• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

What World Under Climate Change

Free episodes:

From same website, linked to above -

Global Warming 2020 | Climate Change 2020
LINK: Global Warming 2020 | Climate Change Predictions 2020

An example of how dense this site is -
"Climate Change Tipping Points 2020: 2020 – 2030. Time frame when climate tipping point is projected to occur beginning the irreversible release of large volumes of greenhouse gases from melting permafrost. “An irreversible climate ‘tipping point’ could occur within the next 20 years [between 2020 and 2030] as a result of the release of huge quantities of organic carbon locked away as frozen plant matter in the vast permafrost region of the Arctic, scientists have found. Billions of tons of frozen leaves and roots [containing carbon] that have lain undisturbed for thousands of years in the permanently frozen ground of the northern hemisphere are thawing out, with potentially catastrophic implications for climate change, the researchers said."

" "A study into the speed at which the permafrost is melting suggests that the tipping point will occur between 2020 and 2030 and will mark the point at which the Arctic turns from being a net ‘sink’ for carbon dioxide into an overall source that will accelerate global warming, they said. . . . ‘Our research shows that the release of carbon from permafrost will result in an irreversible climate tipping point in only 20 years... Once the frozen carbon thaws out and decays, there is no way to put it back into the permafrost,’ [Dr. Kevin Schaefer of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado] said.” (Steve Connor, Science Editor, “Melting of the Arctic 'will accelerate climate change within 20 years', The Independent, Monday, May 30, 2011 reporting findings in Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, Lori Bruhwiler, Andrew P. Barrett. Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming, Tellus B, (Steve Connor, Science Editor, “Melting of the Arctic 'will accelerate climate change within 20 years', The Independent, Monday, May 30, 2011 reporting findings in Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, Lori Bruhwiler, Andrew P. Barrett. Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming, Tellus B, 63: 165–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2011.00527.x, Volume 63, Issue 2, pages 165–180, April 2011)

"See more comprehensive permafrost melting forecasts detailing the projected timing and consequences of permafrost melting."​
 
Starting Later This Year, 400 and Up is Likely to Be the New Normal for CO2 Measurements
By ANDREW C. REVKIN OCTOBER 22, 2015
LINK: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...e-new-normal-for-co2-measurements/?ref=topics
TEXT: "Charles David Keeling, the scientist who launched the project and ran it until his death in 2005, has become an icon of the Anthropocene, the proposed geological epoch created by humanity’s “great acceleration.”

Photo
dotkeelingmid-blog480.png

The so-called "Keeling Curve" charting concentrations of CO2 sinc 1958, set with a longer timeline of estimates from evidence in ice cores.Credit NOAA/ Scripps Institution
There’s no surprise in the 400 p.p.m. threshold being passed soon given continuing growth in emissions of the heat-trapping gas and its long lifetime once released. This landmark has been written about extensively here and elsewhere, and the annual surge and ebb of the gas has previously crossed that 400 p.p.m line temporarily (seasonal bursts of photosynthesis account for the sawtoothed ups and downs).

This time, partially because of the impact of El Niño on precipitation and thus plant growth, the scientists foresee an accelerated rise, but an insufficient seasonal surge of photosynthesis to draw levels lower. The long lifetime of the gas, once released, and the slow response of humans in trying to constrain emissions mean it’ll almost surely take generations, at least, before numbers below 400 are revisited on the way down.

The Scripps note is worth posting simply as an artifact of our age. It is written by Ralph Keeling, who took over after death of his father, the pioneering atmospheric scientist Charles David Keeling, in leading this simple but momentous observational effort. See my 2008 “ode to the value of monitoring” for a broader look at why seemingly boring observations of important parameters, from CO2 concentrations to stream flows, get too little respect, and funding. The climate historian Spencer Weart did a fine job of tracking the budget woes of the Keelings’ work.

Here’s the Scripps post by Keeling:

Photo
dotco2long-blog480.png

The so-called "Keeling Curve" of CO2 concentrations since 1958 looks like a spike against the 800,000-year ice-core record of this atmospheric trace gas.Credit NOAA/ Scripps Institution
Is This the Last Year Below 400?

Leader of Keeling Curve measurement says temporary bump from El Niño could push atmospheric CO2 levels above symbolic threshold for good

The Mauna Loa CO2 record is a saw-tooth pattern, with CO2concentrations typically falling from May through September, and rising over the rest of the year. This cycle is caused by the natural exchanges of CO2 with vegetation and soils. Each year, the values are higher than the year before, as CO2 continues to pile up in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. This year, as expected, we hit the annual low point back in September and CO2 concentrations are starting up again. The lowest point this year was well below 400 parts per million (ppm). The lowest daily minimum this year was 395.83 ppm and the average for the month of September, was around 397.1 ppm. By sometime in the next month or two, CO2 will again rise above 400 ppm. Will daily values at Mauna Loa ever fall below 400 ppm again in our lifetimes? I’m prepared to project that they won’t, making the current values the last time the Mauna Loa record will produce numbers in the 300s.

The background for my forecast:

In recent years, CO2 has been increasing by around 2.2 ppm, per year. Barring anything unusual, we would therefore expect next year’s September value to be around 399.3 ppm, just barely below 400 ppm, and we’d expect the lowest daily minima to be around 398 ppm or so. But we seem now to be on the verge of the largest El Niño event since 1997. This is significant because CO2tends to rise much faster during and just following El Niño events. From September 1997 to September 1998, for example, CO2 rose by a whopping 3.7 ppm. If this El Niño is comparable, the rise from September 2015 to September 2016 could easily be 4.4 ppm, allowing for an El Niño boost and allowing that fossil-fuel emissions rates globally are larger now than in 1998. Taking these factors into account, a reasonable forecast for next year’s September minimum is around 402 ppm, with the lowest daily minima also over 400 ppm.

The El Niño growth spurt in atmospheric CO2 is mostly caused by drought in the tropics. Rainfall that normally falls over tropical landmasses shifts to the oceans during El Niño events. This slows the normal growth of tropical forests and increases forest fires. Indonesia suffered severe fires during the 1997 event and, from recent news, is already being hit hard this year.

The loss of carbon from tropical forests in El Niño years is temporary as the forests tend to regrow in normal years, building back their biomass and sucking CO2 out of the air in the process. But the eventual recovery from this El Niño won’t bring us back below 400 ppm, because its impact will be dwarfed by the global consumption of fossil fuels, pushing CO2 levels ever higher. ~ Ralph Keeling
 
2015 Likely to Be Hottest Year Ever Recorded By JUSTIN GILLISOCT. 21, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/s...be-hottest-year-ever-recorded.html?ref=topics
TEXT: "Global temperatures are running far above last year’s record-setting level, all but guaranteeing that 2015 will be the hottest year in the historical record — and undermining political claims that global warming had somehow stopped.

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American agency that tracks worldwide temperatures, announced Wednesday that last month had been the hottest September on record, and in fact took the biggest leap above the previous September that any month has displayed since 1880, when tracking began at a global scale. The agency also announced that the January-to-September period had been the hottest such span on the books.

"The extreme heat and related climate disturbances mean that delegates to a global climate conference scheduled for Paris in early December will almost certainly be convening as weather-related disasters are unfolding around the world, putting them under greater political pressure to reach an ambitious deal to limit future emissions and slow the temperature increase.

"The immediate cause of the record-breaking warmth is a strong El Niño weather pattern, in which the ocean releases immense amounts of heat into the atmosphere. But temperatures are running so far ahead of those during the last strong El Niño, in 1997 and 1998, that scientists said the records would not be occurring without an underlying trend caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. “The bottom line is that the world is warming,” said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist with NOAA, in Asheville, N.C. She pointed to measurements in several of the world’s ocean basins, where surface temperatures are as much as three degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, a substantial increase when calculated over such large areas. “We’re seeing it all across the Indian Ocean, in huge parts of the Atlantic Ocean, in parts of the Arctic oceans,” Dr. Blunden said in an interview. “It’s just incredible to me. I’ve never seen anything like this before.”

Tracking Temperature
This year will almost certainly be the warmest year in recorded history.
How 2015 compares to five of the hottest years [See Article For Complete Graphs]

"The combined effects of El Niño and greenhouse warming are already roiling weather patterns worldwide, probably contributing to dry weather and forest fires in Indonesia, to an incipient drought in Australia and to a developing food emergency across parts of Africa, including a severe drought in Ethiopia. Those effects are likely to intensify in coming months as the El Niño reaches its peak and then gradually subsides.

"Past patterns suggest that El Niño will send unusual amounts of rain and snow to the American Southwest and to California, offering some relief for that parched state but also precipitating floods and mudslides. The California effects are not a certainty, experts said, but if they come, they are likely to be strongest in the latter part of the winter.

"Earlier this year, the global warmth contributed to a spring heat wave in India and Pakistan that killed many people, possibly several thousand, with temperatures hitting 118 degrees in parts of India. The effects on the natural world have also been severe, with extreme ocean temperatures bleaching coral reefs around the world, and many of them likely to suffer lasting damage.

"Forecasters have been issuing warnings about a strong El Niño. The coming few months will test whether governments, and the global relief agencies that support poor countries, have prepared, particularly to provide food relief for hard-hit regions. “The warning is out,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, in New York. “The world has had time to plan for this.” [See Link For Video of El Nino]

"Though worldwide in its consequences, El Niño originates in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, when normal weather patterns shift in a way that allows the ocean to release large amounts of stored-up heat into the atmosphere. That perturbs atmospheric waves that can travel thousands of miles, redistributing heat and moisture around the glob.

"The effects can be profound, with some research even suggesting that civil wars become more likely in tropical countries when they are under stress from an El Niño. The World Food Program, a United Nations relief agency, is preparing for expanded operations across Africa, and appealing for donations. Harvests are down across large stretches of that continent, and the number of people going hungry in Ethiopia is likely to be in the millions in coming months, relief groups have estimated.

"Scientists have long wondered whether human-induced global warmingwould alter the frequency or severity of El Niños, but so far, that does not seem to be the case. “We have no reason at this point to think that El Niño itself is responding to the forcing from greenhouse gases,” Dr. Seager said. “You can think of them as independent and adding to each other.”

"For much of the past decade, people who question established climate science have been claiming that global warming had stopped. Their argument depended on picking a particular base year — almost always 1998, the final year of the last strong El Niño — as their starting point. But mainstream climate scientists said that was a statistically invalid cherry-picking of the data, and their analysis of the entire record showed that global warming never stopped — at most, the rise of surface temperatures slowed somewhat, even as the oceans continued to warm at a brisk pace.

"The record-setting warmth of 2014 and 2015 has undermined the idea that the problem of greenhouse emissions had somehow solved itself, though some Washington politicians continue to repeat the claims. Climate scientists have not wavered in their view that the long-term temperature increase poses profound risks and that emissions must be brought under cont
rol."​
 
It’s Undeniable: Climate Change Made Hurricane Patricia Worse
LINK:
Hurricane Patricia was made worse by climate change.
TEXT: "Hurricane Patricia—now the strongest hurricane ever measured—is expected to make landfall in Mexico late Friday. According to the latest official forecast from the National Hurricane Center, Manzanillo, a city of 100,000 people, appears to be in Patricia’s direct path.

"After seeing the incredible data gathered by hurricane hunter aircraft overnight, a few meteorologists have argued that Patricia could be thought of as a Category 7 hurricane—though the official Saffir-Simpson scale only goes up to 5. Here’s the official description of likely damage from a Category 5 hurricane—like 1992’s Andrew in Florida, and 2013’s Haiyan in the Philippines—suitable for your nightmares:

"A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

"The original justification for cutting off the scale at 5 is that no human-built structure could withstand winds above its 155 mph threshold. So essentially there was no point in differentiating between storms once the winds were above 155. Right now, Patricia’s core winds are estimated to be 200 mph—with gusts to 250 mph—as strong as the tornado that destroyed Joplin, Missouri, in 2011, but at least 15 times larger in area. As I wrote earlier today, Patricia, at its current strength, is close to the theoretical maximum strength for a tropical cyclone on planet Earth. In fact, at one point on Friday morning, Patricia actually went above its maximum potential intensity.

"How did Patricia get to be so strong? The answer, quite simply, involves human-caused climate change. Hurricane Patricia is exactly the kind of terrifying storm we can expect to see more frequently in the decades to come. Although there’s no way to know exactly how much climate change is a factor in Patricia’s explosive strengthening, it’s irresponsible, at this point, not to discuss it.

"Scientists who study the link between hurricanes and climate change have long predicted, and debated, the trend of stronger tropical cyclones. The latest scienceseems to have settled on climate change boosting the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, even as total hurricane numbers may remain flat. Chris Mooney, at the Washington Post, gives a good overview of that science in the context of Patricia. Basically, storms like Patricia fit closely with these predictions, though they happen so infrequently that it’s almost impossible to definitively prove.

"Meteorologically, there are at least four reasons why global warming could have contributed to Patricia’s ferocity: El Niño, exceptionally warm ocean temperatures, increased atmospheric humidity, and sea level rise.

"The first two are related. Right now, the Pacific Ocean is in the middle of a near-record strength El Niño, which has boosted global ocean temperatures to the highest levels ever observed. Current water temperatures near Hurricane Patricia are some of the hottest on the planet, and well above normal. Recent research has shown that El Niños have become more intense in recent decades, and that climate change could double the frequency of strong El Niños by the end of the century. However, climate scientists are still very much debating this point—mostly because it’s generally difficult to attribute a climate change trend to events that are already fairly rare. Strong El Niños, like the current one, happen only a few times a century.

"What’s easier to attribute is the fact that, El Niño or not, the temperature of global oceans—and more importantly, the total heat content stored in the top layer of the world’s oceans—is skyrocketing. The carbon dioxide released by fossil fuel burning does a great job of trapping the sun’s energy, and recent research has shown most of that energy—more than 90 percent—is being funneled into the oceans. Hurricanes use that extra energy as fuel for the thunderstorms that swirl around their centers. Warmer water increases the intensity of updrafts, which draw in humid, tropical air, and in turn increases the chances of rapid storm intensification. In this way, storms forming in today’s climate probably have a better chance to reach their maximum potential intensity, as Patricia has.

"Since higher air temperatures boost evaporation rates, heavier rainfall is also an already-proven side effect of climate change. Higher humidity levels also provide more fuel for developing hurricanes, since intrusions of dry air into the storms’ centers can sometimes slow the intensification process. As Patricia makes landfall, it’s expected to produce up to two feet of rain in just a day or so along the slopes of Mexico’s coastal mountain range—creating a risk of devastating flash floods and mudslides.

"As sea levels rise from melting glaciers and polar ice, the damage caused by storm surge—the deadliest aspect of a hurricane landfall—has also increased. In Manzanillo, the city nearest Patricia’s likely landfall location, the ocean has risen by about 8 inches over the past 50 years, in line with the global average. Since El Niño’s boost of warm water also tends to produce a temporary rise in sea levels, the ocean is probably an additional 8 inches higher in Manzanillo right now. Both of those figures are on top of Patricia’s storm surge, which could top 15 feet.

"Even though it may not make sense from a wind speed perspective to create new hurricane categories, the fact that super hurricanes like Patricia may be becoming more common and that storm surge is a far deadlier threat anyway means that, from a public warning perspective, it may be time to revise the Saffir-Simpson scale. Patricia has made my vote clear: Climate change means we need a Category 6."
 
Here in SoCal we have finally had a break in the heat - which has a-typically been hanging around through October on the order of 90's and 100's. Anyone experiencing the last weeks and months in SoCal cannot doubt that something is changing.

With Hurricane Patricia powering ashore down south in Mexico, our weather has eased, down to the more typical 60's and 70's.

But this year's wild-cat El Nino is due in December - and we shall see if the predictions prove true (it's been a-typical since identified). Los Angeles County and the greater area civic leaders have already been busy pro-actively: cleaning storm drains,
assembling emergency supplies and designating locations for flood victims, etc.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those documentaries that project the consequences of ice melt into the future. Always interesting. :cool:

Antarctica, Secrets Beneath the Ice | Full Documentary HD
TEXT: "Published on Apr 2, 2015"
 
Greenland Is Melting Away: This river is one of a network of thousands at the front line of climate change.
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...c=edit_na_20151027&nlid=54852892&ref=cta&_r=0
TEXT: "ON THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET — The midnight sun still gleamed at 1 a.m. across the brilliant expanse of the Greenland ice sheet. Brandon Overstreet, a doctoral candidate in hydrology at the University of Wyoming, picked his way across the frozen landscape, clipped his climbing harness to an anchor in the ice and crept toward the edge of a river that rushed downstream toward an enormous sinkhole. If he fell in, “the death rate is 100 percent,” said Mr. Overstreet’s friend and fellow researcher, Lincoln Pitcher.

"But Mr. Overstreet’s task, to collect critical data from the river, is essential to understanding one of the most consequential impacts of global warming. The scientific data he and a team of six other researchers collect here could yield groundbreaking information on the rate at which the melting of Greenland ice sheet, one of the biggest and fastest-melting chunks of ice on Earth, will drive up sea levels in the coming decades. The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet. “We scientists love to sit at our computers and use climate models to make those predictions,” said Laurence C. Smith, head of the geography department at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the leader of the team that worked in Greenland this summer. “But to really know what’s happening, that kind of understanding can only come about through empirical measurements in the field.”

"For years, scientists have studied the impact of the planet’s warming on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. But while researchers have satellite images to track the icebergs that break off, and have created models to simulate the thawing, they have little on-the-ground information and so have trouble predicting precisely how fast sea levels will rise.

[See linked article for very cool graphic at this point.]

"Their research could yield valuable information to help scientists figure out how rapidly sea levels will rise in the 21st century, and thus how people in coastal areas from New York to Bangladesh could plan for the change." [See linked article to continue reading....]
 
Last edited:
See how much the world has physically changed since you were born. Hint: It's more than you realize:
Sometimes it's hard to see change as it's happening around us.
LINK: See how much the world has physically changed since you were born. Hint: It's more than you realize.
TEXT: "Sure, you might notice that first fallen leaf of autumn as it crumbles underfoot or the glimmer of a flower bud bursting the snow. But for the most part, we're not actively aware of the effects of time as we go through it. It's only when we look back that we can see difference by comparison.

"But there are a lot of other things that have been changing around us while we've been alive, and I'm not just talking about the seasons. Maybe you've come to expect the annual cycles of the weather, but what about the rest of the world? And what's the difference from one winter to the next?

"Let's take a look at how the world has changed since you were born — like physically changed, in ways beyond strip malls and landfills.

Are you a Centenarian? (a) Congrats! (b) The average temperature has increased 2 degrees to 3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1915.
Full100years-ea4134d36a07cfb2af71d5d0828ad522.gif


Heating world GIF images via NASA.

"It goes from almost all blue — that's -1 degree to 0 degrees Celsius (aka that tens-based temperature measurement used in the rest of the world that makes a lot more sense) — to almost all reds and oranges. It might not seem like the biggest deal, but remember: This is just an average.

But you might not be that old. Let's jump ahead to the mid-1960s — specifically 1965.
1965-2015-4e4e07f8ddd0c62b426318cb85e0a7ef.gif


"See how similar the average temperature in 1965 was to 1915 above? That means most of that change has happened in the last half-century, a fact which probably has very little to do with Dylan going electric.

If you were born a decade later in 1975, things were just starting to heat up.
1975-2015-c6dc29ed810922d6756b6907c68c2d0d.gif


"Things were really gettin' hot around Antarctica and Australia, which I'd much rather attribute to the release of the first AC/DC record than to something ridiculous like carbon emissions.

Generally speaking, people born in 1985 came unto this sizzling Earth with hopes for good luck and a sparkling wit.
1985-2015-44a9a2c482983f3c71bd3e1fcd804e29.gif


"There's an entirely logical reason for the world being so much hotter all the sudden, and it's not "Howard the Duck." (Did I mention that I'm turning 30 soon, and you can totally buy me presents? You should do that!)

You 1995ers were the first to face a world without Kurt Cobain (and the climate felt sad about it, too).
1995-2015-1c6a6f944058b898ffd58926dc2289fa.gif


"For those of us in America, this decade got just a little bit warmer, but probably not enough that you would notice. But there are a lot more red spots all around the globe, which may or may not have had something to do with the conclusion of the OJ Simpson murder trial (I'm thinkin' not, though).

As for those of you born in 2005, I admit: I have a hard time believing you're real and on the Internet right now.
2005-2015-5a388368158d50b93da6b3b494eed30c.gif


"I'm not sure which is scarier: that you never knew a world without Facebook or that you never knew a world that wasn't already covered in the orange temperature zone. Honestly, it's a toss-up.

What about those who were born right on the decade lines? Let's go back to 1980 and check the view from the top.
1980-2010-Ice-21b99862c784c8a171c69f28ebba5682.gif


Polar ice GIFs via National Geographic.

"Back in the day when the Clash was still a band, the "Star Wars" prequels were but a formative inkling in George Lucas's mind, and ... wait did that polar ice cap lose like half its landmass in the last 35 years?!

Then of course there are the children of 1990, who are same age as "The Simpsons" (the show, not the characters).
1990-2010-ice-8e78e8f2037aa0ca89f1c90f8c195f54.gif


"Compare that 1990 ice cap to the way it looked in 1980, and that's about as different as the bass line from "Under Pressure" and the one from "Ice Ice Baby." Oh hey, remember Vanilla Ice? He was something, huh?

And that brings us back to the turn of the millennium. How 'bout them polar ice caps, 2000 babies?
2000-2010-ice-392c74b673491d8bb02997ada0f50917.gif


"Oh, I'm sorry — you thought all that melting was evenly spread across three long decades? Yeah, not so much. I guess we were all too busy freaking out about the Y2K bug-that-never-was to even notice.

But now we're gonna party like it's 1999, when the World Atlas map began to drastically change.
ice-cap-99-14-d0a911c8e7f6f8554103dd4ddd42c95e.gif


Map GIF from National Geographic.

"On average, the polar ice caps have shrunk by 12% each decade since the '70s, and that melting rate has become exponentially worse since 2007. The image above depicts the actual changes made to the world map between 1999 and 2014, according to the World Atlas.

"That's a pretty major change for 15 years, right? But get this:

The maps of the Arctic Circle as seen in 2014 edition of the World Atlas are already inaccurate.
"Yeah. It really is that bad.

"Ironically, the rate of Arctic melting has essentially snowballed — the factors add up exponentially, and the effects get bigger and bigger and bigger (even as the snow itself disappears). So while yes, there are still winters and it still gets cold, the ecosystem is disastrously out of balance, and it's only getting worse.

"But fear not! There's still hope!
"Or maybe do fear a little bit, if that's the kind of motivation that you need to makesustainable environmental changes in your life or to urge President Obama to take action before it gets too late. Because we seriously need to do something — and fast.

"Here's a little more information, courtesy of National Geographic.

Is Ice Melt Altering NG Maps?
TEXT: "Published on Jun 11, 2014: National Geographic's soon-to-be-published "Atlas of the World," tenth edition, will show the most dramatic change in Arctic ice since the 1963 publication of the first edition."
 
Last edited:
My Dark California Dream: Our parents had wide open spaces all around. We still had nature within reach. Now what?
By DANIEL DUANE OCT. 24, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/o...0151025&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0
TEXT: "CALIFORNIA’S over, everything I love about this place is going to hell.

"I knew there was something familiar about this thought from the moment it occurred to me in Yosemite National Park. My sister and I started going to those mountains 40 years ago with our parents, who taught us to see the Sierra Nevada as a never-changing sanctuary in a California increasingly overrun by suburban sprawl.

"Once we had our own families, we indoctrinated our kids in the same joys: suffering under backpacks, drinking snowmelt from creeks, jumping into (and quickly back out of) icy lakes, and napping in wildflower meadows. Yosemite remains my personal paradise, but the impact of drought and climate change has become overwhelming — smoky air from fires, shriveled glaciers leaving creeks dry and meadows gray, no wildflowers.

"The big new forest fire didn’t help, as we hiked back to our car in mid-August. We were never in danger, but smoke from that so-called Walker fire filled the sky and turned sunlight orange. At the surprisingly good restaurant attached to the Lee Vining Mobil station just outside the park, ashes fell like apocalyptic snowflakes onto our fish tacos. We watched a DC-10 air tanker carpet bomb flames a few miles off. We had intended to stay in a nearby motel, but Highway Patrol officers told us they planned to close the road, so we joined the line of vehicles escorted past red walls of fire.

"We slept at a friend’s house on the western flank of the Sierra Nevada. The next morning, as we began our drive home to San Francisco, this sense of unraveling — of California coming apart at the seams — worsened by the mile. The air was more Beijing than Yosemite, and the Merced River, normally a white-water pleasure ground, was a muddy sequence of black pools below mountains covered with dead ponderosa pines, a tiny sample of the more than 12 million California trees killed by drought and the bark beetles that thrive in this now-warmer climate.

"The San Joaquin Valley, still farther west, is depressing on good days, with its endemic poverty and badly polluted air and water. But driving in freeway traffic through endless housing developments on that particular weekend encouraged a fugue state of bleakness in me. Somewhere in that haze lay an industrial-agricultural plain where the unregulated pumping of groundwater has gone on for so long that corporate farms pull up moisture that rained down during the last glacial period — with two paradoxical and equally strange geological effects.

"First, the evacuation of so much water from underground pore spaces is causing the surface of some parts of the valley floor to collapse downwardby nearly two inches a month. Second, the lifting of water weight — all those trillions of gallons from underground, and more vanishing from reservoirs and snowpack throughout the West — is now causing the rocky crust of the Earth, which floats on our planet’s molten interior, to push upward.

"As a result, the Sierra Nevada mountain range is gaining about 1 to 3 millimeters in elevation annually. San Francisco, normally cool and clear, completed the picture: air so murky we could barely see the bay below the bridge, yet another scorching day in a freakishly warm summer — thanks in part to the immense blob of warm ocean water parked against the west coast. Roughly five hundred miles wide and thousands long, this warm water carries subtropical plankton that may be related to the accelerated decline of the Pacific sardine population, the failure of pelicans to mate and the mass die-offs of baby shorebirds and sea-lion pups. Concomitant blooms of toxic algae have shut down crab fisheries on the coast and, inland, befouled our rivers so much that, on at least two occasions this year, dogs jumped in to swim and promptly died.

"We were nearly home, inching through Sunday-afternoon traffic (rush hour is now everywhere and always), when I realized that I had become my parents. Put another way, it was finally my turn to suffer the sense of loss that made my mother weep over every strip mall obliterating every once-lovely farm during family road trips in our 1971 VW micro-bus. My father’s nostalgia was more for 1950s Los Angeles: Bing Crosby living down the street, the Four Freshmen on the radio, a T-shirt filled with oranges as he rode the bus from his family’s Westwood home through sleepy neighborhoods to a completely separate town called Santa Monica.

"Confusing one’s own youth with the youth of the world is a common human affliction, but California has been changing so fast for so long that every new generation gets to experience both a fresh version of the California dream and, typically by late middle-age, its painful death.

"For Gold Rush prospectors, of course, that dream was about shiny rocks in the creeks — at least until 300,000 people from all over the world, in the space of 10 years, overran the state and snatched up every nugget. Insane asylums filled with failed argonauts and the dream was dead — unless you were John Muir walking into Yosemite Valley in 1868. Ad hoc genocide, committed by miners, settlers and soldiers, had so devastated the ancient civilizations of the Sierra Nevada that Muir could see those mountains purely as an expression of God’s glory. “I’m in the woods, woods, woods, and they are in me-ee-ee,” Muir wrote about the giant sequoias, in a Whitman-esque letter to a friend. “I wish I were so drunk and Sequoical that I could preach the green brown woods to all the juiceless world, descending from this divine wilderness like a John the Baptist.… Come suck Sequoia, and be saved.”

"Muir got his turn when San Franciscans dammed his beloved Hetch Hetchy Valley inside Yosemite National Park, part of a statewide water grab that included Los Angeles developers’ swindling Owens Valley farmers out of both their water and their economic future. But all that water helped create the coastal urban paradise that lured my grandfather west in the mid-1940s, when there were fewer than 10 million people in the state: abundant jobs in defense and entertainment, middle-class families buying homes with sunny backyards, plenty of room on wide highways to seaside coves where good surf peeled across reefs with abundant lobster free for the picking.

"Dad went to the University of California, Berkeley, spent three years in the Navy and three more in law school, then moved to Washington, D.C., with my mother to work for L.B.J.’s anti-poverty program. He came back in late 1968 to find Los Angeles buried under a concrete megalopolis. Up in San Francisco, meanwhile, where Mom grew up, methamphetamine and violence were already darkening the hippie dream.

"Kevin Starr, a professor of history at the University of Southern California and author of a seven-volume history of the California dream, told me recently that he considered the mid-1960s — 1963 specifically — the end of modernist California, that period for which it makes sense to speak of “an agreed-upon, commanding” version of the dream. In Mr. Starr’s view, around the time I was born, in 1967, California entered a postmodern phase with multiple dreams in parallel: back-to-the-landers on communes; migrant farmworkers organizing in the San Joaquin Valley; gay and lesbian life proudly out in the open; and, of course, the outdoorsy-liberal existence that my parents found in Berkeley.

"Real estate was still affordable and the public schools were among the best in the nation, so it made sense for my parents to shape life around meaningful work and just enough money to enjoy all that glorious public land. Mom sold her artwork and helped start a women’s small press; Dad worked for the local branch of Legal Services and, in 1972, on a combined income of $13,000, they bought a four-bedroom Berkeley Victorian for $27,000. They joined the Sierra Club and took us backpacking and, later, rock-climbing. When my parents felt especially flush, they took us skiing near Lake Tahoe. They even considered buying a weekend home at Stinson Beach in Marin — although $10,000, the asking price, was ultimately too much.

"By the time I graduated from Berkeley High School, in 1985, those Stinson Beach homes fetched more like $350,000, but even public school teachers and jazz musicians could still buy modest homes in Berkeley’s lesser neighborhoods. Families like mine were building a secular religion around cross-country skiing in winter, rafting or kayaking on the springtime melt, climbing Yosemite’s cliffs with great new safety gear, and enjoying cold-water surf courtesy of new wet suit technology. Food, too: organic produce, local oysters, California king salmon, Napa wine.

"It was soft hedonism, admittedly, but a decent life that remained more or less available right through my early adulthood — as in 15 years ago. That’s when my wife and I — “arguably the last two writers ever to buy a home in San Francisco,” says Mr. Starr — bought a fixer-upper in an unfashionable neighborhood with a street gang on the corner. Even as our daughters went off to preschool, it seemed plausible that we might pass on our lifestyle to them.

"I REALIZE that most Californians do not live in my Northern California bubble, and I have no doubt that it all looks very different to the brothers from Chiapas, Mexico, who once helped me remodel my house, and who then spent their modest earnings on land back home; or to fourth-generation Japanese-American kids whose great-grandparents lost everything when the federal government incarcerated their families in World War IIinternment camps. But I do know that all over Northern California, there is a profound mood of loss: Oakland, long a bastion of African-American cultural life, has seen housing rental rates jump 20 percent this past year; San Francisco’s lesbian bars are closing, and the Castro gets less gay by the year.

"Then there’s the shock of raising kids with public schools ranked among the worst in the nation, and public universities that have more than doubled in cost since 2007. Most of my outdoor pleasures are still available, but it’s getting scary with the desertification of subalpine ecosystems, Sierra snowpack at a historic low, as much as 20 percent of California’s once-majestic forests at risk of dying, and freeway traffic so ubiquitous that it can be soul-destroying just getting out of town to see all this stuff.

"The real estate market, in the meantime, has become so bizarre that my funky little neighborhood is already beyond the reach of young doctors and lawyers — techies only need apply — and Stinson Beach is strictly for plutocrats.

"Josh Churchman, a 63-year-old commercial fisherman who lives near Stinson in a legendary hippie hide-out called Bolinas, told me a story about sitting in his living room back in the early ’70s. A neighbor stopped by, offering to sell Mr. Churchman a nearby home for $20,000. “I had the money in cash, in the room, but I was building a new fishing boat so I turned him down,” Mr. Churchman says, in a California tale many times told. “In a single generation,” says Mr. Churchman, “my hometown went from where a guy like me could afford a home to ‘Not in your wildest dreams.’ ” As for the waters that gave Mr. Churchman a living, well, he hardly bothers fishing for salmon anymore, with the record low catch. “Eyes wide open, here,” says Terry Sawyer, co-owner of the nearby Hog Island Oyster Company, where the big issue is excess atmospheric carbon dioxide raising ocean acidity so fast that oyster larvae struggle to build shells. “The California dream of us being wet and making a living and enjoying ourselves may be threatened,” he says. “I have kids, and I want that dream intact for them, but it may not be the same dream. I may not be growing the same organism. I am hopeful, but I am extremely concerned.”

"Everybody is — except, of course, those living the most obvious new California dream, the technology gold rush. Try telling successful 25-year-old entrepreneurs in San Francisco that California’s over and you’ll get blank stares as they contemplate stock options, condos going up all over the city, restaurants packed nightly and spectacular organic produce at farmers’ markets every day.

"It’s not only 25-year-olds saying that. “You’re a naturalist, Duane, so of course you see it through that lens,” said Mr. Starr, later in our conversation. “But don’t lose sight of all the great new things happening, all over California. Marc Benioff just built one of the greatest pediatric hospitals on the planet a few miles from your house! And this whole tsunami of foreign investment pouring into California is really a ringing endorsement of the dream.”

"I drive by Mr. Benioff’s hospital every day, and I know that Mr. Starr is right. I am also impressed, sincerely, by all these brilliant people making fortunes seemingly overnight. I recognize that prosperity is better than its absence, and I like the fact that Californians still help make the future look hopeful, by developing better solar panels and electric cars, sustainable agriculture and marine-protected areas that preserve fish populations and their habitats. I have also noticed the friendly crowds jostling my elbows at every surf break and on the shockingly long lines below Yosemite rock climbs. These people have as much fun as I ever did, loving the only version of California available to them.

"But that’s my point. Wallace Stegner, the great 20th-century novelist and environmentalist, in a mood similar to the one I’m feeling — he hated hippies, worried they might foretell the impending collapse of Western civilization — wrote that “Like the rest of America, California is unformed, innovative, ahistorical, hedonistic, acquisitive, and energetic — only more so.” Put all those qualities together and you get a place that always belongs to somebody else, before you even know it’s for sale.

"Back in my 20s, I thought I’d grown up in California too late — after all the mountains had been climbed and all the good surf breaks discovered. Right on schedule, in middle age — as the state’s population reaches 40 million — I am now tempted to think that I lived through the end of a golden era. But maybe the better way to say it is that just like every other Californian for as long as anybody can remember, I have merely witnessed a fleeting chapter in a centuries-long human story in which the lost Eden we all heard about from our parents is eternally changing into the pretty damn nice place we found — and then, much too soon for comfort, into the next bewildering mixture of good and bad that we scarcely recognize."
 
Catastrophic & Historic Flooding Underway in Parts of Central Texas – Updated Forecast This Afternoon
Friday, 30 October 2015

LINK: Catastrophic & Historic Flooding Underway in Parts of Central Texas - Updated Forecast This Afternoon • Texas Storm Chasers
TEXT: "It has been an incredibly busy morning across Central and South-Central Texas. Several tornadoes and catastrophic flash flooding are underway across Hays county. I’ll be honest when I say I was not expecting this type of activity this morning. Some locations across Comal and Hays counties have recorded a foot of rain this morning. This is an extremely life-threatening situation comparable to the historic flooding we saw in May. Many roads are closed and its only going to get worse. However with more areas of Texas expected to be impacted today lets go ahead and take a look at what we can expect through the afternoon.



"A level 2 possible severe weather risk remains in effect through the late afternoon hours across South Texas, Central Texas, and Southeast Texas. A level 1 marginal risk across the Concho Valley, North Texas, and portions of East Texas. The primary severe weather risk will be isolated tornadoes. As we’ve already seen the atmosphere is supportive of tornadic activity. As a warm front makes slow progress north we could see the severe weather threat also spread into more of Central Texas – like around Temple/Waco. For the past hour the front has stalled out around Austin which is helping to create extreme rainfall rates.


8 AM HRRR Weather Model simulated radar through this evening. Times are in eastern in top-right.

"The High Resolution Rapid Refresh suggests additional thunderstorms will form this afternoon and evening across the Big Country and Concho Valley. That activity will move east towards Interstate 35 from D/FW south through the San ANtonio Metro. Some of these storms could be severe with the possibility of damaging wind gusts and a couple tornadoes. The overall severe weather threat will depend on what convection does through early afternoon. By far the most significant threat will be flash flooding. Parts of South Austin into San Marcos and Wimberly are receiving six inches of rain an HOUR. This has been going on for a while now. This is truely going to be a catastrophic and probably historic event for folks that just had to deal with flooding in May."
 
Take away points (among many): "It's also terrible for climate change. So far this year, these fires have released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuels burned annually in Germany. On at least 38 days in September and October, Indonesia's fires were spewing more daily emissions than the entire United States economy.**

** A note on emissions: Normally, the CO2 that gets released by a wildfire is reabsorbed when all the vegetation grows back, so the net effect on climate change is fairly minimal. But that's not true if a) forest area is being permanently cleared for farming, as it often is in Indonesia, or b) the fire burns through peat, which contain a vast store of carbon and methane that have built up over many, many years. In those cases, the net effect will be to exacerbate global warming."

How Indonesia's fires became one of the world's biggest climate disasters

Updated by Brad Plumer on October 30, 2015
LINK: Indonesia's fires are the biggest eco-disaster in the world right now
TEXT: "One of the worst eco-disasters on the planet is currently unfolding in Indonesia. Over the past two months, thousands of forest and peatland fires have been raging out of control, choking the entire region in a thick, toxic haze.

"The enormous smoke columns can be seen from space. NASA snapped this satellite pic of peat fires in Borneo on October 19:

borneo_amo_2015292.jpg
Heavy smoke from peat fires in Borneo, Indonesia on October 19, 2015. (NASA Earth Observatory)
"The fires themselves have been a public-health nightmare, forcing multiple evacuations, killing at least 19, and triggering respiratory illnesses in more than half a million people. Noxious haze and harmful particulate pollution has stretched as far as Malaysia and Singapore.

"It's also terrible for climate change. So far this year, these fires have released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuels burned annually in Germany. On at least 38 days in September and October, Indonesia's fires were spewing more daily emissions than the entire United States economy.**

IndoEmissionsUS_Oct26.png
(World Resources Institute)
"Calamitous fires in Indonesia are nothing new. They typically break out every year during the dry season that runs from July to October. But this year is on track to be one of the worst ever recorded, with nearly 120,000 active fires detected already. So what's going on?

"Why Indonesia's fires have been so bad in 2015
"For decades, Indonesia's farmers have been intentionally setting fires to clear away rainforest for farmland and produce commodities like palm oil, a popular ingredient in processed foods, cosmetics, and biodiesel fuel. The country's small farmers are legally allowed to burn up to 2 hectares, though enforcement is lax, and experts say many people set fires illegally to grab extra land.

"The real problems start when these fires occur in areas rich in peat, a dense, soil-like mixture of partially decayed leaves and branches. Fires in these peatlands can proliferate uncontrollably, smoldering underground for weeks, feeding off the soil, releasing toxic pollutants and vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane all the while. Peat fires often don't stop until heavy rains come along to extinguish them.

fires_heatdensity-map.png
(World Resources Institute)
"This year's season has been especially brutal because there's been little rain to halt those fires. For that, blame the gigantic El Niño brewing in the Pacific Ocean, which has led to an unusually severe dry spell in Indonesia. (A similarly large El Niño in 1997 also led to a staggeringly large fire season.) "In many years, these fires might only last for a week or two," says Nigel Sizer, the global director of the forests program at the World Resources Institute. "This time, they've lasted almost two months."

"Indonesia's fire problem is the result of years of poor policy
"I had called up Sizer to ask him to walk me through the origins of Indonesia's fire crisis and what could be done to fix it. He told me you have to start with the country's long history of mismanaging its lands. "Start 30 or 40 years ago," he said. "You had these big swaths of land and forests that were handed out by [Indonesia's then-dictator] Suharto and his cronies as part of his political patronage network. That resulted in massive land grabs, which in turn created the basis for the major pulp and paper and palm oil conglomerates. Today, Indonesia is a democracy, but you still see a similar pattern of poor governance, corruption, and patronage at national and local levels. Land still changes hands based on who you know rather than how well you manage it."

"Poor land management has caused all sorts of problems. In an ideal world, Indonesia would have blocked off the richest peatlands in places like Sumatra and Borneofrom agricultural development — those are, after all, the areas that cause the most havoc when they catch fire. But Indonesia has done the opposite, awarding some 14 million hectares of palm oil concessions on peat-rich land over the years. Many politicians today concede this was a huge mistake.

"Here's a map from 2011 showing the spread of palm oil plantations across the peatlands of Sumatra, Borneo, and Malaysia;

0307Koh_PNAS_Figure1.jpg
Distribution of closed canopy oil palm plantations and tropical peatlands in the lowlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo and Sumatra.
"As farmers clear away trees and drain the marshes in these regions, all this peat becomes dried out, more easily able to catch fire. Throw in a bunch of people setting fires to clear out vegetation for farmland, and you have a major conflagration just waiting to happen.

"Compounding the problem, the government hasn't been able to enforce what rules it does have to protect these forest areas. Legally, small farmers are allowed to burn up to 2 hectares for their own use. But unscrupulous entrepreneurs can easily hijack these rules to clear even more land for larger palm oil plantations. Sometimes they'll hire middlemen to recruit a bunch of poor people into an area and start burning. Other times they'll illegally start fires in the hopes that they'll expand uncontrollably. In many cases, these entrepreneurs have support from local elites and corrupt local politicians. "It's often very hard to tell," says Sizer, "is this a small farmer legally setting a fire to clear land, or is it a guy who’s been paid by a middleman, paid by local government, hoping that the fire gets out of control?" The result: Lots of people are setting illegal fires, and a lot of these fires are occurring on dried-out peatland, which in turn had led to the destructive smog currently engulfing Indonesia and its neighbors.

"Is there any way to fix Indonesia's fire crisis?
"Last week, Indonesian President Joko Widodo emphasized a couple of big steps to get the nation's perennial fire crisis under control. Encouragingly, Sizer points out, those steps are in line with what experts have been recommending for years. The big question is whether the government actually follows through.

"First, Widodo said, Indonesia needs to stop allowing more development on peatlands, and the government should look into canceling some existing licenses on those lands. He also called for the diversion of canals for the "rewetting" of peatlands, which would help restore those ecosystems to their natural state, limiting fires and sequestering all that carbon.

"This step, if enacted and strictly enforced, could go a long way toward curbing the worst fire outbreaks. "Roughly half the current fires are burning on peat, and emissions of fires on peat are orders of magnitude bigger [than non-peat fires]," Sizer says. "So addressing that relatively small landscape would dramatically diminish the problem."

"It would also help put Indonesia's palm oil industry on a more sustainable footing. As demand for palm oil in the West has soared in recent years, Indonesia's farmers have cleared an area the size of Taiwan, leading to widespread rainforest losses and driving Sumatran tigers and orangutans to near-extinction. In theory, this shouldn't have to happen. Analysts have identified plenty of already-degraded land throughout Indonesia that would be suitable for palm-oil plantations; no deforestation or further peat degradation necessary. The trick, however, is that it's often difficult for companies to actually move into these areas: Sizer notes that getting the right type of licenses can be prohibitively complex. In many cases, it's easier to just hack down pristine forests.

"Another notable proposal Widodo has been pursuing: a "one map" initiative that would clarify land ownership throughout Indonesia, helping to resolve recurring land conflicts (another underlying cause of the fires), standardize mapping, and rationalize ownership. This move, if combined with more stringent enforcement, could help improve the rule of law and prevent illegal clearing.

"Of course, if fixing the problem were that simple, it would've been done years ago. The hitch here is that any reform efforts are likely to face strident opposition from some corners.

"One key thing to understand is that Indonesia's palm oil industry is divided between two broad segments. First, there are the really large plantations and multinational palm oil traders like Wilmar and Cargill. These companies have been facing heavy public pressure from Western activists and consumers to make the palm oil industry more sustainable. Recently, Wilmar, which oversees roughly 50 percent of the global trade,pledged not to buy palm oil from anyone who had recently cleared rainforest or drained peatlands. So these bigger companies are likely to support clearer rules and enforcement.

"But there's another segment of the industry that isn't so keen on reforms: the smaller and medium-size growers, as well as local political elites who make a lot of money from the status quo and benefit from illegal and informal production. (By some accounts, about 40 percent of palm oil production is from smallholders, much of it illicit.) That group, Sizer notes, is likely to resist a major revamping of forestry rules.

"It also remains to be seen whether Widodo's push for reform will sputter out once the fire season quiets down. On October 26, heavy rains finally opened up on the island of Kalimantan, which dampened fires there and began washing toxic (some) smog out of the air. That hasn't fully tamed the fire outbreaks across the country, but it's helped.

"The crucial thing, Sizer says, "is that we don't forget about all this once the rains finally move in." In past severe fire seasons, he notes, "there's always lots media coverage and promises to fix things, but eventually the fires die out, everyone moves on to other things, and people forget. Hopefully this time it was so serious, that that won’t happen."

----

** A note on emissions: Normally, the CO2 that gets released by a wildfire is reabsorbed when all the vegetation grows back, so the net effect on climate change is fairly minimal. But that's not true if a) forest area is being permanently cleared for farming, as it often is in Indonesia, or b) the fire burns through peat, which contain a vast store of carbon and methane that have built up over many, many years. In those cases, the net effect will be to exacerbate global warming.
 
Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 1
TEXT: “When I left the White House in 2001, I really didn’t know what I was going to do with my life,” Al Gore told me this summer, at his office in the Green Hills district of Nashville. “I’d had a plan”—this with a seemingly genuine chuckle rather than any sign of a grimace—“but … that changed!” After the “change,” via the drawn-out 2000 presidential election in which he won the vote of the populace but not that of the Supreme Court, for the first time in his adult life Gore found himself without an obvious next step. He was 52, two years younger than Barack Obama is now; he hadn’t worked outside the government in decades; and even if he managed to cope personally with a historically bitter disappointment that might have broken many people, he would still face the task of deciding how to spend the upcoming years.

Some of the answers he found are known to everyone. He connected himself with the leading tech firms of the era, Google and Apple. In 2005 he and a partner launched Current TV, which in 2013 was sold to Al Jazeera for several hundred million dollars. Throughout his political life he was poor compared with many senators; now by any standard he is rich. According to his financial-disclosure forms, Gore was worth between $1 million and $2 million when he ran for president. Gore declined to discuss his personal finances with me, but published estimates of his net worth are in the hundreds of millions. He was the most prominent U.S. politician to issue an early warning against the impending invasion of Iraq, which he did in a speech in California in September 2002. His first book about climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, was a No. 1 international best seller. The movie version won two Oscars, the audiobook won a Grammy, and for his climate work Gore was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007,

Gore is still involved on most of these fronts. He has become a partner in the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins and is a member of the Apple board. He founded and chairs an advocacy group called the Climate Reality Project, travels constantly for speeches, and has published several books since An Inconvenient Truth, including another No. 1 best seller, The Assault on Reason. I asked him how he divided his time among the projects. “Probably a little more than half on Climate Reality,” and then half on some other commitments. “And then probably another half on Generation.”

The object of this final “half” is Generation Investment Management, a company that is rarely mentioned in press coverage of Gore but that he says is as ambitious as his other efforts.

The most sweeping way to describe this undertaking is as a demonstration of a new version of capitalism, one that will shift the incentives of financial and business operations to reduce the environmental, social, political, and long-term economic damage being caused by unsustainable commercial excesses. What this means in practical terms is that Gore and his Generation colleagues have done the theoretically impossible: Over the past decade, they have made more money, in the Darwinian competition of international finance, by applying an environmentally conscious model of “sustainable” investing than have most fund managers who were guided by a straight-ahead pursuit of profit at any environmental or social price.

[article continued below]
 
Continuation: Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 2

TEXT: "A growing number of economists warn that ever shorter time horizons are destroying businesses and entire economies.

Their demonstration has its obvious limits: It’s based on the track record of one firm, which through one decade-long period has managed assets that are merely boutique-scale in the industry’s terms. Generation now invests a total of about $12 billion for its clients, which are mainly pension funds and other institutional investors, half U.S.-based and half overseas. For comparison, total assets under management by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset-management firm, are about $5 trillion, or 400 times as much. But for investment strategies, the past decade has been a revealing one, with its bubbles, historic crashes, and dramatic shifts in economic circumstances in China, Europe, and every other part of the globe.


During that tumultuous time, from the summer of 2005 through this past June, the MSCI World Index, a widely accepted measure of global stock-market performance, showed an overall average growth rate of 7 percent a year. According to Mercer, a prominent London-based analytical firm, the average pre-fee return for the global-equity managers it surveys was 7.7 percent. This meant that after fees, which average about 70 “basis points” (or seven-tenths of 1 percent), the returns an average professional money manager could produce barely kept up with plain old low-cost, passive index funds. Individual investors have heard this message (“You can’t beat the market, so why try?”) for years, from index-investing firms like Vanguard. The Mercer analysis says that it applies even to the big-endowment pros.

But through that same period, according to Mercer, the average return for Generation’s global-equity fund, in which nearly all its assets are invested, was 12.1 percent a year, or more than 500 basis points above the MSCI index’s growth rate. Of the more than 200 global-equity managers in the survey, Generation’s 10-year average ranked as No. 2. In addition to being nearly the highest-returning fund, Generation’s global-equity fund was among the least volatile.

Gore is obviously delighted to discuss the implications of his firm’s success. “I wanted us to start talking when the five-year returns were in, but cooler heads persuaded me that we should wait until now,” he told me. But he says he is not doing so to attract more business. The minimum investment Generation will accept in its main fund is $3 million, and even then individuals must show they have total assets many times that large to be “qualified investors.” And besides, its most successful fund is now closed to new investment. Instead he and his colleagues are aiming at a small audience within the financial world that steers the flow of capital, and at the political authorities that set the rules for the financial system. “It turns out that in capitalism, the people with the real influence are the ones with capital!,” Gore told me during one of our talks this year. The message he hopes Generation’s record will call attention to is one the world’s investors can’t ignore: They can make more money if they change their practices in a way that will, at the same time, also reduce the environmental and social damage modern capitalism can do.

“We are making the case for long-term greed,” David Blood told me in July. Blood is Generation’s senior partner and on-scene leader at its headquarters in London. The formal name for the concept he and Gore are advancing is sustainable capitalism, which sounds both more familiar and less hard-edged than what I understand to be the real underlying idea. The idea is that if some tenets of “long term” and “value based” investing are extended to include the environmental and social ramifications of corporate activity, the result can be better financial performance, rather than returns that are “nearly as good” or “worth it when you think of the social benefits.”

I asked David Rubenstein, the billionaire co-founder and co-CEO of the Carlyle Group, the private-equity firm, what he thought of Generation’s aspirations and its business model. “The general theory in investing is that the highest returns go to those who are unencumbered by sustainability or other environmental and social constraints,” he said. Generation’s “pitch that the conventional wisdom is wrong may be right; their record would be a good barometer.”

“They are indeed unusual, in applying such a comprehensive sustainability perspective,” Dominic Barton, the global head of McKinsey, said when I asked him about Generation’s approach. “They have created a real demonstration vehicle for the idea that if you are broad-minded and care about externalities, you can actually add shareholder value. Many people have talked about this, but now they have done it.” The economist Laura Tyson, of UC Berkeley, who is part of Generation’s unpaid advisory board, said that Gore and Blood were “genuine pioneers” in showing the practicality of their investment approach. “When they started, very few people believed that a sustainability strategy could offer competitive returns,” she told me. “Their hypothesis has been borne out by their results.”

No single small company is going to change finance by itself, and Generation’s past results are no guarantee of its future. But previous examples of market success—Peter Lynch of Fidelity in the early mutual-fund days, Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway with his emphasis on the long term, David Swensen of Yale with his returns from unconventional investments, John Bogle of Vanguard with his advocacy of low-cost indexing—have shifted behavior. Generation’s goal is to present an example of a less environmentally and socially destructive path toward high returns.

The chain of logic behind this argument starts with the assumption that capitalism has shown its superiority to all other systems—as Gore put it to me, “it has proven to unlock a higher fraction of human potential” than any alternative system for making money—and markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources. But markets often overshoot, creating bubbles and busts like the destructive subprime real-estate disaster of the 2000s, and through its history the global capitalist system as a whole has periodically overshot, causing national or worldwide crises. The financial and industrial crises of the late 19th century led to reforms in the United States (and revolution in Russia) but were never fully resolved in Europe. The more profound crisis of the Great Depression led to the modern welfare state.

The capitalist crisis of our times, to follow this logic, shows up in the recurring booms and busts, the widening gaps between rich and poor, and the intensifying pressures on the natural environment. In many countries, including the United States, overall growth has stagnated through the past decade, and the median income has fallen even while total wealth has gone up.

In one way or another, all of these problems are related to faulty market signals or destructive incentives within today’s capitalism. Since the 2008 financial crisis, a growing number of economists, managers, and financiers have warned that ever shorter time horizons are destroying businesses and entire economies. For instance, this spring Laurence Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, sent a cautionary letter to hundreds of CEOs. As a group, he said, they were too attentive to short-term profitability and stock values, at the cost of the long-term welfare of their firms. “The average Fortune 500 CEO has a term of only five years,” Fink told me. “If you’re going to build a new factory in a manufacturing company, the break-even point is probably longer than that. In pharmaceuticals, the payoff time may be more than twice that long. There’s an incentive not to reinvest. You see these behaviors, year after year, and it’s a big problem.” Dominic Barton, of McKinsey, has written or co‑written three influential articles in the Harvard Business Review on the pernicious effects of short-term pressures. According to a 2012 Harvard Business School study, simply issuing quarterly profit guidance, which most Wall Street analysts demand, led managers to overemphasize immediate returns in a way that reduced long-term profitability.

So far these might sound like lessons from one of Warren Buffett’s annual letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, or the pre-IPO letter from Google’s founders on why they were determined to resist short-term profitability pressures.

The sustainable-capitalism concept includes a long-term outlook, a search for underlying value, and an attempt to resist distraction by market ephemera. But it adds the idea that the real, dollars-and-cents, balance-sheet value of a company is best assessed by including factors deliberately left out of many business measurements. Among them are a company’s environmental effects, the culture it creates internally, and its impact on the societies in which it operates.

This contention involves some elements that seem blandly commonsensical, like the importance of matching pay and incentive structures with a company’s long-term interests. But others are anything but conventional. For instance, Warren Buffett considers Coca-Cola a wonderful long-term value proposition, because of its decades-long track record of worldwide success. By Generation’s standards, it is distinctly unsustainable, since obesity problems in all of its leading market countries will, in the firm’s view, inevitably do to the soda industry what public-health concerns have done to Big Tobacco.

Generation’s best-known analysis is its 2013 report asserting that coal and petroleum reserves were “stranded assets” whose theoretical market value would never be realized, because environmental, legal, technological, and market constraints would inevitably prevent much of that carbon from being sold and burned. Generation argued that the bankruptcies, write-downs, and market declines that had battered the coal industry in the past decade would soon extend to oil companies. As a prominent Harvard alumnus, Gore has said that the university’s endowment should divest itself of carbon-based assets. “But I say that not just because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do but because it is the economically smart thing to do,” Gore told me. “Oil companies have assets on the books worth $21 trillion, but that’s based on the fiction that all that carbon is going to be burned.”
[article continued below]
 
Last edited:
Continuation: Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 3

TEXT: "Seeing More of the “Spectrum”
I’ve observed, interviewed, and slightly known Gore over the decades, and have been on better and worse terms with him over that time (based mainly on what I had most recently written about him). It’s common knowledge that his physical appearance varies. When I saw him this summer, he looked good—sturdy rather than portly, tall and erect, hair now gray rather than jet-black but still present and combed straight back. His speaking mode has also varied by year and by setting: sometimes loose and wisecracking, sometimes ponderous and slow. When I spoke with him through a long afternoon in Nashville this summer, he seemed to have evolved a jokey enjoyment of his own weakness for pedantry.

For instance: As I first walked into his office, he showed me a big photo of the Earth, like the famous Blue Marble picture from Apollo 17 that everyone has seen. This one showed Africa and Europe, rather than the Americas, as in the Apolloshot. “Nice!,” I said, or something similar. He realized he had an opening for a little tutelage, so he explained to me why this photo, far from nice, was something extraordinary.

It turned out that the familiar Blue Marble picture was not just the best-known “full disk” picture of the Earth. It was, according to Gore, the only one of that exact type ever taken—until, that is, a few days earlier, when a NASA satellite had produced the second-ever photograph, the one Gore was now showing to his underappreciative visitor. Gore had initiated the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite program, known as DSCOVR, when he was vice president; Dick Cheney personally zeroed out its funding as soon as he could, and the program went into hibernation until the Obama administration revived it. After more than 40 years in which one Blue Marble photo of the Earth existed, DSCOVRwould start producing photos every day. “I love explaining this!,” Gore said—and obviously he did. But he also seemed to be taking some arm’s-length amusement, in a way I had not seen him do during his competitive political career, at the spectacle of himself giving this little lecture.

He loved the spectrum even more. Halfway through our talk he asked politely, “Has anyone mentioned the metaphor of the spectrum, as a guide to our work?” I said that, as it happened, during my recent visit to the Generation Investment headquarters in London, every single person had mentioned it to me. It was a core part of company culture. And I was actually holding in my hand a chart that explained the concept. And …

“Oh, that’s great!” he said, and sat looking a little disappointed for a moment. Then he brightened. “But this is important, so I’d just like to explain …”

So now let me explain! We all know that there’s a spectrum of visible light, from red at one end, with the lowest-frequency waves, to violet at the other, with the highest. Everyone has also heard in science class that visible light is only a small part of the full electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum extends in a vastly broader range than we can see. Just below red, on the low end, it goes first to infrared and then farther down to microwaves and radio waves. On the high-frequency end, it goes from violet to ultraviolet and then up to X-rays and gamma rays. But until 200 years ago, people had no idea that the nonvisible parts of the spectrum even existed. “We can see less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what’s really there,” Gore said, making sure I got the point. “We were blind and didn’t know what we couldn’t see!”

The reason everyone at Generation uses this analogy is that it matches their ambition: to improve investment choices by bringing more information into the range of the visible rather than leaving anything out. (The other two words they use all the time are sustainability, which of course is their central precept, and holistic, to describe their inclusive analytical approach. I’ve gone this far in my journalistic career without feeling compelled to use holistic; I deploy it here as part of my reportorial duty.)

From Generation’s perspective, most of what passes for “financial” analysis—the focus on price-to-earnings ratios, the daily chatter on why the markets moved, the screaming on the cable shows, the speculation about the Federal Reserve—is equivalent to the tiny slice of the entire spectrum human eyes can see. It’s hard to detect the full extent of the spectrum, but Generation believes that attempting to do so can make businesses both more sustainable and more profitable.

When the spectrum model is applied to investing, it means a subtly but significantly different approach from some of the “ethical investing” approaches of the past. For as long as there have been buyers and sellers, borrowers and lenders, people have considered using market power for noneconomic ends, as in boycotts of British tea by the American colonialists in the 18th century and boycotts of the products of American slave labor in the 19th. The current ethical-investment movement dates to the 1960s, when students pressured their universities to rid endowments of holdings in defense contractors or big polluters. The most famous political success of what is called a “negative screen” approach—ruling out certain categories of investment—was the anti-apartheid boycott of South African products and businesses in the 1980s and early 1990s. But all of these methods viewed “ethics” as a minus, the unavoidable cost of doing the right thing. The people at Generation, of course, contend that the “holistic” and “sustainable” view is a business plus, in the service of long-term greed.
[article continued below]
 
Last edited:
Continuation: Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 4

TEXT: "Generation’s deliberative process for choosing investments differs profoundly from the investment-house norm.
They have more evidence to draw on than just their own. The most comprehensive recent research in this field, released last year by economists at Oxford University in collaboration with the investment firm Arabesque, drew on 190 academic studies and news reports about businesses that had and had not applied sustainability policies. The business-world term for these policies is ESG, meaning that in addition to normal profit-and-loss calculations a company factors in the environmental, social, and governance effects of what it does. In spectrum-analogy terms, these are policies that broaden considerations beyond the narrow range of visible light. (A related concept is that of the “triple bottom line,” promoted by the British consultant John Elkington starting in the 1990s. This is the idea that, in addition to the normal financial profit-and-loss bottom line, corporations should also be measured by the bottom line of their environmental and social effects.) The Oxford-Arabesque report found overwhelming evidence that “it is in the best economic interest for corporate managers and investors to incorporate sustainability considerations into decision-making processes.” According to the study, the advantages include more stable (and less volatile) revenues, significantly lower cost of capital, higher profits, and better share-price performance.

In an ongoing series of speeches, the Bank of England’s chief economist, Andrew Haldane, has similarly emphasized that firms and investors that widen their perspective and look beyond this quarter’s or year’s results can earn predictably higher returns than those that don’t. Most people who have taken economics courses would say: That can’t be so! If the returns really were higher, everyone would already be investing this way. Arbitrage would even out the returns. (In economics courses, this is known as the “$20 bill paradox”: An economist sees some money lying on the sidewalk and says, “That can’t be a $20 bill, because if it were, someone would have picked it up.”) But Haldane’s analysis shows a persistent market failure because of habits of mind, compensation structure, and other real-world factors that make investors undervalue long-term returns. Thus there are potential increased rewards for those who can organize themselves to think differently and buck the trend.

***

When Gore Met Blood
“I won’t be one of those people saying, ‘Oh, it wasn’t about the money,’ ” Gore told me about his early postelection work for an asset-management firm called Metropolitan West, based in Newport Beach, California. “I am telling you straight up, it was about the money. They were very nice people, and they offered me enough money to get my attention.”

After a year of work, Gore had improved his finances and found the intellectual exercise of asset management—matching insights about opportunities and challenges to bets on particular firms—to be truly interesting. “I decided that I wanted to continue in the business, but I wanted to do it on my own terms,” he told me. By 2003 Gore had made enough money to consider buying an investment company, and looked hard at one in Switzerland called Sustainable Asset Management. A friend at Goldman Sachs was advising him in this investment and said: You don’t really want to buy a company. What you want to do is meet David Blood.

Then in his early 40s, Blood had enjoyed a conventionally successful finance career, starting from an unconventional background. He grew up in the prosperous suburbs of Detroit, where his father was an executive with Ford. When he was 11 and headed into sixth grade, his father was reassigned to Brazil, and the whole family moved to São Paulo. Each morning, through the window by his breakfast table, he could look out directly onto a Brazilian slum, or favela. “I could throw a baseball into the house of a boy my age,” he told me when I met him in London. “I wondered how it was that I was here and he was there. That has bothered me all those years since, the disparity in income and wealth. It was a moment that led to the founding of Generation.”

Blood came back to the United States for high school, was a star football linebacker at Hamilton College, in New York, and planned to become a child psychologist. But he didn’t get into graduate school, and his application for the Peace Corps was turned down. “My father said, ‘You have to get a job,’ and the only offer I got was from a bank.

“I’d never thought about finance, but I found I was okay at it,” Blood said. Over the next decade, he thrived. After his first job, with Bankers Trust, he went to Harvard Business School. His most formative experience there came during the summer between his first and second year, when he worked for the then-famous, now-defunct (through merger) brokerage firm E. F. Hutton. “Everything about the culture seemed wrong to me,” he said. “Everything was short-term-focused, with no sense of what would help the client in the long run.” This was around the time that a young bond trader named Michael Lewis was observing something similar at the also now-defunct Salomon Brothers. Lewis converted his insights into his first book, Liar’s Poker.

Blood developed an enduring interest in the way a firm’s internal culture governed its success. “There were companies that had the same toxic short-term culture in those days—Drexel, Salomon, Bear Stearns, Kidder, Lehman,” he told me. “They’re all gone. If you look at what happened to them, it was all failures of culture: governance, leadership, incentive structures, values. That’s why they failed. And that was the beginning of my view that long-term business success requires a holistic view, involving teamwork, integrity, values.”

He said he found the values he was looking for at Goldman Sachs, a firm that then prided itself on a noblesse-oblige culture of putting its investors’ interests first. Blood rose in the organization, was transferred to London, and by the time he met Al Gore in 2003 had become the head of Goldman’s asset-management division, overseeing 1,600 people and managing $325 billion in investments. He had also become a U.K. citizen, although unlike some other Yankee expats he does not sound ersatz British when he talks.

Just when Gore was turning to Goldman Sachs for advice on buying the Swiss asset-management firm, Blood was preparing to leave. Their mutual friend at the firm introduced Blood to Gore, and they immediately agreed they should work together. “It was obvious that we were both searching for the same holy grail,” Gore told me, “which was a way to manage assets with sustainability built into every part of the model.”

They considered buying the Swiss firm and other possibilities, but finally agreed that their best chances lay with what Gore calls the “long, slow approach”: starting their own company, whose structure, values, analytic approach, and payment schemes would be designed the way they wanted. In early 2004 they founded Generation with five other like-minded partners. They spent the rest of that year establishing the firm’s operating rules, objectives, and even its own new vocabulary, which they considered important for a group determined to reconceive investment.

To get this out of the way: The obvious joke about their collaboration is that the firm should have been named Blood and Gore. The joke is so obvious that nearly everyone I spoke with about Generation mentioned it. Overobviousness, along with forced jocularity, no doubt helps explain why the founders chose a different name. But Gore and Blood both emphasized another reason, which reflects the values they hoped to build into the firm: There were seven partners, not two, at its founding. Gore and Blood are now first among equals, as chairman and senior partner, respectively. (Gore spends about a week a month at Generation’s office in London, and several more days at its office in New York. He joins, by phone, weekly management-committee meetings, and he told me that he spends part of nearly every day in online or telephone contact with Generation analysts.) In the details of its daily work, Generation incorporates a team-based rather than star-dominated approach to decision making.
[article continued below]
 
Last edited:
Continuation: Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 5
TEXT: *** How It Works
In practice, seeing more of the spectrum involves a disciplined, complex, multilevel process, which I heard about in London. I’ll highlight just three of its aspects.

The road map. The starting point for many of Generation’s investment decisions is a set of “road map” reports, on the long-term business, environmental, and social aspects of emerging technologies or markets. The Generation team, which now numbers more than 60 people in London and another 11 in New York, has produced more than 100 of these reports, on topics ranging from the worldwide spread of diabetes to changes in the heating-and-air-conditioning industry, which (with elevators) can account for nearly half the total energy use in big cities. I am looking as I write at a report on the environmental and workforce implications of the rapid rise in data-storage centers, the physical incarnation of the “cloud.” Next to it is one on the “last mile” question of online commerce: how products ordered over the Internet make their way into customers’ hands, and whether the dynamics are more likely to make delivery companies—the postal service, FedEx and DHL, and eventually Lyft and Uber—into retailers, or instead convert retailers such as Costco and Walmart into their own deliverers. And another report on the environmental, workforce, and urban-planning ramifications of those models and others. I’ve read a lot of these reports now. When they touched on topics I knew about, such as the manufacturing supply chain in China, or the business future of the media and the political and social effects of that changed future, I thought they rang true. The rest gave me a better understanding of, say, sustainability issues in the fashion industry, and equipped me to learn more.

The company also runs occasional multiday “solutions summits” on major topics for its analysts, held at its headquarters in London and presided over by Gore. This June it held one on “The Future of Mobility,” meant to explore what changes in city planning, self-driving cars, battery and engine and drone technologies, business models like Uber’s, and other areas would mean for companies ranging from Tesla to Priceline. As I read the records of some past summits, I realized that they were more, well, holistic than events I’d heard of or seen elsewhere. Compared with those at universities or government agencies or think tanks, they were more tied to business opportunities. Compared with those at other financial firms, they took a broader historical and intellectual view.

The focus list. Based on the road maps, summits, and other sources of guidance, Generation’s analysts begin researching specific companies. They travel to the headquarters and interview managers and board members. They tour factories; they learn about competitors. They check sites like Glassdoor.com, where former employees discuss what they liked and didn’t like about a firm.

Once a week, about 25 members of the analyst team sit around a big conference table in London to discuss a company that has been the target of such research. They know that at the end of the meeting, they will each be asked to assign the company a value on two scales, BQ and MQ. BQ stands for “business quality,” a measure of whether the firm is likely to enjoy better-than-average long-term profitability. Does it have a “moat” against competitors? Is its whole industry vulnerable to disruption? Does it have a strong enough brand to avoid ruinous price competition? MQ stands for “management quality,” which encompasses not merely the character and intelligence of the executives and board members but also how closely their personal interests are aligned with the firm’s. Do their payment schemes encourage them to cash out or front-load the company’s profits and thus underfund long-range investments? Are they respected or resented by employees at large? Built into both assessments is consideration of the company’s social and environmental effects. Neither a very profitable business with disastrous environmental side effects nor a well-meaning company with weak revenues would qualify for investment.

Presiding over these meetings are Generation’s two co–chief investment officers, Mark Ferguson and Miguel Nogales. I heard the shorthand “Mark and Miguel” at Generation almost as often as I heard references to “Al.” (No one there seems to call him “Vice President Gore”; they viewed my reflexive use of the term as a weird Americanism.) Ferguson and Nogales, both in their 40s, make up an odd-couple leadership team. Nogales grew up in southern Spain, in a family of doctors and medical professors. He came to England for high school and then went to Cambridge, where he earned a degree with highest honors in economics. If you had to guess, based on bearing and diction, who at Generation was from the English upper class, you would choose the man from Spain.

Mark Ferguson is a Scot who says he finished high school only because he injured his knee in a soccer game when he was 16 and gave up his dream of going pro. “I come from a football family,” he told me. This was wry understatement: His father is the longtime Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, probably more recognizable on a London street than Al Gore.

Both Ferguson and Nogales went into finance early and thrived. But in their 30s each was looking for a way to combine it with his environmental and social-justice interests. Ferguson had worked, at different times, with both Blood and Nogales; Blood introduced them both to Gore; and in 2004 they were all part of the founding team. (The other three founders were a young asset manager named Colin le Duc; Gore’s former chief of staff, Peter Knight; and Peter Harris, of Goldman Sachs.)

At the focus-list meeting I attended, Ferguson and Nogales guided the conversation rather than weighing in themselves, taking care to draw out even the soft-spoken or introverted analysts and those less comfortable in English. The business under discussion at that session was a well-known U.S.-based technology firm, which I am not supposed to name. On the good side, it held a wide market lead, and some of its technologies had shown potential in helping low-capital entrepreneurs in Africa, India, and elsewhere. On the bad side, other technologies might leapfrog its entire market category. Analysts argued the pros and cons. And was the pay structure likely to keep the best executives on board? An analyst making a case about the strengths of a company is also supposed to prepare an imagined corporate obituary, listings the things that went wrong and led the company to fail.

When it came time to vote on business quality and management quality, everyone around the table held out a closed fist, palm down. Then, on a count of three—“rock-paper-scissors” style—each person at the table put out one to five fingers, ranking first the company’s BQ and then its MQ. This company got a BQ3 and an MQ3.

“We came up with the rock-paper-scissors plan because we found that if Miguel or I indicated our feelings, that would inevitably steer things,” Ferguson told me.

What struck me when the process was over was what I had not heard during the long back-and-forth: namely, any mention of the company’s stock price. “That would really be frowned on at this stage of discussion,” Nogales said when I mentioned this to him the next day. “It would suggest a misunderstanding of what we’re trying to do.”

He meant separating the judgment about whether a company is sustainably profitable from the decision about when to buy its shares. The initial judgment is made, collectively, at the focus-list meeting. If a company scores 3 or better on both measures, it is added to Generation’s focus list. That list now has about 125 entries. These are the firms whose stock prices and earnings Ferguson and Nogales watch closely, so they can buy if and when the price falls into what they consider an attractive range.

Some companies have been on the list for years but have never become cheap enough to buy. Nogales told me, for example, about a European biotech firm that Generation considers a top-ranked BQ1/MQ1. Unfortunately, the rest of the investing public has also recognized its virtues, keeping the price too high. In other cases Ferguson and Nogales have bought when the price was right—and then kept buying as the price went into a slump. For instance, in 2007 Generation bought 5 percent of the total shares of Kingspan, an Irish company that had invented a dramatically effective form of building insulation. During the ensuing collapse of the world’s construction business, the company’s share price plummeted from 22 euros all the way down to 2. Generation increased its holdings as the shares fell; the price is now back in the 20s.

“Our sustainability analysis has given us the conviction to have very concentrated positions in companies we think have the right long-term earning potential,” Nogales told me. Some of these bets have gone wrong—an early stake in First Solar, an Arizona-based company whose solar panels were underpriced by Chinese competitors and whose business results fell short of Generation’s assumptions. But enough have gone right to give Generation the performance record on which it is now making its case.

Active ownership. This is the third distinctive trait of the Generation approach. Mark Ferguson said that in a normal firm, 80 percent of the attention is on the buy decision and 20 percent on the sell, leaving zero percent for owning shares in a company. From Gore and Blood on down, everyone I spoke with at Generation said they viewed the attention scale entirely differently. Their real responsibilities began rather than ended when they bought shares of a firm.

Generation officials meet with board members and managers of companies they invest in, explaining exactly what they like about the business and what kinds of decisions they’re hoping to see. “We talk directly with them about compensation levels, about board structure, about sustainability practices they are considering,” Nogales said. “Typically board members and CEOs will tell us that we’re the first institutional investors ever to talk about these issues. You should not underestimate the influence this can have on CEOs. We are trying to give cover to people who want to do things in a different way.”
[article continued below]
 
Last edited:
Continuation: Article from The Atlantic -
The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore
The former vice president has led his firm to financial success. But what he really wants to do is create a whole new version of capitalism. by JAMES FALLOWS NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: The (Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative) Investment Secrets of Al Gore
PART 6
TEXT: *** Reinventing Capitalism?
At Generation, I could tell that I had slightly hurt Mark Ferguson’s, Miguel Nogales’s, and David Blood’s feelings by not acting more awestruck at what I was seeing. To me, the analyst reports and discussions resembled good versions of what I’d seen and heard over the years from scientists discussing opportunities and obstacles in a field they knew well, or entrepreneurs weighing prospects for a new business. The Generation officials emphasized that if I had spent more of my life in the financial world, I would understand how profoundly their deliberative process varied from the investment-house norm. In particular, it was not based on a star system, in which leading analysts cultivate their contacts and play their hunches. Nor did it involve the normal sort of quantitative analyses of general market trends.

“If you want to get an idea of the difference, spend a few minutes watching CNBC,” Blood told me. Pay systems at financial firms are typically based on year-by-year or even quarter-by-quarter profits; staff turnover is rapid, driven by higher pay offers elsewhere. Bonuses for Generation’s investment team are based on its funds’ performance over a three-year period. Annual turnover has been about 3 percent through Generation’s history, very low for the financial world.

“When a new model … shows consistent results that beat the average, that model is sought after,” Gore says.
When I was able to look at the complete focus list of 125 companies under ongoing consideration, and public U.S., U.K., and European regulators’ reports on the companies in which Generation holds active positions, I was at first puzzled about just what made this lineup so special. Of the three dozen companies in which Generation reported holdings as of June 30, its largest holding was in Microsoft. No. 2 was Qualcomm, the leading chip maker for the mobile-phone industry, and the top 10 also included Google and the company that makes John Deere tractors.

I asked David Blood how this constituted any kind of reinvention of capitalism. He reminded me that Generation was trying to realize two goals usually considered contradictory: making a lot of money and supporting sustainable businesses. Every company on the focus list—big or small, household name or obscure start-up—had passed Generation’s internal test of offering good long-term business prospects. The big, familiar names were in one way or another advancing a sustainability goal. Microsoft, according to Nogales, met the test of “providing goods and services consistent with a low-carbon, healthy, fair, and safe society,” while also being (in Generation’s perhaps contrarian view) an attractive long-term business. Qualcomm was notable for its market position and its leadership in clean manufacturing and energy-efficient processing chips. John Deere? Equipment that supported “precision agriculture,” which could increase crop yields while reducing demand for energy, water, and chemical inputs. For the past six years Generation has held shares in Unilever, which it considers a proponent of sustainable agriculture around the world. A major cause of deforestation throughout the tropics is clearing forests to open land for palm-oil plantations, and the market for palm oil is dominated by big companies like Unilever, P&G, Nestlé, and L’Oréal. Unilever, the single largest palm-oil purchaser, has coordinated international efforts toward sustainable palm-oil production.

Once I looked past the likes of Microsoft and Qualcomm, I saw that about a third of the companies on Generation’s holdings list, and the great majority of those on its larger focus list, were ones I had simply never heard of before, even in fields I felt familiar with. I asked about them and learned that many made ambitious environmental or social-benefit claims. For instance: Ocado, an online-only grocery company based in England, has no physical stores. It claims to be able to deliver your selections to your house for a lower total energy/carbon cost than if you walked to a store yourself, and at much greater savings than if you drove. (Main reason: It avoids the extreme energy intensity of operating a chain of normal grocery stores, where the cooling and heating systems are working against each other, and where so much fresh food goes unsold and spoils. Instead Ocado uses an Amazon-esque model of stocking food in its own few warehouses, where rapid stock turnover minimizes spoilage. The energy costs of its sophisticated home-delivery network are less than those of a chain’s distribution system.) A firm called Ansys, based in the small Pennsylvania town of Canonsburg, has developed simulation software that allows engineering companies to skip many stages of creating physical prototypes, thus saving time, energy, and materials. Other Ansys products allow companies to model and reduce the environmental effects of their operations. Linear Technology, based in Milpitas, California, north of San Jose, dominates the market for sensors and related devices for electric and hybrid vehicles (which can use five to 10 times as many of them, per vehicle, as conventional cars).

I asked about many other companies and heard many similar rationales. Some concerned a firm’s environmental or public-health effects; others, exceptional market power. All arose from the long BQ/MQ analytical approach.

When I pressed Gore and Blood on whether this assortment of companies, plus Generation’s undeniably successful first-decade performance record, had more than niche significance, they said they recognized the risks of overstating their achievement. But they said it should not be underappreciated, because they had provided at least one counterexample to the assumption that reducing the destructive side effects of modern capitalism would necessarily mean reducing its success. Political strategies change when a candidate comes out of nowhere to win. Coaches and athletes must adapt after losses if they hope to win again. The Generation strategy had proved a winner by the standards capitalism cares about most.

“When a new model appears that shows consistent results that beat the average, that model is sought after,” Gore told me. “Even if most assets are still allocated to index funds or by algorithmic traders, a prime part of the world’s assets are reserved for managers who think they can beat the market. That is what we have done. Our goal is to show that sustainability is a ‘best practice’ for doing this, and thus for changing the culture of the investment marketplace. I know that sounds pretty grandiose, but it’s our aim.”

Many other people suggested to me that world finance is ready for such a push. Laurence Fink, of BlackRock, said that he wrote his open letter to CEOs because “I truly believe we need to have inclusive capitalism, progressive capitalism”—a system that can be “stronger, more resilient, more equitable, and better able to deliver the sustainable growth the world needs.” Fink said that countless pressures, from hyper-fast automated trading to the frenzied tone of cable-news coverage, were steering managers toward destructively shortsighted behavior. “We decided that we needed to be a countervailing voice, to say that as your largest shareholder, we’re going to raise expectations about how you behave.”

Dominic Barton, of McKinsey, has written extensively about the leverage that investors and boards can have in deterring short-term, unsustainable corporate behavior. With Fink and other asset managers from Europe, North America, Asia, and elsewhere, Barton has been organizing an effort to convert major investors to a longer-term outlook. “We have something like $10 trillion in investable assets lined up here,” he told me. “This is not a small-potatoes amount, and it can send a very powerful signal.” Laura Tyson, of Berkeley, says that sustainability strategies of one kind or another are now “by far the fastest-growing category of assets under management.”

In his book Capitalism 4.0, published in the wake of the worldwide crash of 2008–09, the British financial writer Anatole Kaletsky argued that capitalism has survived so long because of its ability to adapt and mutate. In times of deep crisis—the brutal inequality of the first Gilded Age, the mass unemployment of the 1930s, financial instability and environmental pressures today—governments sooner or later intervene. “At these historic moments, when the capitalist system appears to be in its death-throes, it also seems incapable of radical reform,” he wrote. But just then, “politics kicks in to shake up institutional structures … [and] a reformed version of capitalism takes shape.”

“Reform” sounds boring and earnestly high-minded, criticisms that have been applied to Al Gore as well. But having lost some of the major fights in his life, he has earned consideration for the implications of this win."
[article ended]
 
Last edited:
Antarctica’s Melting Ice Sheets Could Slow Climate Change by Claudia Geib 02 Nov 2015
LINK:
Antarctica’s Melting Ice Sheets Could Slow Climate Change — NOVA Next | PBS
TEXT: "Climate change is making the Antarctic blue—and that might be good news for the rest of the planet. Seafloor communities are flourishing beneath newly ice-free Antarctic seas, and as they grow, they are turning into carbon sinks, gobbling up carbon that might otherwise end up in the atmosphere. “The big deal about this study is not really that Antarctica has a carbon sink—anyone who walks out into a forest sees a carbon sink,” said author David Barnes, of the British Antarctic Survey, who published his work in the September 21 issue of Current Biology. “Yet most carbon sinks don’t get bigger as climate change gets more severe. This one gets bigger.”

"The mechanism Barnes found is one of the first significant examples of a negative feedback loop related to climate change, a phenomena normally associated with positive feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are snowball effects. For example, less ice on the poles means these regions reflect less sunlight, leading to more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn melts more ice. In a negative feedback loop, the opposite is true. As sea ice vanishes, life on the seafloor grows more rapidly and removes more carbon from the ocean surface, which helps prevent ice from melting further.

"Sea ice, Barnes explained, acts like a heavy blanket for polar waters, blocking wind and sunlight. Without ice, the waters become more turbulent and well-mixed: rich nutrients from the bottom rise to the surface and feed phytoplankton, which are suddenly exposed to longer periods of sunlight than before. These phytoplankton produce carbon waste that sinks to the seafloor and is stored by organisms below. These benthic animals also store carbon that is naturally absorbed from the atmosphere when waves mix carbon dioxide into ocean water.

"The depth of the Antarctic shelf also protects carbon from being re-suspended by activity like icebergs scraping the seafloor. The result is an explosion of life that Barnes describes as “absolutely fantastic.” “On land, it’s a virtual desert—yet stick your head underwater with a mask on and there’s this world of life,” Barnes said, recalling sea spiders the size of dinner plates and sponges large enough to sit in. “Some of the animals are so bizarre, you couldn’t think them up in a science fiction film. And Antarctica is just full of them.”

"Barnes’ research drew on seafloor animals collected over nearly 20 years. These samples, as well as photographs showing the relative abundance of animals, allowed Barnes to calculate the amount of carbon that was taken up by new communities appearing where sea ice was vanishing. The drawdown may be significant enough, particularly if it is occurring at both poles, to slow atmospheric warming. “If [Barnes’] calculations are correct, and a significant amount of carbon…is sequestered in seafloor bryozoans, then this will help contribute to the oceans serving as a greater sink for carbon dioxide than first thought,” said James McClintock, an Antarctic benthic ecologist not involved in the study. “The caution here is that Barnes makes his more global statements with the caveat that other marine seafloor life will need to sequester carbon too, and this is unknown—thus the jury is still out.”

"In February 2016, Barnes will try to answer why some Antarctic seas experience higher productivity than others, taking him back to the South Orkney Islands. In the coming years he also hopes to investigate seafloor growth in the Arctic, where sea ice loss has been dramatically higher than in the Antarctic. However, the differing geography of the poles means that melting sea ice may not mean the same thing in both places. “There is an important difference: the Arctic is basically ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. So in the Arctic, a lot of sea ice is over deep water,” said Ken Halanych, who studies Antarctic marine invertebrates. Deep waters are less productive, with fewer available nutrients. However, Halanych said, carbon drawdown could be occurring along the shallower coasts of northern Canada and Russia. “This is taking up a significant part of the carbon budget—it’s not huge, it’s not going to stop [climate change], but it will make a little bit of a dent in it.” "
 
Back
Top