Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Capitol Climate Action: Mass Civil Disobedience in D.C. Against Use of Coal at Capitol Hill Power Plant

Democracy Now, New York


Over a thousand activists representing a broad alliance of civic groups are converging on Washington, D.C. today for the country’s largest mass civil disobedience against global warming. Dubbed the “Capitol Climate Action,” people are demonstrating against coal at the Capitol Hill Power Plant, which still uses coal to heat and cool several key buildings, including House and Senate offices, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, and Union Station. We speak with two well-known environmentalists: Bill McKibben and Judy Bonds. [includes rush transcript]


Julia "Judy" Bonds, Appalachian environmental activist from West Virginia and the director of Coal River Mountain Watch. She comes from a family of coal miners and won the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2003 for leading the fight against mountaintop removal mining.

Bill McKibben, environmentalist and author who frequently writes about global warming and alternative energy. He is the author of nine books, including Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is a co-founder of an environmental mobilization campaign called 350.org

AMY GOODMAN: Tens of hundreds of activists representing a broad alliance of civic groups are converging on Washington, D.C. today for the country’s largest mass civil disobedience against global warming. Dubbed the “Capitol Climate Action,” people are demonstrating against coal at the Capitol Hill Power Plant, which still uses coal to heat and cool several key buildings, including House and Senate offices, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, and Union Station.

Last Thursday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid called for the plant to eliminate coal and completely switch to natural gas, which produces about half the greenhouse gas emissions as coal. They called the plant “the number one source of air pollution and carbon emissions” in the nation’s capital. It currently burns about 35 percent coal and the rest natural gas. Earlier efforts to remove coal from the plant’s fuel mixture were thwarted by pro-coal legislators like Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia.

I’m joined right now from Washington, D.C. by two well-known environmentalists who will be at today’s nonviolent direct action at the Capitol Power Plant, willing to be arrested.

Bill McKibben is an environmentalist who frequently writes about global warming and alternative energy, the author of nine books, including Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is co-founder of an environmental mobilization campaign called 350.org.

Julia “Judy” Bonds is an Appalachian environmental activist from West Virginia and the director of Coal River Mountain Watch. She comes from a family of coal miners and won the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2003 for leading the fight against mountaintop removal mining.

Welcome to Democracy Now! to both of you. I want to start with Judy Bonds. Tell us about this mass protest today.

JUDY BONDS: Well, basically, I will be a speaker at the mass protest, and I’m very proud to be here today with the youth of America that’s demanding change and demanding that the adults take responsibility for creating a mess. So I’m very much looking forward to today’s mass protest and crossing the line.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about this particular coal plant in Washington, D.C. It may surprise many that there’s a coal plant right there in Washington, D.C. that fuels the capital.

JUDY BONDS: Absolutely. It may surprise many that we’re still burning coal, as most Americans don’t quite understand where their energy comes from. But this coal plant has been used to burn coal to heat the capital with, and my own senator, Senator Byrd, has refused to actually switch over to a cleaner way of burning coal. So this plant burns some coal that comes from West Virginia, as well. And one of the—the coal mine that uses this plant is using underground sludge injection, by underground injecting this sludge, the coal waste, into old abandoned mines, and it’s leaching into people’s well water.

AMY GOODMAN: Judy Bonds, can you talk about how coal mining has affected West Virginia and also about the massive spill that occurred in December?

JUDY BONDS: Coal mining has greatly affected West Virginia. Right now, there’s almost 400,000 acres of mountains that have been lowered, the tops blasted off. They’re using three-and-a-half million pounds of explosives a day just in West Virginia to blow the tops off our mountains, and it’s blasting our homes, it’s poisoning our air, and it’s poisoning our water. So, basically, the people who live where I do, in coal extraction areas, literally are living in terror and are being poisoned by the coal extraction process here.

And even though that West Virginia still relies upon coal for its economy, we should have diversified many, many years ago, about thirty years ago. And we’re calling, you know, for a diversification of our economy. Basically, where I live at, there’s one mountain left, called Coal River Mountain, and it’s slated for mountaintop removal. And we’re proposing a wind farm on top of this mountain in place of mountaintop removal, so that they can still underground mine the coal, but we will have jobs forever, clean, renewable jobs forever and tax revenues forever for our communities, because we think we have about probably anywhere from fifteen to twenty years of coal left in the valley where I live at.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain exactly how mountaintop removal works, Judy Bonds.

JUDY BONDS: Well, basically, the coal industry comes in and cuts all the trees off the top of the mountain, and most of the time they don’t even use the trees. Then they set—they take bulldozers and scrape the wonderful topsoil from the top of the mountain, and then they drill holes and use ammonium nitrate, which Timothy McVeigh used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and they load those charges, and then they set a blast off. And it shakes the whole valley.

You know, we can smell and taste the ammonium nitrate and the silica and the coal dust in our mouths in the valleys below, where we live at. So when they set off these blasts, that shakes our homes, and the problem is, it’s pretty hard to go to the bathroom between 4:00 in the evening and 5:00 in the evening, because that’s when they blast. And it’s literally—we feel as if we’re living in a war zone. And we are. And we are. And we just literally live in terror. Our air and our water both are poisoned from the coal mining and the extraction process.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Judy Bonds, a well-known environmentalist from West Virginia, director of the Coal River Mountain Watch. We’ll come back with Judy Bonds and Bill McKibben, then, later in the broadcast, Tavis Smiley. But before that, Democracy Now! producer Nicole Salazar is down in this massive Washington meeting of 12,000 students, Power Shift ‘09, and we’ll hear some of their voices. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: As we continue with the environmental movement, largest mass civil disobedience planned today in US history. Also, a mass meeting took place over the weekend at Washington Convention Center, 12,000 students from around the country, Power Shift ’09. Among those there, Julia Bonds, Appalachian environmental activist, head of Coal River Mountain Watch, and Bill McKibben, an environmentalists, has written many books, co-founder of the environmental mobilization campaign called 350.org.

Bill, welcome, as well, to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of this weekend’s meeting. 12,000 students?

BILL McKIBBEN: It’s almost—it’s hard to describe. You know, I wrote the first book about global warming twenty years ago. I’ve spent two decades wondering what the global warming movement was going to look like when it arrived. And this weekend, we’re really finding out. And the answer is, it looks incredibly sweet: 12,000 young people, so fired up, ready to do all that they can to try to slow down this juggernaut of climate change while we still have a very narrow window of opportunity to do so.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about today’s protest and the significance of it. Are you planning to be arrested, Bill McKibben?

BILL McKIBBEN: Yes. I mean, we’re all planning to risk arrest. And it’s going to be a very interesting day. It’s going to be half victory party, you know. After 103 years of burning coal, on Thursday, as you said, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid said, “OK, we’ll turn off that coal.” It was a pretty good demonstration of the power of people’s movements, even before we had the protest. So, today we’ll be celebrating the fact that the people of Washington aren’t going to have to breathe that soot and particulates any longer, and we’re also going to be energizing ourselves for the drive to shut down the 600 coal-fired power plants still operating in this country.

This is a very, very, very symbolic moment, a kind of turn. And, you know, it’s funny. The cable news networks and things have been preoccupied all weekend showing the Conservative Political Action Conference across town here in Washington, a few thousand people kind of leftover from the past. And the future was at the Convention Center, with 12,000 young people saying, “We don’t need the fuels of the past like coal, and we don’t need the ideologies of the past that have bankrupted not only the economy but the climate. It’s time for real change.” And you can feel it, feel it. I just hope we’ve started soon enough.

AMY GOODMAN: Judy Bonds, let me ask you something about a federal judge on—a judge in West Virginia on Friday ordering environmentalists to stop peaceful protest against the Massey Energy’s mountaintop removal operations. What’s the significance of this?

JUDY BONDS: Well, basically, it’s very significant because when a coal company actually orders someone to stay off their property, this—the gentleman that they’re ordering to stay off the property, Mike Roselle, has basically told me it’s going to take more than a temporary restraining order to keep him off an illegal activity. He’s exposing exactly what the coal industry is doing to Appalachia and indeed to all of America. So it’s pretty significant. That means that Mike is poking them pretty hard.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill McKibben, 350.org, your organization, explain the title.

BILL McKIBBEN: Can I show off my necktie for a minute? Because they made it for me yesterday down at the art convergence center here, where people are doing incredible placards and things. It’s got that “350” on it, because it’s the most important number in the world. This protest here today is the beginning of an incredible year of activism. The world meets in Copenhagen in December to come up with a new climate treaty, and it’s our last really plausible bite at the apple, I think, to get it right. We now have a number that defines that process.

Jim Hansen at NASA, who I think may be arrested today with us all, said—his team last year said 350 parts per million carbon dioxide is the most we can have in the atmosphere if we wish to retain a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. Pretty strong language. We’re above that number now. We’re at 387 parts per million and rising.

We need really dramatic action really quickly to bring it down, which is why at 350.org we’re assembling this global grassroots movement. And on October 24th, there will be demonstrations every corner of the world, from high up in the Himalayas to 350 scuba divers underwater in the Great Barrier Reef to people out on Easter Island, the kind of poster child for what happens when you don’t take care of your environment, all trying to get this number across, so that our negotiators actually have some target they have to hit, so that they can’t come back from Copenhagen and just say, “Oh, you know, we’ve reached an agreement.” Not good enough. We’re now up against the wall, and if we don’t get a really strong agreement really soon, then we all might as well not even go through the process.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn now to an ad that CNN reportedly refused to play last week. It’s about the coal industry and so-called “clean coal.” The website thinkprogress now reports that CNN will be playing the ad this week.

    MAN: All so clean!

    WOMAN: Mm-hmm!

    CLEAN COAL MAN: Is regular clean clean enough for your family? Not when you can have Clean Coal clean! Clean Coal harnesses the awesome power of the word “clean” to make it sound like the cleanest clean there is! Clean Coal is supported by the coal industry, the most trusted name in coal.

AMY GOODMAN: Judy Bonds, your response?

JUDY BONDS: That’s how we live. That dust of gray, black soot that they’re spraying out, that’s basically what’s in our homes and in our lungs. And I’m certainly glad that CNN has changed their mind and will air that ad, because that ad is true. Clean coal is a dirty lie. It’s a dirty lie. Clean coal does not exist. And if people could actually, you know, look at a coal-fired power plant or come to Appalachia and see how they extract coal, then they would understand what we mean when we say clean coal is a dirty lie. They would understand that commercial completely. And I hope, you know, America gets a chance to see more and more and more of this commercial, because I think this commercial is so true about what our children are breathing, too, in the inner cities.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you both for being there. Judy Bonds, thank you for joining us, Appalachian environmental activist from West Virginia, director of Coal River Mountain Watch, and also want to thank Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, among other books, co-founder of the environmental group called 350.org.

Climate change protest disrupts flights at Aberdeen airport

Nine members of campaign group Plane Stupid cut through perimeter fence

Plane Stupid protesters at Aberdeen airport

Plane Stupid climate protesters break through the perimeter fence at Aberdeen airport before setting up a barricade on an aircraft taxiway. Photograph: Plane Stupid/PA

Flights at one of Scotland's busiest airports were disrupted today when climate change protesters dressed as Donald Trump played golf on a taxiway.

Nine demonstrators from the Plane Stupid campaign group cut through Aberdeen airport's perimeter fence at around 2.15am in protest at BAA's plans to expand the airport.

Seven protesters who had put up a "wire fortress" on a taxiway for North Sea helicopters handed themselves over to Grampian police at about 8.20am. Two others on the terminal roof surrendered to police at about 9.30am.

Plane Stupid said the protesters were dressed as golfers in imitation of the New York property tycoon, who is building a major £1bn golfing resort north of Aberdeen and supports the airport's growth.

Wearing wigs and golfing visors, the demonstrators staged a mock game of golf with plastic clubs and balls.

The protesters on the roof unveiled a banner stating: "Nae Trump Games with Climate Change".

The protest was timed to prevent commercial flights from beginning at 5am and led to delays of at least three hours to all early morning services, including flights to Heathrow, Paris and Amsterdam.

Four incoming flights – from Paris Charles de Gaulle, Bristol, East Midlands and Humberside – were cancelled before scheduled flights resumed shortly after 9am.

Incoming flights from Wick, Durham Tees Valley and Newcastle were also delayed, while a flight to Sumburgh, in Shetland, was cancelled.

The protest also disrupted routine North Sea oil industry helicopter flights from what is one of Europe's busiest heliports.

Some services were able to resume at 8am after BAA shifted takeoffs to another area of the airport, but the disruption has continued.

"It has been a bit stop-start," a spokeswoman for Bristows, one of the main North Sea operators, said.

Plane Stupid said the protests, the first to disrupt commercial flights at a Scottish airport, were designed to highlight the escalating impact of aviation on the climate and protest against the UK-wide expansion of airports.

Aberdeen has been given permission to increase passenger numbers by 1.5m by 2015, the group said.

The airport is a major business hub, particularly for the oil and tourism industries, but it also provides lifeline services to Orkney and Shetland and some emergency air services.

The group quoted one of its members on the roof, Jonny Agnew, a 22-year-old from Edinburgh, as saying: "We have been failed by the generation of Donald Trump and Alex Salmond.

"Despite a catalogue of scientific reports warning them that they can't keep on with aviation growth, they continue with disregard for all of us who will end up dealing with the impacts of the climate crisis.

"The reality is that our generation's future is vanishing so that people like Donald Trump and his super-rich friends can jet into Aberdeen for a round of golf."

A BAA spokesman condemned the protest as "dangerous and highly irresponsible", adding: "Aberdeen is one of Europe's busiest commercial heliports and a major transport centre for the north of Scotland, used by tens of thousands of people every day.

"There is no justification for this irresponsible action, which is deliberately calculated to delay and inconvenience the travelling public.

"Passengers are being advised that the airport is not closed, and are asked to contact their airlines directly for more information about flight schedules."

A Grampian police spokesman said the protesters on the taxiway voluntarily gave themselves up after talks with police.

Last December, Plane Stupid activists disrupted Stansted airport, in Essex, occupying part of the runway and forcing the cancellation of dozens of flights. Police made 38 arrests.

In January last year, more than 20 protesters targeted the offices of private aviation firm Greer Aviation at Edinburgh airport, unveiling a banner that read: "This planet has no emergency exits."

Oceanic Seesaw Links Northern And Southern Hemisphere During Abrupt Climate Change During Last Ice Age

From: Cardiff University

Very large and abrupt changes in temperature recorded over Greenland and across the North Atlantic during the last Ice Age were actually global in extent, according to an international team of researchers led by Cardiff University.

New research, published in the journal Nature, supports the idea that changes in ocean circulation within the Atlantic played a central role in abrupt climate change on a global scale.

Using a sediment core taken from the seafloor in the South Atlantic, the team were able to create a detailed reconstruction of ocean conditions in the South Atlantic during the final phases of the last ice age.

Dr Stephen Barker, Cardiff University's School of Earth and Ocean Sciences and lead author on the paper, said: "During this period very large and abrupt changes in temperature were observed across the North Atlantic region. However, evidence for the direct transmission of these shifts between the northern and southern hemispheres has so far been lacking".

The new study suggests that abrupt changes in the north were accompanied by equally abrupt but opposite changes in the south. It provides the first concrete evidence of an immediate seesaw connection between the North and South Atlantic. The data shows, for example, that an abrupt cooling in the north would be accompanied by a rapid southerly shift of ocean fronts in the Southern Ocean, followed by more gradual warming across the south.

Dr Barker explains: "The most intuitive way to explain these changes is by varying the strength of ocean circulation in the Atlantic. By weakening the circulation, the heat transported northwards would be retained in the south."

Climate physicist, Dr Gregor Knorr, co-author of the study and now based at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, said: "Our new results agree with climate models that predict a rapid transmission of climate signals between the two hemispheres as a consequence of abrupt changes in ocean circulation."

The study has wide implications for our understanding of abrupt climate change. Dr Ian Hall, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, said: "While it is unlikely that an abrupt change in climate, related to changes in ocean circulation, will occur in the near future, our results suggest that if such an extreme scenario did occur, its effects could be felt globally within years to decades."


Mediterranean Sea Level Could Rise By over 2 feet

From: Plataforma SINC

A Spanish-British research project has come up with three future scenarios for the effects of climate change on the Mediterranean over the next 90 years, using global models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The conclusions show that ocean temperatures in this area will increase, along with sea levels.

In order to understand and correctly predict risks for the Mediterranean coast, researchers from the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies (IMEDEA, a joint centre run by the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the Spanish National Research Council, CSIC) and the National Oceanography Centre of Southampton in the United Kingdom have analysed simulations based on three scenarios related to climate change and the rise in greenhouse gases. Their goal was to predict the temperature, sea level and salinity of the Mediterranean in the 21st Century.

"The most positive scenario assumes that greenhouse gas concentrations remain constant at their levels in the year 2000, and even in this case climate change still has an impact. The most negative scenario is based on diverse levels of economic development all over the world, with an ongoing increase in greenhouse gas production throughout the 21st Century," Marta Marcos, the study's lead author and a researcher at the UIB, tells SINC.

The study, which has been published recently in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, shows what could happen in the Mediterranean. The models predict that higher concentrations of gases will lead to an increase in temperatures throughout the entire sea.

In the most positive scenario, the changes are least, with temperature increases of less than 1ºC expected to be recorded in the Mediterranean by the end of the 21st Century. The other two scenarios envision an increase in greenhouse gases over coming decades, and foresee an increase in the temperature of the sea of up to 2.5º C. In addition, the results show that the temperature increase will accelerate during the 21st Century.

In the long term, sea levels could alter due to changes in temperature (warming leads to an increase in volume) as well as additional mass. "The level of the whole Mediterranean will rise by between 3cm and 61cm* on average as a result of the effects of warming," says Marcos.

There is "greater uncertainty" in terms of the mass likely to be added as a result of melting ice at the poles and from continental glaciers, and this aspect is not incorporated in the study. The most important area in terms of understanding sea level rise is the coasts, "but it is here that we know least because of the low spatial resolution of the models" the expert adds.

In search of greater clarity

The conclusions of this study are not based on observations, but rather on global climate models that include a whole range of possible future socio-economic scenarios in order to predict what is likely to happen in the Mediterranean. According to the scientists, climatic conditions are going to change greatly, and for this reason it is impossible to make a completely precise prediction of what the future really holds.

In these circumstances, Marta Marcos and Michael Tsimplis say that, aside from temperature changes, the models show that the Mediterranean will also become saltier over the coming century. However, this prediction is also very uncertain because "the variations in salinity in the Mediterranean are controlled by the exchange of water through the Straits of Gibraltar, and this has not been incorporated as an indicator, meaning the related results are not very reliable".

This is due to the fact that IPCC models have very low spatial resolution, which means they can show global processes "reasonably well", but not always regional ones. In particular, the 14km-wide Straits of Gibraltar, which are of key importance in the processes of water exchange between the Mediterranean and Atlantic, are not well reproduced in the models.

The global models are of no use in estimating the impact of sea level rise in coastal areas, because of the high level of regional variability for this factor. The solution would be to use high-resolution, regional climate models to show the Mediterranean straits with greater clarity, as well as the oceanic processes that take place within the ocean's basin and coastal areas.

This is a strategy currently being pursued by European research groups working to predict the effects of climate change at a regional level, and it is expected that the level of uncertainty in predictions will be reduced over the short term. In Spain, IMEDEA is working to produce data on ocean levels in collaboration with the Spanish Port System. Without such resolution in the models "we cannot be sure of the scale of the changes", the researcher concludes.

*61 cm is just over 2 feet Imperial measure.

Larger Chart : http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/03/090303084057-large.jpg


Study critiques corn-for-ethanol's carbon footprint

From: Duke University

To avoid creating greenhouse gases, it makes more sense using today's technology to leave land unfarmed in conservation reserves than to plow it up for corn to make biofuel, according to a comprehensive Duke University-led study.

"Converting set-asides to corn-ethanol production is an inefficient and expensive greenhouse gas mitigation policy that should not be encouraged until ethanol-production technologies improve," the study's authors reported in the March edition of the research journal Ecological Applications

Nevertheless, farmers and producers are already receiving federal subsidies to grow more corn for ethanol under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

"One of our take-home messages is that conservation programs are currently a cheaper and more efficient greenhouse gas policy for taxpayers than corn-ethanol production," said biologist Robert Jackson, the Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.

Making ethanol from corn reduces atmospheric releases of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide because the CO2 emitted when the ethanol burns is "canceled out" by the carbon dioxide taken in by the next crop of growing plants, which use it in photosynthesis. That means equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and "fixed" into plant tissues.

But the study notes that some CO2 not counterbalanced by plant carbon uptake gets released when corn is grown and processed for ethanol. Furthermore, ethanol contains only about 70 percent of gasoline's energy.

"So we actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions only 20 percent when we substitute one liter of ethanol for one liter of gasoline," said Gervasio Piñeiro, the study's first author, who is a Buenos Aires, Argentina-based scientist and postdoctoral research associate in Jackson's Duke laboratory.

Also, by the researchers' accounting, the carbon benefits of using ethanol only begin to show up years after corn growing begins. "Depending on prior land use" they wrote in their report, "our analysis shows that carbon releases from the soil after planting corn for ethanol may in some cases completely offset carbon gains attributed to biofuel generation for at least 50 years."

The report said that "cellulosic" species -- such as switchgrass -- are a better option for curbing emissions than corn because they don't require annual replowing and planting. In contrast, a single planting of cellulosic species will continue growing and producing for years while trapping more carbon in the soil.

"Until cellulosic ethanol production is feasible, or corn-ethanol technology improves, corn-ethanol subsidies are a poor investment economically and environmentally," Jackson added.

However, the report noted that a cost-effective technology to convert cellulosics to ethanol may be years away. So the Duke team contrasted today's production practices for corn-based ethanol with what will be possible after the year 2023 for cellulosic-based ethanol.

By analyzing 142 different soil studies, the researchers found that conventional corn farming can remove 30 to 50 percent of the carbon stored in the soil. In contrast, cellulosic ethanol production entails mowing plants as they grow -- often on land that is already in conservation reserve. That, their analysis found, can ultimately increase soil carbon levels between 30 to 50 percent instead of reducing them.

"It's like hay baling," Piñeiro said. "You plant it once and it stays there for 20 years. And it takes much less energy and carbon dioxide emissions to produce that than to produce corn."

As part of its analysis, the Duke team calculated how corn-for-ethanol and cellulosic-for-ethanol production -- both now and in the future -- would compare with agricultural set-asides. Those comparisons were expressed in economic terms with a standard financial accounting tool called "net present value."

For now, setting aside acreage and letting it return to native vegetation was rated the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, outweighing the results of corn-ethanol production over the first 48 years. However, "once commercially available, cellulosic ethanol produced in set-aside grasslands should provide the most efficient tool for greenhouse gas reduction of any scenario we examined," the report added.

The worst strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions is to plant corn-for-ethanol on land that was previously designated as set aside -- a practice included in current federal efforts to ramp up biofuel production, the study found. "You will lose a lot of soil carbon, which will escape into the atmosphere as CO2," said Piñeiro.


The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Center for Global Change at Duke University and by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnologíca of Argentina.

Other researchers in the study included Brian Murray, the director for economic analysis at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and a Nicholas School research professor; Justin Baker, a researcher with Murray and Jackson; and Esteban Jobbagy, a professor at the University of San Luis in Argentina who received his Ph.D. at Duke.


"Manufactured Landscapes" SEE THIS BRILLIANT MOVIE! You'll never have the same shopping experience again.