Programmer, college student, android enthusiast.
114 stories

Installing air filters in classrooms has surprisingly large educational benefits

2 Comments and 9 Shares
A teacher sits at a work table with two young students. Students at Lavrentyev Secondary School No 130 in Novosibirsk, Russia, on December 20, 2019. | Kirill Kukhmar\TASS via Getty Images

$1,000 can raise a class’s test scores by as much as cutting class size by a third.

An emergency situation that turned out to be mostly a false alarm led a lot of schools in Los Angeles to install air filters, and something strange happened: Test scores went up. By a lot. And the gains were sustained in the subsequent year rather than fading away.

That’s what NYU’s Michael Gilraine finds in a new working paper titled “Air Filters, Pollution, and Student Achievement” that looks at the surprising consequences of the Aliso Canyon gas leak in 2015.

The impact of the air filters is strikingly large given what a simple change we’re talking about. The school district didn’t reengineer the school buildings or make dramatic education reforms; they just installed $700 commercially available filters that you could plug into any room in the country. But it’s consistent with a growing literature on the cognitive impact of air pollution, which finds that everyone from chess players to baseball umpires to workers in a pear-packing factory suffer deteriorations in performance when the air is more polluted.

If Gilraine’s result holds up to further scrutiny, he will have identified what’s probably the single most cost-effective education policy intervention — one that should have particularly large benefits for low-income children.

And while it’s too hasty to draw sweeping conclusions on the basis of one study, it would be incredibly cheap to have a few cities experiment with installing air filters in some of their schools to get more data and draw clearer conclusions about exactly how much of a difference this makes.

The Aliso Canyon gas leak, explained

Back on October 23, 2015, employees of the Southern California Gas Company discovered a massive leak in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility near Porter Ranch in the San Fernando Valley. Significant for the larger purposes of the study, the Porter Ranch area is known for having “some of the cleanest air in the Valley year-round.”

The gas leak was a huge catastrophe from the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions, but also naturally raised concerns in the local community about the immediate impact on public health.

Facing political pressure from concerned parents and teachers, Gilraine writes, “the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the owner of the gas well, the Southern California Gas Company, placed air filters in every classroom, office and common area in all schools within five miles of the gas leak at the end of January 2016.”

Strikingly, however, air testing conducted around the time of the installation of the filters shows that the schools didn’t actually have abnormally high levels of the kinds of pollution that are normally associated with natural gas. Methane is lighter than air, and by the time the filters were installed — nearly three months after the leak — the extra pollution caused was all the way up in the sky and not affecting school buildings.

Consequently, the installation of the filters served not to remove extra contamination caused by the leak, but simply to clean up the normal amount of background indoor air pollution present in the Valley. That lets Gilraine estimate the difference in student performance for schools just inside the boundary compared to those just outside.

He finds that math scores went up by 0.20 standard deviations and English scores by 0.18 standard deviations, and the results hold up even when you control for “detailed student demographics, including residential ZIP Code fixed effects that help control for a student’s exposure to pollution at home.”

For context, this is comparable in scale to some of the most optimistic studies on the potential benefits of smaller class sizes, with Alan Krueger finding that cutting class size by a third leads to a 0.22 standard deviation improvement in academic performance. Other studies find smaller or even negative effects (because adding teachers means bringing in less experienced or less effective ones), but even accepting the positive findings, it costs much more than $700 per classroom to achieve class size reductions of that scale.

This is a big, but not implausible, number

The effect Gilraine finds is strikingly large given that it’s a seemingly trivial intervention.

But Sefi Roth of the London School of Economics studied university students’ test performance relative to air pollution levels on the day of the test alone. He found that taking a test in a filtered rather than unfiltered room would raise test scores by 0.09 standard deviations. That’s about half the impact Gilraine found, just based on day-of-test air quality. In Gilraine’s natural experiment, students benefited from cleaner air for about four months. Given that context, it’s not incredibly surprising that you could see an impact that’s about twice as large.

What’s natural to ask — though unknowable from the study before us — is how much more change we could see if students benefited from an entire school year of clean air. Or perhaps an entire school career, from pre-K through high school graduation, of clean air.

One striking thing about this is the government has long been aware that indoor air pollution is a potential problem. But according to currently prevailing Indoor Air Quality standards, there was nothing wrong with the air in the schools. Filters were installed because of an essentially unwarranted panic about natural gas.

And while Los Angeles is a fairly high-pollution part of the country, outdoor particulate levels are higher in many areas — including New York, Chicago, and Houston — than they were in the impacted neighborhood. In other words, there’s no reason to think the impacted schools were unusually deficient in their air quality. They just happen to be the ones that installed filters.

A cheap, scalable initiative

For a sense of scale, Mathematica Policy Research’s best evidence on the effectiveness of the highly touted KIPP charter school network finds that after three years at KIPP there is significant improvement on three out of four test metrics — up 0.25 standard deviations on one English test, 0.22 standard deviations on another, and 0.28 standard deviations on one of two math tests.

Those are big gains, and they help explain why there is so much enthusiasm about KIPP in some quarters, even as charter schools remain politically controversial and charters in general seem to produce roughly average results.

This is bigger than the impact of letting kids benefit from clean air for four months. But installing the full suite of air filters costs about $1,000 per classroom, and continuing to operate them beyond the first year is cheaper than that. And best of all, unlike totally reworking school operations, it could be scaled up very quickly.

It would be almost trivially easy to get a variety of school districts all around the country to randomly select schools for the installation of air filters. That would rapidly generate a ton of additional data, and if the results continued to be promising, the initiative could be made universal very quickly.

The benefits, on their face, would be extremely large at a relatively low cost. And since air pollution is generally worse in lower-income communities, you would not only raise test scores nationally, but make progress on the big socioeconomic gaps in student achievement that have proven very difficult to remedy.

Read the whole story
88 days ago
88 days ago
Share this story
2 public comments
89 days ago
Adding passive filters is so easy, so cheap, and so low-risk, that pretty much every school in the world should try it out.
Washington, District of Columbia
90 days ago
or we could ban cars
88 days ago
We’re a big country, we can do both!
88 days ago
Start with coal.

Self-Knowledge by Looking at Others


I've published quite a lot on people's poor self-knowledge of their own stream of experience (e.g. this and this), and also a bit on our often poor self-knowledge of our attitudes, traits, and moral character. I've increasingly become convinced that an important but relatively neglected source of self-knowledge derives from one's assessment of the outside world -- especially one's assessment of other people.

I am unaware of empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the sort of thing I have in mind (I welcome suggestions!), but here's the intuitive case.

When I'm feeling grumpy, for example, that grumpiness is almost invisible to me. In fact, to say that grumpiness is a feeling doesn't quite get things right: There's isn't, I suspect, a way that it feels from the inside to be in a grumpy mood. Grumpiness, rather, is a disposition to respond to the world in a certain way; and one can have that disposition while one feels, inside, rather neutral or even happy.

When I come home from work, stepping through the front door, I usually feel (I think) neutral to positive. Then I see my wife Pauline and daughter Kate -- and how I evaluate them reveals whether in fact I came through that door grumpy. Suppose the first thing out of Pauline's mouth when I come through the door is, "Hi, Honey! Where did you leave the keys for the van?" I could see this as an annoying way of being greeted, I could take it neutrally in stride, or I could appreciate how Pauline is still juggling chores even as I come home ready to relax. As I strode through that door, I was already disposed to react one way or another to stimuli that might or might not be interpreted as annoying; but that mood-constituting disposition didn't reveal itself until I actually encountered my family. Casual introspection of my feelings as I approached the front door might not have revealed this disposition to me in any reliable way.

Even after I react grumpily or not, I tend to lack self-knowledge. If I react with annoyance to a small request, my first instinct is to turn the blame outward: It is the request that is annoying. That's just a fact about the world! I either ignore my mood or blame Pauline for it. My annoyed reaction seems to me, in the moment, to be the appropriate response to the objective annoyingness of the situation.

Another example: Generally, on my ten-minute drive into work, I listen to classic rock or alternative rock. Some mornings, every song seems trite and bad, and I cycle through the stations disappointed that there's nothing good to listen to. Other mornings, I'm like "Whoa, this Billy Idol song is such a classic!" Only slowly have I learned that this probably says more about my mood than about the real quality of the songs that are either pleasing or displeasing me. Introspectively, before I turn on the radio and notice this pattern of reactions, there's not much there that I can discover that otherwise clues me into my mood. Maybe I could introspect better and find that mood in there somewhere, but over the years I've become convinced that my song assessment is a better mood thermometer, now that I've learned to think of it that way.

One more example: Elsewhere, I've suggested that probably the best way to discover whether one is a jerk is not by introspective reflection ("hm, how much of a jerk am I?") but rather by noticing whether one regularly sees the world through "jerk goggles". Everywhere you turn, are you surrounded by fools and losers, faceless schmoes, boring nonentities? Are you the only reasonable, competent, and interesting person to be found? If so....

As I was drafting this post yesterday, Pauline interrupted me to ask if I wanted to RSVP to a Christmas music singalong in a few weeks. Ugh! How utterly annoying I felt that interruption to be! And then my daughter's phone, plugged into the computer there, wouldn't stop buzzing with text messages. Grrr. Before those interruptions, I would probably have judged that I was in a middling-to-good mood, enjoying being in the flow of drafting out this post. Of course, as those interruptions happened, I thought of how suitable they were to the topic of this post (and indeed I drafted out this very paragraph in response). Now, a day later, my mood is better, and the whole thing strikes me as such a lovely coincidence!

If I sit too long at my desk at work, my energy level falls. Every couple of hours, I try to get up and stroll around campus a bit. Doing so, I can judge my mood by noticing others' faces. If everyone looks beautiful to me, but in a kind of distant, unapproachable way, I am feeling depressed or blue. Every wart or seeming flaw manifests a beautiful uniqueness that I will never know. (Does this match others' phenomenology of depression? Before having noticed this pattern in my reactions to people, I might not have thought this would be how depression feels.) If I am grumpy, others are annoying obstacles. If I am soaring high, others all look like potential friends.

My mood will change as I walk, my energy rising. By the time I loop back around to the Humanities and Social Sciences building, the crowds of students look different than they did when I first stepped out of my office. It seems like they have changed, but of course I'm the one who has changed.

[image source]

Read the whole story
96 days ago
96 days ago
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Share this story

Complementary engineering indicators


Last year I had the opportunity to watch Cat Swetel’s presentation The Development Metrics You Should Use (but Don’t). The information that could be gleaned from just tracking the start and finish date of work items was eye opening. If you’re using an issue tracker this information is probably already (perhaps with some light data munging) available — no need for TPS reports. Additionally, statistics obtained by data mining your project’s issue tracker are, perhaps, less likely to be juked.

Around the time I saw Cat’s presentation I finished reading Andy Grove’s High Output Management. The hidden gem in this book (assuming becoming a meeting powerhouse isn’t your bag) was Grove’s notion of indicator pairs. An example of a paired indicator might be the number of sales deals closed paired with the customer retention rate. The underling principle being optimising for one indicator will have an adverse impact on the other. In the example, overly aggressive or deceptive tactics could superficially raise the number of sales made, but would be reflected in a dip in the retention rate as customers returned the product or terminated their service prematurely.

These ideas lead me to thinking about indicators you could use for a team delivering a software product. Could those indicators be derived cheaply from the hand to hand combat of software delivery? Could they be structured in a way that aggressively pursuing one metric would be reflected negatively in another? I think so.

These are the three metrics that I’ve been using to track the health of the project that I lead.

  • Date; was the software done when we said it would be done. If you prefer this indicator as a scalar, how many days difference is there between the ship date agreed on at the start of the sprint/milestone/whatever and what was the actual date that you considered it done.
  • Completeness; when the software is done, how many of the things we said we’re going to do actually got delivered in that release.
  • Defects reported; once the software is in the field, what is the rate of bugs reported.

It is relatively easy, for example, to hit a delivery date if you aggressively descope anything risky or simply don’t do it. But in doing so this lack of promised functionality would impact the completeness metric.

Conversely, it’s straight forward to hit your milestone’s completeness target if you let the release date slip and slip. Bringing both the metics into line requires good estimation skills to judge how much can be attempted in milestone and provide direct feedback if your estimation skills needed work.

The third indicator, defects reported in the field, acts as a check on the other two. It would be easy to consistent hit your delivery date with 100% feature completion if your team does a shoddy job. The high fives and :tada: emojis will be short lived if each release brings with it a swathe of high priority bug reports. This indicator also tends to have a second order effect, rushed features to meet a deadline tend to generate remedial work in the following milestones, crowding out promised work or blowing later deadlines.

I consider these to be complementary metrics, they should be considered together, as a group, rather than individually. Ideally your team should be delivering what you promised, when you promised it, with a low defect rate. But more importantly, if that isn’t the case, if one of the indicators is unhealthy, addressing it shouldn’t result in the problem moving to another.

Read the whole story
126 days ago
Share this story

A letter that I did not send to my dear uncle, who sent me a climate change denial article from a right-wing copypasta content farm

2 Comments and 11 Shares
1523-4 woodblock of a skeleton playing a drum next to a well dressed man and woman

The Lady by Hans Holbein

Dear Uncle,

I guess you sent me this article because you see how worried I am about climate change on twitter and you don’t believe it’s happening. I remember you talking about the emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit at UEA several years ago, but I didn’t realize you were skeptical about the effects of climate change.

I am very sorry to say that climate change is happening. I don’t want to believe it’s true and I don’t want to believe it’s as bad as it is. My whole PhD is premised on the idea that maybe [a really important species] would be able to adapt better than our projections said because of [cool feature of their biology]. (I don’t have the answer yet, but it’s not looking promising.)

I’ve spent the last 15 years learning about biology and ecology and the natural world and participating in the scientific process and working with other scientists. Obviously, I don’t know everything and science isn’t perfect. But most of us are trying our best and aren’t out to trick anyone. I believe climate change is happening and so does nearly every scientist I’ve ever known. We have disagreements about how fast it’s happening and what its exact effects will be and if we can survive it, but we agree that it’s going to be very, very bad.

I’m so convinced climate change is happening that I spend a great deal of time that I should be working on my PhD or that I could be doing things I love like reading novels and dancing instead writing letters to politicians and advocating for policies that would help slow climate change or at least help us adapt. I’m so convinced that I cry about it and am terrified about the world I’ll grow old in. I’m so convinced that I’ve tried to convince my mother to move (and I think you all probably should as well, especially your kids) because the southeast is going to get so much hotter and flood and fire prone during my lifetime that it’s going to severely disrupt the economy and make people very sick.

And I’m not alone. The news doesn’t spend a lot of time talking to scientists about how they feel personally about climate change, but it’s bleak. We give dry presentations and cry together over dinner at how many plants died at our study sites. We talk about fears for our children or choosing not to have them. I’m afraid of what the world is going to be like in 20 years and I’m grieving the ecosystems dying right in front of us.

The article you sent me says that the recent National Climate Assessment is based on cherry picked data and bad models and bad science and that fossil fuels have done a lot of good. It claims that all this noise about climate change is just a ploy to control politics. It isn’t, though an emergency of this scale really should affect politics.

The climate models were right before the internal combustion engine was invented

I know it can seem like everything about climate change is based on these overly complex computer models run by scientists who only care about getting their next grant, but those computer models are just fiddly details.

We knew that using fossil fuels and such could cause global warming from before the US Civil War – more than 150 years before we were able to build the complex global models of climate that we’re now using to figure out exactly how global warming will change regional and local climates.

The earliest calculations of how much carbon dioxide warmed up the planet were done by a Swedish scientist in the 1890s. His predictions weren’t perfect, but they’re not that far off from our current models. And the simple computer models we built in the 70s and 80s predict basically the same global temperature increase as the highly complex ones we have today.

(We keep building more and more complex models with more and more things because we are trying to understand more and more local effects and also feedback cycles – what does it mean for the world to warm 2 or 6 or 10 degrees? When will the ice melt? How will that affect ocean currents? How will the ocean currents full of meltwater affect the speed and sinuousness of the jetstream? Will the southwest get wetter or drier? Will there be more hurricanes or fewer? What could the economic impacts be?)

Perhaps that snippet of scientific history hasn’t convinced you to take climate change seriously. After all, even if we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases heat up the planet, maybe we’ve done our math wrong and it’s actually much slower than we think.

But what if the models are wrong and climate change isn’t a big deal?

So, what if the models are wrong about how much and how fast climate change is happening? We need to compare the risk of inaction vs action if we’re right and if we’re wrong.

What is the risk of inaction if we are right about the magnitude and speed of climate change impacts? Well, you could read the fourth NCA to find out! It does not, as the article you sent me put it “sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller.” It is sober and measured and accessible – and ultimately very conservative in its discussion of potential impacts. Here’s a representative snippet from the chapter on climate change impacts occurring and expected in the Southeast

Embedded in these land- and seascapes is a rich cultural history developed over generations by the many communities that call this region home. However, these beaches and bayous, fields and forests, and cities and small towns are all at risk from a changing climate. These risks vary in type and magnitude from place to place, and while some climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and extreme downpours, are being acutely felt now, others, like increasing exposure to dangerously high temperatures—often accompanied by high humidity—and new local diseases, are expected to become more significant in the coming decades.

If our models are right and we don’t do anything, the impacts from climate change will be big and bad this century and downright apocalyptic in the next. The only reason not to act would be if you believe the impacts of trying to slow or stop climate change are worse than the risks from climate change itself.

The biggest things we can to do as a society to slow climate change are:

  • educate girls and make sure women have access to contraceptives and reproductive healthcare, including abortion
  • change the kind of chemicals we use as refrigerants (like in air conditioners) (and switch as many of them as we can to things like ground source heat pumps).
  • switch electricity generation from coal and natural gas to solar and wind as fast as we can, reducing air pollution in the process and creating a bunch of jobs
  • Eat more beans and less red meat while wasting less food – cheaper and healthier!
  • Stop burning tropical forests – most are being burnt to grow soybeans to feed cows, so this is almost a natural outcome of the previous goal
  • Bring back silvopasture farming techniques – supporting small farmers and rural areas and loosening the exploitation by companies like Smithfield.

None of these have costs higher than the ones our models predict climate change will exact, in dollars, in lives, in social and cultural disruption. Most are actually things we’d want to do regardless of climate change. Many negative effects are things that are happening anyway.

Consider what happens

If we don’t act and the models are right, we face a serious existential threat. Over the next centuries, billions of people will die in extreme weather events, wars, and famines, the economy will collapse worldwide, we could lose a great deal of technology and civilization, and could even go extinct. Large parts of the tropics and subtropics will become uninhabitable and billions will be forced to migrate by rising sea levels and increasing temperatures. Immigration by climate refugees will completely overwhelm many countries. Many, many species will go extinct.

If we don’t act and the models are wrong, we gradually decarbonize the economy anyway while demographic, habitat destruction, and agricultural problems continue unabated. The transition to solar and wind will continue, relatively slowly, because technology has advanced already to the point that it’s cheaper than at least coal already. As fossil fuels are gradually depleted and renewable tech continues to improve, the transition will speed up. This will gradually reduce the millions of deaths every year due to air pollution. Depending on the speed of transition, we will have to retrain or support people and communities who used to be dependent on fossil fuel extraction – or consign them to lives of poverty and us all to political unrest. Hundreds of millions more women will have children they weren’t ready to have and lack education and opportunities, holding back their countries’ political and economic development. Industrial agriculture will continue to destroy habitat and small farms and suck resources out of rural areas. The loss of rainforests will cause the loss of many incredible species and result in changes to global weather patterns that could devastate some agricultural regions. Obesity and metabolic diseases will continue to increase, along with associated healthcare costs.

If we act and the models are right, we’re still going to continue to see a lot of climate change impacts because we’ve just waited too long to act, but the effects won’t be so catastrophic. Fewer people will die in extreme weather events or of starvation, and immigration will be less overwhelming because fewer people will have to flee sea level rise and increasingly inhospitable climates. We will save millions of lives every year just from the reduction in air pollution from transitioning to solar and wind. Many jobs will be created in order to rapidly transition to solar and wind and improve energy efficiency in buildings. We will have to retrain or support people and communities who used to be dependent on fossil fuel extraction – or consign them to lives of poverty and us all to political unrest. More people will use affordable heat pumps or safe refrigerants to cool (and heat) their homes than before. Dietary improvements in the west will extend lives and reduce healthcare costs from metabolic disease. Population growth will slow, helping countries in the global south reduce emigration and stabilize their political systems. We will lose rare desert habitat to solar farms and some birds to wind farms, but much less than unmitigated climate change would have caused. Switching so rapidly to renewable energy with today’s technology will mean a lot of mining for rare earth minerals, which will likely cause large areas of environmental destruction in parts of the American west and China – much as uranium mining and coal mining did in the previous century.

If we act and the models are wrong, we will make improvements in agriculture, public health, political stability in tropical and subtropical countries, gender equality, and environmental protection, at the expense of some resource extraction communities. We will deal with the necessary transition away from fossil fuels earlier than we needed to to avoid climate change impacts, possibly with technologies that aren’t as advanced as they would have been had we waited. However, we will save millions of lives every year just from the reduction in air pollution from transitioning to solar and wind. Many jobs will be created in order to rapidly transition to solar and wind and improve energy efficiency in buildings. We will have to retrain or support people and communities who used to be dependent on fossil fuel extraction – or consign them to lives of poverty and us all to political unrest. More people will use affordable heat pumps or safe refrigerants to cool (and heat) their homes than before. Dietary improvements in the west will extend lives and reduce healthcare costs from metabolic disease. Population growth will slow, helping countries in the global south reduce emigration and stabilize their political systems. We will lose rare desert habitat to solar farms and lots of birds to wind farms. Switching so rapidly to renewable energy probably will mean a lot of mining for rare earth minerals, which will cause environmental destruction in parts of the American west and China – much as uranium mining and coal mining did in the previous century. Many species are saved in the rainforests.

You believe that the models are wrong and we we shouldn’t act. You’re afraid that the models are wrong and we will act.

But your fear is actually the very best outcome: the very best situation is if we act to stop climate change and we are wrong about climate change. Acting to stop climate change makes the world better even if climate change doesn’t happen.

(The above assumes, of course, that the models are overpredicting climate change impacts. We are very likely under-predicting the impacts of climate change. Choosing what to do, what to prioritize, if climate change is going to be much worse than we imagine is another discussion.)

I don’t think any of these futures are easy, even the ones where everyone does exactly what I think is politically right and things go perfectly according to plan. We have waited so long to act to stop climate change that we now have to act very fast and no matter what we’ll do, bad things will happen. Fast change is very hard and disruptive. We’re going to face fast change no matter what, but we have a choice, now about what that change looks like. We can choose the change and we can get our collective butts in gear, or we’ll be swept away by changes we didn’t see coming, alone.

What if there were no models?

But perhaps you believe any model of climate change is just wrong. (They are, of course. The only perfect model is the thing itself, but you’re not going to throw out all your maps because they don’t have every pothole in the road on them.)

So then – imagine that we don’t have any of these climate models.

We still know that some gases like carbon dioxide and methane hold more heat than others because anyone can figure that out with some sunshine and bottles filled with different gases on a sunny day and a couple thermometers.

But if no one ever built the kinds of models predicting what adding lots and lots of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would do, then what should we do if we just don’t know what the result of dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be?

I believe we must act very cautiously. We only have one planet. It is foolish and selfish to take more than the smallest of risks with it.

If we don’t know how much greenhouse gases will warm up our planet or what warming up a planet will do to climate, we just shouldn’t do it until we do understand. Experimenting with the only planet we can currently survive on does not seem sensible.

In our climate-model-less world, we also still know that climate is a complex dynamical system, like the human brain or the power grid, where small changes in one part of the system can cause rather larger changes in another. Bigger changes are quite likely to cause bigger changes. In a world without global climate models, we would want to be very wary of changing levels of temperature-changing gases in our atmosphere much at all.

If we know that greenhouse gases can cause global warming and we know that the global climate system can behave unpredictably, then even if we don’t know how or why or how much change those gases cause, it is irresponsible and dangerous to continue increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

I want us to fix climate change, but I don’t want you to feel like this

Academics get accused of elitism all the time. And some of that is completely warranted. This next bit is elitist.

I want everyone to take climate change seriously because we have waited so long and so must do so much, so fast to stave off the most unthinkable effects. But part of me doesn’t want to convince you, my dear uncle.

Changing your mind, individually, probably won’t make much difference to whether we get a Green New Deal or not.

But understanding what climate change impacts will look like is horrifying and painful. You’re old enough and well-off enough that you and Aunt ____ will probably be fine as long as your AC keeps going and you don’t move to the coast. I don’t want you to spend the rest of your life terrified for my cousins and your new grandbaby, mourning the changes to the land you love as trees and animals migrate and change and die.

So I’m not going to send you this letter, I’m not going to try to convince you that climate change is real. Facing it is like facing death, and of course I would spare you that if I could.

So live your life, blissfully ignorant and cheerful on the phone about the strange weather lately. Live free from the fear that everything you’ve contributed to and cared about in your life will be gone so soon and live free from the guilt that you supported the political and economic choices that may kill us all.

Read the whole story
412 days ago
413 days ago
208 days ago
Share this story
2 public comments
413 days ago
This. So much this.
Corvallis, OR
208 days ago
413 days ago
I wrote basically this exact email to my uncle. The rest of my family were not amused and felt like I should go easy on him.
New York
208 days ago

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Snow Angels

1 Comment and 4 Shares

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

This is actually a subtle please for a party invitation.

Today's News:
Read the whole story
473 days ago
My own pedanticness multiplied 10x when I learned the meaning of logical implication.
Share this story

Teenagers Performing With Their Idols

1 Share

This afternoon, my friend Casey Newton posted a thread of YouTube videos so good that I had to login on a Sunday and blog about it. There’s a simple theme connecting these videos that I’ll let Casey explain:

This might be my favorite one:

The kids are all right. Better than, in fact.

Tags: music   teens   YouTube
Read the whole story
478 days ago
Share this story
Next Page of Stories