ENVIRONMENT

JOHN KEAHEY, author, November 19, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What are educated guesses, if no action is taken, on how soon Venice will be underwater? How soon might places like Manhattan be underwater?
KEAHEY: That’s a big problem. I don’t believe Venice will be underwater permanently for a few centuries. Humans will intervene if they can get past politics and cost debate. It’s just a matter of when. The city does get dry through periods and it is a long way from being inundated consistently. There are project proposed to prevent that, but debate as to whether those are adequate.
There are approximately a hundred urban coastal areas throughout the world in danger from rising sea levels. The Adriatic, islands in the Indian Ocean. Some need to be surrounded by barriers. If the sea level roles by one foot around Florida, most of south Florida would be under water. Lower Manhattan. Boston Harbor…
Global warming appears to be a reality and as this occurs, people need to take steps to prevent it. There’s no easy solution and nothing that will happen on a certain date we can all plan for.

EUGENE LINDEN, environmental journalist, February 21, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: If confuses me when so-called experts issue conflicting information on issues like global warming. Some experts predict it is happening, others claim the evidence is lacking. What I do notice is there seems to be political or organizational connections behind some of these experts. Who funds your research? What can you say about the connections of those who argue against you?
LINDEN: Nobody funds my research—my interest grew out of a general concern with global environmental issues. As for the dissenters: there are of course those who come to different conclusions about the immediacy of the threat, though the media has tended to disproportionately quote naysayers with funding ties to industry groups. The consensus on the threat, however, is overwhelming. Last year, Science published an essay by Naomi Oreskes who looked back at a decade or so of peer-reviewed literature on climate change. Of the 700 papers examined, not one took issue with the consensus that humans are changing climate. That’s kind of stunning. Bu the way, the same week that paper appeared, John Stossel interviewed Michael Crichton on ABC’s 20/20. Here was his lead-in: “(Crichton) concluded (that global warming) is just another media-hyped foolish scare. And many scientists agree with him.” Says it all, I think.

JOHN PASSACANTANDO, Greenpeace USA Executive Director, February 24, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Please explain the scientific evidence of global warming to laypeople like me. I read that most scientists agree that global warming is happening and all they disagree on is how quickly it will happen. Then I see on television a feature on how global warming is a myth but then I get suspicious as the experts seem to have ties to industry. What do independent experts state, and what is the general consensus on the global warming problem?
PASSACANTANDO: We know more about the threat from global warming than any other major threat that has ever faced humanity. Thousands of scientists from industry, government agencies, and universities have compiled the best research and continue to do it annually. The threat is here and it is huge. The super-storms of Katrina and Rita are exactly what the scientists tell us to expect more of. It’s climate chaos which means drought as well as floods. It means rising sea levels and the spread of infectious diseases. Exactly how much and when, scientists can only speculate. But the only “scientists” I have ever heard deny global warming have been in the pay of the energy industry, much like the old “doctors” of the tobacco industry.

TIM FLANNERY, South Australian Museum Director, March 14, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: We are seeing visible results from global warming of snow and ice in locations around the Earth and we are already witnessing major ecological shifts in fish and animals in the Artic region. Aren’t these shifts rapid: meaning in terms of reduced snow collection and fish migration: haven’t these changes happened much more rapidly than it took for previous shifts of each such magnitude to occur?
FLANNERY: These shifts are indeed frighteningly rapid. In many instances they are occurring far more swiftly than predicted in computer projections. I’m really worried about the magnitude and the speed of the shift at the poles. They should be a warning to us we need to act sooner rather than later on climate change.

MARILYN WEINER, PBS Producer, April 19, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Have you observed if there are any wildlife changes from global climate changes? If so, what have you noticed?
WEINER: There are definitely changes to wildlife because of climate changes. The example that we gave in the (“Journey to Planet Earth”) show last night of the polar bears searching for sea ice is one such example. Sea ice is necessary for the polar bears for hunting. While we were up in the Arctic we noticed that there were birds such as robins migrating to places where they had never appeared before. This is only two examples of changes that are starting to occur more and more frequently.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, April 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: You saw first hand the tendency of many key Republicans to follow through on their basic philosophy of deregulating business, even when it comes to the environment. Will you support Republicans who continue to favor the interest of deregulation over protecting the environment? WHITMAN: I think the thing we have to be careful about is to always assume that deregulation immediately and inevitably makes an adverse environmental impact. I believe we need strong regulations and enforcement, but there are ways to positively engage the private sector that get us even greater environmental benefits, and where we can do that we should.

JULIET EILPERIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 11, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is China’s role in the (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and what goes the Chinese government state about global warming and whether they are willing to make environmental adjustments that might slow their economic growth?
EILPERIN: The Chinese government has been very involved in the talks. One of the main arguments its delegates have been making is they are willing to pursue significant emissions cuts if the U.S. eases technology transfer to their nations.

MARC KAUFMAN, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 14, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How similar or different on what is being observed in Antarctica being observed at the North Polar region?
KAUFMAN: As I understand it, the sea ice of the Arctic is melting quickly in some areas, while until recently that was true only for the Antarctic peninsula. But a major different is also that the sea ice in the Arctic typically does melt in the summer—with 5.8 million square miles winter sea ice that exist during winter shrinking on average to 2.7 sq. miles in summer—while that has not been the case typically in Antarctica. Also, most of the Arctic ice covers an ocean, wile much of the Antarctic ice is on land in the form of glaciers, snow, and ice sheets. Finally, most of the ice in the world is in the Antarctic.

NANCY H. TAYLOR, columnist, April 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have we focused too much on the automobile in our planning decisions, and how may we change planning to get people to walk, use mass transit, and other modes that pollute less and are healthier?
TAYLOR: Smart Growth and Neighborhood Development ideas are addressing this. There are only a few areas around America that really have walkable communities, but the EC has used this idea for a long time. Parts of London are eliminating cars during busy business hours.
As developers plan subdivisions, they should be required to provide bike paths, walkable paths, and ways that the residents can access public transportation as well as schools with ease. Perhaps as the price of fuel increases, people will begin to think about leaving their cars behind and look for housing that does not require a long commute in an SUV!

SOPHIE ULIANO, author, April 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What cleaning products should be avoided and which cleaning products are both effective and safer to use?
ULIANO: This is one of my favorite topics as its astonishing to realize that often our indoor air quality is seven to ten times worse than our outdoor air quality.
You want to look for cleaning products that are bleach/phosphate-free and are biodegradable; also don’t go for anything that says “anti-bacterial”.
I love to make my own sprays. It’s so very easy and saves a lot of money. I make an all purposed cleaning spray (water, white vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, and essential oils), which is fantastic because it kills germs better than any cleaner I could buy and it totally safe, smells great, and costs next to nothing (recipe in my book “Gorgeously Green”).
As far as store-bought brands go, I like Mrs. Meyers (smells great), Method, Seventh Generation, and Shaklee.

FRED KNAPP, Environmental Defense Fund President, April 25, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I read exciting theories about fusion energy, converting trash into vehicle fuel, and all kinds of long term solutions that would appear to solve the bulk of our energy and environmental problems. How far along are we on developing many of these alternative sources, and perhaps more important, how far away are we from mass use of such alternatives? What are the obstacles in their research, development, and production for the mass market?
KNAPP: There are an abundance of alternatives, but now there isn’t a level playing field, because anyone can throw global warming pollution in the sky without a cap. Once we limit the amount of pollution, and ratchet it down over time, everything changes.
With a strong cap-and-trade system put in place (the Senate will vote on the climate security act the week of June 2—which is strong, though we are seeking some changes in make it even better) alternatives will come to market much sooner. One reason for this is there will be a cascade of money, now largely sitting on the sidelines, that invests and speeds development, once the law sets up a green market that makes clean much more profitable.
CZIKOWSKY: Do you see any major distortions in the free market system regarding the developing of alternative energy sources?
KNAPP: Let’s take, for example, piping smokestack gasses through pipers to recycle the CO2 into the air without cost or limit. It’s the biggest subsidy we give fossil fuels. Once that changes, then ideas like green fuels become much more profitable. If they can make it work for the practical cost they can happen—but only once you cap carbon by law.

ANTHONY FAIOLA, Washington Post Global Economics Reporter, April 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I find one of the most important statistics that few understand is that, of all the people who have existed over the past 2.000 years, half of them are alive today. Isn’t it really a daunting task to provide food and sustenance for this historically large population?
FAIOLA: Yes, but if food production levels had kept increasing (they no longer are) and new competition hadn’t emerged from biofuels, you might be able to make the argument that the world may have been able to cope, or at least cope better.