Angry Ramblings of a Science Nerd

I agree with my classmate (at Lauren's Gov't blog) that there is no such thing as clean coal. However, what is the point of all this political maneuvering and cash incentive to drive a process that IS NOT POSSIBLE? It reminds me of the time that Sen. John McCain (on the campaign trail) offered the same amount of money to anyone who could develop “a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Funny how nothing came of that $300 million, either. Common logic maintains that if someone was able to figure out HOW to capture and sequester one of the smallest and most dangerous molecules in our atmosphere . . . they would have done it already.

But let’s go with it. Let’s imagine that the first step is refined and we can now catch all the carbon dioxide pouring from a smoke stack as we burn some coal. Now we plan on . . . burying it? I get SO tired of this old standby. Burying something on our own planet is not getting rid of it. When the only option that chemists and physicists can come up with is “Eh, we’ll bury it,” that means the problem is not solved. Not only is it unsolved, now it’s a problem for future generations that will surely compound itself in the intervening years. Frankly, it is absurd to me that our lawmakers would rather bury radioactive waste and greenhouse gases than realize where our petroleum road is leading us and start investing in different avenues of energy production. I get it lawmakers, general public. You are comfortable with coal, with oil. Unfortunately, these things have gotten us where we are now – on a planet that (according to some) has already moved beyond the tipping point concerning climate change. I think my ears would perk up if someone, anyone would take the sci-fi route and suggest dumping the CO2 in deep space - not that trashing space is any more probable or desirable, but at least it would involve a new story line.

We still have not addressed the CO2 pouring from the vehicles that unearthed and transported the coal, or the way in which modern coal is extracted. Watch this video for that argument.

Last, but not least, the logistics of the burying. The first time I heard the game plan for sequestered carbon dioxide, I knew it was impossible. It seems even more insidious, and blatantly pandering, to distract the layman with promises of more oil from hard to reach places in an attempt to bypass any explanation of how they will keep the CO2 below ground once injected.

Let me briefly paint a picture for you about carbon dioxide. It’s a very small molecule, and even though it has one carbon at its center, it’s technically not an organic molecule. Animals breathe it out as a waste product of cellular metabolism. Plants breathe it in, separate the carbon from its two oxygens, release these oxygens into our atmosphere, and fix the carbon into long organic chains that comprise wood, leaves . . . almost everything you’d see if you looked around a forest. We animals ingest this fixed carbon when we eat carbohydrates, protein, fiber, or fats and our bodies rearrange the carbon in ways that suit our internal landscape. CO2, as a waste product in our body, moves freely outward through cell membranes in the same way that O2 diffuses into our cells. Even water, sugar, amino acids, or small proteins cannot simply pass through this smallest of membranes. Without rambling on further, in what universe am I to believe that after mass quantities of CO2 are placed beneath the earth or beneath the ocean that they won’t simply diffuse back up again?? Gas molecules, by nature and by definition, diffuse away from each other continually until they are as evenly distributed as possible. (This is one reason why smog is everyone on the planet’s problem, not just the people who live in the city.)

I could expound upon the perils of injecting it below the sea, having it diffuse through the ocean, and thus acidifying the ocean, but I won’t. This clean coal nonsense is denial – denial that the ways the rich have become uber-wealthy will not continue to make the lucky few even wealthier. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (doctor, scientist, educator) described the process humans use to deal with grief and tragedy as five discrete stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. They are not necessarily addressed by every person and can be experienced out of order. If Republicans are finally admitting CO2 emissions are a problem, it sounds as if they’re vacillating between denial and bargaining. Personally, I’m alternately angry and depressed when I read “science” along the lines of clean coal. What will it take to get this country to accept that alternative energy forms are the only way to proceed from here?

Ray of Hope?

The past week has been a blur for me. Between studying for finals, attempting government homework in vain, and going to work, I heard only vague rumblings about an abortion debate of some kind underway in the Texas Senate. As I sat down to browse the internet before penning a scathing review of congressional priorities in using valuable time and effort to give a woman choices about what she would or would not like to see or hear (as if she didn’t already have the right to see or hear the ultrasound before an abortion) . . . I came across good news. “Under a bill approved by the Texas Senate [on Monday, May 4th,] tuition and fee increases at most of the state’s large universities [may be limited] to no more than 5 percent a year.” This fantastic news is progress towards the State Government once again taking some responsibility for the quality and accessibility of higher education in the state. Since the legislature washed its hands of partially subsidizing colleges and universities in 2003 and allowed them to raise their tuition in compensation, families across the state have been subject to an 86% increase in rates.
The bill now continues on to the House, where hopefully it will be given a nod of approval. In exchange for the capping of tuition increases, as well as some outright freezes, this bill would oversee the re-involvement of the State in contributing to the education of its citizenry. In a legislature and a time period where I often find myself thinking, “Really? These are the topics our leaders and caretakers choose to tackle when people are homeless, dying penniless, or never even having a chance to succeed at anything,” it is refreshing to see that some measures of value are periodically being addressed.

Redefining The Letter A

Although I did not attend high school in Texas, I’m familiar with high school science content. My high school experience included biology, two chemistry classes, physics, even earth science – which was our Midwestern excuse to hike for a month over the summer in 8 different national parks. One thing you can be sure of: high school science teaches the basics. We have these things called cells. They have smaller parts inside of them that help them function. There are three phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Bunsen burners are fun to light with a striker. You can tap out the song “Low Rider” on the side of any glass beaker. . . High school science IS NOT rocket science. So in what universe would anyone in charge of setting curriculum imagine that beginning students have the capacity to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations?” Isn’t this the time period when you’re first introduced to the scientific process? It’s the equivalent of asking first graders just learning to read to apply those virgin skills to editing Hemingway. . . in Latin.
“In a 2005 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Texas was one of the 15 states to earn an ‘F’ for its science standards; it received a ‘1’ (out of a possible 3) for its evolution education.” How does the State Board of Education seek to improve science education here in the Lone Star state? If you guessed attempting to inject faux science into classrooms, you’d be correct! I propose we skip the religious and conservative undertones of their reasoning, and simply make up a whole new grading system. I’ve thought long and hard about what could be worse than failure. What about – not even showing up to try? If the letter grade A stood for Absent Any Awareness, students could study about the earth being only 10,000 years old and receive high marks concurrently. If the letter grade A stood for Ambivalent And Adamant, we could plant the seed of Anti-Darwinism early and make it impervious to any logic. If A stood for Aberration, students could earn 4.0 GPAs while remaining unmarred by scientific fact.
As someone who lives and breathes science, I find it quite impossible to wrap my mind around this sort of ignorance. These sorts of debates don’t happen at the level of higher education. What would drive a person to intentionally limit what truths young minds are exposed to? After losing his “battle to introduce anti-evolution language in the Texas science standards,” dentist and school board member Don McLeroy said, “Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this.”
The only conclusion I can come to is religion. Religion drives this dentist to impose his beliefs upon ALL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and EVERY TEENAGE TEXAN.
Here are several articles directly related to this story:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=6782

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinion/editorials/science_wins__barely__in_texas_03-27-2009.html

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2009/03/science-wins-in-texas.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_28tex.ART.State.Edition1.4a87415.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27572

In parting, a quote from prolific French poet and human rights activist Victor Hugo:
"There is in every village a torch - the teacher:
and an extinguisher - the clergyman."

Who knew Iowa was so progressive?

The Blog Burnt Orange Report posted an article from “[their] fellow 50-state bloggers at Bleeding Heartland” concerning the recent judicial milestone accomplished in Iowa’s Supreme Court. Iowa Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, by Phillip Martin, explains why the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa will not be overturned as easily as it was in California or Massachusetts.
The intended audience of the original article is aimed broadly, with no obvious slant appealing to conservatives or liberals. Many links within the article direct the reader to the Supreme Court’s summary, the full text of the opinion rendered, or Iowa’s State website. It could be argued that the article is liberally slanted since no mention of “God” appears and a couple positive financial windfalls of the decision are incorporated (such as the impending boon to the wedding and hospitality sectors as same-sex couples across the state rush to wed). I can’t determine how credible the author is personally, but it speaks volumes that he directs the reader to 6 different links providing more information about the history of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the previously mentioned links.
Toward the end of the article is a release from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) praising Iowa’s ruling. Their claim is that they’re pleased with the decision, although they don’t know “why it took so long.” The statement goes on to elaborate that “[why it took so long] is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.” A list of civil rights ‘firsts’ comes next. I was shocked to find out that. . .

1. In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
2. In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U. S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
3. In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U. S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
4. In 1869, Iowa became the first state of the union to admit women to the practice of law.

Their logic is my logic on this issue: equal rights and responsibilities for ALL citizens. . . true separation of church and state. The old joke is applicable here: “If gay people want to get married, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.” :)

Proficiency in Research Needed!

An editorial in Monday’s Austin-American Statesman blusters impressively about the apparent negligence of state lawmakers. Referring to a previous issue of the Statesman, the unknown author rehashed the recent outrage concerning a law in effect since 2003. To sum up the description of the law, as well as present the sole numerical evidence offered, “The state Optional Flexible Year Program permits school districts to petition the Texas Education Agency for a waiver of the state-mandated 180 days of classroom instruction. The waiver exempts districts from losing state money for student absences, which means the districts can collect money for students who aren’t in the classroom. This school year, 148 districts were granted waivers, up from 58 in the previous year.” The reason this evidence falters is closely tied to the reality of Texans’ abysmal proficiencies in math, science, reading, and writing. What school in Texas should be cutting back on school time?? Getting an A, as in Absent proceeds to assert (correctly, in my opinion) that the Texas high school calendar should be extended - not reduced. American adolescents already attend a month less school per year as compared to children in South Korea. The claim of the article is that the Optional Flexible Year Program increases student absenteeism while not holding schools accountable. The author’s overt audience would seem to be Texas lawmakers, but Getting an A more effectively alerts citizens (without the use of any statistics or in-depth research) to the rubbish our state legislators may be propagating. It is hard to tell what impact the 2003 law actually had upon schools since zero lawmakers or teachers were asked to weigh in. I would have appreciated a little more detail, such as: What was the point of this law in the first place? Making sure applicable schools would receive the maximum amount of funding possible or encouraging absenteeism? The author’s logic? As anonymous as their name.

Two Towns in Texas

For all of its faults, the sheer size of Texas guarantees diversity. Diversity, not only in landscape, but also in viewpoint and ideology. While trolling for an article to write about, I came across two from opposite ends of the environmental spectrum. The Statesman tells the story of the "300-acre solar array" approved by the Austin City Council yesterday. Scheduled to begin operating just outside of Austin in Webberville by the end of 2010, this is a perfect example of what makes me proud to be an Austinite. The Texas Observer recounts the extended drama of a West Texas town as it welcomes the construction of the first radioactive waste dump granted a permit in decades. Surprisingly, only one Andrews resident has voiced opposition to burying material that will continue being radioactive well into a million years in the future. The comparison of these two articles exemplifies how outcomes can be drastically different with some foresight and a little bit of daring.