Statement to the US Forest Service re. Rosemont Mine, 12/8/2011

I made the following statement at a hearing sponsored by the US Forest Service in connection with the proposed Rosemont copper mine.

My name is Nick Kildahl. I live in Rio Rico, Arizona at 488 Ash Lane.  I oppose the Rosemont Mine.

Projections of the Rosemont Corporation state that the mine is expected to produce 221 million pounds of copper annually. This translates to 110500 short tons. Total US production in 2010 was 1,223,000 short tons. Thus Rosemont expects to increase annual U.S. production by 9%; i.e., this will be a huge mine! In the process they expect to provide about 400 jobs and will undoubtedly make large profits. They will be subsidized by the people of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, who will, as always, pay the externalized costs of the mining operation. These include:

            1) Decreased air quality due to exhaust emissions and dust
            2) Decreased water supply due to pumping from the aquifer at the rate of 15000 acre-feet per year. This water will be ruined for human consumption/use.
            3) Increased risk of health problems, particularly from valley fever, due to airborne dust
            4) Decreased tourism; consequently decreased business activity; consequently loss of jobs. How many jobs will be lost so that Rosemont (or the company to which they sell the mine) can provide 400 jobs and, incidentally, make money for its stockholders?
            5) A degraded scenic area; the Santa Rita Mountains are the most beautiful mountain range in southern Arizona. Their only blemish is the white scar left from previous mining activities, clearly visible along much of the length of I-19.
            6) Loss of a beautiful natural habitat for many creatures and plants (including 33000 trees). In its place we will be given a wasteland, polluted with mine tailings and gangue resulting from the mining operation.
            7) Light pollution and negative impact on the research being done at the Whipple Observatory.
            8) Increased truck traffic and damage to roads. How many trucks will be leaving the mine each day? The site supposedly holds 0.45% copper in the form of sulfide ore. To extract one pound of copper will require the digging of 222 pounds of ore-containing rock. So the yearly production of    221,000,000 pounds of copper will require the hauling of almost 50 billion pounds of rock within the mining site. How many truckloads is that?

            9) Increased CO2 emissions, accelerating climate change. The evidence for climate change is obvious now to anyone who is paying attention. Several factors contribute to this:

                        a) Loss of 33000 trees, which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
                        b) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel powered mining equipment
                        c) Emissions of CO2 from the transport trucks. These probably get no more than 2-3 mpg.
                        d) Emissions from the trains that will carry the ore from Tucson to the Mexican coast.
                        e) Emissions from the ore ships that will carry the ore from Mexico to China for processing (talk about globalization!)
                        
Here are some interesting facts. The world now consumes petroleum at the rate of 1000 barrels per second. This is 42000 gallons per second. Every gallon of gasoline or diesel burned creates approximately 20 pounds of CO2, so assuming all of the crude petroleum is burned as gasoline (not true, but the essence of the argument is OK), that means about 840,000 pounds of CO2 are produced per second worldwide, half of which ends up in the atmosphere, where it traps heat and warms the planet.

The evidence of climate change is all around us. The Forest Service must certainly be well aware of this, because it has watched the effects of drought, forest fires, and the pine bark beetle that are direct consequences of climate change, itself the direct consequence of our fossil-fuel powered corporate activities. That the Forest Service is even considering allowing the Rosemont Mine operation to proceed shows a woeful lack of awareness of what is happening around us.  Is this ignorance willful?

The US Forest Service has a chance to take one small step in the right direction here by saying NO to Rosemont Copper. We’ve already gone too far down the path of ruthless exploitation of the earth. It’s time to stop. Your justification for saying no to the project is the Organic Act of 1897, which mandates you to protect the water, plants, and wildlife in lands of the United States. Please honor this mandate.

I for one am tired of having my interests and those of my fellow citizens subordinated to the interests of corporations that destroy the environment in the name of jobs and profits. I strongly oppose the Rosemont Mine.

Nick Kildahl, concerned citizen and resident.

How Science Works

            The previous post ended with a question: Why do we not hear more about climate change from our political and economic leaders and in the media? There are many reasons. The fossil fuel industry has purchased the silence of our politicians; the silence of the news media (have you seen coal, oil, and natural gas commercials on the morning news shows?); and the scientific testimony of a few highly unethical “scientists”. The most notorious of these paid “denialists” is Richard Lindzen, a faculty member at MIT. He is paid by the oil industry to discredit climate science, just as he was paid 50 years ago by the tobacco companies to discredit science supporting the link between smoking and cancer. Richard Lindzen is a despicable human being, but he and others have been effective in confusing the American public and the political establishment about the reality of climate change. Among their arguments is the claim that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists to produce data supporting climate change in order to retain their research funding. This argument is advanced in Crichton’s book, “State of Fear”. To one who knows how science works, this is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
            So how does science work? The training of a scientist begins in high school, continues in undergraduate university, and usually culminates in a Ph.D in a highly specialized area (for example, I loved chemistry in high school, majored in Chemistry at Purdue, earned a Ph.D in Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Illinois). During this time, the blossoming scientist is trained in data acquisition and interpretation, detailed record keeping, and the long tradition (since Kepler, Galileo et al) of scrupulous adherence to moral and ethical standards. I’ll bet that not more than 1 incipient scientist in a thousand has even a fleeting thought about “cheating” (that is, manufacturing data—numbers—to support some preconceived theory). The reason for this is that science is a peer-reviewed activity; an activity in which error is relentlessly sought and expunged; an activity that is self-correcting. This works as follows. A research scientist at a university or a government agency (such as James Hansen at NASA) collects data in an investigation of some aspect of his/her area of expertise. This might be, for example, temperature data from a number of thermometer stations worldwide. Data might be collected for a year, two years, longer. S/he might then combine this data with that of other scientists taken over a number of years prior, and observe, say, that the average temperature seems to be increasing year-to-year. The scientist writes up his experiments and analysis in a highly-referenced paper, which is submitted to a professional scientific journal (such as Science, or Nature). A journal editor makes copies of the paper and sends them to other scientists who are also expert in the field of the author (i.e., peers of the author). These peers study the paper, looking for error, and delight in finding it. They write their reviews and return them, and the editor relays them to the original author (with reviewer’s names excised). Because the reviews are anonymous, they are often quite rude and harsh. The author finds out in often unpleasant fashion that his paper is un-publishable unless he addresses the reviewers’ criticisms. Most authors do this, which may mean more experiments, more data, more analysis, amended conclusions, and so on. Eventually, a quality paper will pass this initial peer review and be published (a poor paper will not). Then the real fun begins. The paper is now “public”, and subject to the peer review of every scientist who is interested in the subject matter. They, too, absolutely delight in finding error. Some will want to use the data in the paper as a starting point for further research. They will certainly begin by attempting to reproduce some of the data in the paper to be satisfied that the original guy did his experiments carefully. Should they not be able to reproduce the first guy’s numbers, watch out! This will become widely known and thus investigated by others, and if the data or conclusions are faulty, they will be dismissed out-of-hand. This is the self-correction of peer review. Please realize that the first scientist did not intentionally publish faulty data. In all likelihood, the data were collected by graduate students who may have made errors in designing and carrying out their experiments. These were not purposeful either; they are simply mistakes. But the mistakes will be found.
            The idea of a conspiracy among scientists to manufacture data supporting climate change is silly because, first, a substantial number of scientists would have to agree to abandon the morality/ethicality that has been built into them for years; would have to somehow arrange that no scientist outside their conspiring group be asked to review a paper (also requiring the editors to be involved); and would have to manufacture mutually consistent data, so that some targeted climate change issue (say global warming) would be supported. Surely there would have to be a few email communications among them in which it was decided who would produce which numbers, and what the numbers should be. Oh, well, it’s ridiculous!

Externalities

The U.S. economy is like a big machine into which is fed land, labor, and capital, and out of which  come  useful goods and services. Of course, something else must be fed to the economy: energy. The energy source of choice in the United States is and has for a long time been the “fossil fuels” (coal, oil and natural gas). Fossil fuels provide an astounding amount of energy. A small volume of gasoline powers your car up a mile-long 10% grade in about 1 minute.  Imagine yourself (and others) pushing the car up, and you begin to appreciate the magic of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have enabled us to build a highly sophisticated, advanced world civilization. Unfortunately, in addition to the products that we value, our economy generates other “things” that are not so nice: mining waste; manufacturing waste; distribution waste; and product use waste (think of the plastic packaging that you discard when you buy a new “toy”); and waste from fossil fuel burning. These wastes are given a name by those economic insiders. They are called externalities because they are considered to be external to the economy, and therefore don’t count! The primary (but not only) waste product of the burning of fossil fuels is carbon dioxide, CO2, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, unobservable gas. Burning 1 pound of coal produces 3.4 pounds of CO2; 1 pound of gasoline, 3.64 pounds of CO2; and 1 pound of natural gas, 2.75 pounds of CO2. CO2 is considered an externality; it does not count in the realm of economic thinking.

Of the CO2 produced from fossil fuels, about half goes into the atmosphere, and the other half is absorbed by oceans and plants. So much fossil fuel has been burned in the last 250 years that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm), or 0.028%, to almost 400 parts per million, or 0.04%. It has been feared since the 1980s that this increase will cause warming of the earth due to the trapping of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2. This fear has become reality. Since 1980 the average temperature at the surface of the earth has risen by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F). This has resulted in an escalation in the number and severity of weather events in the US and around the world. Our weather will become increasingly severe over time. Eventually large-scale ice melting and sea level rise will occur. Most human beings in the world live near ocean coasts, so ultimately the burning of fossil fuels will drive many people from their homes. How’s that for an externality?

There is only one way to stop climate change: STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS! Period. Is it likely that this will happen? What actions are necessary for it to happen? Clearly to sustain our standard of living we won’t stop using fossil fuels until we have a replacement energy source. There are only a few options: wind, solar, and nuclear power. SOPA believes that nuclear power is the best option. Each option has pros and cons, but they have in common that they produce ZERO CO2 during energy production. All generate electricity, which can power homes, businesses, and transportation vehicles. Were we to start now, how long will it take to build sufficient nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel power? An optimistic projection is that it will take until 2040. If we were to start now.

With this staring us in the face, we might expect a sense of urgency within the halls of power. Is there concern in Washington, DC, or at the state level, about the impending impact of climate change? Are legislators writing bills advocating “fighting” climate change by phasing out fossil fuels? Has the President produced climate change initiatives for consideration by Congress? Do the Republican presidential candidates discuss climate change during their debates? I think we will all agree that the answer to all question is NO. The question is, WHY?

The Self-Esteem Syndrome

I've been thinking lately, in light of our political economic situation in the US, about a phenomenon that somehow insinuated itself into the American culture when I was a relatively young person, say 35 or so. The self-esteem of our children became, gradually probably, of paramount importance in all contexts--home, school, social, religious, athletic, whatever. It became increasingly impermissible to do anything that anyone could conceive might have a negative impact on our children's self-esteem. Do you remember this phenomenon? Is it still in play among young families?

At any rate, we taught our children that sporting events were not competitions, but instead were opportunities to try hard and to do our best, however feeble that might be; to not worry about winning/losing, but to enjoy the activity. At the end, no matter who won or lost, everybody was a winner. Everybody got a ribbon, or a trophy (of cheap gilded plastic), a pat on the back, an attaboy. And so we lost our ability, and failed to teach our children the ability, to distinguish quality from a lack thereof. Everything was equally valuable and laudable. I believe this phenomenon had a lot to do with the "dumbing-down" of our educational system. After all, we wouldn't want a student's academic failure to affect his/her self-esteem. So let's find a way to reward, and pass, everyone, whether or not they can read or add 3 and 2. We must not discriminate, even on the basis of competence. To do so verges on child abuse. Recently on the news there was the story of a teacher who duct-taped the mouth of a teenager who simply would not shut up in class. Newscaster/psychologists were outraged, demanding that the teacher be fired, that psychological help be immediately provided for the teenager lest her self-esteem plummet to the depths. When I was in first grade, my inappropriate conversation led to a scotch-taped mouth, coupled with sitting in the corner. I was embarrassed to even mention it to my parents, because it would reveal that I had done wrong in school. Was my sense of self-worth ruined forever? Well, not by that! There was no psychological help for poor little Nicky.

Is anything more at odds with the reality of the adult world than this phenomenon? A coddled, self-esteem stimulated child graduates grade-school in cap and gown, then from a dumbed-down high school with honors, then from a dumbed-down university magna cum laude, to enter the real world of cutthroat, slash & burn competition. What a disservice has been done to this young person. Do such young persons rapidly shuck off the illusions of youth and learn the game, or do they continue to believe that even their failures (not to be called that of course, because they tried hard after all) are worthy of promotion? Do they forever resent their parents, who failed to teach them the first thing about how the world really works? I think here of some of our politicians--yes, many young and of appropriate age--who achieve positions of prominence, rapidly destroy the progress made by their predecessors, then claim that what they have done qualifies them to run for president of the US (here think Tim Polenty; Michelle Bachman; George W Bush although a bit old; Sarah Palin (who quit her governor's post in Alaska)). Think of Christine whats-her-name in one of the Carolinas (the one whom Bill Maher so despised), Sharon Angle in Nevada. Think of our Arizona legislators now, and some of the bills they create. The self-esteem of these people is Everest high; their accomplishments are sand dunes, and in some cases sink holes.

Is the proliferation of i-devices (and i-marches) somehow tied to this phenomenon? I-phone, I-pad, I-pod, I-life. Is the increasing self-centeredness of American youth a consequence? Is this a world-wide phenomenon, or a creation of America? Is this related to the inexorable decline of the academic performance of American students (we're well down on the world list now)?

The Value of Zero

In our system of Arabic numerals we encounter the zero, 0, which we are taught signifies a value of nothing. Zero is null, void. We would balk at a salary of 0 dollars for a job well done. We would dislike a return of 0 dollars on a stock investment (but less than we would dislike a loss!). We would despair at economic growth of 0%.

A new ad for the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric car, suggests a new interpretation of zero: that indeed it can have inestimable value.

Consider some further zeroes; what is (or would be) their value?

0 gallons of gas per mile driven.
0 dependence on foreign oil.
0 ppm of CO2 produced by our power plants.
0 extinctions of species due to human activity.
0 starving human beings
0 mountains de-topped for coal mining.
0 deaths from black lung disease.
0 politicians clammoring to cut taxes on the rich.
0 politicians clammoring to grow the economy.
0 deaths in the United States from gun violence.
0 deaths in the United States from drug overdose.
0 oil spills.
0 terrorists.

Some Facts About Planet Earth

Here are some interesting facts about the good old earth, pirated directly and shamelessly from a recent AARP bulletin.

The planet is 4.5 billion years old.

As the India tectonic plate pushes against the Eurasian plate, Mt. Everest is getting higher by 3 cm per year.

More than 11 million species live on the planet; humans have named 1.7 million of these.

Oceans cover 70% of earth's surface.

Earth tilts 23.5 degrees on its axis, causing seasonal variation (many people still think we have summer b/c we are closer to the sun then)

Forests harbor 80% of our biodiversity.

The last decade (2000-2010) had th highest average temperatures on record.

Global temperature may rise by as much as 10.4 degrees (C or F?) by 2100.

More than 70 million barrels of crude oil are produced each day.

The 806 million cars and light trucks in the world burn 260 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per year.

Every square mile of ocean contains 46000 pieces of plastic trash (can this be true?)

Extreme weather may force relocation of 150-200 million people by 2050.

Known species at risk for extinction today: 18300

Ocean temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees (C or F?) since 1970.

One-third of sea level rise is due to the ocean's higher temperature.

Sea level is predicted to be 3 feet higher by 2100.

Renewable energy provides 8% of total US energy. Other sources: petroleum (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%)

Source of greenhouse gases: electric power (35%), transportation (27%), industry (20%), agriculture (7%), commercial (6%), residential (5%).

In the last 50 years, the average price of a gallon of gas grew from 25 cents to $3.50.

In the last 50 years, world oil consumption grew from 21.3 million to 85.8 million barrels per day.

Average US house size grew from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2377 square feet in 2010.

The ozone hole is predicted to disappear by 2050, due to banning of freons.

The average American accounted for 17.7 metric tons (2200 pounds) of CO2 in 2009, down from 20.3 metric tons in 2005 (although still 4x the world average).

Biofuel could soon be used in jets--is this a good thing?

To tread lightly: buy and eat less meat; set your water heater at 120 deg; don't use your fireplace; reduce your shower time by 5 minutes; don't rinse dishes before putting in the dishwasher; use native plants only in your garden; bank online; wash clothes with cold water.

A New Political Party

We need a new political party with a platform of fundamental reasonableness and fairness. I propose we call it the "Party of Reason". I've started a platform with a few planks below. Please add planks in your comments.

Platform for the Party of Reason
1) All planks adopted by the party shall meet fundamental standards of reason and fairness.
2) Candidates for office in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, and US Presidency shall under no circumstances spend in excess of $1 million during a campaign for office. No corporate or labor union campaign contributions of any kind may be accepted by any candidate.
3) Representatives shall be elected for a single term of 6 years.
4) Senators shall be elected for no more than 2 consecutive or non-consecutive terms of 6 years each.
5) The President shall be elected for a single term of 6 years.
6) Terms of representatives, senators, and the president shall be structured to be mutually offset by 2 years.
7) The congress shall pass a totally restructured system of income/payroll taxation, which shall be contained in a document no more than 10 pages in length and shall be worded in plain English. Features of the system shall be
    a) No income tax shall be paid by anyone earning less than a specified low amount (for example, $10,000/year).
    b) Incomes exceeding the minimum amount shall be taxed in slightly progressive fashion to a maximum of 50%. All income, including capital gains and dividends, shall be taxed at the same rate.
    c) There shall be no exceptions (loopholes) for any individuals under any circumstances.
    d) Corporations, according to their status as "persons", shall be taxed at a slightly progressive rate based on annual revenues, to a maximum of 35%.
    e) There shall be no exceptions (loopholes) for any corporation under any circumstances.
    f) The congress shall make appropriate changes in payroll taxation so as to restore the long-term solvency of the social security and medicare/medicaid programs.
8) Congress shall pass a program of universal, single-provider health care similar to those now operative in many European nations.
9) The US defense budget shall be reduced within 5 years to 30% of its current level. Savings shall be applied to programs benefiting citizens.
10) The Congress and President shall immediately begin to tackle problems of real substance: our gross overdependence on fossil fuels; the development of alternative energy sources; the building of generation IV nuclear power plants; global climate change.
11) The Congress shall immediately inact a carbon tax (fee) on all fossil fuels at the source. The fee shall be based on the carbon content of the fuel, and shall be structured as a percentage of the market value of the fuel. One-half of tax proceeds shall be returned to the citizens as dividends; the other half shall be used to fund alternative energy development. The carbon tax shall be incrementally increased each year, with the goal to completely eliminate fossil fuel use within 24 years (by 2025).
12) CONGRESS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS PASSED BY IT without exception.
13) Adjust government employment ,including the military, to the private sector pay plans. Local, state, and county government employees should be included in this plan.
14)Foreign aid should be curtailed for at least 10 years until Americans can rebuild America.

Please add planks, or comment on those that I have generated.