I’m signing off for one month while traveling in Europe as a 2012 Marshall Memorial Fellow. I’ll be visiting Brussels, Stockholm, Rome, Sarajevo, and Berlin to learn more about energy, science, politics, and culture beyond our borders.

The Marshall Memorial Fellowship provides a unique opportunity for emerging leaders from the United States and Europe to explore institutions, politics, and culture on the other side of the Atlantic.  American and European Fellows each visit five cities during the 24-day program. They meet formally and informally with a range of policymakers, prominent community members, and local MMF alumni.  During the trip, each Fellow also has the opportunity to explore his or her individual professional interests beyond the group programs, which focus on a range of domestic and international policy areas.

Yesterday I found myself in an interesting conversation with a biologist regarding climate change. We were talking about how the loss of permafrost will be particularly devastating given the positive feedback loop that will lead to warmer temperatures. The subject was carbon emissions…

And that’s exactly where I was focused when I started seriously studying climate change. I was a graduate student at the University of Maine in the School of Marine Science interested in ocean acidification – the way all of our excess carbon is changing ocean pH and the marine environment in ways we cannot yet predict. (A topic that has yet to make a dent in the mainstream media, but soon we won’t be able to ignore as easily).

From there I moved into the political realm, working for Senator Bill Nelson on oceans, environment, and energy. It was the year of An Inconvenient Truth and emphasis was on whether cap and trade might pass. On the Hill, climate was inextricably linked to policy discussions that would ultimately fail, setting us back at least 10 years.

Next came Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment where climate is on everyone’s mind. I was part of The Pimm Group, which is interested in the conservation of biodiversity by saving forests. And since deforestation contributes tremendously to our GHG problem, reforestation would not only trap carbon, but also protect hotspots for threatened species.

Four years later I moved to UT’s Austin’s School of Engineering. Same topic, different language. Climate, after all, is really an energy conversation. Engineers are a more optimistic generally, but very practical as well. At The Webber Energy Group, we were focused on finding solutions through new technologies and more efficient practices.

Now I work at the McCombs School of Business as Director of UT’s Project on Energy Communication. It’s an initiative to understand public attitudes and perceptions of energy topics like hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone Pipeline, renewables, and more–which in turn, will be extremely useful in related policy discussions.

I don’t expect many people spend time in as many academic silos as I have–and with each step I’ve come to appreciate a different way of thinking about the same problem. The language, expertise, interests, and motivations change along the way, but they are all players in a much larger symphony that tells the story of, perhaps, the greatest global challenge we face: A changing planet.

I still have much to learn. But that’s just the point. We all do. So while it’s easy to barricade ourselves off from other compartmentalized departments by presuming we’re the ones who truly understand the arduous road ahead, that’s a losing strategy.

Instead, keep an open mind and talk to colleagues in other fields. You might begin to perceive your own questions in a myriad of new ways. And if we work hard at understanding each other – we might actually make progress.

Watch in full screen, speakers on, wait for the music, and be mesmerized:

Astronomer’s Paradise by Christoph Malin.

[H/T Phil]

This is a guest post by Neil Osborne about a terrific new program in Environmental Visual Communication at the Royal Ontario Museum. [Note from Sheril: Make sure to watch this stunning video.]

Solutions to long-term sustainability are not found solely in the realm of science. Environmental visual communication is an emerging field and its practitioners are key leaders who, through collaboration and deliverables, can build bridges between science and society. The ultimate goal is to motivate the public to care about and become active participants in saving our planet.

Positioned at the convergence of science and art, the Environmental Visual Communication program is designed to fill a recognized void of individuals who possess a blend of environmental science skills and the ability to effectively communicate to a variety of audiences.

Witness: Defining Conservation Photography Feature from Neil Ever Osborne.

With a focus on strategic messaging and technical savvy, you will learn to use photography, videography, multimedia and design principles to bridge environmental competencies with thoughtful communication through diverse media channels.

The program takes place in a truly unique learning environment – at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in downtown Toronto.

Throughout the Environmental Visual Communication (EVC) program, you will learn how to identify strategies to inform and educate, garner engagement and support, and build and share campaigns to address conservation issues.

Equipped with hybrid skills and a sense of active environmental stewardship, graduates of this innovative, integrated, and applied program will be able to connect ideas among diverse groups and tell compelling stories with fluency.

Learn more about the program and register here.

In addition to providing solar power to the University of Texas at Austin campus, this Webber Energy Group solar project installation will transmit real-time status and performance information for use by students and researchers.

Time lapse footage of Meridian Solar‘s installation of approximately 200 kW of solar panels on the university’s Facility Complex. This solar project incorporates state-of-the-art solar panels from Solar World and Ideal Power Converters inverter technology. Video by the lovely and talented Griffin Gardner.

According to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Americans (who have heard at least a little about the Keystone XL pipeline) support it:

There has been recent controversy over the building of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf Coast, but the public is not following this issue very closely. Just 24% say they have heard a lot about it while another 39% have heard a little; 37% have heard nothing at all about the pipeline.

Among those who have heard at least a little, there is strong public support for building the pipeline. About two-thirds (66%) think the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 23% say it should not be approved.

Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved. But there is a strong ideological division among Democrats; 63% of conservative and moderate Democrats support the building of the pipeline, compared with just 30% of liberal Democrats. A plurality of liberal Democrats (49%) say the pipeline should not be approved.

By a 66% to 27% margin, far more independents who have heard about the issue think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline than say it should not be approved. Independents who lean to the Republican Party overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline (89% say it should be approved). But Democratic-leaning independents are far more divided; 46% say it should be approved, while 45% say it should not be approved.

Do you think the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline?

Rising temperatures are bringing earlier migration patterns, according to a new study out of UNC Chapel Hill. Allen Hurlbert and Zhongfei Liang collected data using ebird–a citizen science program database containing 10 years’ worth of observations from amateur birdwatchers–which now includes over 48 million bird observations from about 35,000 contributors. By considering 18 species at various locations during migration, they concluded that on average, each reached various stopping points 0.8 days earlier per degree Celsius of temperature increase.

That may not sound like much, but as Hurlbert explains:

“Timing of bird migration is something critical for the overall health of bird species. They have to time it right so they can balance arriving on breeding grounds after there’s no longer a risk of severe winter conditions. If they get it wrong, they may die or may not produce as many young. A change in migration could begin to contribute to population decline, putting many species at risk for extinction.”

It’s an interesting analysis highlighting how little we know about the impacts of climate change. There are observable direct effects on behavior and survival, but it’s far more challenging to measure species interactions within the larger system.

Read the full article in PLoS ONE.

On most recent Science podcast, Kerry Klein interviewed Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Deborah Kaminskido about the gender breakdown among science and engineering faculty. When Kaminskido and her colleagues used publicly available data, she found gender disparity doesn’t appear to be quite as dramatic as she expected.

Across science and engineering–with the notable exception of mathematics–women seem to be staying at the same rates as male colleagues. Woman are also being promoted at the same approximate times (for women entering the system after 1990).

Kerry Klein: [W]hat do you think are the most important messages to take away from this?

Deborah Kaminski: Well, I think there’s several messages. One thing we haven’t talked about yet is the point-of-view of the academic administration. We have a very high rate of leaving [overall], so our retention in academia is low. We lose half our people in 11 years. Our start-up packages can be as high as one and a half million dollars. You’re investing in someone at the rate of $1.5 million, and in 11 years, half of them are gone. So this is an economic calculation that universities need to make. And I don’t think they’ve had this number before, this “11 year” number, to guide them in their judgment for what they have.

And the other thing we see is that it’s going to take a very long time, at the rate we’re going, to get women into the science and engineering faculties. That’s another major message.

The third message here is in the mathematics discipline, we actually have two problems there that are different from other disciplines. One of the problems is that we’re not retaining them as quickly as men, and, furthermore, in math, faculty leave even quicker than in other disciplines, like in physics or in chemistry or in electrical engineering. They’re leaving quicker in math. The women are leaving quicker than the men. And, in mathematics, what we have is that in the pool, it’s about 25% women in the Ph.D. pool, but only 20% of them are becoming assistant professors. So, when you put that all together, this really points to the need for another study on what’s happening in math.

Some of this is encouraging news. Some is not. From my perspective, academia has to fundamentally change if the goal is to retain more women. But it’s also important to remember that there are many ways to contribute in science beyond the traditional tenure-track trajectory.

In any case, you can listen to the podcast here.

I’m checking in from the 2012 AAAS meeting in Vancouver; an annual treat I look forward to. I love the opportunity to spend time with so many old friends gathered in one city. The only part I don’t like is that there are so many fascinating talks happening at once, it’s not possible to be at all of them. But then, that’s a pleasant predicament to be in.

So far, I’ve really enjoy the energy symposiums and learned a good deal in a panel that took place on Friday entitled: “Hydraulic Fracturing of Shale: Building Consensus Out of Controversy.” The event came the day after its organizers released a new report saying that there’s no direct link between groundwater contamination and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” For those unfamiliar with the topic, this is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from shale formations.

As one of the presenters explained: Fracking is a case where the science lags behind the technology. In other words, we developed the means to do it before we had the chance to study the short- and long-term impacts. And I’ll add, the public lags even further behind the science. So we’re left with a highly controversial topic that few Americans understand.

The extraordinarily rapid acceleration of shale gas development, made possible by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has transformed the outlook for North American energy production.  Indeed, recent estimates indicate natural gas extraction from shale gas development could meet provide a relatively clean and affordable source for the continent’s energy needs for the next 100 years or more. Enthusiasm for shale gas as a game-changing resource is tempered, however, by fears that hydraulic fracturing could contaminate groundwater, worsen air quality, and even trigger seismic activity.  In response, some U.S. states and Canadian provinces have imposed moratoriums on shale development until more is known about hydraulic fracturing and its effects on the environment. The three-hour symposium will be moderated by Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin and former Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy.  Four participants, representing distinguished universities in Canada and the U.S., will discuss findings from a new study analyzing reports of groundwater contamination and other environmental effects ascribed to the practice; assess concerns relating to water use and water disposal during the shale gas development; examine claims of seismic activity in northeastern British Columbia; and explore prospects for fostering consensus among policymakers for the regulation of shale gas development in a sustainable energy future.

For the third chapter in Springbox’s Innovation in Austin series, they invited me in to chat about science, sustainability, and innovation.

More from Springbox’s Innovation in Austin series here →