Oregon Museum of Science and Industry denial backfires – big crowd in Portland hears all about climate change skepticism

The videos are online now.
http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/Minutes/2011/2011_10_29_Meeting/2011_10_29_Minutes.html

@ur momisugly John Barrett & @ur momisuglyEric Simpson:
I’m not convinced we can have our own greenpeace-like organization. In my past experience dealing one-on-one and versus small groups of hard-core environmentalists (environmental activists, actually) as well as monitoring their national and regional umbrella organization activities, literature and propaganda, they are much more capable of adopting “organized” approaches that we skeptics probably ever will be able to duplicate. (That’s also probably true for business/industrial entities as well.)
First, these activists tend to be clustered by rather specific topics (e.g., “toxic” air emissions, water, solid waste “dumping”, animal rights, save the whales, protect American streams, protect the Great Lakes, etc.). As a result, American rivers might be perfectly willing to accept the position of the air toxics group for a reduction in “belched toxins” by 90% (even if totally infeasible technologically) because it doesn’t interfere with THEIR OWN position. The air group would probably reciprocate, as would many others.
In addition, such groups and their members *often* stake out “positions” as opposed to goals or objectives as the rest of us might. They might advocate for installing some new (and perhaps not yet full-tested) air pollution control system at *all* coal-fired power plants, to *eliminate* chlorine as a potable (drinking) water disinfectant, or to eliminate so-called mixing zones across the board in setting discharge limits for sewage treatment plant permits. (Such zones have been applied for decades but there have been some cases shown to exist — as I recall — in which such zones are very small or ineffective.) As a result, even if it became painfully obvious to these folks that the technology doesn’t exist, for example, or that the cost is many times what can be accommodated by the regulated entity (e.g., more than the company’s total profit potential for the next several years combined), they can’t back off because they perceive their membership would see it as a sign of “caving in.” By staking such rigid claims and positions, they can blaming all others involved (regulatory agencies, industrial groups and individual companies, and even the taxpaying public/consumers) for not failing to achieve their stated positions, even if those positions were ludicrous.
When folks on the regulated side think about these things, we bring our own circumstances and other experience and criteria to bear, such as cost implications, and case-by-case considerations of technical and economic feasibility. For example: Does the technology to achieve these limits exist? Has it been tested at full-scale or only in the laboratory? Can it be applied in this case without modification? Do we have the capital funding, as well as O&M funding, to implement these controls? Under what time frame can we get this done without incurring additional expense due to limits on equipment, appropriately trained/experienced design or construction personnel? Can we build something that will give us some buffer that will protect us from enforcement actions for non-compliance, or does the new requirement challenge event the best “bleeding edge” technology now known to exist?
You may be familiar with SMART goals — Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely. We are focused to think in terms of goals or objectives such as cutting some type of waste discharge by X%, by the year zzzz, where the deadline might consider the number of others who have to implement the same solution with a fixed resource base. We also look at control options, seeking to avoid sole-source solutions which tend to be over-priced and are also often in only pilot studies, not yet at demonstrated at full-scale on more than one operating facility.
The forced use of specific (and expensive) technological solutions has been in vogue since soon after U.S.EPA was created. Advanced wastewater treatment technology was tested in a few *small* plants initially, then was made eligible for federal grant-funding even before EPA had a complete assessment in hand of the condition of American rivers and streams (still don;t have that). However, more than a few of those technologies were found to be hugely expensive to install and operate. Sometimes it was proprietary, patent protected. In some cases the technology was outright dangerous. One such technology I looked at years go for a municipal client went from being highly recommended for full-scale use anywhere and everywhere to being recommended as only a “polishing step,” to not recommended at all. And the last step was only embodied in a DRAFT EPA guidance document that was never finalized.
In the end, we — consumers, taxpayers and businesses — just do not operate with the same logic and idealized(?) approach.

@ur momisugly Eric Simpson:
Something already exists: The Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA). It’s apolitical and could use help. Its focus is on educational outreach as opposed to lobbying (and we all know lobbying is still strongly associated with “influence buying” from days long gone). It’s an all-volunteer organization (with a technical advisory board of engineers and scientists) and needs both funding and more people “pulling at the oars.” See the website: http://www.climatescienceamerica.org/