This amazing shot by Flickr user “Soggydan” Dan Bennett of a leaping coho salmon in Issaquah Creek, Washington state was taken with a 60mm lens — which basically means the photographer could have reached out and touched this fish. Like we said — amazing! Thanks for sharing it through The Nature Conservancy’s Flickr Group, Soggydan!

Check out all The Nature Conservancy’s featured daily nature images, submitted to the Conservancy’s Flickr group by people like you — at my.nature.org. And why not give the gift of clean water this holiday season to keep salmon spawning?

If you regularly drive to work, telecommuting can save thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere and save you a bundle of money to boot.

I only live 3.5 miles from my office. But I found that, with driving costs and a hefty parking fee, I’d have to pay more than $3,300 a year to drive to work. (Calculate your own commuting costs here.) On top of that, my little Toyota Corolla would release more than 1,350 pounds of carbon.

If someone who lives just 10 miles from their office and has free parking were to work from home just one day a week, she could save approximately $265 and 0.3 tons of carbon a year.

Think those are some pretty good reasons to give it a try? I do too, so I’ve asked for some advice from those who telecommute on a regular basis.

On Convincing Your Boss:

The first step in making telecommuting a reality is to make sure your employer is OK with it. And unless your company has a telework program, that may mean doing some convincing.

According to Quint Careers, one key strategy is to focus on the benefits telecommuting will have for your employer, not for you. You may love that telecommuting will allow you to be there when your kids get home from school, but focus on how it would be better for them: that you’d be more productive, spend more time on projects, etc.

On Creating a Workspace:

Designating a workspace is essential, according to Katie Kemple, communications manager for EconomyStory.org.

“My husband and I both work from home and even though our house is small (975 sq ft), we’ve still found spots to claim as our own,” she says. “Mine’s the corner of our den. To make it an ‘office,’ I purchased a rolling laptop table, wall pockets, magazine holders and a file box – all for about $100.”

On Blending Home and Work Life:

For Chrissy Schwinn, the Conservancy’s director of international policy and climate communications, telecommuting out of her house in Berkeley, Ca., isn’t much of a choice – the office she reports into is 3,000 miles away.

Having been a telecommuter for the last five years and working with two small kids in the house, she knows that telecommuting “blends home and work life in odd and sometimes entertaining/mortifying ways.”

Chrissy bravely shares a few of her most recent experiences, both good and bad:

• Had a 4-year-old show up on a video conference and ask me how to spell “love.”
• Started conference calls with Europe at 6:30 a.m. and worked through the day to end with calls to Asia Pacific at 6:30 p.m.
• Held a meeting with visiting work colleagues on the back deck in the sun.
• Cut out in the middle of the day to catch my son’s Halloween parade, and finished my “workday” after he’d gone to bed
• Can often go until mid-afternoon without a single interruption — no water cooler, no “drop bys” at my desk.
• Started a conference call in pajamas and finished it fully dressed.

Her advice? “Learning to live in this fuzzy area between work and home life is crucial to succeeding as a telecommuter.”

On Other Benefits

Misty Herrin, associate director of strategic communications at the Conservancy and a longtime telecommuter, has a laundry list of other benefits of working from home:

• Eating better and saving money by eating at home;
• Spending a lot less money on work attire and having it last longer;
• Being able to gain momentum on big projects by ignoring the phone and email;
• No water cooler gossip!
• Fewer days out sick; it’s a lot easier to brave a work day when you don’t have to deal with a commute or risk spreading germs to others.

Not Just for Your Daily Routine

Telecommuting can also be a huge money, time and carbon saver when it comes to conferences. Many organizations are using video conferencing technology in lieu of having people fly to one central location.

Since May, Jonathan Hoekstra, managing director of the Conservancy’s climate change team, has used video technology in place of making about 10 cross-country trips and one trip to Australia. By attending remotely, Jonathan estimates about $10,000 in savings in just six months.

While I enjoy biking to the office and some of the perks of working here (free coffee, printer access and a landline phone), I have a feeling staying in my house is going to look pretty tempting when winter sets in.

(Image credit: Paladin27/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

What am I trying to illustrate in the above photo (a picture of cattle and elephant dung)? That conservation planning is a pile of poop?

No. But this mixture of excrement does show why such planning needs to incorporate extreme events like drought or flooding – especially for the impacts of those events on local people.

In the place where I took this photo — Mt Kenya – livestock herders have moved into protected areas. Why? Because of a protracted and devastating drought — one Kenya is (hopefully) at the end of. The drought has caused the displacement of huge numbers of people and the estimated deaths of half the livestock.

In times this tough, local herders have been forced to graze their animals in protected areas around the country – areas normally set aside for nature and tourism. I can’t blame them — but in a country that relies on tourism so heavily (it’s the second largest sector of the economy), this development is big and troubling news.

Obviously, conservationists should be planning for such extreme events. They will occur; we just don’t know when. We do often include in our plans responses to long-term environmental events (e.g., blow-downs, hurricanes, etc) and critical threats (such as habitat fragmentation and large-scale agriculture). We are even slowly coming to grips with consequences of climate change. But how often do we consider the effects of extreme events on local people, especially the poor, in the areas in which we work?

Probably not nearly enough.

Why should conservationists do this kind of planning? Because quite often the people living in and around the areas we are interested in protecting rely on their immediate surroundings for sustenance. And how extreme events effect these people will likely tell us how they will in turn use those local resources (in many cases, such as around Mt. Kenya, for their survival). By planning for these events and the ramifications on both nature and people, the effects can be at least reduced or muted.

To that end, many Conservancy projects have indirect benefits to people; but not many plan for direct ones. One example of direct benefits to people is grassbanking – the setting aside of land that can be used for grazing livestock in the event of an extreme drought. It’s simple and effective, and something the Conservancy has done in areas such as Montana, and in Kenya, with our partners at the Northern Rangelands Trust (http://northernrangelands.wildlifedirect.org/) where the grassbanks are being put to good use right now – helping both wildlife and people get through the current drought. And this grassbanking in Kenya has helped reduce pressure on protected areas and keep many more people off of Mt Kenya.

We will get droughts, or floods, or extremes of some sort or another — and people, especially those in poorer areas and countries, will turn to nature to help them through those tough times. We should make sure that nature is resilient enough not only to endure these extreme events, but also the pressures that will be brought to bear by local people — especially when those people’s very survival is at stake.

(Image courtesy Timothy Boucher/TNC.)

In August, we blogged here on the extraordinary cross-country bike journey of Nathan Winters (AKA, “Follow Nathan”) to raise money for The Nature Conservancy and raise awareness for climate change and sustainable agriculture. At that point, Nathan had just crossed the Wisconsin-Minnesota border, halfway through his journey from Maine to Washington State — a trek tracked by thousands through Nathan’s website and his multiple daily tweets.

We’re now thrilled to report that Nathan completed his ride (a ride, BTW, that he began with absolutely no bike touring experience) last month — tired, of course, but glowing with the knowledge of having done a great and extraordinary thing. He was gracious enough to respond to a few questions about the trip and what’s next for him:

*****

Cool Green Science: How many days and how many miles did you end up riding, and where did you finish up?

Nathan Winters: I was on the road for a wonderful and thrilling 145 days over a course of 4,300 miles. The journey ended in beautiful Bellingham, Washington on October 2.

Cool Green Science: Describe the finish and what happened.

Nathan: On the outside it was fairly calm. Essentially I celebrated alone as I dipped my tire in the Bellingham harbor. On the inside, I was a huge dance party. I had so many different ranges of emotions that I was going through. The overwhelming support of my followers online was also very touching.

Cool Green Science: What was more difficult about the ride than you expected? What was less difficult?

Nathan: Hands down the wind. Before I had left, I had many people warn me that going east to west was a big mistake. And while this decision certainly made things a bit more difficult… I wouldn’t change it for the world. As for less difficult, in my honest opinion I thought it would be a bit more challenging to climb the Continental Divide. Don’t get me wrong — this was no easy task. But I think that my mental preparation had a way of alleviating the strain. There would be hills in Ithaca that would prove to be more difficult. My guess: It all boiled down to mental preparation.

Cool Green Science: What were the best experiences of the ride?

Nathan: I really enjoyed getting know people in their communities. So many times we travel by plane or car and we never actually take the time to understand what is happening in a particular area. Communities such as Ithaca and Ann Arbor were geared passionately towards environmental stewardship and sustainable living practices. My theory is that the combination of academia and honest community members creates a lubricant to maintain such a vibrant community-wide effort.

I also came to understand and witness countless people doing great things in their communities all over America. Despite all of the negative talk you see and hear in the mainstream news outlets, America is still the kind of place where you can ask a complete stranger for help and you will find an answer. With or without the swine flu and an economic recession. America is still a place we can all be proud of.

Cool Green Science: Did you come to understand any conservation issues better through your journey?

Nathan: One situation that dealt with conservation issues in depth was in the Adirondacks. It is a very complex and unique situation over there.  Specifically, I found a great struggle between public and private land. Currently, there is a great tension over the possible development of a ski resort in Tupper Lake which could be a huge lift on the local economy — however, there would be catastrophic environmental drawbacks. The struggle between the conservation groups, local people, economy and politics was so evident that you could feel the tension without hearing any words.

Cool Green Science: What was the strangest thing that happened on the ride?

Nathan: You will have to read my upcoming book! I will say that I had a plethora of “strange encounters.” That is what happens when you ride a bike from Maine to Washington.

Cool Green Science: How do you feel now that it’s over?

Nathan: The fact that I accomplished my goal, lived out my dream and gave back to a wonderful organization was and still is an amazing feeling. I feel fantastic. I am in a physical and mental adjustment period. But again… I feel fantastic.

Cool Green Science: What’s next for you?

Nathan: I am currently living in rural Vermont where I am adventurously reliving my journey through a book I am writing. I am currently deep into this endeavor and I will be working hard to get my work published. I am also looking for part-time work with a environmental difference-maker to keep me going.

(Images courtesy Nathan Winters.)

It was a very busy week last week in the world of climate change, with lots of activity on both the domestic and international fronts. UN negotiators wrapped up talks in Barcelona, the last before the big event in December in Copenhagen. And climate and energy legislation moved in various ways in the U.S. Senate.

Here is the view of where things stand from The Nature Conservancy’s climate change policy gurus: Eric Haxthausen, director of U.S. climate policy, and Duncan Marsh, director of international climate policy.

Q: At this point, what should we be looking for in Copenhagen?

Duncan Marsh: Time is short. Real progress needs to be made in the coming weeks at the highest government levels in order to put together a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen.

Negotiators in Copenhagen must consolidate their efforts over the past two years into a framework that:

• Contains the principles for actions by key countries to reduce emissions,
• Establishes a significant financial commitment to help developing countries adapt to climate change and move toward clean energy economies, and
• Commits to a comprehensive, legally-binding agreement.

Such an agreement must be finalized in legally-binding form within months, not years.

Q: There has been much attention on what the United States is doing or not doing on climate change. What about the rest of the world?

Duncan Marsh: There is growing evidence that governmental leaders from around the world are engaged behind the scenes at unprecedented levels, and are moving to take serious action on climate change. China, India, Brazil, Japan, Australia, Indonesia and others have made recent pledges to significantly limit their carbon emissions, promote clean energy or reduce deforestation.

The European Union proposed guidance on the level of funding developed countries will need to provide to effectively combat and adapt to climate change. Governments now need to make the commitments to provide that funding.

And, in the United States, the Senate took steps last week to clear a path forward on climate and energy legislation that would cap US emissions – an essential step in reaching a comprehensive global agreement.

Q: Why does getting legislation in the Senate and a global climate agreement matter?

Eric Haxthausen: Climate change is about the future of our country, and the world we leave for the next generation. But it is also about the present: We are already seeing changes, and addressing climate change now can begin to transform our economy as we put America back to work.

Duncan Marsh: We are seeing devastating droughts, floods and changing weather patterns that are displacing populations, causing food shortages and sparking social unrest that threatens each and every one of us. Scientific data tells us that the impacts of climate change – both current and future– are accelerating faster than previously predicted. All countries need to move quickly and join the global effort to reduce emissions and help people and nature adapt to this threat.

Q. Is climate and energy legislation in the Senate dependent on securing enough votes from Democrats, or will it involve bipartisan support?

Eric Haxthausen: Final passage of climate and energy legislation in the Senate will – and should – require bipartisan support. Enacting solutions to climate change is not a partisan issue. Leaders from both parties have clearly stated the urgent need to take action.

Along with the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) coming out of committee last week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman – a Democrat, a Republican and an independent – announced this week they will work together and with others in their parties to ensure a solution is developed that can receive bipartisan support.

Q. How do last week’s actions in the U.S. Senate bode for an agreement in Copenhagen?

Eric Haxthausen: The last few days have shown real progress toward passage of a climate bill. We are hopeful that these actions, coupled with continued efforts over the next weeks by the Senate and the Obama administration, will help enable a strong outcome in Copenhagen.

Duncan Marsh: The U.S. Congress and administration must now act swiftly to fulfill the full promise of these initial actions. The coming weeks offer President Obama the opportunity to clearly demonstrate his commitment to acting seriously on climate change — and the world’s opportunity to re-embrace U.S. engagement. It will require extraordinary leadership and political will to reach the firm commitment needed in Copenhagen to safeguard our planet for future generations.

(Image credit: fatboyke/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

No, this isn’t a very good photo, is it? That’s probably because it’s an insanely good photo! Take a deep breath…and fall into White Sands National Monument in New Mexico, courtesy of Lightchaser/Flicker and shared through The Nature Conservancy’s Flickr Group.

Check out all The Nature Conservancy’s featured daily nature images, submitted to the Conservancy’s Flickr group by people like you — at my.nature.org.

As the “energy sprawl” idea has been discussed and debated in the media, I (one of the paper’s co-authors) have  grown a thick skin against criticism. Perhaps the harshest piece of invective, however, still bothers me: the criticism by Matt Wasson in the Huffington Post.

The factual criticisms Matt makes aren’t that troublesome to me, and I can understand his perspective as someone who works to minimize the impact of coal mining on the environment. Matt makes the point that an acre of coal mining is not necessarily the same biodiversity impact as an acre with wind turbines, a point we totally agree with (that’s why we made it in the original paper!). And of course our one measure of land-use can’t capture all of the myriad ways energy production affects the environment; it was never meant to.

What bothers me is the accusation that my scientific paper is “poisoning” the public debate about climate change and energy policy. Indeed, Matt advocates “burning” his post (and perhaps my paper), as if retaining memory of energy sprawl issues was morally corrupting. What does this say about the way we today regard the meaning and responsibility of science to advocacy…and the fragility of public discourse?

I suspect similar criticism will be made of the recent paper by Searchinger and others in Science, which makes the point (intellectually related to the energy sprawl issue) that if land-use change for energy production is not accounted for in climate change policy, extra carbon could be released. From a certain perspective, Searchinger’s article is inconvenient for environmental NGOs just as much as my paper is…if not more so.

But what an anemic view of democracy! As if a scientific paper which complicates the advocacy position of environmentalists is somehow morally equivalent to the myth of death panels hidden in the health care bill! Matt’s title reflects a misunderstanding of science’s relationship to the environmental movement. It is not the job of scientists to produce papers that reinforce a preconceived advocacy position. Rather, it is the job of scientists to lay the facts on the table, so those facts can inform advocacy.

To be sure, any one scientific paper can be interpreted different ways be different actors. Different environmental NGOs may have different positions on what Searchinger’s article means for their advocacy on energy policy, for example, but they can still acknowledge that there is a scientific issue there to consider.

And what an anemic view of the media! As if the political discussion about climate change is so fragile that our messaging must be simple and without nuance! I think this is a very TV-era mentality, where infrequent, carefully-worded press releases could control the public debate. While some of that phenomenon still exists, in a world where thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of activists and lobbyists work on climate change issues, it strikes me as a bit naïve.

I would rather make sure that the scientific facts are out there, and then trust in the marketplace of ideas to sort out over the long term what is important and what is not.

(Image credit: the_russians_are_here/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

1. The Conservancy’s very own Duncan Marsh was quoted in this Associated Press article about an unfortunate hold-up at the U.N. climate talks happening right now in Barcelona.  Marsh says that further delays could be “tragic,” preventing necessary discussion on emissions targets.
2. It might be toxic to your wallet, or to your emotional and physical well-being, but the city of Las Vegas is the least toxic of 40 major metropolitan areas, reports GreenBiz.  Based on its number of Superfund sites, facilities that release toxic chemicals and air quality ranking, it turns out it’s Atlanta we’ve got to be really worried about.
3. Strange bedfellows Glenn Beck and PETA (yes, really) are ganging up on climate warrior Al Gore, claiming the former VP’s a hypocrite for his meat-eating ways.  Huffington Post Green says new BFFs Beck and PETA prez Ingrid Newkirk called Gore a “baby” and “steakaholic” on Beck’s Fox News show last night.  BURN!
4. German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the goal of encouraging the U.S. to “to fall in line with Europe” on climate change issues and legislation, according to Twilight Earth.  Hey, if Glenn Beck and PETA can team up for a cause, anything’s possible.
5. Treehugger reports that super-high-end fashion houses Yves Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney and Balenciaga have pledged to significantly reduce their carbon footprints by December 2010 by reducing the amount of paper they use, avoiding fiber from high conservation value forests, and purchasing only recycled or FSC-certified products.  Let’s celebrate by you buying me a Balenciaga handbag!

My husband returns to the same reefs every year in the Bahamas, where he has been teaching a coral reef ecology class for the last 14 years. On his 2008 trip, he noticed that the reef fish were missing. The culprits were quickly identified — and during his 2009 course, he and his students were eating them.

Lionfish.

Lionfish do not belong in the Caribbean. They are native to the South Pacific and Indian Ocean and made their way into the Caribbean through the release (the exact event is unknown) of aquarium fish. Some say they were in a tank that was destroyed in Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Others say it was a release of just 3 or 6 specimens. Whatever the case, lionfish are now spotted as far north as Rhode Island, and are popping up all over the Caribbean, from Colombia to the Virgin Islands to the Bahamas.

The Bahamas‘ marine ecosystem has already been hard hit. The people that know these reefs well are witnessing a rapid decline in reef fish thanks to these voracious predators, which have an appetite for juvenile reef fish. Their method of attack is particularly unique. Instead of an ambush attack or high-speed chase, lionfish make their presence known and confuse their prey by displaying their beautiful fins like a peacock, slowly dancing towards their prey and then rapidly sucking the prey into their mouths like a vacuum. This technique is so effective because no other predator in the Caribbean uses it — so prey are not adapted to avoid it.

Lionfish have no natural predators in Caribbean waters and are thriving on the tasty but already dwindling choice of baby reef fish. Some think that native grouper might have preyed on lionfish — but because grouper are overfished in the Caribbean (and in most parts of the world), the options beyond human predators are few.

As the distribution of lionfish in the Caribbean expands and the severity of this invasion is becoming more apparent, managers are trying to figure out what to do before the adult populations of reef fish are seriously affected. In the Bahamas, they have issued a “kill on sight” directive. The Caribbean Fisheries Management Council has even developed a Most Wanted Poster to encourage removal of these fish.

The best way to get rid of them? Put them on the menu! In Asia, lionfish are a popular menu item. That’s not yet the case in the Caribbean, so folks are working to change the culture of fear that surrounds lionfish (they have toxic spines that really hurt when they touch you) into a culture of desire for a delightful bite of this light and tasty fish. There are even websites that are collecting lionfish recipes — everything from sushi to Bahamian style fritters to smoked lionfish dip (yum!).

The hope is that people will be motivated to hunt and remove these fish, taking advantage of the existing tradition of artisanal fishing in the Caribbean and turning fishers toward this undesirable species and perhaps away from dwindling populations of grouper and snapper.

An additional approach to this problem — and one that would benefit the reef in multiple ways as well — would be to beef up protection of large predators such as grouper and sharks so that they can work to keep this ecosystem in balance and potentially keep the lionfish population in check.

My husband’s students decided to do a small research project to examine the gut contents (i.e., what is in the bellies) of lionfish they found on the Bahamian reefs, and discovered that their bellies were quite full of baby reef fish. The reward for their efforts was a yummy dinner of fried lionfish…and my husband assures me that in terms of flavor and texture, they compete with any flakey white fish you can think of or catch in the Caribbean. So…

This is probably the only time you’ll hear me advocating for people to eat fish. If you want to eat fish, I’d usually refer you to Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch — a guide that helps diners make decisions about the most sustainable and healthy options for seafood. However, when it comes to lionfish in the Caribbean, I say chow down to your heart’s content!

Yes, global warming is a big deal and a big challenge. But sometimes I get so frustrated by conservation and environmental NGO’s for not being able to chew gum and walk at the same time — in other words, for failing to appreciate the real lesson of greenhouse gas emissions.

The real lesson is there is no such thing as succeeding at local conservation (and no such thing as protecting your backyard or local community’s natural heritage) without paying attention to global pollution as a whole – of which greenhouse gases are but a few of many.

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a study of global sources of local pollution that is revealing and compelling in its analysis of the long-range transport of pollutants into and out of the United States.

Do you know what’s landing in your backyard? Try ozone, particulate matter, mercury and persistent organic pollutants that have all traveled halfway around the globe from Asia and North Africa, according to the study.

We also give what we receive — the pollution we produce travels to Europe and Canada. There is haze in the Arctic because of particulate matter “imported” from thousands of miles away, and the western United States has experienced several episodes of dust being dumped on it from Asia.

These pollutants are not a vanity or aesthetic issue — they take a huge toll in human health, affecting especially children and other vulnerable portions of our population:

• Ozone is linked to the rate of child admissions to hospitals for asthma.
• The health impacts of particulate matter may account for millions of deaths worldwide per year.
• Organic pollutants impair hormonal, nervous, immune and reproductive systems.
• And perhaps most insidious of all is mercury — which interferes with the developing nervous systems of human fetuses and young infants.

Meanwhile, mercury and organic pollutants can also wreak havoc on wildlife, with well-documented impacts on fish and birds.

What does conservation have to do with this? Simply put, air pollution is the quintessential issue that links ecosystem health and human health and global land use and conservation. For instance:

• Dust storms can result from poorly managed arid lands.
• Organic pollutants are products of unsustainable agriculture.
• The Nature Conservancy’s own analysis of mercury found it to be a major threat to our conservation goals in northeastern United States.

Conservation has historically and consistently neglected pollution. Look at most conservation science textbooks and you will find long sections on invasive species, on deforestation, on greenhouse gas emissions…but almost nothing on pollution. Of course greenhouse gases are now categorized by the EPA as a pollutant — but that was only recently, and most of the public would not think of greenhouse gas as pollution in the same way mercury is.

The Nature Conservancy did publish last year a report on air pollution and wildlife in the eastern United States. But I do not understand the lack of uproar about pollution on the part of the Conservancy and other conservation NGOs. Pollution is the threat to biodiversity and people that can tie us all together in a common cause. If we purchased 90 percent of all the private land in the United States and set it aside for conservation but did not address these global sources of pollution, it would all be for naught.

I am all for focus — with Copenhagen coming up, it is natural that we talk and talk about emissions reductions. But climate change is simply one symptom of a general failure to think clearly about the costs and benefits of our actions in terms of general human well-being and ecosystem health. And climate change is but one of many threats to conservation that can only be dealt with by international agreements.

Let’s hope that negotiations at Copenhagen and beyond that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gases pave the way for future international cooperation regarding a wide variety of global pollutants.

(Image: Air pollution and power lines in China. Credit: AdamCohn/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)