal with evolving from one-celled anaerobic bacteria? At one time, oxygen killed.

Jimmy wrote: "I like the idea of a house image to start off. Everyone can understand it. Of course, a lot of people live in messy houses, so maybe it won't work.

He shows overpopulation in indirect ways as wel..."
I had no trouble with the science, but found very little that I didn't know (in the 1/3 of the book that I read). Maybe he sells it better on TV. I did like the image of the house we live in, even people with messy houses would find it hard to deny that they have a responsibility to keep it up. The Episcopal (1978) Book of Common Prayer praises creation including, "...this fragile earth our island home"--same idea.

On page 18, there is a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect. Energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere, strikes the planet's surface, and is partially absorbed. The surface warms a bit. The rest of the heat is radiated back into space. But some of it is trapped by certain atmospheric gases, especially water vapor and carbon oxide. It works the same way as glass in a greenhouse. We need that to keep our planet hospitable for life. The problem is that now our greenhouse effect is getting stronger because we keep adding carbon to our atmosphere.

Climate deniers keep citing a 1975 article from Newsweek and a similar from the New York Times as authoritative sources that prove scientists have no idea how to understand climate. I would like to get a copy of that article to look at. It demonstrates the ignorance of the opposition.

People keep confusing weather with climate. Climate happens over many years. One of the great climate change deniers, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, brought a snowball to the Senate floor because it snowed in DC in winter. Climate change does not mean there won't be cold days in summer or hot days in winter. But the total effect will change.

Another argument is that CO2 will help plants. Since 1750 CO2 has been increased because of humans by 40 percent. We are now over 400 parts per million. By the way, folks, 450 parts per million would be a tipping point of no return. And 500 parts per million would mean a dead planet. When Bill Nye did Science Guy in 1992, the measure was 356 parts per million. That is strictly from fossil fuel burning. If that doesn't scare you and your children and grandchildren, nothing will.

Remember this: "There will be no stopping a large fraction of future warming."

Methane is another greenhouse gas. It is being released and will be released as the north warms up.

As long as people in politics and business are making money in the fossil-fuel industry, we have a problem. "Conservative" media outlets play along. This has been a disaster for the "conservative" and "libertarian" movements. They have become enemies of common sense and science.

In chapter 4, he explains rising sea levels in a simple manner. The ocean expands when it warms, just like all water. Some people think it is only from melting ice. Seaports will be overrun, people will be fleeing the floods, our naval bases will be in trouble. Which one do people need to care?

Cities that need to worry: Miami, New Orleans, LA, New York, Mumbai, Tokyo, and the list goes on. They are already starting to build flood walls. At first, only high tide will be a problem. In time, the emigration will begin.

Here are some points that can't be repeated often enough: In 2014, carbon dioxide levels worldwide topped 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. It is clear and invisible, thus it can be overlooked. It is troublesome in two ways. One, light passes through it and infrared light or heat is trapped on the earth's surface by CO2. Two, it lasts and lasts! The CO2 we have added so far is going to keep warming the earth for centuries to come! We want to stop doing this as soon as possible.

Nye warns about methane: Once in the sky, unburned methane is much more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It takes about 500 years for the potency of methane to be "greatly reduced." It leaks out in fracking. At the very least, we must discourage these leaks. Ultimately, we need no natural gas or fossil fuels of any kind.

Like me, Nye is still on the fence when it comes to nuclear power.

Jimmy wrote: "Nye warns about methane: Once in the sky, unburned methane is much more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It takes about 500 years for the potency of methane to be "greatly reduced." It leaks ..."

I don't know where Nye got the 500 years from. According to IPCC report of 2007, although atmospheric methane has a warming potential 86 times greater than CO2 (and therefore is extremely dangerous), it only has a lifetime of 12 years in the atmosphere.

Maybe it was my mistake. I'll double check and get back.

Here is from page 78 on methane:

"Once in the sky, unburned methane is much more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. At least methane breaks down over decades-long timescales. After twenty years, a kilo of methane is 80 times as powerful as an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide would have been. After a century, it still remains thirty times as potent as an equal weight of CO2 would have been. After 500 years, methane's potency is finally what scientists call 'greatly reduced.' But, people, we do not have 500 years to mess around with these troubling facts."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...

Very scary details on the more rapid, dramatic impact of methane as a greenhouse gas. I'd always heard it was more potent than CO2... but this really clarifies the reason, the time frame, and the more immediate implications. Thanks for the info, Jimmy!

In Chapter 25, Nye talks about how agriculture has the greatest impact on the planet of any human activity. And with a growing population, it can only get worse.

He says he was reluctant to embrace GMOs at first. But now, after visiting Monsanto and Boyce Thompson Institute, he has changed his mind. He calls "the upsides significant." Plants can be made drought-resistant or salt-tolerant. In a world of climate change, do we need to agree?

He feels the opposition is based mainly on a hatred of Monsanto. I certainly feel that one. They were responsible for both Agent Orange and Round-Up. Why should I trust them now?

He attended a anti-GMO rally where the speaker called Obama part of a conspiracy to "control minds." That turned him off, as it would me. Most important, the audience seemed ill-informed.

Scientists with those groups believe the total area of land needed to produce food will actually decrease because of GMOs.