City Comforts, the blog

Update on whether we know what to do about Puget Sound pollution

As I wrote a few days ago, I was stunned by Ross Anderson's assertion that we don't know how to clean-up Puget Sound pollution. Unfortunately I also found the author's response to be insufficient and not much of an answer for such a large assertion.

Not having much science or engineering background myself (but having been around real estate development in many capacities for decades) I asked an Olympia, Washington engineer to offer an opinion. This engineer's answer was simple:

Ross Anderson is wrong. 
He is confusing solutions (simple) with implementation (difficult).

Now I can't vouch for this engineer's expertise though from what I know the opinion is worth careful consideration. And it clearly is sufficient to raise a doubt and I'd urge Crosscut to take the opportunity to bring in some science/engineering types and set the matter straight, or at least illuminate the dispute if there is one. Ross Anderson's statement can be misused by people who are denialists and seek to stymie useful action.

•••

Just FYI, I have become personally interested in this issue of  "Low Impact Development" (LID) due to a project of my own and where due to my own engineer's suggestion I am learning a bit about it. At first blush LID seems likely to be  cost-effective — and I mean both: not terribly costly (in fact LID might save a tad) and also effective at the specific task (which in my case is water quality.) But I am cautious when it comes to new things so more later as the project proceeds and I learn more about real costs and benefits.

The gazillion dollar question: whither oil?

People Care About How Much Gasoline Costs.

I agree we probably won't see $10/barrel oil.

But consider this: oil has doubled in price in the past year. Has global demand (GNP is a good index, I think) doubled? No way. I don't think we are seeing secular demand create $130/barrel but some sort of bubble & speculation — though do remember than bubbles & speculations are based on fundamentals-gone-bizerk and so there is indeed a general increase in demand for oil which means long-term higher prices. The current oil bubble is based on long-term fear and short-term greed. Its genesis is real — we have some humdinger problems ahead of us — but prices are way ahead of demand.

Of course we in the USA alsopay more because our dollar is weaker — but all bad things come to an end and eventually we will climb out of our hole and the dollar will strengthen, thus effectively lowering oil prices. (I am thinking of a new and even just marginally more-intelligent national leadership. God knows how strong the dollar could become if Obama is elected and turns out to be a really good or even great president. In such case the dollar will rally strongly over the next 3-4 years. Stranger things have happened.)

So, no, I am betting that oil price has peaked for the time being and will head down to the $80 range, which is still a large increase over the $63/barrel it was last year this time. If I knew how to sell oil short, I would.

That's not necessarily good news, of course. Higher oil prices are good in that they promote conservation and search for alternatives Rational national policy would put a floor under oil prices. But good luck there.

Not much of an answer for such a large assertion

I questioned (and I mean that literally — it was a question) Ross Anderson's assertion that we don't know how to clean-up Puget Sound pollution.

Ross answered here:

Over the past, say, 30 years, the consensus as to what's wrong has shifted repeatedly from overfishing to urban sewage to heavy metals to hydroelectric dams to nonpoint pollution from suburban sprawl to ... whatever. Scientists expect this kind of uncertainty; it is the nature of the universe and of the scientific method. But it leaves the rest of us wondering where to focus our limited resources. And it increases the risk that we will spend billions of dollars on the wrong fix.

I don't think that is accurate or comes close to justifying a statement so broad and bold as there is no "scientific consensus as to what exactly is wrong, let alone what to do about it."

If that means that there we don't have complete 100% agreement among all scientists from many disciplines, that may well be true. But I'd like to hear in some detail where they disagree. What are the big scientific questions? What are the opposing perspectives? I hope that some scientists will clarify the matter either here or on Crosscut (which has unfortunately give its implicit endorsement that Anderson's ideas are colorable.)

We don't know how to clean-up Puget Sound pollution.

So says Ross Anderson in Crosscut Seattle.

Washington's magnificent inland sea is back at the top of the region's to-do list. But while virtually everybody yearns to do something about pollution, there is neither political nor scientific consensus as to what exactly is wrong, let alone what to do about it. (italics added)

Is that accurate? That the fundamental problem is that we lack the scientific knowledge of what to do? I thought I had been reading for decades that "non-point" pollution — storm run-off from roads and parking lots in particular — is the biggest problem for Puget Sound. Clearly there are known (and often low-tech) methods to prevent toxins which collect on roads from running-off into the Sound. Did I misunderstand? Are there really many scientific voices saying "We don't know what to do? (Now I don't mean how to pay for it or the exact mix of technologies or how to create the political deal that works but I mean the overall scientific issue and range of solutions.) I am genuinely puzzled by Anderson's far-reaching assertion that there is "utterly no agreement about what's wrong and what we need to do about it."

And I am concerned because the "we just don't know what to do" statement can be used by denialists to thwart any action.

 

From softie James Baker: "I don't think it's appeasement to talk to someone who happens to be an enemy."

Watch the video: Former Sec'y of State James Baker
Or read the transcript:

COLMES: You were — during the Reagan/Bush years — known for shuttle diplomacy. That phrase was used a lot. Going back and forth between the Palestinians, between the Israelis.

BAKER: Yes.

COLMES: A level of engagement which some have said is not present today. Is this administration engaged enough with the people they should be talking to, to solve the kind of problems you're talking about?

BAKER: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies, as well. And the diplomacy involves talking to your enemies.

You don't reward your enemies...

COLMES: Right.

BAKER: ... necessarily, by talking to them if you're tough and you know what you're doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement.

I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 at a time when Syria was on the list of countries who are state sponsors of terrorism. And the 16th trip, guess what? Lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in history to come sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time. And, thereby, implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

Now, all I'm saying is that would never have happened if we hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it. And that's the only...

COLMES: You deserve a lot of credit for that, and I think the Bush 41 administration does. Is this administration as dedicated to that level of dialogue worldwide, to enable those kinds of relationships.

BAKER: I think the president gave a magnificent speech in 2002, when he said, "We — I have a vision of a Palestinian state and an Israeli nation living side by side securely in peace." And it would be good if we can get that vision implemented. I think that's what you're asking me.

Yes, it would be great if we could get that vision implemented. But I'm one who believes that you — I don't think it's appeasement to talk to someone who happens to be an enemy.

Of course I think the issue in 2008-politics  — to talk or not to talk to "bad guys" — is pretty-much put away in favor of talking. But here is James Baker, who no matter what you think of his right-wing politics has got to be seen as one of the most-experienced politicos on the scene, saying it's ok.

Something to think about: Africa is a big place

Who'd a thunk it! The "R" word.

Seattle Times editor Jim Veseley uses the word retrofit:

I'm ready for a retrofit of the viaduct, if that is the only thing that is going to work. I'm ready for some comfort food in the scale of our towns and neighborhoods.

Of course the "surface/transit" fanatics at Slog are tight-lipped at this breach in the conspiracy of silence.

Rain gardens in action

This is a "rain garden" in the parking lot of one of Seattle major shopping centers: Northgate Mall.

click

From what I am able to determine, they are an effective and economical way of cleaning stormwater runoff from streets and parking lots by using plants to break down the pollutants and infiltrating the runoff into the ground.

Whether the mall owner put them in voluntarily or as an element in a permit requirement is not too important; they strike me as one of those "good things," and Simon Properties (the owner) should be proud of what it is doing. I'd like to see some small signs identifying what looks at first as merely unusual landscaping and how they function so that the public can become more aware of the issue of stormwater pollution and of the possible solutions.

I personally only became aware of rain gardens as a means of dealing with runoff  just recently — and hey! I am supposed to be aware of these things — because an engineer on a project suggested them. I then happen to stop by Northgate to make a purchase and noticed the odd landscaping. I put two-and-two together and determined that this "odd landscaping" was in fact a rain garden. I went back during a reasonably-hard rain — though nothing special — to see how they function. It had been raining on-and-off for a few days and as you can see, there is very little standing water. So I assume that it is all infiltrating into the ground and the cast-iron drain is only for times when the storm is enormous and the ground can't handle any more. Overall it looks slick: effective, attractive and relatively cheap.

Btw, these rain gardens were retrofit to an existing (and really unpleasant) parking lot. What would be the cost and impact on water quality of retrofitting every parking lot in the Puget Sound region larger than, say, 5 acres? Should be a fairly straightforward set of calculations based on some reasonable set of assumptions.

Department of comical and pathetic excess: Hermes

Hermes gardening tools — 3 for $330

$330 for 3 hand-tools?

Makes no sense to me. You can buy top-of-the-line tools like these at Smith & Hawken for $18 -$25 each. And Smith & Hawken is not cheap; you can get Oxo tools — which I think are generally very good — at Lowe's for $10 each.

I'd be embarrassed to have Hermes tools  in my garden as visitors might know what they cost and to me such an expenditure suggests weird priorities and a bizarre search for status; and of course if the don't know the cost, what would be the point of buying Hermes?

What am I missing?

To talk or not to talk

This post precipitated comments about whether how to treat Hamas and whether we should "talk" to it.

People who are opposed to talking with Hamas miss several things:

1. "Talking" does not mean "negotiating." It means talking. In fact part of talking might be telling someone that they are talking nonsense, to put it politely.
2. "Talking" to someone does not suggest that one thinks the other person is reasonable much less "nice." Police talk with vicious criminals all the time because sometime the criminals themselves reveal the clus to solving a crime. Should we tell cops not to talk to bad guys because it "recognizes" them?
3. One talks to someone for one's own benefit — to gain information. For instance, the USA would have been better off had we been talking to Saddam Hussein's Iraq (at high and low levels) as we might have learned that it had no WMDs. It gives an opportunity to size up one's opponent and find the weak points.

Remember what the Godfather said: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

The argument against talking with enemies is that  raises their status and legitimizes them? Of course it does. It is literal "recognition" and "acknowledgment." No one who suggests communication with Hamas could deny that. But so what? In fact Hamas is a player and one of the main impediments to any sort of peaceful solution. Not communicating Hamas will not make Hamas go away. But it does put Hamas on the defensive because if all they sell is "Kill Jews" and "Destroy Israel" then their perfidy is obvious for all to see and they eventually marginalize themselves as irrelevant.

Likewise I am always puzzled why both sides in this dispute make so much — one way or another — about Israel's origins. Its enemies claim it is a moral weakness that Israel was born in war, overlooking the fact that every nation was baptized (so to speak) in blood. Name one which hasn't except maybe Iceland. And the Palestinians — and I don't mean to be cavalier — are simply the losers of a war. Why should one expect them to be treated by Israel as other than enemies? There is a war going on. They were and still are (by-and-large) enemies. Now is that an unconditioned defense of Israeli policies? Of course not; Israel seems to me to be in competition with the Arabs for doing stupid things. But what it does say is that the moral posturing (and probably by many on both sides) is pretty silly.