Robert Inventor

Open letter to Space Colonization Enthusiasts. It is natural for enthusiasts who are keen on space colonization to think we need no protection for Earth. After all settlers on Mars in science fiction stories rarely run into issues. Even when they find life on Mars, somehow it is never hazardous for Earth. However science fiction is a product of the author’s imagination and is never predictive. Even hard sci. fi. gets some things right and some things wrong. But we are in a world now where what used to be science fiction is becoming reality and it may not be quite as the visionaries saw it.

NASA are planning to return its Mars samples of rock and some dust / soil to biosafety level 4 facilities. That was fine in 2009. But the problem is that it doesn’t contain the very small microbes we now know exist called ultramicrobacteria which can get through a very tiny 0.1 micron nanopore and still be viable.
The samples are in tubes on Mars. They want to return them some time around 2033. The chance of returning life on those mainly geological samples is low. The chance it is dangerous if returned is also likely low. To give an idea of the order of risk I use Margaret Race's analogy of a smoke alarm. The risk of a fire in your house is so low most people don't panic about it. But you still install smoke alarms just in case.

First for anyone who doesn't know about it, NASA are planning to return its Mars samples of rock and some dust / soil to biosafety level 4 facilities (BSL-4). The samples are in tubes on Mars. They want to return them some time around 2033.

I was astonished when I read NASA’s draft Environment Impact Statement for their mission to return samples from Mars. NASA are normally so reliable. Normally their work is well grounded in the best and most recent science, and they are also very open with the public, for instance sharing their images from Mars as soon as they receive them themselves.
But this was far from NASA’s usual standard, and full of mistakes.
Video:

This was potentially a good article by the BBC except that sadly it used an absurd click bait title and had several serious factual errors

This was an opportunity for the public to give your feedback to NASA about their Mars sample return mission plans - can submit your comments to NASA here as a public comment.
This is for their draft environmental impact statement which they plan to submit later this year.
My comment is here
. Comment Submitted by Robert Walker
Comments were open to 11:59 May 15, ET, 2022. They got 170 comments (with some duplication). I

Do be careful, masks, distancing, get vaccinated, ventilation, avoid crowded places, test, trace, isolate, quarantine. #DOITALL - BE CAREFUL
I am posting this after Boris Johnson announced - to much celebration - that the UK will end its mask mandate again because cases of Omicron are falling.
This is not about the economy. Wearing masks has zero economic impact - who is going to be impacted economically by you wearing a mask in public transport or in a shop? It seems to be more about a concept of freedom that some have, that we are more free if we don't use masks to protect others from a sometimes deadly disease. How is that freedom?

Some news stories suggest that if Omicron is mild it is a “blessing in disguise”. Should we let everyone get it as fast as possible? It might seem it would help - if Omicron is indeed a little milder, this may reduce pressure on the health system for a few weeks. However, large numbers of cases can still overwhelm us very rapidly - if it's half the severity, just one doubling of cases (which might take 3 days) overcomes all that advantage for the health systems.,

There is nothing even remotely resembling collapse of civilization in the IPBES or IPCC reports. So why do so many people say that’s what they are about?
I think it may be at least partly a misunderstanding of what the IPCC mean by “transformative change”, a misunderstanding which sadly is promoted in many articles in the mainstream media. If anyone says this, they haven't read the reports themselves, or at least not carefully.
The IPCC’s “transformative change” is not a collapse. Nor is it austerity. It’s positive, it’s growth in everything we value.

From time to time we get larger solar storms. One of the last major ones was the one in March 1989 geomagnetic storm which caused a nine hour power cut in Quebec. That happened because they weren’t prepared for it. Modern power supplies are hardened against this, making such events much less likely.
There were earlier studies suggesting widespread damage to transformers which could cause months to years to repair, widespread power supply problems that would take a long time to resolve, and trillions of dollars of damage, so a large economic impact.

This is for people who worry that the Democrats in the USA will never come to agreement on their climate policies. It’s tough work for them, because they have to get agreement of 50 senators, even one abstention and they will lose the vote.
IMHO this is also a strength- the bill is getting intense scrutiny. Everyone’s concerns need to be listened to. Joe Manchin seems genuine and he represents centrist politicians in the USA - a bill is more likely to work if he is behind it too.

How to motivate your self, and others to act on climate change, biodiversity or anything else - tips from psychology
This talk may help you if you are thinking about how to motivate both yourself and others, and also governments, to act on climate change, biodiversity loss or indeed anything. The way you might do it instinctively, to focus on all the negatives that need to be fixed, is actually not the best approach. Psychologists call this negative framing.

Psychology says, in order to create engagement, we should present, on balance, three positive or supportive framings for each climate threat we mention.
Epsen Stokes, 8:49 into this video.