Photo: Flickr user the_silver_angel_13

The cultivation of tens of millions of acres of corn in monoculture (corn planted year after year), or in short rotations (corn followed by soybeans), inevitably leads to resistance and dependence on large amounts of insecticides.

Even More Pesticide
But Mr. Berry substantially under-reports the amount of pesticide used now and in the past several years. He writes that corn acres treated with insecticide fell from 25 percent in 2005 to 9 percent in 2010, according to the USDA.

But these numbers greatly undercount actual pesticide use in corn. Apparently the USDA data reported by Mr Berry does not include the use of pesticides as seed treatments, and that makes a BIG difference. By many accounts, almost all corn seed is now coated with neonicotinoid insecticides. So is much of the soybean seed. Most corn seed is also treated with fungicides. Corn and soybeans are our two most widely planted crops, at about 170 million acres, so these seed treatments add up to lot of pesticide use. And most of this is a recent occurrence, increasing rapidly beginning in the 2000s.

So instead of 9 percent of corn acres being treated, as reported by the WSJ, the reality is probably closer to 95 percent.

These insecticides, now the mostly widely used in the world, are strongly implicated by the peer-reviewed science literature as causing substantial environmental harm. Here are two of the many recent studies strongly suggesting harm to bees, which along with other pollinators are responsible for the productivity of about a third of our food–mostly fruits, vegetables, and nuts–and harm to aquatic invertebrates that fish and other animals depend on for food.

These and other studies have led to a moratorium on these insecticides in the EU, at least until the issues can be sorted out. Unfortunately, US EPA is not scheduled to decide what to do until 2018, by which time harm could be much more substantial.

Unnecessary Harm

And it is not as if the use of corn seed treatments is really needed. As recently noted in the farm press, one entomologist has pointed out that recent tests have shown little if any yield benefit from corn seed treated with neonics. This also jibes with recent discussions I have had with another corn-belt entomologist. Instead, it seems that the almost ubiquitous use of these insecticides in corn may be a response to marketing by pesticide companies, and the perception by farmers that it is a “cheap” insurance policy to protect their investment in corn that is selling at near-record prices—even if it is not really needed.

We do not know exactly how much impact these seed treatments, and other uses of neonics, are having on the environment. Other factors such as loss of habitat and varroa mites are likely also playing a role in bee decline.

But data on neonicotinoids shows that levels are often high enough to cause mortality or impaired behavior in bees and other invertebrates, and that exposure is likely to occur frequently, through consumption of tainted pollen, or exposure to tainted soil or water. Harmful levels of pesticides in the environment and likely routes of exposure—these are the two parameters that add up to actual harm. And while there remain some gaps in the data, what we already know is pretty damning.

In addition, combined exposure to neonics and other pesticides, including some fungicides, can have harmful synergistic effects.

USDA needs to collect data on how much neonics are being used to treat seeds ASAP, tight budgets or not, and EPA needs to show some real urgency in addressing the issue of harm to the environment. The use of these insecticides should be suspended while we determine more accurately how much impact they are having. The cost of doing so will be small, at most. In fact, the cost would likely be nil if we were growing our food using the best principles of biology. The cost of delay, on the other hand, could be huge.

The work of scientists has progressed through the scrutiny of fellow scientists for hundreds of years. Photo: Flickr User: Pierre Metivier

The peer-review system provides a way to ensure the quality of science, and it safeguards against accidental or intentional inaccuracies in scientific literature. The process is imperfect, of course, but it works impressively well for a system that relies on anonymous volunteers who donate their time and intellectual thought for little in return. It’s quite remarkable really.

But recently the traditional peer-review process has been complicated by a widespread push for more open science. The two concepts aren’t necessarily at odds—plenty of open science is peer reviewed—but let me explain. The goal of the open science movement is to make science—including data, publications, computer codes, etc.—available and accessible to all, experts and non-experts alike. This includes initiatives like the Open Data Policy released by the White House last week, and a growing number of open-access academic journals. Even more, there have been success stories for crowd-funding of research and crowd-sourcing of peer review itself. The open science movement is here now and it looks like it’s here to stay.

The power of peer review

Here at the Center for Science and Democracy, we have always been fans of transparency, especially when it comes to government science. The more transparency we have in how science is (or isn’t) being used in the policy-making process, the better we know and can hold our leaders accountable to making important decisions based on evidence.

But when it comes to science-based policy, we are also big fans of the peer-review process as a means to obtain the best available science and to help non-experts distinguish science from its impostors. As the push for open science grows, it has placed strains on the traditional structure of academic publishers that use revenue from journal subscriptions to finance the peer-review process and ensure the quality of the articles they publish. In last week’s public comment meetings on the White House’s open access initiatives, several groups expressed this concern. For example, the American Physical Society (APS) stated,

“… we want [to] re-emphasize, in strong terms, the crucial contributions of scientific publishers to the research enterprise, and the need for sustainable funding to support these contributions. Peer-reviewed journals are, if anything, even more essential in our internet-enabled environment. In an era in which a vast amount of un-refereed scientific literature is freely available on the web, refereed journals take on special importance and their publishers perform critical services.

Open access publishing: science versus spin

Some have argued that the subscription-based (non-open-access) publishing industry overcharges authors for these editorial and peer-review services and that open-access journals can offer these same services at a fraction of the cost. But the APS statement also touches on another concern about open-access publishing: the “vast amount of un-refereed scientific literature [that] is freely available on the web.”

Open-access online journals can be a great thing. For scientists, they often mean peer-reviewed publication can happen faster and cheaper and your scientific work will be more widely read and cited. I myself enjoyed these benefits in a 2011 research paper I published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal. While I appreciate that my article is freely available even to my mom (she claims to have read it), I worry that the abundance of free scientific literature online makes it challenging for non-experts like her to distinguish science from what just looks like science. And there’s a lot of the latter out there, as documented in a recent New York Times piece.

Many online-only open-access journals (like the one I published in) are well-respected academic publications that maintain traditional peer-review processes. But as the NYT article describes, this new online journal environment also has given rise to a new breed of pseudo-journals—disguised as scientific publications but without the rigorous peer review and editorial process. Such journals are simply pay-to-publish operations designed to dupe academics into paying high fees for publication in these non-reputable “journals.” And many academics have fallen victim. If even professors are being duped by these pseudoscience journals, how will interested citizens (who aren’t scientists) be able to find reliable scientific information online?

Expanding the access, preserving the process

Last week, I wrote that the administration’s new initiatives on open access were a step in the right direction, and I think they are. The new demands for more open science are a good thing. We can collectively share more, know more, make new connections—and ultimately advance the science faster. After all, we know science works best when it is open to wide criticism from peers.

But as we move forward, we need to ensure that the systems that produce high-quality science and help to enable non-experts to discern science from pseudoscience are maintained. New models for the production of scientific literature should account for these essential features. I think we can get there but we need to carefully navigate this new publishing environment. For now, I remain cautiously open to open science.

Gas Costs: The Big Kahuna

Before the fun begins, however, most summer road trippers will prepare to hit the road by fueling up and hoping that they avoid sitting in a conga-line of cars stuck in traffic. No matter where they’re headed, drivers will be spending big bucks on gas, thanks to spiking summer prices. In fact, the average Memorial Day weekend road trippers will spend about $118 on gasoline, and Americans will collectively spend over $1.4 billion on gasoline, just this weekend!

Riding the Wave of Efficiency

Sure, gasoline is a necessary expense that accompanies any trip no matter how long or short (unlike things like an oversized foam cowboy hat, which may be filed under “unnecessary items.”) But even though buying gasoline is a necessity, we have opportunities to choose how much we need and therefore, how much we spend on gas this year and on future road trips.

Those in the market for a new (or new to you) vehicle should consider fuel efficiency as a priority if they are looking to save money (and emissions) on summer road trips – even if the fuel efficient technology costs a bit more upfront. For example, a Ford Fusion SE Hybrid costs $3,500 more than its base conventional gas model, but consumes $9,000 less in gasoline over its lifetime.

Standards Give Consumers a Big Break

Outside of the showroom, you can show your support for the historic fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards, finalized last year, that will nearly double the fuel economy of new vehicles by 2025. In fact, if Americans could drive those more efficient 2025 vehicles today, we would save about $619 million on gasoline this Memorial Day weekend alone. Those millions could be spent on everything from ice cream cones to tickets to your favorite amusement park, or saved for the next trip or the next car. Overall, at gasoline prices of $3.50 per gallon, these standards will save the average driver of a new 2025 vehicle some $8,000 over that vehicle’s lifetime, compared to today’s average vehicle.

In addition to saving drivers at the pump, fuel efficiency standards are an integral part of our realistic plan to “Half the Oil,” or reduce projected U.S. oil consumption in half in 20 years. These standards are already giving consumers a wider range of affordable fuel-efficient vehicles on showroom floors, with fuel-saving features such as stop-start technology and direct injection becoming increasingly commonplace. As conventional and hybrid technologies continue to become more efficient, manufacturers will be able to meet even higher fuel economy targets that will provide consumers with even more savings.

For this weekend, keep in mind that you don’t have to wait until you’re in the market for a new car or truck to improve your fuel efficiency. Drivers can save money on fuel by following a couple simple practices such as making sure tires are properly inflated, putting bulky items inside the vehicle instead of on top, and parking in the shade. Check out these additional tips and tricks to maximize your current fuel economy and help you save no matter what you drive, and have a safe and totally excellent Memorial Day weekend!

Factors that nudge global average temperature

Scientists would not expect to see a global average temperature trend that looked like an escalator. Rather they expect it to look more like staircases with periodic platforms. The point is the top of the stairs is higher than the bottom no matter how you get there and the same is true with global average temperature. Image source: Wikimedia Commons – Arpingstone

In reality, scientists know and study all the potential factors that influence global average temperature, and would not expect a straight-line trend. In fact, the wiggles and wobbles of the global annual average, which combines ocean and atmospheric temperatures, provide scientists fodder for understanding how the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, etc. respond on different time scales to all the major and minor forces nudging them to and fro, including human-induced climate change.

People often picture climate change as a steady, unfaltering rise in temperature. But that’s misleading. Not every day or every month or every year is going to be hotter than the last; there’s going to be a lot of variation. But over time, the world has warmed and is absolutely going to continue getting hotter with continued heat-trapping gas emissions.

Global temperature trends, therefore, are going to look more like the staircase, rather than the escalator.

What’s up with global temperature since 2000?

So what are the factors at play over the last decade? Natural ocean cycles can cause a lot of the wiggles in the temperature trends and are one of the many sources of uncertainty in climate models. Tiny particles from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels can offset warming. Also, black particles can absorb sunlight and warm where they are suspended temporarily in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions over the last decade may have had an effect. The ocean absorbs most of the excess heat and serves as a buffer for atmospheric surface temperature, so upper ocean and deeper ocean warming trends are another factor considered by scientists in the last decade.

Then there is climate sensitivity – the hypothetical surface warming if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is twice the pre-industrial level. Even as we grapple with reducing that uncertainty we know enough already that the Earth is sensitive to overloading the atmosphere with carbon from past climate alone. Orbital shifts initiated warming during past ice ages, which in turn unleashed carbon stored in different reservoirs. The bulk of the warming after ice ages occurred in response to extra carbon in the atmosphere released from thawing frozen landscape and warming oceans.

Climate Models and Past Climate Shed Light on Trends

Everyone from the Federal Reserve to the Oakland A’s uses modeling, whether it’s to set interest rates or find the best left-handed pitcher. No model is perfect, but they can all be useful and help us make better-informed decisions. Scientists will continue to improve climate models – and they keep getting better and better.  These models incorporate data on both natural factors (e.g. volcanic eruptions, the sun’s output) and human activities (e.g. overloading the atmosphere with carbon, tiny pollution particles).

When it comes to climate change, models are an important tool we have for anticipating future warming. We don’t have the luxury of running experiments on other planets to see what will happen to Earth, so instead we simulate our planet in models, using past climate data to make sure they’re matching reality. Even if we did not model the future, we have ample evidence archived in ice cores, sediment cores, rocks, and dead plants and animals to understand the factors that matter most for climate shifts at given time periods in Earth’s history. Sometimes the position of the Earth’s axis and orbit around the sun takes the alpha dog position, other times it is the movement of the plates and the positions of the continents that matter most, and at times like today our human activities have an outsized influence on global average temperature.

Regardless, much of the public criticism of climate models and global temperature is just more cherry-picking. It reminds me of the famous fable of the blind men that come across different parts of an elephant and create their own version of reality. The last decade is similar to only seeing the ear of the elephant. The big elephant in the room is the last several decades have gotten increasingly hotter and that we face a fundamental choice about how much hotter we will allow our planet to become as we overload the atmosphere with even more carbon.

This historic force of nature was met by heroic stories of lives saved through quick actions by teachers and neighbors to help others seek shelter, which are important to be told in the immediate wake of tragedy. Nonetheless, questions are naturally being asked and stories told about this tornado and connections to climate change.

The short answer is that scientists don’t see a clear link between climate change and the number or intensity of tornadoes over the past several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on extreme events expressed “low confidence,” mainly due to inadequacies in monitoring systems.

I created this image to help dispel some myths in the news lately. Statement based on data from NOAA (see figure below). Photo from NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.

While a warmer planet could theoretically affect tornadoes, such as warmer and moister atmosphere, jet stream location changes, and equator to polar temperature gradient changes, we just don’t yet have enough data over the long-term to draw firm conclusions.

Tornadoes are rare, short-lived, and difficult to measure, and the record also has to account for a change in the tornado classification system. By contrast, scientists have many ways to measure and model heat waves, coastal flooding, and changes to precipitation patterns — and consequently have been able to draw definitive links between those phenomena and climate change.

The strongest links between historic extreme weather and climate change are for heat waves, coastal flooding, and changes in precipitation. Links to tornadoes and hurricanes are much less clear.

Thankfully, collecting more data on tornadoes has many benefits, especially for people who live in areas at risk for them. In fact, people can report tornadoes directly to NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory and University of Oklahoma through a smartphone once they are safely sheltered.

Better data collection can help further improve warning systems for tornadoes. Minutes matter. The extra few minutes of warning compared to historical tornado warnings are now possible with advances in National Weather Service monitoring and tracking. Extra minutes to get into a shelter can mean more lives saved in a “Weather-Ready Nation.”

Fast Facts about U.S. Tornado Trends

Our understanding of how a warmer planet affects storms that spawn tornadoes, as well as wind patterns, suggests more atmospheric energy could be available for tornado systems. On the other hand, tornadoes are difficult to model since specifics for individual tornado formation are still an area of active scientific research. Furthermore, tornadoes are tiny compared to the average grid spacing in most climate models.

Based on the data we have to date, there are no clear trends for tornado frequency or intensity. Tornado damage estimates depend in part on how many people and how much property is in its way.

The number of severe U.S. tornadoes EF3 or greater (those with gusts of greater than 136 miles per hour), has not changed much between 1954 and 2012. The most severe tornadoes, rated on damage, typically occur in KS, AR, TX, OK, TN and MO. As more people occupy areas affected by tornadoes, we have more potential damage, but we also have more eyes watching the sky and more ways to report and track tornadoes, resulting in more data than ever before.

U.S. Tornado Figures from NOAA

Update May 24, 2013 in response to comment:  Below is the figure for the annual count of US tornadoes EF1 or greater recorded in the US.

Annual Count of U.S. Tornadoes EF1 or greater. Data from National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center at NOAA>

Feature image: NOAA

What—you may well ask—does this have to do with science and democracy? More than you may think!

De-funding our nation’s collective knowledge resources

The 2013 sequestration budget cuts that went into effect in March dealt a harsh blow to U.S. federal science agencies. The National Science Foundation faces close to $300 million in cuts, and the National Institutes of Health must contend with a staggering $1.6 billion in cuts. These cuts will stall developing cures for cancer, staying a step ahead of the ever-evolving influenza virus, figuring out how to prevent Alzheimer’s disease, and a wide variety of basic research projects that will ultimately lead to a healthier, safer, and more secure future for all of us—if they are funded.

While federal agencies that support the arts and humanities have significantly smaller overall budgets than science agencies, the five percent across-the-board cuts mandated by sequestration slash viciously into resources that support the public’s right to know and to obtain access to information that should be readily available to anyone who seeks it. When Stephen Kidd, executive director of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA), a national advocacy organization promoting humanities education, research, outreach, and programs, addressed the full audience of ACLS attendees on how the current sequestration has affected the budgets of such national knowledge resources as the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress, his voice shook with emotion because of the broad impact these cuts will have on the public.

The Smithsonian must cut its budget by $42 million, resulting in numerous exhibit closures. These closures include exhibits at the National Museum of Natural History—an institution that hosts approximately 7.4 million visitors each year and contributes broadly to public science literacy. As G. Wayne Clough, Smithsonian Institution Secretary, testified before Congress, these cuts also threaten the Smithsonian’s role in providing public access to valuable artifacts significant to the history of science: Morse’s telegraph; Edison’s light bulb; the Salk vaccine; Maria Mitchell’s 1865 telescope (she designed the telescope and discovered a comet!); the 1903 Wright Flyer; and Amelia Earhart’s airplane. Such artifacts help the general public understand the proud role science has played in our nation’s past—and thereby inform a rationale for supporting it today.

The Library of Congress must cut some $30 million from its operating budget. These reductions will hurt evidence-based decision making at the federal level by hindering the Congressional Research Service’s capacity to provide authoritative, objective, and nonpartisan analysis to Congress on issues of pressing national importance at a time when our policymakers need such information more than ever. These cuts will also slow down the U.S. Copyright Office, “the engine of free expression in our society,” and limit output from the Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped program, which coordinates a national network of libraries to make print and other information collections accessible to Americans with disabilities.

Defending a shared purpose

Knowledge resources such as the Smithsonian and Library of Congress enhance the cultural and scientific literacy that makes it possible for the general public and policymakers to understand and appreciate the gifts of science being developed through our national science agencies. Such literacy also helps us navigate the decision-making process surrounding emerging, science-informed controversies, like what to do about hydraulic fracturing.

Protecting science in these vulnerable times demands broad public recognition of the integral role science has played in shaping and being shaped by our society. This recognition comes about through an understanding of the common ideals, enduring civic values, and shared cultural heritage we learn about through the humanities and social sciences.

Not everyone is a scientist, a science teacher, or even a citizen scientist. But our nation’s most vital resources—our knowledge resources—have historically worked together to preserve our democracy. And they must do so now in these times of growing national debt and economic belt-tightening. Join us at UCS’s Center for Science and Democracy and take action that helps defend science, our nation’s cultural history, and our democratic ideals!

These were the questions posed to experts in our final two freight policy forum events that UCS co-hosted with the UC Davis Policy Institute in Sacramento over the past few weeks. The discussion was encouraging. There were numerous technologies and strategies discussed that can be employed to reduce the impacts of freight transportation. But there were also significant barriers identified, ranging from technology readiness, financing and investment needs, and access to data for research.

Below are some highlights from the events and links to the individual presentations.

 Freight Forum 2: Advanced Rail and Truck Technology Development and Deployment

• Ben Sharpe from the International Council on Clean Transportation presented results of his investigation of technology pathways for achieving deep reductions in climate emissions. His findings show in the near term (over the next 15-20 years), the greatest emissions reductions and fuel savings available are from improving heavy-duty truck efficiency. But in the longer term, alternative fuels and electrification technologies, like plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell trucks, are needed to make deep reductions. Ben found that the savings from reducing fuel use and the societal benefits from pollution reductions provided net economic savings compared to the business as usual scenario.
• Fred Silver form CALSTART presented the findings from the CalHEAT Research and Market Transformation Roadmap. The roadmap identifies technology pathways within different truck vocations (long-haul tractor trailers, urban delivery trucks, etc.) and the necessary steps to achieve market success. For example, hybrids trucks are currently being used in delivery fleets but this early generation of hybrid technology takes longer to pay for itself in fuel savings than truck buyers will typically accept. What are the next milestones hybrid truck technology needs to meet and what incentives are needed in order for the technology to become a market success? Check out the CalHEAT research and Market Transformation Roadmap for the details.
• Henry Hogo from the South Coast Air Quality Management District tackled rail technologies in his presentation, emphasizing the importance of meeting emissions standards  for new locomotives which are on the books for 2015. The Los Angeles region’s unique air quality challenges, as well as the pollution impacts to communities near rail yards, means that zero emission locomotive technologies will also be necessary. Henry described various technologies under development, include locomotives powered by battery tender cars, hybrid locomotives, as well as one powered by liquified natural gas (LNG).

One important theme throughout the presentations and discussion was the urgent need to be developing and demonstrating these advanced technologies as soon as possible. It takes decades for new technologies to become a significant part of the on-road fleet of trucks and trains that move our freight. So while 2050 may be decades away, moving these technologies to full commercialization over the next 10 years is necessary to be on track to meet air quality standards and make deep greenhouse gas reductions by 2050.

Freight Forum 3: Planning for Change: How Regions are Planning to Modernize the Freight System

• Annie Nam, from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), spoke about their Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Southern California faces significant challenges in meeting air quality health standards as well as a growing freight industry. One key strategy being pursued is the development of electrified freight corridors where separated lanes would allow trucks to be powered by overhead powered lines – similar to electric trolleys.
• Caroline Rodier from UC Davis presented research on how urban planning and pricing policies could affect commercial truck VMT (vehicle miles traveled). The research evaluated the impact of increased transit-oriented development and the application of fees based on vehicle miles traveled. The results show that these policies can reduce congestion, travel delays, and reduce commercial truck travel. In other words, making those Amazon deliveries more efficient.
• Tom O’Brien from University of Southern California presented recent research evaluating the effectiveness of urban freight strategies. The work, soon to be published as part of National Cooperative Freight Research Program, reviewed various alternative freight strategies in cities around the globe and their possible applicability to the U.S. Ever drive through a city and get stuck behind a delivery truck unloading in the traffic lane? Turns out this is a global problem. Barcelona, Spain is starting to tackle the problem by requiring new bars and restaurants to have more storage space in order to reduce the frequency of deliveries. And New York City is requiring large commercial buildings to meet loan and unloading requirements. Besides better planning, other strategies range from labeling programs and low emission zones and to standards and pricing strategies.

In the post-forum discussion, one critical issue raised was the lack of availability of good freight data. For example, if you are examining polices that affect package delivery trucks, knowing what vehicles are being used, how old are they,  what their typical daily mileage is and how frequently they make stops is important information. A coordinated data collection effort by regional and state agencies could provide researchers with better information to evaluate promising freight policies.

There’s No Silver Bullet

That doesn’t come as any surprise, but these policy forums have certainly given me a lot of food for thought on the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in transforming California’s, and the nation’s, freight transportation systems. There are certainly no easy answers. It will take both the advancement of numerous technologies and implementation of smart policies to tackle oil use and pollution from the freight sector.

So what do you think are the biggest hurdles to transforming California’s freight transportation system? And what solutions do you think are most promising?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Tornado forecasting from the 1980s to now

I remember being taught as a young child in Illinois in the early 1980s that a tornado watch was issued when scientists thought the conditions were favorable for a tornado to develop, and that a tornado warning was issued only when a funnel cloud was sighted or a tornado was detected. I remember being told to run into our basement if I heard a siren, as I might have precious few seconds.

Things have already changed. By coincidence, the American Meteorological Society president wrote a blog post on tornado forecasting just hours before the Oklahoma twister hit. He writes:

The nation’s upgrade to a Doppler (NEXRAD and Terminal Doppler-TDRW) radar system in the late 1980s/early 1990s ushered in advanced warnings that we now take for granted. As a graduate student at Florida State, I worked on some of the early NEXRAD tropical algorithms.

In the early 1990s, the average tornado warning lead time was 5 minutes. In 2010, it was 14 minutes. This increase in time to prepare and take cover is DIRECTLY related to more advanced technology and research enabled by U.S. tax dollars.

While my focus here is on radar, going from 5 to 14 minute lead time is also linked to improved modeling capacity, satellite capabilities, observations, training, and a generation of meteorologists (operational, broadcast, and private) that better understand how to communicate the threat.

In Oklahoma, a tornado warning went into effect sixteen minutes before the tornado developed. BusinessWeek has a nice article about how the Moore emergency alert system works, and how investments in new technology undoubtedly saved lives. Those sixteen minutes allowed some teachers and elementary school students at Plaza Towers Elementary School to evacuate to a nearby church. The storm leveled the school. According to current news reports, while some younger kids tragically died at the school, many more older children were able to evacuate and are uninjured.

Current research can further improve lead times

But why can’t we do better, now? Simply put, we don’t have enough data, and the monitoring systems are not as robust as they could be. This requires investments. And some of that investment is happening right now. On May 15, several government agencies and universities launched a major field project to collect information that they hope will allow forecasters to give even more lead time. The research is funded by the National Science Foundation.

The American Red Cross began using NOAA data to plan disaster recovery right after the tornado passed through Moore. Better information helps people stay safe and recover more quickly.

Known as the Mesoscale Predictability Experiment (MPEX), the project is using planes and small instrument packages to collect data on atmospheric conditions in the upper atmosphere. Scientists believe we need to know much more about atmospheric conditions two to six miles above the surface of the earth prior to storms.

Each day, avoiding heavy air travel times, MPEX scientists will take off as early as 3:00 a.m. and fly at 40,000 feet for up to six hours. Potentially, this data will allow them to improve computer models to predict storms with more reliability. Learn more here.

Read more about the history and current state of tornado forecasting here, here, here, here, and here.

More reliable predictions would help the public make better choices when a storm is imminent, and give them more options to get to safety. After each siren, I became a little more blasé as a kid. Perhaps there was a tornado a few towns over, but nothing had happened to me. When I got to college, friends from rural Minnesota told of going outside during major storms and walking over to the lake to try to spot the funnel cloud.

Forecasters walk a tightrope. If they underestimate a storm’s potential, they are blamed for the resulting damage and loss of life. If they warn of too many storms that don’t materialize, people will take their projections less seriously and will fail to take sufficient precautions when a real storm strikes.

It’s important to point out that in a storm like yesterday’s, the only safe place to be was out of the way of the storm or in a basement or shelter. Those who did not have access to such a luxury were in big trouble. Better forecasting coupled with better emergency preparedness can help mitigate similar disasters in the future. Hopefully in a few years, we’ll be able to look back and think that sixteen minutes just wasn’t enough.

UPDATE, 10:00 a.m.: In some good news, the medical examiner has revised the death toll to 24, saying some people were counted twice. This number could rise as rescuers continue to comb through destroyed buildings.

The asthma attack was an entirely different experience, though. What followed has gotten foggy over the years, but after some time, which must’ve seemed an eternity, the attack cleared up. I got the news that it was likely an asthma attack and given an inhaler as a constant companion. But over the years it diminished as a concern and labored breathing chalked up to being woefully out of shape.

Ozone pollution is bad for everyone, but children and adults over age 65 are particularly vulnerable to its effects. Source: iStockphoto.com/Chris Rogers

But asthma is a serious concern. Nearly 26 million Americans suffer from asthma (which works out to about 1 in every 12 Americans). This number includes 7 million children, which is eye-opening as a parent — and brings back thoughts of how truly frightening an attack was for me, especially not knowing what was happening. (And only slightly less frightening when I did know what was going on.)

Asthma is a real drag on the economy — to the tune of $56 billion each year from hospital costs, missed school and work, and treatment. More importantly, it can be deadly. In 2009, it was estimated that asthma accounted for over 3300 deaths and that was not an extraordinary year.

So asthma deserves awareness and attention as a serious public health threat. In keeping with that, May is Asthma awareness month. Much of the activity is focused on providing information about what asthma actually is, what exacerbates asthma and can lead to attacks (including numerous triggers in your home), and outlets for information and guidance, such as Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and American Lung Association. You can even get tips on how to tell your asthma story to the media.

The recipe for dangerous air

Outside of the home, outdoor air pollution is a primary driver of asthma attacks and risk of experiencing one. More to the point, ozone is a leading culprit. Mention ozone and people may think of the ozone hole, which indeed would be correct. This, though, is ozone we want around as it protects people and wildlife from damaging ultraviolet radiation from the sun by blocking it very high up in the atmosphere. Ozone closer to the ground, on the other hand, is very harmful to human health and a primary component of smog.

Ozone is not emitted directly into the air. Instead, it takes a handful of ingredients to form this “bad air soup”. On the chemical pollutant side, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the main ingredients. Sources for these include activities such as driving cars, electric power generation from fossil fuels, and some industrial processes. The other two key ingredients for dangerous ozone being formed are heat and sunlight, which is why ozone alerts tend to be most common with the elevated temperatures of summer. It’s probably not surprising then that high ozone levels often occur in urban areas. It’s also these areas that are densely populated with more people at risk for exposure to ozone pollution.

Chemicals emitted from human activities mix together in hot, sunny conditions to form ground-level ozone. A warming climate provides one of the ingredients for this harmful air. Source: EPA.

We have a few control knobs with which we can dial down ozone levels and reduce asthma risk. There has been success in dealing with the chemical pollutants that form ozone. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, NOx emissions have dropped by 52 percent in the U.S. over the past three decades. Likewise, VOCs emissions fell by 63 percent over the same period. And most likely as a result, average ground-level ozone concentrations have dropped by 28 percent. This is good news and shows that those particular control knobs can work, though most states in the U.S. still have counties that violate current EPA ozone standards.

The “climate penalty factor”

There is also a climate story here and one that threatens to offset some of the success we’ve had in cleaning up the air. I came to this connection through an EPA study that found a relationship between increased temperatures and higher ozone levels based on numerous measurements throughout the eastern half of the U.S. They termed the resulting number (i.e. the increased amount of ozone per degree of warming) the “climate penalty factor” on ozone. This relationship between temperature and ozone has also been confirmed in many other modeling studies and measurements.  The risk climate change poses to harmful ozone levels has also been highlighted in the “Human Health” chapter of the recent draft National Climate Assessment report.

Rising temperatures, worsening ozone pollution, real impacts

A colleague and I at UCS took this concept a step further and asked what this climate penalty factor means in a future, warmer U.S. Basically, we used projections of warming temperatures for the country under a couple of widely used future climate scenarios (which may be optimistic based on recent carbon emission trends) and determined how much ozone levels could increase from this warming in the years 2020 and 2050. We then ran these numbers through the EPA’s BenMAP model to see what the health and economic impacts are from these ozone increases.

The full report is of course worth reading (author bias, perhaps), but the top-line finding is that climate change’s potential impact on ozone may indeed be costly (economic and otherwise). Health impacts could total an additional $5.4 billion in 2020 alone. It’s projected that there could be 2.8 million more occurrences of acute respiratory symptoms, such as asthma attacks. And most importantly between 260 and 510 additional premature deaths are projected in that single year. All of these numbers go up in 2050 with further warming in the U.S. Not surprisingly the states projected to be hardest hit are those that are most populated, with California, Texas, and New York leading the way.

Steps in the right direction

It’s fitting that this month of asthma awareness has seen a couple of important steps in dealing with the problem. First, Representative Lois Capps of California introduced the Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act last week. This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national plan to help the health community in creating plans for both responding to and preparing for public health impacts of climate change. Although, not named specifically, ozone pollution would surely fall under this effort.

It is also an acknowledgement of the growing body of evidence of adverse and costly climate impacts on public health in addition to air quality concerns. Also, it is not just a matter of responding to climate impacts here and those on the way, but there remain the critical efforts to reduce climate change itself to limit the severity of the impacts. Fortunately, there are myriad solutions for that, but much room for improvement on actually implementing them.

Activities and efforts to raise awareness around asthma is also a critically important step, but perhaps should extend beyond the month of May into the summer months when ozone levels are elevated and people are at higher risk. I’m not sure how to penetrate through to people’s lists of concerns beyond a steady drumbeat and clear explanation of risks.

Turning the lens on myself, having lived in areas prone to extreme weather of various sorts I’m very aware of and tuned into warnings around the more “acute” events (fairly infrequent, but high impact). On the other hand, even having studied the serious impacts associated with bad air, I still don’t notice air quality warnings until they become a deep shade of purple. That goes for heat advisories and warnings, as well.

The more “chronic” events that don’t appear as destructive and happen more frequently than say a hurricane or a blizzard tend to get minimized.  But ask anyone who has lost someone to a heat-related death or an asthma attack and you’ll see quickly how it takes just one instance of high ozone or a day of extreme heat to change lives.

There’s undoubtedly more to be done, but there are clear solutions and fortunately people out there talking about them.  Now we need to do some listening.

• TAKE ACTION: Urge the EPA to Move Ahead with Clean Fuel and Tailpipe Standards

Public policy isn’t something that happens in Washington or the state capital, it is also in the choices that citizens make every day—what to buy, where to live, who to vote for, and when to raise their voice about an issue they care about.

Case in point is hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—for shale oil and gas. We are in the midst of a boom in drilling for shale oil and gas in the US, make no mistake. But harder to come by is clear information about what happens to public resources, air, water, land, public health and the communities near these rapidly expanding fields of fracked wells.

Fracking in Wyoming – four oil pads every square kilometer. (http://riverinerabbitwalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/fracking-in-karoo.htm)

There is no shortage of opinion, from citizens, industry, activists and even public officials. That isn’t the same as objective evidence and facts. It is not the same as a label telling you what you are buying. And we, the people, do need to know the consequences of the breakneck expansion of fracking, because it is the public that often bears the burden of impacts, good and bad. Industrial development isn’t set off and removed from the public, it is in our midst. A power plant, refinery, chemical plant or fracking operation is sited where people live, and so the traffic, noise, pollution, as well as the jobs confront communities every day and we can’t pretend it is only about jobs or indeed only about pollution. A fracking operation may be on public or private land, but where is the truck traffic, where do the air emissions go, where do the workers live, where does the water come from and where does the waste water go?

The list is longer but the point is that the potential benefits as well as the potential impacts are well beyond the spot where the drill is located. So shouldn’t we the people know more – so we can voice our opinions about how this hugely important source of energy, economy, community change, and pollution should be dealt with? The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS and the UCLA Law School will focus on these questions and more at our public forum this summer.

Knowledge is power as the saying goes, and in a democracy it is the public that should have that powerful ability to shape public policy. So let’s ask questions, ask for the evidence. But that is just the start. Not only do we need to ask questions about fracking—we need the answers.