Issues of the day

What a goddamn depressing day. Nothing surprising happened today, but it's amazing that we can be ready for something, brace for it, and still when it gets here it just takes the wind out of the sails and backhands our happiness like that dad did to his kid at the baseball game I went to last night (playfully...?).

It starts with waking up alone, something that mercifully happens very rarely to me. My wife is in Hawaii right now on her last few days of pre-job vacation (is it a vacation if it's pre-job? I guess it is, since she technically worked three days last week, but I'm not sure it fits the spirit). She left yesterday morning, gets back Friday, then flies out on Sunday to go to a company gathering for the new job until next Tuesday. This is not the first, nor the longest, time we've spent apart from each other, but I would always rather she be here with me - selfish, I know.
Dear Alison, please don't take the preceding paragraph the wrong way, I know that we both need our alone times sometimes, and I would never want my ramblings to make you feel bad about going on a vacation that I would have gone on too if our situations were reversed!

It's not only sad to wake up alone, but it always takes me a lot longer (something that would amaze Alison, who knows it takes me a long time to wake up as it is), and I hit the alarm for 30 minutes this morning before finally rolling out of bed. Whenever I do this, I inevitably feel ashamed later for the half hour earlier I could have gotten to work, which would have meant a half hour earlier getting home, and a half hour less of time wasted doing nothing, since I'm obviously conscious for that half hour. But actually getting up is so hard.

Today was an astounding day weather-wise. No fog to speak of when I got up, and it was actually warm enough that I was way too warm when I got down to the Castro on my commute this morning for the fleece I was wearing. In fact, it was a waste to carry the thing today, I never wore it again. Beautiful day; I actually took a walk this afternoon for 15 minutes, rather than eating lunch outside or going out.

But at 10:00 the news came in that the Supreme Court of California was upholding Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage that the voters of California voted in this past election cycle. I think that everybody who was being realistic knew this would happen, but it hurts the same. I'm not going to go over again how much this sucks (not really my place because I'm not one of the many people the ban hurts, except by making me feel guilty for being allowed by law to marry the person I love), or how people who are anti-gay-marriage are jerks and bigots and such, because that's been said thousands and thousands of times. I listened to Forum and Talk of the Nation today, which both had shows on this topic. It seemed that the prognosis was generally good for the future, from the law professor who asserted that the court's opinion would logically lead to the State of California getting out of the marriage game entirely (something I wholeheartedly endorse), to the Governator (a conservative! Well, a California/Hollywood conservative, anyway...), who said that it's only a matter of time at this point before gay marriage is legal and equal (cold comfort to people today, as I'm sure Johnson's Reconstruction was to black people after the Civil War). It also amazed me to hear the opinions of people on both sides of the issue, from the pro-gay-marriage (It's religion, religion, religion) to the anti-gay-marriage (Marriage is for procreation, never mind that people who are biologically unable to have children are allowed to get married, and gay couples are allowed to have children; or, Why do gay people need marriage? Domestic unions are the same! I can't come up with an apt, non-clunky simile here, so please provide your own). I personally think that religion does have a lot to do with it, although a lot of people are likely uncomfortable with the idea, or all their friends are voting against it (I was in Williams, AZ, a few years ago on a job, and the folks from the City who we were working for chose seeing Brokeback Mountain as a jesting allusion to closeted homosexuality in a coworker, as in "I bet you're going to go see Brokeback Mountain [you big fag]!" I think there are likely a lot of similarities between small-town northern Arizona and much of inland California), or any other number of reasons that are not based directly in religion. Incidentally, those same City workers, I'm sure, don't go to church on Sunday, or, if they do, it's only for show.

I also had a ticket tonight to see City Arts and Lectures tonight with Dr. James Hansen. No, not the late, great Muppeteer, but the famous scientist. The one that spoke out against Bush II-era administrative censorship of scientific results. He had an interview-style talk that ranged over the science of climate change (no slides, and a layman audience, so you can imagine the scientist in me was left wanting more; luckily, he's a big nerd and easily intimidated - the scientist in me, not Dr. Hansen), although it dealt a lot with the political side of things. Every time I see one of these talks I get really depressed about the future, because I remember that everything I do as a consumer and user of energy is completely insignificant to actually solving the problem, and that the changes must be large, rapid, and fundamental to actually effect change. That realization then gets passed on to the cynic in me (who, though brooding and kind of an asshole, usually rules the roost), who declares such institutional changes to be pipe dreams that only the blind optimist believes will actually happen before things like this and this and this and this occur and won't somebody please think of the poor penguin babies?! No, we as a race/culture are far too selfish for that (I was thinking on my way home tonight that the "selfish" appellation is something that pretty much anybody on pretty much any side of pretty much any ideological debate could apply to the other side; isn't that exciting!) to ever occur. And that, my friends, is a depressing prospect when you know what the person familiar with climate feedback processes knows. A questioner in the audience mentioned, and Dr. Hansen confirmed, that the projection with all ice gone from Greenland and the Antarctic, as well as all ice caps melting, is about 70 meters, or 250 feet, of course happening over a long time frame, although the rate will continue to accelerate should we do nothing.

I took the subway home to the Castro after the lecture and surfaced to loud, thumping music and news vans and police everywhere, having entirely forgotten in my bout of inner composition on the subway (plus, I'm reading a thoroughly enjoyable book about Ireland right now, much better than the previous one, but more on that another time). I went to the Hot Cookie for a treat, more to avoid the news cameras on the other corner of the intersection than anything else. I did not buy a chocolate penis. They had a DJ on a flatbed truck cranking out some truly inspiring volume, but the party seems to have happened earlier in the night, if it ever got going (I'm sure it did; I've learned that people who live in the Castro do one thing spectacularly well, and that's party). There were maybe 100 people in the street then (around 10pm), and some of them were still dancing away. I wonder now, if I could be as down about things that really don't affect me directly, how can they be dancing when they've just been officially told by the government that they are, in the words of Dr. Harry Newman, "less than?" I guess they're just optimistic, and at least on this issue I can see some light at the end of the tunnel, with the examples set by good old Iowa (how did I ever make fun of you so much as a child, implying that all of your residents wore these things?) and several northeastern States.

Maybe tomorrow will be better. Maybe a little Baja Fresh or curry in a hurry will brighten my day.

Why we don't like Texas

I just read a story from Newsweek on the polluting prowess of Texas. I was not at all shocked to learn that Texas is the state with the largest CO₂ output. However, the following did horrify me:
"Were the Lonestar State to secede from the union it would be the world's eighth-largest emitter of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, just behind Canada."
also:
"Texas still outpaces the combined emissions of California and Pennsylvania, the states with the second- and third-highest CO₂ outputs."

That's amazing and terrible and irresponsible and...

"Texans epitomize America's penchant for overconsumption, so much so that they've even coined their own phrase for superlarge portions: Texas-sized. The state's 23.5 million residents use nearly 3,000 more kilowatt-hours of electricity every year than the average American and a higher percentage of them drive large, gas-guzzling vehicles."

"[I]t is one of only 15 states without a climate action plan in place or even under consideration."

I can definitely see that Bush belongs in Texas despite his Yalie pedigree. I recently read an article in GOOD about Vermont's desire to secede because of the restrictive hand of our federal government; they want tougher environmental laws, for one thing. That's great, and I think that states (see California) should be able to enact tougher laws if they want to, and that the federal government needs to get tougher too. My worry with the secession talk (and there is some low-level talk in the South) is that southern states are not very likely to enact tough laws benefiting the environment, and will instead likely go in the other direction, making pollution easier. And we are all affected by the decisions of the eighth-largest CO₂ emitter in the world living on our doorstep.

Do you live in the Southwest?

If you've somehow not heard yet that you live in a desert, you should read this article from this month's National Geographic Magazine that talks about the present and future water-related difficulties of our beloved West. I don't think any of it was really news to me, as a water quasi-professional, but this is probably the most widely-read (amongst laypeople) publication I have seen take a stab at the issue (ha! pun!). Give it a read and a think. You think tap water tastes bad now? Just wait. Also, the writer talked to a lot of scientists from Arizona and New Mexico whose work I have read or am familiar with.

In other news, we went on vacation and discovered a new and frightening quasi-state we like to call New Texico. We have a joint blog post planned to detail this place, which means it will be published in a terrifyingly unnecessary three different locations.

Let me reiterate!

The Environmental Protection Agency is an Agency whose function is Protecting the Environment.

I am sad. The Tigers lost. However, the Braves won. Bad + Good. The Dbacks will be my own personal rubber match.

Putting the "sup" in "supreme"

The supreme court stood up for the environment today by telling the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job (namely, being an Agency whose function is Protection of the Environment). Notice there is no mention so far of this news on the EPA website.
I guess I haven't been following very closely, since I didn't even know that the EPA was refusing to even regulate tailpipe emissions. The pertinent passage:

Three questions
The court had three questions before it.

* Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
* Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
* Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said.

Shockingly, this was an ethics-line vote, as the liberals voted with the majority, and the conservatives voted to dissent. Kennedy made the difference. I love how apparently the EPA was trying to not regulate tailpipe emissions for reasons completely unrelated to the Environment, whose Protection I may remind you this particular Agency is designed for.
Here's my solution: regulatory agencies should be part of the judicial branch rather than the executive branch so that its policies are determined by the law, rather than by the current administration's party. Of course, I'm sure that if the democrats were in power over regulation right now, and presuming that they were doing their job (big presumption!), I'd probably be arguing against that exact change. Oh well.

Boooooooooooo!

Not much in the news today. Just this: Waters off Alaska Arctic to see exploration wells

I can't wait until the day when we're no longer destroying our world to keep the lights on. Everybody should go back and watch the polar bear animation in Inconvenient Truth.

Ho-hum.

Good news! (Baby step)

Check out the news: Australia to ban incandescent bulbs

I covered this subject a bit back on January 20. We've switched to CFLs in our house, but have not lived here for a year yet. Therefore we can't tell what kind of effect this has had on our power usage.
But Australia has mandated that, except for a few special cases, there will be no more incandescent bulbs anywhere (that's the kind with the filament, the round bulb), and that everything has to be replaced with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, which use less power and last longer. Cuba has been doing this for some time, and California may take the plunge soon too. Maybe we should all urge our representatives to explore the options for our own states, counties, and municipalities. The first pebble has started falling, let's turn it into a landslide!

I am listening to NPR.