ME

ME
Sweat Lodge, Accokeek MD

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

SWIMMING IN THE POTOMAC: I TAKE THE PLUNGE


I teetered on the edge of the dock, eying the brown water and mucky shore dubiously. I closed my eyes. I took a deep breath, and held it behind sealed lips. I hesitated for a long moment, then dived in and flailed blindly for the raft, 20 yards away.

It took me 20 years to take that plunge into the Potomac. Like many longtime residents, I had turned away from it in disgust long ago, when it was most conspicuous as a sewer. In the back of my mind, the river is still the foul thing it was. But I've been getting reacquainted with it. In exploring its rapids and islands and tributaries, I've capsized my canoe a few times. Swimming deliberately was a breakthrough. Even as I stood there on that raft, I wondered if I had the guts to swim back to shore.

The Potomac that I first knew was lined with health notices warning against contact with the water. Georgetown's ancient sewers‑-some were hollow logs‑-poured 15 to 25 million gallons of raw sewage into the river every day. More than 100 towns and villages, upstream and down, followed suit. Keith Fry of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac Basin described the Tidal Basin graphically in 1966: "Debris, from many sources, floats back and forth on tidal waters, which are further sabotaged by silt and sludge beds that bubble on hot summer days. Low dissolved-oxygen limits aquatic life and high bacterial levels restrict use of water for water recreation."

Fry's descriptive powers apparently failed when it came to the smell, which on hot days blanketed the city's waterfront with a thick, dead stench. As a teenager, I fell out of a rented canoe one hot day at Three Sisters--I can't explain what I was doing out there among the fish kills and floating curds of sewage‑-and shuddered with nausea until I got home to bathe and check my inoculation records. I survived, with only a bad earache, but avoided the Potomac for many years afterwards.

The Army Corps of Engineers' solution, appropriate enough, was to flush the river periodically, like a big toilet. A $500-million system of reservoirs, with a 120-foot-tall dam at River Bend, above Great Falls, would do the trick, they said. The project would have turned a beautiful island-studded stretch of river into a 36-mile-long lake, edged by smelly mudflats in the dry season. But the Corps pushed it doggedly from 1946 until the early 1960s. It came within a whisker of being carried out, before heavy lobbying by local and national conservation organizations, with independent studies of the economic and environmental costs, quashed it. (Opposition by bigwig conservationists like Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and Kennedy's Interior Secretary Stewart Udall helped, too.)

But the river continued dying. Not until the mid-1970s--after the federal Water Quality Act had paid for sewage treatment improvements on every stream in the watershed--did fecal coliform bacteria in the river fall to levels less than scary. And only in the 1980s did aquatic weeds and fish populations begin to return to reasonable health. By the 1990s I was ready--but not eager--for a swim.

This was a river that astounded its first European explorers with its wealth. When Captain John Smith sailed up the river in June 1608, fish were so thick in the shallows that his crew tried to catch them in skillets. Henry Fleet, an English fur trader taken captive as a boy by the Necostin Indians (whose name, latinized. became Anacostia), wrote of this stretch of the river as "the most pleasant and healthful place in all this country, and most convenient for habitation. It aboundeth in all manner of fish.... As for deer, buffaloes, bears, turkeys, the woods do swarm with them."

Ever since, farmers, loggers, miners, and manufacturers have burdened the Potomac with wastes and silt, dammed and diverted it, and used its tributaries as sources of power. But somehow those centuries of use have left the Potomac unruined, a stunning intrusion of nature into the sprawlopolis.

The stretch below Great Falls, where the river is forced between the twisted rock walls of Mather Gorge and surges down toward tidewater in a series of rapids and falls, is one of the spectacular natural wonders of the continent. Enter the gorge by foot or canoe, and civilization falls quickly away. Rushing water masks the sounds of passing airliners. Herons hunt in the shallows, fish jump, ducks dabble, beaver and muskrat swim. Farther downstream low islands of silt, lashed together by the roots of willows and maples and giant sycamores, lie along the banks, sheltering shady, twisting channels and backwaters. One might almost be back on Fleet's Potomac.

But human history is unavoidable. Scuff a toe on an island and you'll find an ancient piece of canal ironwork or a refrigerator door tossed down a western Maryland stream bank 20 years ago. And you'll find plastic in all its forms. I suspect that the islands are held together as much by six-pack rings and old tires as by roots.

The waters remain far from pristine, too. Acid drainage from coal mines on the North Branch has pretty much sterilized that part of the river. Farms and factories in four states contribute their effluents. Lawns and gardens, streets and building sites pour fertilizers, heavy metals, oil, mud, pesticides into the river through streams and storm sewers. At the Anacostia River, oil and toxic runoff from city streets and leakage from worn-out sewer pipes give the estuary a dose of pollution that dwarfs anything upstream.

I've gone back into the Potomac again and again since that first swim. The next frontier, I suppose, is to eat the fish. Friends do. Just give me another couple decades.

I Fall on Grass: Not that grass, Buddy!

INSNARED WITH FLOWERS


The honeybees have vanished, along with other pollinators. My flowers should be alive with them, but not a single one has shown up this year. Honeybees throughout the continent are struggling to survive an epidemic of tracheal mites. So too are our native pollinators (bumblebees and their like), according to a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences.


I imagine some of the neighbors have gone overboard with the bug spray, and finished them off.


Gardening grows ever hotter. Nurseries and seed companies are flourishing, as baby boomers, accumulating age and responsibilities, forego nightclubs and recreational drugs to tend the earth. Smith & Hawken's catalog of English spading forks and teak garden furniture was the Sharper Image of the nineties, and only recently went belly up. The venerable Burpee's, acquired offers preplanned packaged flower gardens and yuppie greens like arugula alongside its marigolds and Kentucky Wonder pole beans.

In my suburban neighborhood, every summer brings a brighter show of flowers, as shaggy patches of nondescript shrubs and weeds are rooted up for rosebeds and perennial borders. Peonies, irises, and phlox replace clumps of daylilies. Threadbare lawns grow lush.


The impulse is a fine one. There is no more ravishing vision than Andrew Marvell's garden:


What wondrous life is this I lead!

Ripe apples drop about my head;

The luscious clusters of the vine

Upon my mouth do crush their wine;

The nectarine and curious peach,

Into my hands themselves do reach;

Stumbling on melons, as I pass,

Insnared with flowers, I fall on grass.


But Marvell missed the Baby Boom by more than 300 years. He wouldn't believe how much weight we throw around without even trying, by virtue of our numbers, our wealth, and our penchant for herds. We turn whatever we touched into a Big Thing. It is a sad litany: Our experiments with drugs in the 60s led eventually to narcoterrorism and teenage gunmen. Wood stoves‑-which seemed so virtuous in the energy-conscious seventies‑-polluted the air and threatened woodpeckers with homelessness, until we turned them into planters. Hot tubs turned out to transmit venereal disease. Our cozy homes turned into McMansions and the housing bubble.


Will we screw up gardening too?

Undoubtedly. Most of us are too squeamish to haul manure or hand-pick Japanese beetles, and too busy to notice garden diseases or infestations until they're epidemics. We hesitate to get on our knees to pull weeds (though Kipling likened it to prayer). So we attack. On the highest shelf in nearly every garage or garden shed is a stock of killer chemicals, including organophosphate nerve toxins, fish-killing fungicides, carcinogenic weed killers, and fertilizers whose runoff is killing the Bay. We feel a little guilty, but we use them, turning gardening into war.

And it's not just finicky flowers that receive this kind of treatment. I'm always amazed at the things people spray on their tomatoes and spinach. I'd rather eat the bugs themselves. The lawn services that indiscrimately apply an all-purpose brew of fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and weed-killers to every lawn‑-turning whole blocks the uniform green of Captain Hook's poison cake‑-are a little nervous-making too, aren't they? ("Fall on grass," indeed! Not your grass, bub. Studies show high rates of cancer in dogs exposed to 2,4,D, a widely used lawn pesticide; we don't know about children. Yet.)


I'm no Luddite. I use fertilizer from a bag now and then. Every couple of years I squirt an unpronounceable herbicide on the poison ivy that creeps out of the woods into my backyard. I'm all for electric hedge trimmers, which have released more latent creativity than anything since the electric guitar, by placing topiary, once reserved for millionaires, within the reach of nearly everyone, so every other suburban block has a display of corkscrew yews and poodle-cut junipers.

I'm just arguing for a comfortable balance of elbow-grease and laisser-faire. Give diplomacy a chance before mobilizing the arsenal. Find out what your garden really needs. Those hybrid tea roses, for example, are trying to tell you they don't want to be here. The most plague-ridden of all common garden plants, they refuse to thrive in our climate unless dusted, sprayed, and fertilized nearly constantly. If you saw their lusty 6-foot sisters, nearly wild, in Pacific Northwest alleys you'd be ashamed of your puny, pampered plants. There are hundreds of other better, more vigorous flowering plants.


Some of the best are weeds. Many--milkweed, jewelweed, Virginia creeper, clover, pokeweed, dandelion, Joe-Pye weed‑-are beautiful and useful to wildlife. Some are edible. Nearly all are better for the soil than bluegrass or fescue. Pull them only after careful thought.


Compost piles are cheerful things, easier and cheaper than peat moss mined from Canadian bogs, and relieve pressure on the landfill by processing garbage. Bone meal is great for planting bulbs and perennials, and won't get into the water like triple super phosphate. Sulfur dust kills blackspot and powdery mildew about as well as [(trichloromethyl)thio]-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarbomoxide, and isn't nearly as dangerous to people, pets, and fish.


If you feel you really need insecticides, use them with discrimination. Don't spray just for the hell of it, or because the product's label says to use it once a week; wait until you have a problem. Spray at twilight, after the bees have gone to bed, and avoid spraying flowers themselves. Sevin and malathion, two of the most popular of pesticides, are deadly to many friendly insects. So is rotenone, an insecticide made of root extracts that many of us consider benign, and use freely.


Fall on grass, instead of on a mail-order garden bench of teak (certified dubiously as "plantation grown" or "sustainably harvested," but likely the product of rainforest rape). But first fire the chemical lawn service, and wait a week or two.

Monday, August 30, 2010

IAC Review of ClimateGate Calls for Reorganization and Transparency

A review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) IPCC "climate-gate" emails reports that the science is valid, but the process needs a complete makeover, to bring it up to modern standards of transparency.

Read the Executive Summary here: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf. I excerpted the recommendations below:

"The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate. A wide variety of interests have entered the climate discussion, leading to greater overall scrutiny and demands from stakeholders. The IPCC must continue to adapt to these changing conditions in order to continue serving society well in the future."

CHARACTERIZING AND COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY

These recommendations are lifted from the report.

"Recommendation: The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place." ....


"Recommendation: The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment. ....


"Recommendation: The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their
authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report. ....


Recommendation: The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for
responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a
written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.

"Recommendation: All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate." ....

.

"Recommendation: Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is efficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs). ....


COMMUNICATIONS

"Recommendation: The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately. ....