I had hoped to leave my ill-tempered rant behind, since the subject obviously irritates the hell out of me, my irritation obviously irritates the hell out of everyone else, and as was pointed out, the whole subject is something of a distraction.
But as I'm now being compared to (called?) a rapist, I suppose I should chime back in.
First, my writing must have been opaque, since interpretations ran all over the place, mostly wrong. It was not my intention to defend carbon sequestration through tree planting, or big houses, or what have you, from the charges leveled against them. Nor was it my intention to defend techno-optimism generally (though Bart's distinction is something I think about quite a bit and plan to write more on). Nor was it my intention to use my vast expressive liberties and mighty position as moderator to crypto-fascistically crush all dissent from the Dave Party Line (you're welcome to envision me rolling my eyes here).
My intent was simply to express my frustration at certain habits of thinking among environmentalists. I will note that multiple green bloggers emailed me to express their sympathy, so I know I'm not alone in this.
First, let me be clear that I love my tribe -- the entire crazy-quilt melange of constituencies, attitudes, and personalities. I spend a lot of time out in the world defending us dirty hippies. Any mockery from me I consider a family squabble, and yes, I come from a family where loving-but-exasperated mockery is the coin of the realm. It appears others are somewhat more sensitive to it, so I apologize for any bruised feelings. Now, the the matter at hand.
For a long time, environmentalism has been something of an insular, marginalized subculture -- think of the green movement as the chess club of the big U.S. high school. This has inculcated two negative habits of thinking.
First, many greens seem primarily interested in protecting our little circle of virtue -- as Randy put it, getting to heaven rather than changing things. This means that when the jocks and cool kids come around trying their hand at chess, they get savaged by defensive eco-geeks protecting turf. Interlopers are branded as fakers or ignoramuses. Only we know how to behave sustainably, and everyone who takes steps in our direction is greenwashing or posturing or missing the point or being superficial or flailing around uselessly.
There's more than a tinge of resentment to it: "look, we have our thing. You cool kids have ignored and insulted us all this time, you can't just waltz over now and adopt our thing."
Second, greens have become far too accustomed to thinking like a marginalized subculture -- like, if you'll forgive me, losers. We're used to shouting from the sidelines, to having our warnings fall on deaf ears, to always being last on the average person's checklist of concerns.
But look around: everybody's listening. Everybody's trying to go green. We won. They're convinced. It's time to make the mental adjustment and start behaving like gracious winners rather than resentful losers. That means welcoming and encouraging people's efforts, working with them respectfully, without condescension or suspicion, to find more effective ways to continue down the path of sustainability. We've got to stop assuming, at the outset, that everyone's faking it for the cameras. Nobody's trying to give us a wedgie.
Consider, if you will, whether our first response to the news that the Super Bowl is offsetting its carbon emissions should be that the tree-planting portion of the offsets will not have the advertised carbon sequestration effects. Is that really the most significant thing about this announcement from an iconic institution of mainstream American macho bravado?
I would submit that it is not. I would submit that it pales in significance next to the simple fact that this paragon example of Americana is exposing tens of millions of people for the very first time to the notion that it's worthwhile to consider one's carbon emissions. Most people have only the faintest idea what carbon emissions even are, or why they're worth paying attention to. Now some of them, possibly millions, will know. I would submit that this is an unambiguously good thing, even if scientific investigation later reveals that the Super Bowl didn't actually reduce emissions one micron.
So too with the debut of stylish, modern, ultra-low-impact modular housing. Upscale professionals will now be offered a choice wherein the most financially and aesthetically attractive house (of appropriate size and style) is also the greenest. Cultural creatives -- the most influential bloc of culture -- will come to realize that sustainability does not mean deprivation. In fact, it is aspirational. Should our first reaction be to discount this development because it does not also convince upscale professionals to live in small cottages? Isn't that a rather high bar to set? Isn't that a rather precious and stuffy basis on which to heap scorn on the entrepreneurial pioneers working to create these houses?
Not everything's about measurable, tangible effects. Nor does everything need to be judged against the green ideal. The most important thing for greens to keep in mind is momentum. The ball's starting to roll in our direction; we should get behind it and push. We should cheer every development like this, because it increases cultural momentum toward sustainability. Once the ball is rolling along, natural U.S. competitiveness will come into play and people will try to out-green one another. Gadgets and services will come along to serve that goal. More verifiable methods of offsetting will develop. Lighter footprint homes will develop. Momentum is the thing. It builds on itself.
Of course there is and always will be a place for informed analysis and critique. Society needs us now more than ever, 'cause we've been thinking about this stuff and hashing out the details for years. We can help.
But our tribe must unlock the circle, cast open the doors, put out the welcome mat. We must spread the message that everyone can be a little greener than they are now, and that every little bit of greener is worth celebrating. It's fun and cool and interesting to get greener. It's rewarding; it will be rewarded. We don't want people peeking in the doors to be confronted by an array of dour, humorless, judgmental faces.
We're all green now. We need to get used to it as much as everyone else.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 5:41 am
29 Jan 2007
Just to be clear - not net, not on balance, but "unambigously"? Are you certain this is the position you wish to defend?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:15 am
29 Jan 2007
Right now we've got a long way to go even to make the general public aware that there are such things as emissions, they they generate them, that they're bad, and that they can be reduced. The Super Bowl being on board has incalculable educational and cultural effects.
By the time offsets become genuinely mainstream, and the notion that reducing your emissions is standard operating procedure becomes widely accepted, I have faith that some clever person or company will have figured out how to verify offsets, or found some other more trustworthy way of measuring reduced emissions.
The main goal right now, as I said, is momentum. It's public education and outreach. I just don't think we're at a place yet where there's a lot to be gained by publicly pooh-poohing the Super Bowl's efforts.
www.grist.org
Permalink
willa Posted 6:22 am
29 Jan 2007
Anyhow.
Yeah, it's great to let everyone know what carbon emissions are...but let's remember, everyone knows now what "organic" means (well, everyone knows there is such a thing--I'm far from certain that most people have any idea what it does and doesn't mean), everyone has known for a long time about issues that were the province of chess-club environmentalists in the 60s...and yet, we're not getting greener as a nation. Last I checked, a graph of our national record on emissions and other related issues was still curving the wrong way. Earth Day notwithstanding.
Let's not have our own voices sound too loud to us--I don't know about you, but I don't spend as much time out in the "real world" as I like to tell myself I do, as I find out from time to time when I talk to someone I think is normal who turns out not to know or care that polar ice is melting. I'm not interested in looking like an idiot when I try to talk to those people about living greener lives, so I'm not going to jump on every bandwagon that comes along.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:28 am
29 Jan 2007
I was using individuals as convenient stand-ins for types. Probably, as you say, not a good idea.
Still, I think you underestimate the current shift, and furthermore, I think you discount our ability to affect just how large and sustained the shift is. I would suggest that the best way to accelerate and deepen the shift is not to poop all over everyone's fumbling attempts to move in our direction. Is all I'm saying.
www.grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:29 am
29 Jan 2007
Does this mean we should support ethanol, biodiesel, trees for carbon credits, pv in cloudy climates,..? No, that would be dishonest.
People are very sensitive to criticism so I endorse what you say about polite unity of being green, of good intentions, but also with red flags as needed.
Permalink
Tod Posted 7:17 am
29 Jan 2007
This topic runs to the heart of everything. I know, that lead sentence is vague as hell, but I'm just not at my most cogent at present. Ultimately, the question for me isn't "are we winning?" (which is highly debatable, especially if one leaves the left-leaning urban pockets from which most of us hack at our keyboards), but "Can we do it in time?" I wish we had the luxury of 'momentum' and 'baby steps.' However, I believe that Kunstler, Monbiot, Lovelock and others are a lot closer to the truth than many of us are willing to accept. THIS is the reason so many of us blast away at these P.R.-related 'acts of eco-benevolence'. It can be argued that such tiny measures (see California's sadly weak legislation) actually set us back in that they make many feel that 'the war is being won' when the Prius, Arnold, carbon offsets, all rolled into one are akin to punching at Mike Tyson with a pillow and claiming that we're going to wear him down.
You're frustrated at our frustrations. We frustrated because you (and many others) don't seem to recognize the severity of the situation. Oh, you do - in fact, you're more educated on the topic than most of us - but you have yet to internalize it, it would seem. You've yet to really tell yourself, "OH SHIT LIFE AS WE KNOW IT WILL BE DRAMATICALLY ALTERED IN LESS THAN FIFTY YEARS AND NO AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO SAVE US."
We're frustrated because we have only the slimmest of chances to avert a catastrophe that will wipe out a huge chunk of the human population (and many other populations) and this slim chance has NO chance when we keep dragging our heels and applauding the fucking Super Bowl.
We need a global economic revolution. We need true cost mechanisms and tax shifts IMMEDIATELY. We need to start redesigning cities, not cars, TODAY not tomorrow.
We need leaders, not politicians. We need people who are willing to die for the cause. (Does this sound dramatic? Does it? We're fighting for our children, for the earth itself. The stakes cannot be higher.
We need to remember that it's okay to fight. That it's okay to proclaim "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" and mean it. Business as usual (which seems to be your mantra - "We can do this through the usual channels/the Democrats will take care of us") will not suffice.
Don't be frustrated that we're screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING". Start listening to what we're saying. Join us, Dave. This isn't a popularity contest. Whether or not Grist is profitable/toes a palatable editorial line is immaterial to the fate of the planet. Harden your tone. Don't be afraid to do real good while you can.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:29 am
29 Jan 2007
>By the time offsets become genuinely mainstream, and the notion that reducing your emissions is standard operating procedure becomes widely accepted, I have faith that some clever person or company will have figured out how to verify offsets, or found some other more trustworthy way of measuring reduced emissions.
OK - I think this is where we disagree. Offsets are not a flawed solution. They are a false solution - and they have been there from the beginning as a way to delay real solutions. Offsets were originally included in the Kyoto treaty at U.S. insistence as a way to get U.S. support, and then enthusiastically embraced by the big European polluters. They knew from the beginning that they could grandfather in emissions in the form of carbon credits, and get cheap offsets from poor nations to avoid having to make expensive investments in emissions reductions. Offsets are a future step in the battle to avoid doing something about global warming.
Although I'm sure the person who bought offsets for the Super Bowl had nothing but good intentions, one of the things this does is bring into peoples minds that there is an easy solution to global warming - plant trees, pay for PV cells in Brazil, and keep driving that Hummer as much as you like.
This is very different from the cool LEED building, or the Prius. Both say honestly that they are greener than most of what else is out there - which is absolutely true. The great glass green building never made a claim that if every building was equally green, the building sector part of the global warming would be solved. I have never heard a Prius advertisement that implied that if all cars were as efficienct as the Prius, we would solve the automobile contribution to global warming. The super-bowl was advertising that offsets made it carbon neutral. That will be deadly dangerous in the future. Offsets, except on a very tiny scale, can never be a solution. (Note: I'm not saying sequestration can never be part of the solution: I'm saying offset credits can't be.) When we spread the meme that buying offsets neutralizes emissions, we contribute to a misunderstanding we are going to have fight in the future.
In other words it is not the amount of carbon reduced that is important, but that along with good education about the existence of the problem, you have disinformation about the nature of the solution.
It is great to be enthused that somebody cool or mainstream is acknowledging the problem. But in any fight, whether as formal as a chess game or with as few rules as a back alley brawl you also need to think a move or two ahead.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:49 am
29 Jan 2007
But what basis is there for thinking that? If I started ranting that we have to fundamentally change human society tomorrow if not sooner, what evidence is there that the effect would be anything other than me preaching to a quickly dwindling band of the already converted? What makes you think that would produce any change whatsoever?
Great, you're a hero, you've internalized the depth of the problem, you're not afraid to Speak Truth to Power. I bow before your virtue. But what change is it creating?
If you want me to adopt some other rhetorical strategy, don't do it based on a bunch of all-caps slogans. Tell me how it's going to work better.
www.grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:00 am
29 Jan 2007
Balance. Creativity. Show people we don't have to start living in huts and commuting on horseback in order to save the biosphere. High tech can be more efficient than low tech. There are 6 billion people, a large percentage of which probably don't give a rat's ass about the environment. Better offer them something better than huts and wool underware.
HOWEVER, offer only real solutions. When one puts too much effort on feel-good solutions, you are not only wasting precious time, you leave your self open to attack by the "nonbelievers"... in my opinion.
Forward!
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 8:02 am
29 Jan 2007
In response to some of the responses, I don't dispute that there are dire problems and they require far more than the baby-step solutions that are gaining traction right now; I don't think any of this blog's members dispute it, either. However: The majority of the people in this country aren't going to radically alter their lifestyles just because our planet is doomed if they don't.
So, yeah, let's start thinking like winners. We can be welcoming and non-judgemental towards people who buy their first carbon offset or hybrid car and still be pushing for a radically different national energy policy at the same time. Maybe some of the newly green cool kids will even voice their support for tougher CAFE standards and more solar and wind investment once they've gotten excited about their Prius or their NativeEnergy offset. People don't have to become just like us in order to help us get what we want.
Permalink
Tod Posted 8:07 am
29 Jan 2007
I hear you loud and clear and I agree with you - and it's a huge source of my frustration (the impotence of my position). No, I don't have the answers, but they MAY (there I go with the caps again as I don't have access to ital, or maybe I do. . haven't tried coding) be out there. Actually, I think Lester Brown's 'wartime approach' is solid as hell. That is, all industry is turned over to a massive, rapid transition to solar/wind before the oil resources are too scarce to propel that transition (we'll need lots of oil to make the infrastructure of the new 'solar economy'). Governments should (and some are) subsidize this transition with direct subsidies and with tax shifting. Here in the U.S., this could start tomorrow. Instead of pursuing the fool's gold of electric cars, we should be starting the nation's largest public works project - the re-engineering of our urban cores to become more energy and travel efficient. This isn't pipe dreaming - we can and should be doing these things while passing hyper-aggressive environmental legislation. This shouldn't be waiting until after the 2008 Presidential elections and it shouldn't be caught up in in-fighting between Feinstein and Boxer (both of whom promote weak legislation, one weaker than the other).
Certainly, if we take a step back, we realize that most of us want the same future. The real difference is in how to get there and what time line we are working with. I don't have the answers but I know roadblocks to creative thinking when I see them. I've read a ton of your posts, Dave, and enjoy using you as a foil for my (imaginary) readership. It's clear to me that you've wrapped your mind around these issues many times - and you frustrate the hell out of me because you clearly have a great grasp on much of what ails us. . .yet you rarely promote aggressive action, falling back on pragmatism time and time again. What passes for a pragmatic approach in the U.S. is really a social construct crafted by politicians who fear a citizen-led revolution of idea(l)s. You're a fast horse. Take off the blinders and start ripping down all the other roads you've been missing.
Shit - I just looked over this post and it doesn't really make much sense. In short, I don't want to agree to disagree. It's the fighting among ourselves that keeps us sharp.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
http://www.todbrilliant.com
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:14 am
29 Jan 2007
My problem is not that offsets are an inadequate solution. My problem is that they are a false solution, and that endorsing false claims will make it harder to fight greenwashers who will eventually offer them as a primary solution.
I feel like I'm in the uncomfortable position of being in the middle of the road here. I support optimism; I think screaming and ranting and panic are counter-productive. I think Priuses and green buildings are great - even if they are not good enough, they are as good as we have at the moment. Offsets are fundamentally different. They are a weapon in the arsenal of the other side, and we should not appear to endorse them - even when they are adapted by one of the cool kids.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:24 am
29 Jan 2007
You keep saying we should do stuff, and that it's (therefore?) not pipe dreaming. I don't get that. I agree that we should do all kinds of radical sh*t. The question at hand is how to get from here to there.
There seems to be an odd notion, that both you and Gar share, that if we choose the wrong solution (say, offsets), we've blown our chance. Everyone will pat themselves on the back, think the problem is solved, and we'll all be screwed. I guess I just don't see social dynamics working that way. I see us trying to worm sustainability toward the center of public consciousness -- like, say, hygeine was pushed there early last century. Once it's there, it will work it's magic. It will escalate. We will be there to push it. But skipping straight to the Ultimate Solution, while an attractive thought, just isn't going to happen. So why spend all our time shouting for it?
www.grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:28 am
29 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Backcut Posted 8:46 am
29 Jan 2007
And, why don't they have the Super Bowl back in the "frozen tundra of Lambeau Field", where REAL men played on frozen ground back in the day, instead of heated domes?
Yes, at least they're doing SOMETHING!
BTW, we do have nearly 10 million burned acres to plant trees in, just from last year's fires alone. Plant more than one, they're small (grin).
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:04 am
29 Jan 2007
Though skeptical, encourage people to try it. Those opposed and those supporting it should go on record, stating their position and why. Insist that trained ecologists monitor the plantations for actual net carbon gain. Insist their calculations specifiy the net gain (or loss) relative to the displaced ecosystem. Insist sociologists look at the effects on surrounding human communities. The experiment must be VERY TRANSPARENT. If it works, great! If it does not work, the corporations should not be permitted to say, "Hey, you scientists said this would work... now you tell us it doesn't... you are always changing your minds!" The folks supporting tree planting have to be prepared to accept the result of the experiment and try a different tactic if it does not work.
Same with the LEED Platinum house. I hereby admit displaying excess hostility. We need model systems to demonstrate new technology. And there will always be a few people willing to pay for the bigger house. Might as well minimize its effect on the environment. Again, however, it would be nice if such model systems could be closely monitored to assess actual performance and durability.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:20 am
29 Jan 2007
However, as the American people move from denial into bargaining, we are faced with a new danger: the very real possibility that this newfound green concern will be assuaged by false reassurances and lies told for profit.
There is a fine line to be walked here, in terms of effective public presentation. We must encourage this awareness, and not stifle it with an insistence on perfection. At the same time, we must stand fast against measures that will waste vast time and resources without producing a measurable good. Corn ethanol is clearly in that category; I think the jury's still out on carbon offsets.
We must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but we must also distinguish between the good-but-imperfect and the truly useless.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:35 am
29 Jan 2007
There seems to be an odd notion, that both you and Gar share, that if we choose the wrong solution (say, offsets), we've blown our chance. Everyone will pat themselves on the back, think the problem is solved, and we'll all be screwed.
That's my concern, too, more or less exactly.
I guess I just don't see social dynamics working that way. I see us trying to worm sustainability toward the center of public consciousness -- like, say, hygeine was pushed there early last century. Once it's there, it will work it's magic. It will escalate. We will be there to push it.
I agree with your view of the social dynamic, over the long term. I think that, once the idea enters public consciousness, that it would grow into something good, despite missteps, if we nurture it along. Given enough time.
Thing is, we don't have alot of time. And the problem is very challenging, even on a purely technical basis. Mistakes and wrong paths would eventually sort themselves out. But we could easily waste 10 years on corn ethanol, false carbon offsets, and the like. Market dynamics, physics, and common sense will eventually supply the correction and bring down ineffectively or exploitative schemes. The key word is "eventually".
But skipping straight to the Ultimate Solution, while an attractive thought, just isn't going to happen. So why spend all our time shouting for it?
Absolutely agreed. Even if you know the pure, unadulterated answer, shouting it at the top of your lungs is probably the most ineffective thing you could do. Insisting that people change over night is a good way to ensure that they dig in their heels and resist you.
On the other hand, there's a difference between trying to jump to the ideal solution, and trying to short-circuit wrong-headed or dishonest solutions before they do too much damage by wasting resources and distracting attention.
I would also claim that what we (greenies) say in public and to the public is not necessarily what we should be saying to each other. To the public, we should support efforts that are heading in the right direction, even if they are small and inadequate. But when talking among ourselves (as we do here), we have a duty to hold a vision of the ideal (though it be never realized), be critical of proposed solutions, and generally try to understand what the best way looks like, so that we can try to keep the overall momentum of our culture going in a useful direction.
More on that last bit in a moment.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:37 am
29 Jan 2007
Now, I can imagine some "environmentalists" being very critical of the prospect of a green NASCAR-style event... what a waste of time and energy! But is would be great PR and a testing ground for new technology that will help preserve the biosphere in the long run.
Forward!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:46 am
29 Jan 2007
Alternatively: Grist is a place where activists, scientists, urban designers, architects, community leaders, politicians, journalists and anyone else who is capable of affecting public policy and corporate behavior can find civil, honest, intelligent discussion of significant environmental issues, informed by careful thought and reliable information and untainted by spin. The real deal.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 10:01 am
29 Jan 2007
But I also know that coming from the place I just wrote from doesn't get us anywhere. Dave is right. It changes nothing. I think the problem is, we do need the kinds of dramatic changes Tod wrote about. And they could happen if enough people, enough ordinary people decided they wanted them because they, too, started to feel the magnitude of what we face. Once enough people have reached that point, and I have no idea how many that is, the kinds of changes we need will begin to occur. According to sneak previews of the IPCC's report, we have about ten years. There is a certain amount of immediacy in that probable reality. Are we screwed? I'd like to believe we'll rally as humans are wont to do. But there's so much inertia and denial going on on the one hand and so much reluctance to say it like it is on the other. How can we be truthful about the seriousness and urgency and at the same time inspiring and hopeful, and realistic?
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:06 am
29 Jan 2007
The great thing is that we have much more in the way of tools to harvest carefully and sustainably with a minimum impact on the ecosystems. This, however, may take a quantum leap in the economics of forestry. We can't continue feeding the lumber mill monopolies with their low-ball bidding practices. Maybe we even need to build government lumber mills solely for processing "green" wood. Maybe also hiring the best of the remaining loggers in this country as government employees, eliminating the need for them to cut corners to make a buck or two. "Sustainable" employment is what the actual woods folks are looking for and I know that they want to cut the cord tying them to the evil lumber mills....LOL.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:10 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:28 am
29 Jan 2007
More on Moore here.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:34 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:37 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:38 am
29 Jan 2007
On that basis, I'd like to go back to the question that started this thread (about 5 threads ago, now): How do we differentiate between solutions, particularly technological solutions, that have the potential to be helpful vs. those that are simply a waste of time.
I propose two fairly simple filters for assessing the potential of an innovation to be more helpful than harmful.
I submit that a useful development focuses on maintaining or improving our quality of life, not necessarily our lifestyle.
For (an extreme) example: A perfect PRT system would provide all the convenience, mobility, and personal freedom of the automobile (without the danger and environmental damage). Thus, it would provide a higher quality of life. But it would not engender the same sorts of day-to-day patterns of activity, personal attachments and behaviors associated with the personal automobile.
I also submit that a useful development satisfies human needs by integrating with the natural pattern, rather than by exerting dominion over it.
For example, a good polyculture garden design includes insectiary and native habitat plants alongside food plants that are useful to humans. In doing so, the gardener allows nature to make some productive use of the space along side the human use, and, incidentally, the garden's productivity and resistance to pests and disease is enhanced.
These are, of course, guidelines rather than rigid rules. An innovation should be evaluated through these lenses against the existing status quo, as well as the ideal.
Thoughts? Comments? I'd really like feedback on these ideas.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:04 am
29 Jan 2007
I don't care WHO pays Moore but, he's RIGHT about managing forests. When you're right, you're right.
Here's an assignment for some of you who might want to take this on:
How many tons of carbon went up in smoke from fires, both in America, and around the world in the last year? I'll bet it's quite a lot and way more than the "let burn, zero-cut" crowd wants to believe.
If you bury your head in the sand on this issue, you're being hypocritical.
I'll shut up now!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:08 am
29 Jan 2007
I'm afraid my simple mind has a very basic filter. If it makes things better, and does not make false claims about how much better it has the potential to be helpful. If it makes things worse, or depends on false claims and illusions then it doesn't. A Prius has potential because it is better than most cars - for some purposes is the best available commercially. Of course, we need much better transportation that than Prius soon. (And I think we know now to build it.) But that we know better answers than the Prius, or even that the Prius is does not meet minimum standards for solving the problem does not stop it from being useful right now. We can at least point to it, and say "like that only better".
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 11:12 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:13 am
29 Jan 2007
David,
Perhaps this perception of who our audience is here is part of the issue. You may have knowledge about this that the rest of us don't. From the point of view of most posters, we are talking to and arguing with our already convinced green brothers and sisters about how to proceed. So, when we criticize an idea, we are not speaking to the public to say "bad idea", but rather trying to convince someone to improve the idea either before it goes to the public or in it's next iteration.
Even though this is a place in public view, most of us don't believe that much of the public reads all these posts. (And would probably be delighted to be proven wrong!). Generally this is a place where we hang out, exchange information and ideas, and try out new ones on each other. We get angry, disagree, and then hug and make up, all over the course of multiple threads and weeks.
Your differing perception of this may cause some of the disconnect. (smile).
Certainly, everyone is delighted that "we are all greeen" and we are lined up to encourage people to do what they will, and can, and to do it better!! (And to come up with new ideas that no one currently involved has thought of!).
The whole point of experience is to share what we have learned, though our styles may sometimes be lacking.
But, just as Gar is "death" on carbon offsets, so others may have strong opinions or feelings on certain issues. (Yourself, included! And BTW, calling you a rapist or even a jackass was way overboard.)
I think most of see the Grist blog as a place to try to work out those issues through discussion, rather than a place to present packaged answers for the general populace.
As to the argument that doing something is better than doing nothing, the issue is the urgency factor.
Those who believe we are really really really running out of time, don't think that we can afford to go down many different roads and make mistakes then backtrack.
For some reason, while we may all be green, some people think we need to do something now, and others think we can wait a while and toy with the idea.
(I am reminded of the scene from the Mel Gibson movie Apocolypto, where the young man wants to do something immediately, and his father says, no, get a good night's sleep, we can talk about it tomorrow, nothing is that urgent. Of course the next morning the village is overrun and everyone (almost) is killed or enslaved. The young man is haunted by a dream in which he was warned to "run".)
I do agree with you that this is an exciting time, and we should take a breath and appreciate the fact that after more than a decade in the wilderness, we can see real progress. And hope that such progress can be made.
But the dangers of complacency are present as well.
patrick
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:15 am
29 Jan 2007
If you want to prevent mature trees from going up in smoke, thin the the underbrush and seedlings! Mature trees are tough to set on fire if you don't have tinder. But of course underbrush and seedlings don't have commercial value, so the forest industry claims they need to harvest mature trees as part of "thinning". In some cases the forest service even refuses to thin if harvesting of mature trees is not allowed.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:48 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:33 pm
29 Jan 2007
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/2002/coca...
>"We're either going to be spending a lot more money on fire suppression or we're going to be seeing a lot more carbon released by wildfires," Schimel says.
I pick door number number one. Don't see any of the sources you cited advocate harvesting mature trees. Citing a source that does not support the point you are using it to back up makes it hard to take your arguments seriously. Or are you just using to support the argument that we face a risk of more fires? Cause nobody was disputing that. It is the solution of cutting mature trees in the name of fire prevention that I have yet to see evidence for.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:53 pm
29 Jan 2007
I think people are still working through that gaaawd awful op/ed about how trees cause heating. Hard to get over that kind of BS for some reason.
Go out and hug a tree and dispell it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:30 pm
29 Jan 2007
So long and breathe that smokey air, enjoy your burned forests and pray that your children will forgive you, folks.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:52 pm
29 Jan 2007
Anyway...
Backcut raised a very good point about tree harvesting CONTRIBUTING to carbon sequestration, as long as the material is used appropriately.
If it means cutting trees in Africa for fuel or clearing areas in South America for agriculture, probably won't help much.
But if trees are harvested and used for construction material... for houses or incorporation into composites for making other important things that will hang around for a while, the carbon is still locked up. And a rapidly growing young tree and replace the older tree.
More importantly, and I do NOT know the precise growth stage where this applies, I assume trees, depending on species and where they grow, tend to peak in net carbon gain at some point in their life. When the forest becomes denser and the canopy shades nearby trees and the ground, net carbon gain per acre must be adversely affected. Harvesting trees shortly beyond this stage and replacing them with young rapidly growing trees could result in fixing more carbon per acre over time, as long as the harvested wood is used for durable products.
Regarding "thinning" and industry's lack of interest in brush, perhaps a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol could help out here. To maintain a "natural" structure and reduced risk of fire around urban areas, brush could be harvested, chipped, and fed into local ethanol plants.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:02 pm
30 Jan 2007
Our forests are in deep shit. How best to manage them in the face of a changing climate will take some serious thought and maybe even a dogma shift or two. Don't stay away too long, Backcut and get that glass chin fixed.
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/agwarm.JPG
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
willa Posted 1:54 pm
30 Jan 2007
I certainly don't know as much about trees as a professional forester like Backcut, but I do know two things: first, as Gar says, it's hard to convince the people doing the actual logging to cut the small trees and leave the big ones, so this strategy often fails in practice (especially in drier regions like the southern Rockies); second, as Backcut says, it's certainly true that using wood responsibly and then planting a new tree has more logical promise than just letting trees fall where they may. Obviously we all know that dead trees provide habitat for animals and fungi and things, and fertilize the soil when they decay, but then the carbon is released.
If we could just get our acts together to build things to last for more than a couple of decades, we'd be able to accomplish great things. The carbon in the trees that died for the Fairbanks House (the oldest known timber-frame house in the US) is still sequestered 400+ years later, during which time I imagine one could grow enough more trees on the same land to build that house again several times over.
I'm biased--I'm a grad student in a historic preservation program--but I think preserving old buildings, and building the new ones we may need with technology we have evidence will stand the test of time, is a huge piece. Getting carried away with things like skylights can be a big step back for the building industry, and thus for the world as a whole--great, daylight spaces, we can use less electricity...but wait! They leak, so the roof framing is rotted, so we have to replace the entire thing after fifteen years, using more lumber and insulation and roofing materials! Oops... so, let's remember that technoology is great, but we already know what works for sure--the things that are still around after a long time, by definition, are things that last a long time. Durability is central if we want to continue to have stuff but cease to pollute in the process of making stuff.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:16 pm
30 Jan 2007
Environmental Building News just had a long article on the interaction between historical building preservation and green building. Good stuff. It's not available online, but if you email me, I'll send you a copy.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:25 pm
30 Jan 2007
Except that if you build the soil, and especially if you cultivate fungal glomalin, that stores carbon too. Whereas if you haul the wood away and use it, then you need to haul in something else to fertilize the soil. I'll agree that if all Backcut meant was thinning - cutting green trees instead of letting them burn that is fine. But he cited Moore. And Moore is very much of the school of "clear cut. bare soil does not burn".
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:52 pm
30 Jan 2007
New thread someone? Anyone?
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 12:24 am
31 Jan 2007
I'm more familiar with his position on GMO's, one which indicates that he is either deeply deluded or a frank sell-out. But it sounds like he's an equal-opportunity a$$hole, not restricting himself to a single field.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:44 am
31 Jan 2007
This is way OT, though. I really just meant it as an example. If we've been doing something for hundreds of years and there are still buildings around using the technique from hundreds of years ago, we can safely assume it's a technique that lasts hundreds of years (with appropriate maintenance, natch). If something comes along that's newly possible because of technology, as environmentalists we need to have a good hard look at how it's better than things that are already proven to have lifespans of hundreds of years, because building new stuff is environmentally costly. That's all.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:21 am
31 Jan 2007
I propose the slash be chipped up and digested into biogas, then the digestor sludge be returned to the soil it was taken from.
Leaving the slash to burn in the next GHG caused global climate change related drought is the option the logging industry likes. And the industry friendly forestors favor.
The claim is that chipping the slash would make logging unprofitable. I would say to that, the only way it is profitable now is if the public gives away the trees for virtually nothing to the logging industry.
And it is only marginally profitable to a very few big operators.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:30 am
31 Jan 2007
My 360 square foot passive solar glass skylight in Seattle weather has an insulated hinged roof cover, a giant shutter, to keep heat in the home during night and cold weather days, and to keep the heat out during hot summer days, otherwise the skylight would be intolerable.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:45 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 4:30 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:58 am
31 Jan 2007
The heat gain issue can also be addressed, like so.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:20 am
31 Jan 2007
Small skylights do not have energy issues, and supply good light into windowless rooms.
Roof penetrations are very risky.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:26 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:43 am
31 Jan 2007
>>"then you need to haul in something else to fertilize the soil."
Drx:
I propose the slash be chipped up and digested into biogas, then the digestor sludge be returned to the soil it was taken from.
This is good in terms of nutrients not so good in terms of soil structure. You could make it into charcoal (a la the poet-engineer) harvest some energy from the waste heat and waste oil and gas, and return the charcoal to the forest. This could have the opposite problem - building soil structure, but not providing nutrients (especially nitrogen). Some mix of the two? That really would need to be left to foresters and biologists.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:16 am
31 Jan 2007
This is false. Look at a thermograph image of a building. The windows shine like beacons.
Fireplace doors use specially treated glass to block the infrared.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 6:24 am
31 Jan 2007
The specific Solatube reference is a U value of .42 to .48 (R 2.38 to R 2.08) through an nominal R-38 (code around here) to R-49 (our EE program recommendation) ceiling.
But, they are relatively small compared to typical skylights and seem to provide better (and more controllable) lighting, so the trade-off of increased heat loss vs. decreased lighting energy probably looks better than it normally does with a skylight.
Leaks? Like sunflower, I'm located in the rain capital of the lower 48 , which does make you think more about holes in the roof...the mfg information shows lots of flashing options to prevent leaks.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:42 am
31 Jan 2007
Avoid the "solar tubes" like the plague: they have multiple counts against them -
They are ineffective as daylighting supplements in any room that already has windows, despite what the ads say. The before and after shots are phony.
They are seldom installed with a good seal at the ceiling (not roof) penetration, thus breaching the vapor barrier.
They leak more energy than they save: it'd be more energy efficient to leave a small CFL burning 24 hrs a day. Not that I suggest you do that either.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 6:53 am
31 Jan 2007
If this year's Super Bowl is offsetting its emissions this way, then next year's Super Bowl will try and improve on that (fingers crossed). Obviously it would help if all six billion of us accepted the situation and leapt into action, but that's not going to happen, so yes, we should take what we can get for the meantime, even if it may end up being too slow.
Competition -- the lifeblood of development.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:54 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:44 am
31 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:21 pm
31 Jan 2007
Dave said in the original post:
But look around: everybody's listening. Everybody's trying to go green. We won. They're convinced.
I agree that everyone's listening and quite a few are convinced. On the other hand, most people aren't doing anything about it, nor will they. It's all very well to talk green, perhaps buy a more efficient lightbulb or two, but when it comes to the crunch, it will be: "Well, the Super Bowl's dealing with carbon emissions, so I don't have to bother..."
Hopefully, I'm being overly pessimistic.
P.S. to biodiversivist: I am, as a matter of fact, male.
Permalink