Fried food, two-stepping, honky tonk music, cowboy boots, and environmentalists? It might sound like an odd combo, but that’s South by Southwest Eco for you.

Last week, the EcoSalon team descended upon Austin, Texas to join in as a media partner in the first ever SXSW Eco, a three-day conference bringing together an “international audience of executive level decision makers from the public and private sectors, and thought leaders from academia.”

Just as SXSW has become a launching pad for new creative content and ideas fueled by a dynamic and diverse audience, the goal for SXSW Eco is to apply the same innovative approach to discussing the most pressing issues of our time. From food issues to the global population explosion to exploring what neuroscience can teach us about human behavior, the panelists and keynote speakers of the conference tackled these topics from a variety of perspectives, providing plenty of intellectual space to grow the conversation.

It’s one thing to gather a bunch of green-minded people into one space and get them to talk about pressing issues, and quite another to engage people outside of our circles on the same issues. “I am here to reach the people outside of the room, and I hope you do the same,” said Simran Sethi, journalist and Associate Professor University of Kansas. One of the main themes that stood out to us during the conference was how exactly we go about doing that. We all, at this point, acknowledge and understand that the green conversation has failed to become the green conversion. Going green has been a bust. But why? And where do we go from here? One popular sentiment floated into the Twitterverse from a panel on how green vocabulary has failed us was “We need a Rosetta Stone of green.”

So, is it changing how we talk about climate and the environment in our marketing efforts? Or are we so wired to consume more and deplete our natural resources, we must begin with psychology and science? Is dissonance and debate between greens – “skirmishes,” as the Nature Conservancy president Mark Tercek much prefers (bristling a bit under repeated criticism in the Q&A) – a healthy way to create space for forward progress, or a dangerously short-sighted distraction from the goals we share? Can we find ever find common ground that doesn’t politicize the issue of the environment and brings people from all points of the spectrum together to save ourselves?

The short answer is: yes. But it’s going to take work. And it’s going to take thinking creatively about how we talk about things like “green” and how we get people rallied around the issues. And it’s going to take words that don’t start with “g,” “s,” or “e.” (Green, sustainable, environmental.)

There’s hope, because when it comes to the environmental movement, we are talking about issues that affect everyone, which means that there’s plenty of room to improve and expand. We just have to rally around the right things, and become as sophisticated in our approach as Coca-Cola is at selling sugar water. As Roger-Mark De Souza, Vice President of Research Population Action International, said on a panel about pressing questions that won’t be on the Rio agenda in 2012, we have to make sure that we don’t have “missed opportunities.”

If we don’t want missed opportunities, we must start with communication. Facts and figures don’t work; relationships are everything. “We need to know our audience,” emphasized Brooke Buchanan, Director of Communications for Sustainability, Walmart. On the same panel, Jeff Nesbit, Executive Director of Climate Nexus, added “We have to learn other ways to communicate about these things so people actually care.” That means thinking creatively about how we frame environmental issues and how we communicate them to the larger public.

But it also means finding new ways to connect with people; focusing on the elements that transcend ideologies and political parties. One of those is food. In her presentation, Sethi presented a Wendell Berry quote:

Eaters, that is, must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and how we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used.

As Sethi put it, “we cherish our connections to food… we do not cherish our connections to turning off our lightbulbs.”

Change, as it turns out, is about inspiring and moving people to do, not only better, but to connect, and the more we separate ourselves from others – be it through messages or actions or lexicons – the more we risk failure.

But there is hope. And in a post-Austin recharge, we’re donning our new cowboy boots and feeling inspired to do good, and we hope you do, too. Just how do we go about this? And what were points of consensus and criticism at the first ever SXSW Eco? Look for that and more in parts 2 and 3 this week from EIC Sara Ost and News Editor Andrea Newell.

We’ll have more on SXSW Eco throughout the week, so check back!

Images: Anna Brones

Main image: Chris Tackett, social media editor of Treehugger, Alex Steffen, environmental thought leader and keynote speaker, Sara Ost, EIC of EcoSalon, Andrea Newell, News Editor of EcoSalon, and others gather at the joint Treehugger/EcoSalon/Triple Pundit happy hour in Austin, Texas.

The space-obsessed were treated to a Foursquare check-in from the wild black yonder last week from NASA astronaut and International Space Station Commander Doug Wheelock. For his efforts, he was told: “You are now 220 miles above Earth traveling at 17,500 mph and unlocked the NASA Explorer Badge! Show this badge and get a free scoop of astronaut ice cream.” Tons of press. Presumably, he’s the mayor of Space – for now, anyway. And for all you future-trippers, here’s something you might want to start worrying about right away. I mean, we do have our green priorities.

Bad news, says NewScientist: ”Space tourism could have major consequences for Earth’s climate.” This based on brand spanking new computer simulations that say soot-spewing rockets (we recently told you about the climate evils of soot) could have an effect far nastier than airplanes, even though the model would have them “belch out” only about 600 tons of the stuff, which is less than airplanes currently bless us with.

This is because spacecraft are so far out – literally: “…plane soot occurs at low enough altitudes for rain to wash it out of the atmosphere in just days or weeks. Rockets expel the stuff at altitudes three times as high – in the stratosphere more than [about 25 miles] above sea level. There, well above the weather, it can remain for up to 10 years,” the article says.

Why should we worry about this? Well “in the next few years,” (ya think? really?) “space tourism companies hope to start routinely flying passengers on suborbital space flights.” Based on what some companies are saying, their business plans in the “by 2020″ column, the simulations were based on an assumed rate of 1,000 suborbital trips per year.

The science is that the soot could warm air in the stratosphere and strengthen currents that carry air from the equator to the poles. This is “not a pretty picture for the Arctic or Antarctic,” says Charles Zender of the University of California, Irvine.

So a word of warning for you green folks who are looking to purchase advance tix for the Buck Rogers express: your eco-priorities might conflict with your moonage daydreams (or Foursquare badge aspirations). I don’t know, though. You might have some time to think about it. In the meantime, maybe stick to “unlocking” where you’re at.

Image: x-ray delta one

Growing up in the industrial Midwest, “California Dreaming” was more than just a song. It was an homage to someplace totally “other” – a shining state on the Pacific, full of light and beauty and forward-looking promise. When it came on the radio everyone immediately forgot what they were doing and sang of being “safe and warm.” It was mild all the time there, it seemed, and they had great pot, a governor called Moonbeam, and even solar power. If I just follow the sun, I thought, I’ll end up there.

While I took a crazily circuitous route, I did, in fact, follow the sun and about 15 years ago settled in just north of San Francisco. Though I’d been coming out here since I was a kid, and had experienced firsthand the progressive gestalt of the “mellow state,” it quickly became apparent to me as a new resident that all was not what I thought it would be. In many ways, massive California functions as a nation unto itself, as divided as any, as susceptible to reactionary thinking, bigotry and good old stupidity as anyplace else. In my time here, I’ve seen some horrendous political “leadership,” antisocial anti-tax measures and, most recently, Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. I often think to myself, where is progressive California? Was it ever even real?

When fits of Golden State cynicism arise, I can usually stop and meditate (yes, I learned to do that in California), and do a quick Cali gut check. Let’s do one now: Three reasons California is still cool.

Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Marijuana

NYT – October 1: A month before California voters decide the fate of a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that essentially puts those caught possessing small amounts of the drug on the same level as those caught speeding on the freeway.

I’ve always believed that the nation’s marijuana laws are cruel and unusual – and inane – from both the standpoint of its medical potential and its “hey, man, chill with this” benefits. I also have a bit of a libertarian streak in me that says: “Leave me the hell alone if I want to put something in my body that evidence shows is merely really not too good for me and for which basic precautions can be taken to make sure no one but me is going to get hurt.”

But in the end, it’s not about the party. It’s about sound transactional taxation policy (economic sense) and getting our arms around prosecution and incarceration abuses that are way out of hand (resource management and simple compassion). As an ex-user, I may not get there with you, but its time has come. Despite the fact the state-wide Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana for recreational use, may go down to (perhaps narrow) defeat, it won’t be too long before the craziness around this issue will finally come to an end – and it will happen in California.

Keeping Cool on the Climate

NYT – October 5: A measure to suspend [California's] vanguard climate change law is heading for failure, by a margin of 49 percent to 37 percent, because voters see the law doing more economic good than harm, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday showed.

Part of what makes this so cool is another headline: “Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law” (LA Times, September 2). The law, AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act, requires that one-third of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2020 (less than a quarter does today). The “hold off” measure, Proposition 23, was initially brought to us courtesy of funding from two Texas refiners, who have recently been joined by these maniac brothers, Charles and David, major tea-party enablers who operate oil refineries in states, you’ve guessed it, other than California. These two love to throw wads of cash at climate change deniers and renewable energy opponents. So welcome to California, guys. Boo-yah!

Like the marijuana issue, the progressive angle here is not about some Cali-hip movement. AB 32 limits greenhouse gas emissions and is creating a massive market for renewable energy, including solar, wind and other sources. According to polls, people are getting the money/jobs angle on all this and see California’s economic redemption as inexorably tied to being the global leader in the green economy. According to the NYT, the state “won 49 percent of the sector’s U.S. venture capital funding in the most recent quarter.” Of course, let’s check back in on this after Election Day, but it seems we’re seeing the forest for the trees on this one.

I Now Pronounce You…

SF Chronicle – September 3: The outlook for the legal defense of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, grew cloudier Thursday as a state appellate court refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge’s ruling overturning the measure.

The recent record on this one is not good. The passage of Proposition 8 (52.3 percent “yes,” 47.7 percent “no”) was nothing short of a disgrace for civil rights history. But while that speaks to pervasive homophobia in our society as whole (and perhaps also to ways in which the approach of legislation by initiative is so terribly flawed), it seems that our court system, our Republican governor and our Democratic attorney general know an assault – not to mention affront – to our nation’s Constitution when they see one.

Here’s the drill on this case: The Court of Appeal ”dismissed without comment” a lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Los Angeles-area minister, seeking to require the state to defend the initiative after it was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court in August. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger refused to defend it in federal court. Next up is a federal appeals court date in December when arguments will be heard on the sponsors’ legal standing and on the measure’s constitutionality.

California’s history, though stained by the passing of Proposition 8, remains at the forefront of civil rights for homosexuals. While the courts sort it out, I’m going to go ahead and remain hopeful that this measure will meet its doom.

This concludes our one-two-three listicle for your Cali consideration. Each one of these issues has key decisions coming up in the near future (two major ballot measures and one federal court case), so we’ll be keeping the pulse on California Cool as we go. In the meantime, I remain bullish on the Cal bear. And I still smile every time I cross the Golden Gate Bridge.

Image: tibchris

I’m no chemist. In fact, I get a little jittery around (and refuse to make eye contact with) the Periodic Table on my son’s closet door. But, given the subject matter here, I must do my best to understand the basic causes surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global warming. At times, the concepts seem simple to me (I “get” the greenhouse metaphor) and other times my eyes tragically glaze over when well-meaning scientists try to explain exactly what’s happening here that’s threatening the lives and future of my children. But mental gymnastics aside (sorry folks, some of it is hardcore science), I just read something that I can get my wee right brain around: the air is sooty and we should clean it up.

“A massive simulation of soot’s climate effects finds that basic pollution controls could put a brake on global warming, erasing in a decade most of the last century’s temperature change,” says a Wired Science post. What they’re getting at is that greenhouse gas emissions aside, which are a huge problem and require long-term solutions (“new energy technology and profound changes in lifestyle”), our habit of pumping good ol’ soot into the atmosphere (wood and dung burning, diesel exhaust, small boilers, residential coal use) is something that 1) is a huge part of the problem of global temperature change, and 2) we should be able to get a handle on for immediate impact using simple tools that already exist, like exhaust filters and clean-burning stoves.

The article is based in part on the work of Stanford University climate scientist Mark Jacobson, who conducted the simulation. He found that soot, or black carbon, plays a critical role in global warming, a fact apparently uncovered by prior studies, as well, including work done by NASA back in 2003. But Jacobson’s work takes the simulation a step further, looking into the immediate effects of decreasing the emissions of said soot. The good news, he reports, is that soot has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks, while carbon dioxide, for example, has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. So getting our black carbon problem under control could have a quick and significant effect on global temperatures.

“If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted,” says Jacobson. If we pull in the reins on soot, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.”

Explains the article’s author, Brandon Keim: “Soot comes from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, and also from the burning of wood or dung for fuel. Crop residue and forest-burning are another major source.”

The 2003 NASA simulation said soot was responsible for one quarter of all global warming in the 20th century. And soot has been identified a key contributor to crises ranging from to glacier melts to abnormal monsoon activity. The United Nations, says Keim, “puts the soot-related death toll at 1.5 million people annually.”

If stopped tomorrow, the disappearance of soot would could drop average world temps by about a degree Fahrenheit. “That’s about half the net warming – total global warming, minus cooling from sun-reflecting aerosols – experienced since the beginning of the industrial age,” says Keim. “The effect would be even larger in the Arctic, where sea ice and tundra could rapidly refreeze.”

The big picture impact of a wide-scale soot reduction effort could buy time and delay “tipping points” in climate change as greenhouse gases continue to take their toll. While the last year’s draft climate treaty generated in Copenhagen last year doesn’t say anything “soot-specific,” the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) will be discussing soot problems next year. Meanwhile, here in the States, the EPA will soon begin its own black carbon study. In the meantime, it’s nice to know that there may be some immediate answers out there if we just listen up and put a lid - or a filter - on it.

Image: stoixeia

The weather this summer in the Bay Area has been nothing short of awful. And with me being what my friend calls a “High Priest of Ra,” it’s been posited that my missing a sacrifice or committing some other ungodly affront has resulted in this madness. We’re talking stretches of frigid weeks in July, a sunless, cold anti-summer, followed by sudden August temperature spikes reaching 104 degrees and literally melting the candles in my apartment. 104? I mean, this is San Francisco. Are you kidding me? Dear Lord, could it really be my fault? Do the weather gods care about us humans and what we do here on earth?

Evidently they do care. A lot. Human-induced global warming and our fossil fuel mission/vision of burn ‘em if we got ‘em has someone or something pissed off. Big.

We’ve all had the conversations that start with “How many hurricanes was it this year?” or “The summers have never been like this before!” or “When I was a kid we’d have snow days where we couldn’t even leave the house! What happened to those?”

Invariably, these openers are followed by, “Yeah, right, and there’s no global warming.” Indeed, for general weather phenomena like these, science has been emerging that shows connections between human activity and broad brush climatic change.

But take the conversation a step further to speak about a certain climatic event – the Russian heat wave, say, or Pakistan flooding – and it becomes more challenging to point to a particular culprit. While we all seem to instinctively know there’s a connection between specific weather events and what we’re up to on the ground, the science hasn’t been there to make absolute links, as in “that flood came from that weather pattern which came from those countries burning this much fossil fuel back in these years.” Capiche?

Scientists are beginning to capiche.

Earlier this month, white coats from all over the world gathered in Broomfield, Colorado, at a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and International Group on Attribution of Climate-Related Events (ACE) workshop series on the “science, application, and communication of climate attribution information.” As defined by the NOAA, climate attribution is “a scientific process for establishing the principal causes or physical explanation for observed climate conditions and phenomena.” This includes attribution for variations “for which great public interest exists because they produce profound societal impacts.”

In other words, what’s behind the mega-weather headlines.

Not too long ago, our ability to address such questions would have been dismissed, says an article in New Scientist. “Many scientists at the time [a decade ago] said that you can never blame an individual weather event on climate change,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford.

But attempts to assign blame for such events goes back to 2004, when Allen and others “showed to a high level of confidence that human greenhouse gas emissions had at least doubled the risk of the European heatwave of 2003.” Their research approach required them to “run thousands of simulations of the climate as it is and as it would have been without human influences, then compare the number of times a given event occurs in each scenario.” Today, technological adavances will enable to such analyses to be much more accurate.

One of the worlshop’s attendees, Dr. Claudia Tebaldi, of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution, says that research already has been able to attribute causes of  trends in continental scale temperatures, large area-averaged precipitation trends, ocean temperature trends, long-term changes in atmospheric humidity and more to, well, us.

“Using sophisticated computer modeling and high quality observations,” she writes, “we are able to say with great confidence that in these changing aspects of our climate system, the fingerprint of human causes is already evident.”

Now the the goal is use new methods to get even more specific regarding particular events and their causes. And while forecasting is of primary importance, right now there’s a lot of buzz around the legal implications of pointing accurate fingers. For example, can one country sue another for activity that can be proven to be responsible for something as devastating as a flood, heat wave or famine?

In 2005, Katrina victims filed a lawsuit against some oil companies, saying their activity in the Gulf contributed to the power of the hurricane. The case was recently dismissed due to a legal glitch, but you get the idea. Big implications here.

Connecting weather events with their causes is going to be a huge undertaking in upcoming years. As climate changes have increasingly profound effects on the lives of millions, people are going to want to know the whys and whos and hows and, hopefully, how to predict and prevent catastrophes going forward. And leaving it up to the gods just ain’t going to cut it. (Sorry, oh dear and powerful Ra. Can I have some more summer please? Just a little? What do you want? A dead goat?)

Image: crowt59

Northern Europe’s air traffic is at a near-total standstill after windblown ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano spread across Scandinavia and the north of the U.K. While posing little environmental threat in the long term, this silica-rich ash could melt into liquid glass inside aircraft engines, clogging and even stopping them in mid-air.

Pity the U.K’s commercial airline services, set to lose tens of millions a day while disruptions last and if Eyjafjallajökull repeats its performance of 1821, that could be a very long time indeed.

“We are volcanoes. When we women offer our experience as our truth, as human truth, all the maps change. There are new mountains.” – Ursula K. Le Guin

“Don’t dance on a volcano” – French Proverb

Further reading:

“How do volcanoes affect world climate?” – Karen Harpp, Scientific American

” ‘Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans’ – not even close…” – Grist

“Harness volcano power, energy experts say” – Daily Telegraph

“Erupting Volcanoes From Earth As Seen From Space” – Betsy Mason, Wired

Editor’s note: Join us every Friday for our environmental photo essay with Mike Sowden.

Images: rachel thecat and NASA

We already know that we should eat less meat for the sake of the planet – the United Nations has said reduced meat consumption would help curb greenhouse emissions. While many ardent environmentalists are vegetarian, initiatives like Meatless Monday are trying to encourage all of us to do our part, as well.

So meat production helps cause global warming. But did you know that climate change might also affect the quality of meat? According to New Scientist: “Pork chops will become soggier and paler as the world warms, while steaks could be dark and smelly”.

It’s all to do with the effects of heat on the animal’s energy, or glycogen, reserves. The flesh from pigs that become heat-stressed on the way to the slaughterhouse will acidify more quickly, so the meat resembles “soggy white blotting paper”. While heat-stressed cows run out of glycogen before slaughter, darkening their meat.

It all adds up to less “mmm” and more “hmm”.

Millions of cattle and sheep make long sea journeys every year in cramped, over-heated conditions as part of the livestock trade. So far the best solution scientists have been able to come up with has been to spike the drinking water with sports energy drinks. But if we are to keep eating meat in a climate-changed world, we are going to have to come up with a better solution.

We could start by scaling back meat consumption – most of us could handle more plant foods in our diet anyway – and focusing on quality over quantity. Then we could decentralise the meat industry, rear livestock in natural conditions on farms, transport them to a local abbatoirs only a few miles away and eat them close to where they were raised. Doesn’t it just make sense?

Image: The Busy Brain

I’ve been walking my suburban San Francisco neighborhood for 13 years now, first as a newly married in jogging apparel, then as a new mom pushing a carriage, then one pushing a double umbrella stroller, and now, as an old mom yanking on a pug dog’s leash as I hike the steep hills. I’ve observed a happy change evolving in the landscape, from estates with thirsty sprawling lawns graced with European cottage-style gardens to inventive green designs using rocks or wild grasses as ground cover and gorgeous compositions of the heartiest plants around: succulents.

Who doesn’t love an exotic plant that stores its own water? Guess that’s why more homeowners faced with fat mortgages and recession woes are curbing the sprinklers and opting for low water-use plants.

We often associate cacti with succulents, and while all cacti are succulents, not all succulents are categorized as cacti. Both are native to regions such as the Southwest of Africa and can thrive in many environments and weather conditions. As eCountry Lifestyle points out, succulents are among the easiest plants to grow – and even make excellent potted indoor house plants, when positioned near a sunny window.

Succulents actually prefer small pots, even in the garden, which allows you to control the moisture level since over-watering can cause the roots to rot. A cutting can be planted directly in soil and it will develop roots and flourish.

Naturally stunning rock configured landscapes, such as those by Dane Easter of Mystical Landscapes (below), exhibit newly planted succulents in both shady and sunny settings. These hearty desert dwellers are accustomed to dry conditions and do best with varied soil mixtures, including coarse sand.

The aloe vera plant, sold at sites like Cacti.com, is one of the most familiar succulents since its properties often employed in natural skin remedies. Others include the jade plant, century plant (Agave), snake plant and flowering kalanchoe. They can add variety since they come in so many different colors and textures. They key is learning how to plant them in multiples to produce a balanced design.

For some helpful hints to get started with your own garden, check out Garden Time Online which will lead you down the path of selecting the right plants and placing them in your garden.

Images: breworks, Melir,

It’s getting cold out there – really cold. Here in Europe, we’re experiencing a big chill: although it’s nothing as severe as the record -27C recorded in Scotland 14 years ago, it’s dumped tons of snow, prompted Severe Weather Warnings and forced the closure of many roads, harbors and airports. The tabloid newspaper reaction couldn’t be more predictable. “Global warming? Rubbish!”

The last few years have seen an extraordinary amount of popular misinformation, pop-science, lambasting, mud-slinging and expelled hot air on the subject of whether global warming is taking place and if so, whether it’s the result of human activities or not. A global cold spell in 2008 intensified the controversy. Meanwhile, climate scientists continued to practice climate science – in other words, gathering atmospheric data and fitting it into models to predict long-term trends. It was just another year to add to the end of their graphs.

The problem is a common assumption that “climate” and “weather” are much the same thing. Look out your window, see global warming (or the lack of it). In fact, they’re two different atmospheric sciences – climatology and meteorology. Meteorology, better know as “the weather”, is a fabulously complicated series of atmospheric interactions where the mathematics are so complex, so exotically unknowable by modern scientific standards, that all the weathermen can do is give you an informed guess about tomorrow’s sky. Occasionally they can be very, very wrong.

Climatology, on the other hand, is about long-term patterns. You need to stand back to see what’s really happening, like you’re looking at a picture mosaic. Climate patterns only start to emerge over decades (such as with the Keeling Curve), centuries and millennia – and the problem is that many of our yearly measurements don’t go back that far, prompting the use of techniques such as ice coring and dendrochronology.

The long-term pattern is of a steady rise in global temperatures. Period. This is naturally going to affect the weather, but we’re still unsure exactly how – and even if we knew, we still couldn’t predict the weather tomorrow, next week or next year. And just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer, one cold snap doesn’t make a troubled climate. It’s probably just the weather.

Image: Noël Zia Lee