Thomas Bowman, president of an organization that helps organizations make sustainable choices, authored a letter in the journal Science calling for a common language when discussing some of the more abstract ideas surrounding climate change. Along with researchers from George Mason University, Penn State University and elsewhere, Bowman suggests ways to help the public catch up to the science.

“At this critical moment, scientific understanding has outstripped our society’s capacity to use that knowledge by a wide margin,” they wrote. “This situation must be resolved quickly to give policymakers–and the public–the broadest range of options.”

Read more of this story »

A body of data and stories has been collected by Julia Christensen, author of the recently published Big Box Reuse. Her book, published by MIT Press, offers a detailed overview of ten communities that have transformed vacated Wal-Marts and Kmarts into civic structures.

Read more of this story »

That’s right: according to the Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, there’s “a bull market in environmental guilt.” Fahrenthold’s tone, and those of several bloggers whom have linked to his article, suggests something nefarious is happening with the sale of offsets.

I don’t agree with that, but I didn’t sit down today to defend offsets from detractors.  I think there’s a much more interesting question raised in this article: the sustainability of a “green economy” that’s focused primarily on, well, environmentalists… or, at least those who share our larger set of values. Fahrenthold notes:

…people in this business are worried that the guilt boom is about to bust. Most of their customers — usually college-educated and making more than $50,000 a year — have not been hit hard by the weakening economy. Yet.

“People still come to the site, but where you used to get people signing up [for offsets] every day, now you’d be lucky to get a few people a week,” said Fred Weiss, a small-time offset seller based in Ann Arbor, Mich., who sends customers stickers that say, “Carbon Neutral Vehicle.” Apparently that isn’t as important now.

“Who cares about the environment? Am I going to have a house next week?” he imagined would-be customers saying.

As an environmentalist, it’s tempting to respond to Weiss’ rhetorical questions with something along the lines of “But you should care about the environment because…” — fill in the rest for yourself. More and more, I think that first impulse is probably the wrong one.  Rather than focusing on the first question, we should think hard about the second one… and worry if we can’t come up with an answer.

Read more of this story »

J’Accuse Robert J. Samuelson of facilitating inaction in the face of Peak Oil.

J’Accuse Robert J. Samulson of putting this nation through your peddling of false information about options to deal with Global Warming.

J’Accuse Robert J. Samuelson of putting this nation, humanity, my (and your) children at greater risk.

Robert J. Samuelson, J’Accuse … J’Accuse

"J’Accuse," by Émile Zola is perhaps the most influential and single "greatest newspaper article" in history. It caused an uproar in French politics. "No other newspaper article has ever provoked such public debate and controversy or had such an impact on law, justice, and society." Amid the falsely based prosecution of Dreyfus, it accused the French system of anti-Semitism and covering up treasonous acts by another. It is a powerful and important work, one that should be studied and remembered. And, it can speak to our times in so many ways.

And, when it comes to Global Warming,

"la verite est en marche et rien ne l’arretera"

Truth is on the march and nothing can stop it.

Robert J. Samuelson, J’Accuse. I accuse you of fostering a rear-guard battle against the truth. I accuse you of using your pedestal at Newsweek, The Washington Post, and elsewhere for peddling falsehoods cloaked in seeming reasonableness. I accuse you of seeking to confuse, rather than enlighten, on the critical issue of our times.

In Newsweek, The Washington Post, and elsewhere, Samuelson just published "Greenhouse Simplicities," which was an attack on the previous week’s Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial."

Samuelson’s claim:

The global-warming debate’s great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there.

Upfront, clearly, unequivocably: This is false, this is not true! We, the United States and humanity, already have in hand energy efficient options to dramatically cut energy use and therefore emissions. (Well, that compact flourescent lightbulb that cuts your lighting electricity by 73%, that is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg folks.) To quote Royal Dutch Shell’s CEO,

More than half the energy we generate every day is wasted.

What’s the point of producing even more energy if we continue to waste most of it? Instead, we should aim to become twice as efficient in our use of energy by the middle of the next century. That is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

We have renewable energy (and, yes, nuclear power as well) technologies aleady in hand that can be displacing coal-fired electricity. We can (solely using technologies that already exist today), eliminate coal from our electricity system within twenty years.

That is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

Well, what does Samuelson claim: "At best, we might curb emissions growth."

Simply, purely, not true. It is not just the minor issue that we must do better, we can do much better than that without hardship and, well, we could even create a path for a carbon-negative society by mid-century "provided that the political will is there."

That is, unless we abandon any concept of an American ability to lead the world to a better future. Oh, well, Samuelson has abandoned that as he states:

Democracies don’t easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems.

That is true, not easily. But, do we abandon all hope in the face of this? I guess, for Samuelson, that is the case. That we cannot hope for better from America and Americans but surrender in the face of challenge, inaction in the face of threat, lack of will when courage is called for. J’Accuse, Robert J. Samuelson, of denigrating America and Americans’ spirit and strength of character.

But, he wants to pound this in.

One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere.

Ah, why bother to do anything, after all the Chinese and others in that ‘developing world’ are going to be polluting? Well, hmmmm, would not smart policy create a path for them to leapfrog to a sustainable and prosperous energy future, avoiding as much as possible heavy fossil fuel pollution? "Entirely feasible, provided that the will is there. …"

What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics.

Certainly it is a quandary, because those like Samuelson are inhibiting moves to anything sensible.

This is Samuelson’s favorite.

He claims that we don’t have anything in hand to do something about emissions (a claim, again, that is false) and thus we need to do research. Research to find that Silver Bullet solution.

Well, first off, there is no Silver Bullet solution. But the right path is that we do fund research, we do look for better paths forward, we do look for great new technologies. But, as we search for the better mousetrap to come, we start employing the great ones that we have in hand.

We have, in hand, much of what is required to create a prosperous and sustainable energy future despite the truthiness propaganda coming from the likes of Robert J. Samuelson.

Samuelson’s concluding paragraph begins:

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don’t have a solution for this problem.

Yes, there are solutions. To again quote from an oil company executive, a solution path

is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

Well, Robert J. Samuelson, I have the will. Others have the will. We have the will to Energize America and the Globe to a prosperous and sustainable energy future.

This future “is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.”

We will, Mr. Samuelson, we will provide that will.

Ask yourself: Are you doing your part to Energize America? Are you ready to do your part?

Your voice can, and will make a difference.

So … speak up… now!!!

Notes:

• Samuelson is impressive for how much mendacity he can fit into just one column. See Mary’s excellent Global Warming Naysayers for a discussion of other areas where we should say, "Robert J Samuelson, J’Accuse."
• Samuelson, sadly, often merits being called out. Just over a year ago, J’accuse! Distorting reality in "Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth”, which was about a Samuelson OPED that "has factual errors, misleading statements and conclusions, and provides a counterproductive path for thinking about and achieving change for a better future."
• Answer the Call for a better future.