Geoengineering launch closer to eco-terrorism than responsible activism

MIT Technology Review reports that an American geoengineering startup called Make Sunsets has launched weather balloons and released sulphur particles into the atmosphere in an an unprecedented act of solar geoengineering activism.

Thing is, the idea of spraying particles into the upper atmosphere, in order to reflect more sunlight into space and thereby ease global warming, is nothing new. But it has never been done before on a substantial scale, largely because there are still an awful lot of unknowns, and most people have held off until more experimental data on the potential real-world effects of such an intervention has been collected. For example, there could be dangerous side-effects, some regions could be impacted more than others leading to geopolitical conflicts, etc.

But, for Make Sunsets co-founder and CEO Luke Iseman, that is the whole point. He says that the problem of climate change is so all-encompassing, so critical, and so immediate, that someone needs to push the envelope, and soon. And who better than an outfit like Make Sunsets, which Iseman describes, only half jokingly, as being "partly a company and partly a cult".

But their launch from a site in Mexico - actually a pretty small-scale affair - earlier this year, took place with little nor no public engagement or scientific scrutiny, so it's hard to know how this is going to push the science forward. It is more of an attention grab to stoke up controversy and interest in the field. For Iseman, it is clearly also part of a commercial venture, and the company is already selling "cooling credits" (of dubious real environmental value) on the strength of this latest launch.

Iseman is supremely confident that he is doing the right thing. "It is morally wrong, in my opinion, for us NOT to be doing this", he says, adding that it is extremely important "to do this as quickly and safely as we can". Janos Pasztor of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, on the other hand, calls it wildly premature and highly irresponsible, and barely stops short of labelling it eco-terrorism. Others point out that this kind of unscientific science could even set the field back, reducing funding, and dampening government support for trusted research.

So, eco-terrorism or responsible and urgently-needed activism? You choose.

2022 has seen more COVID deaths than 2021 or 2020

I know we're all trying to pretend that the COVID-19 pandemic is over (except in China, which may be experiencing a ridiculous 37 million cases a day, and crematoriums are struggling to cope with the number of dead bodies). But it may surprise some people to discover that there were more deaths and hospitalizations (and many more cases) in Canada in 2022 than in either 2021 or 2020.

Of the 48,948 COVID deaths in Canada since the pandemic began, 17,997 have occurred in 2022 (which is not even over yet!), compared to 16,489 in 2021, and 14,462 in 2020. Surprising, eh?

More recent variants have tended to be less virulent but, even so, there are still nearly 3 times as many Canadians in hospital with COVID compared to this time last year, which you may remember was the early stages of the Omicron variant. While fewer of those people have ended up in intensive care (or dead), proportionately speaking, the sheer numbers are still staggering. On 19 December 2021, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada, there were 1,489 COVID patients in Canadian hospitals; on 19 December this year, that number was 5,548. This is, of course, to say nothing of large numbers of RSV and influenza hospitalizations, which may also be indirectly blamed on COVID.

No-one has any idea any more of how many actual cases are occurring, but estimates suggest that they may be double or even triple last year's tally. Meanwhile, most people are walking around in crowded public places maskless, and vaccination boosters have all but ground to a halt. How things have changed (and not necessarily for the better).

George Santos, a man of morality (by Republican standards)

If you had an inkling that US Republicans were maybe not always completely honest, meet George Santos, the new Republican Representative for New York's 3rd Congressional District. 

Santos, who narrowly won the election for the Queens/Long Island district on November 8th (54%-46%), has got himself into hot water when he admitted subsequently that he had perhaps been economical with the truth when laying out his education and employment resumé. "My sins here are embellishing my resumé", he quipped, guilty only of "a poor choice of words" (otherwise known as lying). Oh, and, "I'm human. I'm flawed. I'm not perfect." So, to be clear, he never actually graduated from any institution of higher education, not did he ever work "directly" for Goldman Sachs or Citigroup.

Now, it turns out that he wasn't being entirely truthful when he claimed to be Jewish either. He now maintains that he "never claimed to be Jewish", merely that he was "Jew-ish" due to the possible Jewish background of his maternal family. This was enough to rile up the Republican Jewish Coalition, however, which has disowned him, saying, "he deceived us and misrepresented his heritage". 

For good measure, there are also allegations flying around that Santos is a criminal wanted for elder fraud and cheque forgery in Brazil. Also, that he may not even be gay as claimed, (although his marriage and recent divorce are not necessarily proof against that).What are we to think?

Robert Zimmerman, the defeated Democrat candidate for the New York district, who IS Jewish (wait, it's not THE Robert Zimmerman is it, as in Bob Dylan?) has called on Santos to resign and face him again in a special election, now that more of the truth about him is public. Like that's going to happen. Like a man like Santos is suddenly going to decide to do the right thing. But there is a good chance he could face legal action.

Of course, another salient question might be: why did all this stuff only come out AFTER the election?

Israel prepares for a bumpy (and litigious) ride

We know what we are going to get on Thursday, when incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is installed in his position. We know what we are going to get because because the cast of unsavoury ultra-right-wing characters with whom Netayahu has thrown in his lot in order to get himself elected have already stated their demands in no uncertain terms.

Netanyahu knows he cannot form a government without the support of several smaller (and much more radical) right-wing and ultra-nationalist parties. He just didn't garner enough votes. And, such is the man's lust for power, he had no compunction about allying himself with whichever party is willing to play with him, no matter how unappetising their own politics. Netanyahu himself is still facing allegations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, but he is somehow still able to continue as leader of his party. Some of his other allies, though, are even more suspect, and some of the legislation they are insisting on is radical indeed. 

Among the new laws needed for Netanyahu to tie up coalition deals with his radical new partners, are: 

• A special law to allow former interior minster Aryeh Deri to take a position in government, despite being convicted of accepting bribes, and having resigned from the Knesset as part of a plea deal for another charge of defrauding the state of taxes.
• A law that allows ultra-nationalist theocrat Bezalel Smotrich, a "proud homophobe" who wants to impose "Torah law" on Israel, to take personal control of the occupied West Bank, previously under the control of the Israeli army.
• Another sop to Smotrich is support for a "discrimination law" that allows inequity in the public sphere such as hotels and businesses, and allows doctors to not treat patients who defy the physician's personal values (e.g. sexuality).
• A separate coalition deal grants Jewish religious courts the power to rule on civil and economic matters.
• Yet another special law gives Itamar Ben Gvir, the only Israeli lawmaker ever to be convicted of terrorist associations, the new position of Minister of National Security, and also gives him power over the West Bank previously held by the army, as well as to allow the death penalty for terrorists.

These are unprecedented legal moves, even in the context of Israel's non-standard judiciary and politics. They will transform Israel's judiciary from an independent branch of government into a vestigial limb, and turn the country into a partial authoritarian democracy similar to Hungary or Poland. I'm not sure it is quite what voters had in mind when they voted for Netanyahu (although frankly they could have predicted something similar).

Many commentators on lsraeli politics, both within the country and internationally, are sounding alarm bells at what might be coming, and some members of the Israeli Supreme Court are ready to rule against some of the planned reforms. However, one of the other pieces of proposed legislation (an "override clause") is designed to specifically avoid that very eventuality, by allowing a simple majority of Knesset members to override Supreme Court rulings. So, even that possible brake on the new right-wing government's ambitions may no longer be an option.

Prepare for a bumpy ride as Netanyahu throws caution to the wind in pursuit of his sixth term as Prime Minister. But, like a certain American ex-president, Netanyahu seems to thrive on litigation and controversy.

Removing land from the Greenbelt could open the floodgates (literally)

I have already complained at length about Doug Ford's latest plan to undo one of the few good things that have been done for the environment in recent years by building lots of houses on designated protected Greenbelt land. (More broadly, his passion is to undo anything that was done by a previous Liberal government, on the grounds that he probably objects to it in some way; specifics are not necessary.) This, despite reports from the government's own Housing Affordability Task Force, which concluded that there is actually quite enough land available outside of greenbelts, within existing built-up areas, on which to build, and specifically warned against the temptation to build on agricultural lands.

Now, more information is coming to light on the particular areas that Ford's plan is looking to compromise. 

The Conservatives' line is that, yes, they are taking out 7,400 acres of protected land and handing it over to a bunch of developers and Tory donors (well, they don't quite phrase it that way), but, lookit, they are adding 9,400 acres of new land somewhere else to the Greenbelt, so what's not to like? Further, the line is that the Ford government is protecting land that truly warrants it, and that the original Greenbelt boundaries were arbitrary, "based more on political science than actual science", as Environment Minister David Piccini explains it.

Well, not so. The areas in question were incorporated into the Greenbelt for good reasons. The Greenbelt was established in 2005 to protect in perpetuity (so much for that!) wetlands, prime agricultural lands, floodplains and other natural features along the edges of the Toronto area conurbation (i.e. those most at risk from development). 

The parcels of land the government plans to lay open to development are mainly prime farmland, part of a contiguous area designated due to its soil quality, soil depth, and mineral and organic content. At least two of the parcels were protected to the highest level, designated for specialty "tender fruit" crops (peaches, cherries, grapes, pears, etc) requiring special soils, climates and farming skills, areas that are "scarce and unique; if lost, they cannot be recreated". Their removal increases the fragmentation of connected farmland, already a problem in southern Ontario: continuous areas of farmland are considered essential for things like moving large slow-moving equipment along public roads, kicking up dust, and producing bad smells (all of which tend to annoy non-agricultural landowners), as well as the ability to share agricultural assets like grain dryers, food processors and distribution centres. Ontario has already lost one-fifth of its farmland in the last 35 years; our government should not be compounding the problem.

Three of the other parcels to be developed include wetlands deemed provincially significant, and several other areas also incorporate wetland areas. Portions of several of the properties are within regulated floodplains, on which it is inadvisable to build residential homes anyway. Ontario is losing wetlands at an ever-increasing rate (three times faster between 2011 and 2015 as between 2000 and 2011, for example). Wetlands, as well as essential for species conservation and water quality improvement, act like sponges after storms, substantially reducing flood damage risks (wetlands can retain water runoff from an area 70 times their size). Many more potential wetland areas remain still unevaluated, as efforts to officially assess areas have been gutted in recent years.

Almost all of the parcels to be removed from the Greenbelt are located in areas designated by the province as natural heritage systems (NHS), interconnected strands of land such as wetlands or habitat for endangered animals and rare plants, that are at least 500m wide (the connectedness is key here).

And finally, consider the area that Mr. Ford is calling compensation (and more) for the 19 smaller parcels to be developed. It is a single plot, immediately west of the Greenbelt's western border, near the town of Erin, on the northeastern fringe of the Paris-Galt moraine. It too is designated as prime agricultural land, and also features wetlands, floodplains and other important natural features. While additions to the protected area are always to be welcomed, even the Greenbelt West Coalition (an organization that exists solely to advocate for the westward expansion of the Greenbelt) describes it as a "random little parcel" and "certainly not the most threatened area" and "certainly not the area of greatest ecological value".

So, a fair swap? Probably not, if only in terms of the increased fragmentation of existing protected lands. But, perhaps a bigger reason is the precedent it sets. If Greenbelt protection can be set aside so easily in this case, it could lead to the opening of the floodgates, in an all-too-literal sense.

UPDATE

If you were in any doubt at all about the Ontario government's attitude towards urban sprawl, consider that the Ford/Clark tag team has vowed to FORCE Hamilton council to build on thousands of acres of rural farmland that the municipality has set aside for its own greenbelt equivalent. Environmental group Ecojustice has launched a court challenge to try to stop this latest example of anti-environmental government overreach from Ford and his henchmen.

Japan's idea of an animé "prank"

Well, this is seriously messed up. Apparently, Japanese animé characters regularly can be seen to perform what is usually described as a "prank" (he he he) known as kancho.

Kancho is actually an old slang term for an enema, and it involves forming the hands into a two-handed pistol shape with index fingers extended. The fingers are then inserted into the anus of another person as a "prank". I kid you not. It could be another child, it could be an adult, a family member, a teacher. This is considered a cool and highly humorous practical joke.

This has been featured in animé comics at least since the 1970s, and it is hypothesized that the idea came from a vaguely similar Shaolin Temple Boxing martial arts move which involves incapacitating a foe by attacking their perineum (I kid you not about that either).

Funny people the Japanese. I'm not sure if this happens in real life too, but remind me not to go to Japan. Just in case. Oh, and remind me not to to take up Shaolin Temple Boxing either.

Weather terminology is getting more extreme

I know the weather is getting more extreme everywhere as a result of climate change, but it does seem like our weather forecasts are getting more and more dramatic each year. And that's not all due to the actual weather.

These days, weather forecasts are littered with terminology like "bomb cyclone", "polar vortex", "atmospheric river", "heat dome", "thundersnow", "sudden stratospheric warming", and more. I'm sure we didn't use to have these things, but I think that's more to do with a recent trend for fancy terms than with a change in the climate (although that is happening too). It is the meteorology profession trying to make itself sound a little more sexy (or perhaps trying to distance itself from its latest failed prediction), ably abetted by the popular press.

In the same way, we always used have full moons, every month in fact. But now we have a "blue harvest super moon", a "blood moon", etc. The moon hasn't changed, but our press reporting of it has.

What actually is biochar?

I have read many times about biochar and how environmentally beneficial it is, particularly as regards greenhouse gases and climate change. But I've never really understood what biochar actually IS, and how it is so environmentally beneficial.

So, what is biochar?

Biochar is a black carbon-rich charcoal-like substance, produced from burning organic materals like wood, manure, argicultural and forestry waste at ultra-high temperatures, through a process known as pyrolysis. 

The resulting material is lightweight, porous and fine-grained, with a large surface area and a very high absorption capacity, which can capture contaminants and volatile compounds, which are attracted to the surface of the biochar and become attached to it. Contaminants chemically bind with the biochar and are thereby stopped from entering the environment.

It has been known for centuries that biochar helps crops grow by improving soil fertility, soil structure, water retention and drainage, while also adding nutrients to the soil, thereby reducing the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It is also a very useful substance for decontaminating water and wastewater.

But it is biochar's potential for carbon removal that is attracting attention in recent years. As biomass turns into biochar, carbon gets locked inside as a stable solid and so is not released into the atmosphere. Biochar sequesters more carbon than it produces, resulting in a "carbon negative" system, which is a very valuable property in today's climate crisis. Energy crops like switchgrass and miscanthus, or corn or other agricultural and forestry residues, which would otherwise be just waste or (worse) a source of planet-warming methane, can be converted into biochar in an energy-efficient process. 

Win-win: a sustainable solution that also improves our soil in the process.