Comments Kif Scheuer has made

tooting my own horn

My firm is currently piloting a middle school climate change curriculum in the bar area that we wrote under a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

So far the response has been great. At least some are not afraid to tackle the issue.
On Schools should be talking about climate change solutions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 63 Responses

longstanding research tradition

I like to see that you are posting on the role of behavior change research. There's a lot of this work out there, and there are other approaches besides committment that are interesting to consider -

Doug McKenzie Mohr's Community Based Social Marketing site has a whole database of such research.

The University of Michigan's Environmental Psychology Lab is also a good starting place.

For those with access to online journals Environment and Behavior and theJournal of Environmental Psychology also provide a wealth of approaches to look at.On Research on changing behavior posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

and if this is what you had grown up looking at...

you might think all the discussion over wind turbine siting was a little narrow minded.

In fact you'd probably trade your view for a windmill filled view just about anydayOn On a new McKibben editorial posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

Isn't the confessional a form of reflection?

GreyFlcn,

If I read your comment right you're saying this confessional of eco-sins is reflective of enviros holier than thou approach, which is in turn reflective of the mistaken assumption that we have to change behavior. If that's a good read of your comment, which I agree with, than there's also another read of Sarah's post -

It's a chance for enviros to realize how hard behavior change is and reflect on the challenge of reconciling the individual behaviors we can change (our own), the parralel ones we'd like to, but can't (others) and the larger system which has set us up for this.

So, instead of being an online self-flaggelation over our faults, this post can be seen as a collective reality check about how hard it is to change, even when you want to. Such a reflection can actually reinforce our committment to systemic change.

For my part I waste water. I wash dishes with the water running and take longer showers than I need to. I've got plenty of other sins, but that's the one that bothers me the most. On We've all got planks in our eyes posted 2 years, 7 months ago 60 Responses

totally aside...

but since you led off with the new term "gristy" I thought I'd add one that we use here in my house
"gristing."

As in "what? Are you gristing again?"
Or, "would you stop gristing we're trying to feed the kids."

Gristing is the action of reading and writing for gristmill. It also has (for my wife) a connotation of absorption that takes me away from our household activities.

I would even say that other activities not strictly on the site can be considered gristing, such as reading enviro news, talking on the phone about environmental issues etc. On A big picture statement the world's big problems posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

touche

Well said GreenE. I will also think on your comments.

While I do see green building as THE HOT THING (in a pretty staid industry), it is still tiny. An oft cited McGraw Hill report estimates the high for green building at only 10% by 2010, and that's counting any kind of green building activity. So I'm sure many people are getting informed about green building to a degree, putting it on their website, and taking a wait and see attitude.

I wonder if there could be a middle ground for trying out green building practices? Not just books and workshops and not whole buildings. I don't really have a clear idea what that would look like, perhaps some kind of virtual or real testing ground for building practices, open to industry professionals to get hands on experience without the total committment. I am totally shooting from the hip here, but you never know.On We're inside it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

All good suggestions but....

other than through actual building projeccts, how do you facilitate change to the culture

How do you get more professionals to a place where they are capable of being part of the dream teams you are looking for?

Most of the great ideas Gar and GreenE mention relate to the actual project stage, when your opportunites for finding the right people may be very limited. For a number of reasons, educating professionals about green building and integrated should not happen on the job.

Actually constructing a building is a very costly, risky, and limited way to educate your construction professionals. First, you want them to be more capable before they get involved. Second you want to reach more people than can possibly be involved with actual green projects currently. While green building is booming, it's still a tiny fraction of total construction, and most builders don't have the chance to develop the skills you are looking for.

As a social science type with an applied bent,  I'm curious about how to create opportunities for professionals to gain some green building experience before they get to the project stage. What can green building programs and other advocates do to help sow the seeds for more capable players? Where can we reach people? What do they need to know before they get involved?On We're inside it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

Green Engineer, what do you think can we do...

to address "issues of industry culture"

This point is effectively the substance of my current research. I am really curious from your inside perspective how you see bringing about change to the industry.

The building industry is highly decentralized and frgamneted, relies on networks of actors who have limited long-term relationships that are often adversarily structured.

Top-down reforms are hard to implement. Changing regulations has to occur region by region. Market incentives are good where you have the political will to institute them. Given all these I have been exploring social science approaches and feel there is some more potential there. What kind of ideas do you have?  On We're inside it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

Grist on the senate floor

Whoo hoo!!!!On Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

inhofe out of the gate

This guy is out of controlOn Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

yes thanks

reading through that linked exchange was a little hair raising.

Makes me wonder - if their product is so good and their delivery so sound, why shouldn't customers just wait until the supposed factory is up and running to sign up? Then you could see if their business model is going to pan out. Waiting 1 years to lease something whose "benefit" will last ~20 years, seems prudent (ignoring for a moment the effects of delayed support in more substantial PV installers). How much is my electricity rate going to change in that timeframe? What's the rush? On Anybody heard about this too-good-to-be-true solar company? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 29 Responses

broken link

Sorry the link to the energy consumption data was wrong -

here it isOn The real tipping point? Maybe? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Defending Jason

Jason has started many a really excellent conversation, in part because he picks volatile topics and often positions himself opposite mainstream enviro views. The volume of debate he initiates on Grist and actively participates in is part of why I like this site.

I often find myself on the opposite side of his positions, but wouldn't ever call him a troll nor lump him into the same camp as Rush Limbaugh.

Jason has a clearly articulated passion for protecting the environment regardless of whether you agree with his ideas for how to get there.

So this post was weak - so what. Is name calling really in order for this? By bashing Jason here you're just validating some of his criticisms about environmentalists narrowmindedness. On An opportunity for reflection posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

more sauces - the key to good veggie eatin'

Our culinary pallette expanded greatly once we moved out of the basic soy sauce fomula -

Some of our favorites;

• Vietnamese sweet chile sauce - kind of like a jelly with a kick
  
• Chalula (sp?) tobasco sauce - liberally applied to all things southwestern
  
• Kejap Manis (sweet ketchup) a gooey sweet soy sauce from indonesia. Our favorite simple recipe is browning some tempeh then dousing it in kejap manis until it carmelizes - sticky sweet goodness!
  
• Tamarind paste - look to thai recipes for uses
  
• Sriracha (rooster) hot sauce, also vietnamese, very different from tobasco in flavor
  
• coconut milk - not a sauce but a great flavor for veggies, especially green beans, cauliflower or potatoes
  

We have found more veggie friendly options outside of chinese - in vietnamese, thai, indonesian and indian cooking.

Speaking of indian - this is the absolute bible of indian vegetarian cooking Until I used this cookbook everything I made tasted more hippie than indian. On Seriously, isn't it just gross? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 44 Responses

Who speaks for conservatives

You hit on something I've been thinking about recently - the disconnect between conservatives and their public voices. In watching Ann Coulter attack Daryl Hannah and Al Gore on Hannity and Colmes, and in reading Grover Norquists recent comments, I began to wonder how well these people, as popuar as they are, speak for their conservative supporters.

I think it's well traveled territory to claim that a popular movement attracts opportunitsts. These opportunists often play to the crowd, but in the process can stagnate the movement. Since they are committed to their gains over the interests of the movement they can really stymie progress in a movement.

I recall a critique of the SDS in the 60s along these lines; the popular image of the movement resulted in a swarm of loosely committed joiners and an overhaul of the leadership that reflected the popular vision, but ultimately undermined the movement.

I have never heard this critique applied to the current conservative movement. How much do the FOX pundits and right-wing loug mouths reflect conservative views. They may make for salable entertainment, but does that mean conservatives want the same things? We(as in environmentalists or the left) often treat the loud mouths like Coulter as the actual voice of conservatism, but watching her spout ignorance on FOX, I couldn't help but feel a lot of conservatives must be embarrassed by her. Some of these more nuanced positions you offer above are out there and perhaps would resonate with conservatives if they got a wider audience. On Some call for action posted 2 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

scope of offset programs

Just curious if either Gar or Adam has ready figures about how big the offset industry is at this point and how much it's expected to grow in the next couple of years (barring a worldwide carbon cap being institutionalized). I'm trying to get some perspective about how much total business in offsets we are seeing.On The debate that has all the kids talking! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 18 Responses

all of the above and then some

• Blog categories: yes (posters would self-assign?)


• Limits on comments: No, too controlling


• Outsourcing posts: No, but roundups like recent climate change are great!


• Popular threads staying on top: yes and double yes


• Lnger recent comments: Sure, but how about a recent comments page where the first few lines are visible and sorted by thread - you could then quickly play catch up (see google homepage which now has drop down boxes for RSS feeds).


• combining posts?: What about waiting a bit longer to post new entries and seeing if there are related posts that come in and combining them - ex: bioD and Jason both submit something on fisheries and you add an intro and then combine the two into a larger daily topic. This with categories might really focus some discussions


• ratings on relevance to original post?: This is a really half-baked idea, but bear with me. Many times the original post sparks a passionate back and forth that really is quite tangential to the original topic. If you start reading the original topic you end up lost in a debate you're not really interested in, but still looking for the comments that are more on topic. I don't like censoring comments or restricting debate. So, how about if readers could rate post replies for their relevance then you could more quickly scan the comments for one's that are on topic. An alternative would be for GRIST to encourage a little more self-regulation among commentators and a quick and easy method for people to step their off-topic discussion into another thread.

reasoning?

The reasoning you are so fond of DRX seems more the culprit than psychology.

Rationality is the domain of much of the "corporatist blah blah blah" you are ranting about. Both of the studies mentioned above undermine that dark world order (identifying benefits of diversity, mapping nonrational aspects of consumerism), and IMHO support more humane approaches to problem-solving.

Stimulus-response as a psych tactic is about as outdated as your critique. I'm guessing you're not spending much time around psychologists. If you did I think you would find it harder to level such a harsh criticsim on folks who spend their lives protecting children, trying to confront poverty and yes even protecting the environmentOn It gets at what matters posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

unclear on your comments?

amazingdrx - what are you getting at here? You're criticising the NYT but linking to a site that says the same thing and references the same work. I'm confused.

and who is the "you" who just gave the "bush tree cutters an excuse"?On Depressing posted 2 years, 10 months ago 28 Responses

Talk to the Australians (or Pandora)

I don't know the exact sequence but wasn't there a whole chain of animal introductions that went awry in Australia. Each was intended to address the previous, but only ended up creating a new problem - because

they didn't understand the uncertainties involved in messing with the environment!On It's a'comin' posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Size fetish - I like that concept

I hear you loud and clear Gar. I think the size fetish is a great description of a particular enviro perspective.

I'd also add that that there is a little bit of contradiction in the size fetish too. We want a global consensus on environmental protection, but want to devolve our unit of government/regulation/community to the neighborhood? How, for example, are we to manage climate changes with only small scale operations? Can we imagine trying to negotiate climate protection city by city around the globe?  I just don't see it happening. We need a mix of small and large institutions. As Gar points out, large scale institutions are really good at some things (vaccines for example).

Another example of the contradiction is local foods. In Ann Arbor, where I go to school, there's a great farmer's market - it really makes you think the local foods scene is where we should all be heading. But next door in Ypsilanti, where I live, the farmers' market is far less thriving. They're making a go of it, but there's often vendors who bring in store bought produce like bananas. There's often very little local food there. So if we were to decompose the food system in a significant way I would be concerned that the food security issues we see in poorer communities today would just be exacerbated.

Some of the size fetish in my opinion comes from the inability to see how the small system is embedded and supported by the big system. Returning to the local foods example; people often talk about how a major benefit of farmers' markets is the ability to interact with the farmer and the strengthening of community in a market. However, that level of customer service is in part a result of the clientele of farmers' markets and the current economics of farmers' markets. If the local market was the only game in town, we might not find every provider so warm and fuzzy. We would beholden to a very narrow set of providers. In some communities this would work out just great, but in other communities the food supply might become quite tenuous.

Anyway, that's a long winded way of agreeing with Gar. We need all kinds of sizes of institutions. But for whatever size institutions we have - we need better oversight and feedback between people, the environment and our institutions.On Let's not fetishize size posted 2 years, 11 months ago 6 Responses

destituting American Auto industry

Although Sentaor Dingell may be right that "One job in 10 in this country is in the auto industry. Most people don't know that." he conviently leaves out the fact that some percentage of those jobs are no longer with American Auto manufacturers (anyone know the stats here).

I would hazard a guess that the auto workers working in US located Japanese car factories feel a lot safer from destitution than those working in Ford, GM and Chrysler factories. The American companies, as Jim says above, have done a fine job destituting themselves. Is efficiency really going to do any more harm than they have already done?

I think (as a current michigander) that it's time we started thinking about the health of the automobile industry, not the health of the American automobile industry. Even better, we need to start thinking about the health of our mobility industry as a whole. As Amory Lovins (I think it was him) points out we don't need cars we need the service they provide - mobility. Let's look at the health of the entire US mobility industries, it's environmental impacts and all. If we reinvigorate trains will we create jobs at the same time as we lose Automobile jobs? If we stimulate public buses will we create jobs?

I also think it's  time the automobile industry actively engaged in what Joseph Schumpeter calls "creative destruction". The big three should break themselves down to their essentials so their creativity and innovation can be loosened again.On John Dingell talks to Grist about climate change, fuel economy, and the 110th Congress posted 2 years, 11 months ago 17 Responses

eschew fiction

With Michael Crichton's State of Fear in mind - I think either list is improved by avoiding fiction works.

Aren't some of our current problems a result of our preference for fiction over reality? Not that good fiction doesn't have it's place, but aren't there some other great non-fiction that speaks to these times?

such as;

Omnivore's Dillema
Last Child in the Woods
Cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves
Seeing Like a StateOn Newer and cheekier! posted 2 years, 11 months ago 15 Responses

I agree but

I agree that the article points out some important caveats about those labels. But what struck me about this article was the embedded assumptions about the conventional food system as the right system. It's not so much a monkey wrench in conventional thinking as a monkey wrench in unconventional thinking. How much space has the economist devoted to picking apart the inconsistencies and flaws of the conventional food system?  

While fair trade may not benefit all farmers, the unstated part is that conventional coffee has disadvantaged many more farmers. The article only really says that fairtrade may be suboptimal, not that conventional is doing so much better.

The article goes on at length about how the fairtrade price premium can stimulate overproduction, but also mentions how fair trade is a tiny part of coffee production, in which prices are already too low for labor. Something in the conventional system has massively stimulated overproduction as it is, but what that is is not addressed.

I'm guessing plenty of Grist food specialists will have something to say about the rather one-sided arguments about organic yields and land cover, but again there is no mention about problems related to mono-cropping and soil fertility.

While we do need better policies and better systems for validating labels, existing labels provide an important voice for citizen interests in a system where these issues were getting no traction. No one can look at the growth in organics and say people don't care about what's in their food or where it comes from. The growth in organics, fair trade or local foods makes it harder for politicians to ignore the issues that drive those movements. Labels are no substitute for good policies, and we still need to advocate for better policies. But when policiticians seem to have abdicated their role in public health these labels are helping stimulate change.On Maybe, maybe not posted 2 years, 11 months ago 51 Responses

asking ad firms with no experience

Every once in awhile someone has the same idea -let's ask Madison Ave to design some enviro campaign posters. Because they are marketers they can help us right? Inevitably they come up with something showy, but perhaps not very effective. Two things bug me about this

1. I think most marketing firms would tell a client who is really buying their services - it takes time and effort to develop an effective campaign, and part of that effort comes from studying the audience and the product. Asking marketers to come up with energy conservation ads out of the blue leads to quick solutions that may be of limited value - i.e. you get what you pay for.

2. There are many folks who have been working on social marketing for many years (see Doug McKenzie Mohr's work on Community Based Social Marketing to get a start), it's tough work and has some important differences from conventional advertising. Why didn't the NYT ask some of these folks (who know a thing or two about energy conservation and other environmental issues) to take a stab at a campaign?

celebrity status quo

Gar,

Your comment actually reinforces what I'm saying. As you note many individual celebrities promote their causes and some even pay a price for it and we are exactly where?

What David seemed to be getting at is that there is some vast pool of untapped enviro resource laying dormant within Hollywood that we should reach out to and unleash (is that 3 mixed metaphors or just 2?) I just don't see it. I just don't see the bunker buster he and you do.On Let's posted 2 years, 11 months ago 15 Responses

self-promotion

I used to design products for Resource Revival in Portland Oregon, and am still a partner. Self-interest aside, we make really cool products out of recycled bike parts. I'd love it if you included us in your guide. The bottle openers and picture frames are particularly snazzy!On We need your presents posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

just tossing off ideas

Maywa - just saw your post from aways back. Um I think I was just speculating about CFLs being a stabilization wedge of their own. I don't know how much each wedge is supposed to account for, (~1GtC/year?) either on an annual basis or over the projected time frame, but if we switched out to CFLs in short order I think it would make a pretty big dent.

Sorry I don't have data to back up my proposal. In some sense each literal wedge is made up of many different miniwedges, so in that sense any wholescale change could be considered as a wedge of it's own. I'm guessing that dividing the entire triangle into 10 pieces is a convienent graphical tool.On Are there downsides to the retail giant's efforts to up sales of CFLs? posted 3 years, 1 month ago 17 Responses

Branson doubles US investment

I just noticed the Bush plan asks for $300 million for FY2007 - that's the same amount that Branson is committing per year for 10 years. On Worth about $20 million per word posted 3 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

contradiction?

Jason makes two arguments which he treats as linked but are actually quite separate

1. the importance of property rights for managing resources.
   
2. The superiority of privately held for-profit entities at protecting the environment once they have rights over property.

private entities, driven by competition and the profit motive, are almost always more efficient than state-run enterprises.

However in defense of private property he holds up the example of NGOs

Environmentalists need to remember that NGOs are private entities, and most of the work of international conservation organizations rests on their ability to obtain the rights for natural habitats in order to protect them.

He's right and this very point contradicts his second argument very powerfully. Aren't NGOs basically non-profit, missio (rather than competition) driven organizations who serve a social purpose? It's not whether they are state-run or not that makes NGOs effective - it's their mission and organizational "motive". And most NGOs missions are not focused on profits. To me this suggests that a private for-profit competition motive alone lacks something intrinsic to resource protection.

It would be interesting to ask the NGOs what they think of privatization, and his second argument.

Anyone on this blog who is working for an NGO in forest conservation, or fisheries protection want to comment on Jason's second argument?On Jason D. Scorse tries to clear up the confusion posted 3 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

kudos tsbremer for shining on the enviros

I started reading your post and thought "here we go again another grumpy enviro who can't give an inch to the evil corporations." Then you surprised me shouting out to the activists who have built the momentum that companies like Wal-Mart are responding to. You're so right - Wal-Mart didn't do this alone, it's committed environmentalists banging on the walls of corporate America as well as those seeding change from within who deserve applause here (and here too)On Are there downsides to the retail giant's efforts to up sales of CFLs? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

check out the introduction

Despite the cover statement "green building goes mainstream" this is really about some exceptional practices that are far from mainstream.

The editors realize the contradiction. In the introduction they wax poetic about the growth in green building practices, but also emphasize how far it still needs to go. On Rag report posted 3 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

capitalism and environmental degradation

Jason,

you've stated several times over the last couple of weeks that capitalism has produced the best environmental outcomes of any system so far right?  

I'd like to ask you something appropriate to a discussion of the distinction between capitalism and industrialism. You may have addressed this elsewhere but I missed it.

How do you define the "best environmental outcomes?"

We may have relatively good environmental conditions in the US, but the current system encourages US companies to take advantage of lax pollution regulations in developing countries. While China's industrialization is creating a lot of pollution, a huge amount of that pollution is going to produce goods for the US. Who owns that environmental outcome China or the US? Which system is responsible for that?

If capitalism is good at protecting the environment within a nation, but in the process takes advantage of developing countries to export pollution outside its' borders, it does not seem to be a system that has created the best environmental outcomes anywhere.

You might argue that a pure capitalism in every nation would mitigate that problem, but there will always be disparities of power and stability among nations, so I don't see that happening. For capitalism to lay claim to the title of "best for the environment" capitalistic nations would have to internalize environmental impacts even when there are "legitimate" ways to externalize them. On Confusing capitalism with industrialization posted 3 years, 3 months ago 24 Responses

The tipping point?

I just read today that Vail resorts has committed to 100% wind RECs - to the tune of 152,000 megawatt hours a year - for their operations. They are also promoting RECs to their customers and employees. They went with Renewable Choice.

This makes them the second largest wind REC purchaser after Whole Foods.

A Colorado conservationist quoted in the article reiterates what I've been saying above; the vail plan "says to the economy that people are interested in renewal."

My question is about how loud do RECs speak? What's the current capacity for RECs and how much has been sold off already? At what point will use of them catch up to available sources, or exceed the ability of programs like Native Energy to put them into development? On Can we really buy the change we want to see in the world? posted 3 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

backing a breed of horse??

I read the "back the right horse" idea differently. I've been working on a post along these lines, but it's sitting still so I'll lay out a bit of it here.

When I read about coal, ethanol and nuclear as the favored inheritors of oil's dominance, I cringe.

Right now there's a lot of action on the energy frontier, some of it's positive and some of it's negative. There's more coverage of renewables than at anytime in my memory. At the same time, there's more about less environmentally benign options - nuclear and coal particularly. There's also a familiar alignment of enviros on the side of renewables and corporate America on the side of nuclear and coal.

As far as I can tell we are going to go through a major energy system shakeup. At this point we could go renewable, we could go for coal and nuclear. Which way we go will have massive environmental repercussions. This shakeup, this tipping point appears to be at hand; either we bring renewables to the fore now, or we are going to find ourselves wedded to an energy system that will only exacerbate our environmental problems.

From this perspective "backing the right horse" to me means mobilizing behind the energy option that stands the best chance of tilting us towards a better environment in the shortest timeframe possible, kind of like the "stabilazation wedge" idea. We need to embed renewables more firmly into our national energy consciousness, and we need to do it now.

"Right" in this context doesn't mean identifying the single option that carries the day forever. "Right" means pushing hard for the energy option that can make enough of an impact quickly enough to turn us away from coal or nuclear, before they become the horse that's chosen for us.  

For me the right horse today looks like wind power. We've read recent posts about the abundance of off-shore resources, there's projects in the pipeline around the world and as far as I can tell it's the most cost effective option on the table today. If wind were to gain traction and be seen as the next generation energy option of choice by the public, a lot of other options in the same breed (i.e. renewables) would also see a growth in development and over time we'd have a chance to explore the diversity David advocates above. More critically we'd be making it clear that we are rejecting the coal/nuclear option.

Backing this horse means recognizing that the near-term choice of energy systems may be the tipping point from which many other environmental outcomes get decided. It means dropping other agenda items and divisions among organizations to create an undeniable clarity of message. It means a serious concentrated effort on the part of environmental organizations to push wind in every way possible - at the grassroots, policy and research levels.

Of course folks in other environmental areas are going to reject this approach - wind has problems, we need diversity of solutions, there's other environmental issues that are equally pressing. I accept the long-term truth of these positions, but RIGHT NOW coal plants are getting permitted and nuclear plants are getting funding lined. We need to make a visible, unified stand for a renewable option that people can choose today. On Picking the right horse posted 3 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Kudos on the tone

Bart's pegged it - nice tone here Jason.On The role of government in environmental protection posted 3 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

implied to members?

Patrick,

Isn't it implicit in Christianity (and most religions) that what is said is universal, but only really applies to believers? Everyday in places of worship around the world priests or their equivalent give advice on behavior that under their beliefs has positive or negative spiritual consequences. They don't qualify their advice for just believers, because the nature of a religion such as Christianity, is a universal belief in the nature of man and divinity.

The Episcopal church already demarks various behavior as sinful or not. Heretofore, they have not weighed in as much on the sinfulness of environmental behaviors. If the Episcopal church wants to broaden the scope of sinful behaviors to include environmental destruction, I don't have a problem with that. It's likely to be useful in mobilizing their members. Since I don't really subscribe to their notions of sin anyway, I don't feel burdened by their pronouncement.

In fact, if they are in the sin defining business, they damn well oughta include the environment, it's a sin not to! ;-)On Fossil fuel morality II posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

all separate, all part of

I must confess, I don't really get the separation debate. We are of course part of nature, but that doesn't mean we are the whole of nature.

All creatures/plants/objects are separate from the rest of nature in their own distinct ways. That we are "uniquely different" on this planet, at this time is interesting, but in no way separates us from nature in some fundamental fashion.

The symbiosis or balance some see as an indicator of closer integration with nature does not rule out destructive behavior, nor does it condone it. The balance of nature we observe over eons is comprised of countless waxing and wanings of biotic activity. This balance cannot be applied to the individual or single species level. Overtime we will perservere or fail as many creatures have. We may leave more destruction in our wake or we may rein that in. However, in no way do I see our final disposition as a reflection of nature as a whole or a reflection of our separatness from nature. It's just one more weird outcome in a universe of possible outcomes.

Maybe what really separates us from nature is our need for absolutes, or our need to see things in black and white.On Some quasi-philosophical blather posted 3 years, 4 months ago 17 Responses

counter points

I don't get why Renewable Energy Credit (REC) critics regularly assume they will be used by hedonists with a guilty conscience. Personally I bought RECs for my car and home, because I am not in a position to upgrade (or ditch) my car or to improve my home right now, but I wanted to do something. I minimize driving, I ride a bicycle, telecommute, have cfls etc. etc. etc. AND I still bought RECs because they are a low-cost renewable power investment mechanism that are conceptually tied to my consumption. I'm probably more typical of REC customers than the guilty hedonist described above. I don't have data on this, but Terrapass or similar orgs might.

Patrick rightly criticizes RECs for their scale and the fact they will not be effective alone. He says what we need is more industrial and government investment. What better way to tell industry and government that we want wind than to tax ourselves to get it? RECs are a form of self-taxation, serving as consumer-driven market signalling. I don't think anyone thinks RECs are the sole answer, but they do offer a means to promote investment, stimulate demand and let government and power providers know citizens are serious about wanting renewable power and climate protection.

I also disagree about the assessment of whether RECs displace "bad" power. If power and environmental benefit can be unbundled and sold separately (the premise of RECs) and there is transparency to the process (as Green-E tries to do) then the purchase of benefits are displacing impacts. Thirdparty certification of RECs is supposed to eliminate doublecounting of credits, so the purchaser is the only one who can claim the "benefit" in terms of carbon mitigation. If we ever see a carbon cap, or carbon tax this will become very clear. If consumers buy RECs in large amounts investors are likley to build a wind farm in place of a coal plant, thereby more literally displacing "bad" power. Finally what life cycle analysits call the the fossil energy ratio of our electric grid is about 1/3. Meaning we put 3 units of fossil energy into the grid for every energy unit out. Putting renewables into the mix significantly improves that ratio (wind has among the best ratios ~10/1). So the badness or goodness of our energy system is the sum of all power sources. In this sense renewables do displace bad energy in that they can improve the overall performance of the system.

One thing I have thought of, that addresses Charles initial frustration with RECs (i.e. why biking gets no credit) is the range of RECs available should be expanded to cover conservation. Why not get credit for biking, changing your lightbulbs etc.? Imagine a municipality that aggresively pursues conservation and then can raise additional revenue by selling their offsets to other communities. I don't know how it would work, but including conservation in the REC portfolio could incentivize conservation and signal market interest in ways similar to how it works for wind under current REC programs.

In my opinion Shooting down RECs altogether is unproductive. They have their benefits and their limitations like most of the environmental "solutions" out there.

Of course we can't buy our way out of climate change, but for the time being Americans in particular are going to keep buying, and if there is a way to have them buy wind power along with their gas, electricity and other consumer choices, it's going to boost windpower at a time when I beleive we need to do everything in our power to make renewables our energy choice of the future. Lately it seems that coal, nuclear and ethanol are getting all kinds of media primping as THE Solutions to our energy future. Wind is growing, but anything we can do to let the market and politicians know we want wind is valuable.

So for the time being we can "be the change" we want to see on our bikes and in the market.On Can we really buy the change we want to see in the world? posted 3 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

and your view may suffer from...

romanticization of private property rights. IMHO historically, private property regimes take the cake for application of lethal methods of enforcement.

That aside have you read Elinor Ostrom's Governing the commons? It's a study of CPRs around the world. A nice review summarizes it here. But I'll quote a particularly relevant section of the review-

Throughout the book, she stresses the dangers of overly generalized theories of collective action, particularly when used "metaphorically" as the foundation for public policy. The three dominant models -- the tragedy of the commons, the prisoners's dilemma, and the logic of collective action -- are all inadequate, she says, for they are based on the free-rider problem where individual, rational, resource users act against the best interest of the users collectively. These models are not necessarily wrong, Ostrom states, rather the conditions under which they hold are very particular. They apply only when the many, independently acting individuals involved have high discount rates and little mutual trust, no capacity to communicate or to enter into binding agreements, and when they do not arrange for monitoring and enforcing mechanisms to avoid overinvestment and overuse.

Ostrom concludes that "if this study does nothing more than shatter the convictions of many policy analysts that the only way to solve common pool resource problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralized regulation, it will have accomplished one major purpose."

missed the details yes, but on the big points...

Darwin was basically right. His theories have really held up over the years. It seems like while there are controversies within evolution (I'm not talking intelligent design here) the controversies are about the details, which only stregthens the core of the theory.

I'm not so sure the core of biophilia is as robust. On Aspen and E.O. posted 3 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

reconciling biophilia with biophobia

Sure we like green lawns, fuzzy creatures and scenic vistas, but we also destroy a heck of a lot of nature, display antipahy towards many creatures and basically try to wrestle nature under our thumb at every opportunity.

I'd like to understand Wilson's take on why we as a species seem to put so much effort into putting ever greater distance between us and nature. I see more evidence of biophobia than biophilia around me.

There are some other theories about aspects of human's preference for nature that don't require the universally empathic stance of biophilia; a stance that just doesn't reconcile with my sense of humanity.

Why for example would we evolve to have philic responses for all creatures, when many of them were consistently harmful? It makes more sense that we have philic and phobic responses to various elements of nature that were evolutionarily important. I don't see the validity of  extrapolating just the philic side of those tendancies to encompass all of creation.

I confess I don't know a whole lot about his work, other than popular renditions, so maybe this is addressed easily, but I'd be curious to hear his take on it.On Aspen and E.O. posted 3 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

ideas yes, examples?

Lsam, I keep finding idealogical resonance with your comments, but have trouble connecting them with real examples.

Can you point to some historical examples where something like what you envision has happened on a large scale. My socialist history is woefully limited, and you're clearly well-versed.

I'm probably running around with Hollywood versions of socialist movements, but what comes to mind for me is that movements/revolutions start with high ideals, but once they scale up to involve large numbers of people, or whole countries they end up replicating the hierarchical, special-interest decision-making they were intending to replace, and along the way can cause immense suffering.

Another point of concern for me - You are talking about a near global change in social order, but one which fundamentally respects individual and cultural roots, right?

If so, how do you reconcile bringing eco-socialism to groups who may absolutely reject it? There are groups around the world (not just rich, not just part of the status quo) who actively choose hierarchical/authoritarian decision-making. In the chaos of post-collapse why do you think these people, will choose eco-socialism over what they've known and embraced for perhaps hundreds of years?

As always, I'm not attacking but seeking understanding.On A geo-green third party? posted 3 years, 4 months ago 103 Responses

the choice of sciences to pursue

is not politically neutral or cost neutral.

If there were a balanced inquiry with neutral assessments of ALL remediation options I'm all for it. I am concerned about the "second use", but I think you'll concede that the second use often defines the solution space - which science options get explored in the first place.

I'm thinking about how Bush dropped the work on the nextgen car program to boost fuel cells, or the current rush for ethanol.  

As a social science person, it often feels to me that the path not chosen is the one that costs less, works better, but doesn't create as much profit for corporate America. Other important options, or problems with one direction can get covered up in the rush.On Can you say misguided? posted 3 years, 4 months ago 16 Responses

urmmm

Odograph - To critique the distribution of scientific attention is not anti-science, so please don't paint me as Cooney. My frustration with geoengineering is that it pushes the response horizon off into the future. In the abstract I'm for wide-ranging research, I just don't want people to avoid dealing with the present because their holding out for the solar shield.

It's this perspective that leads me to agree and disagree with  Danothebaldyheid. To "cut CO2 production by 70% IMMEDIATELY" we're going to need to use what we have at hand. Many of these ideas are going to require significant time to develop and deploy. If the political will to do something with present tools is "too weak and individual self-interest too strong", what's the likelyhood of seeing more than hot air about geoengineering solutions?

If we don't address the sources of climate change first and foremost, are we just going to keep pumping sulfer into the air to keep pace with CO2, or keep putting up more solar shields until we can't see the sun?On Can you say misguided? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

dealing with the present

I'm in agreement with Patrick -

if you look at the window of time we have to do something about global warming, then what occurs is likely to occur under the current system.  This is not a matter of whether this is my dream scenario, it is what appears the most likely.

It's not just that this is the system we have so we have to work with it, but to put it bluntly - whose got the guns?

As global warming (and resource issues) stress governments & corporations long entrenched in growth models, I'm guessing we're likely to see more regressive thinking rather than less. If progressives won't work with governments to craft solutions (even flawed ones) what kinds of solutions are going to emerge from the dominant power structures? It's not like the powers-that-be are going to fold up and go away at the first hint of stress.

I'm uncomfortable with this perspective, reading LSam's posts tugs at my idealistic heart, but like Patrick I'm feeling the press of time and the scale of the problem.  On A geo-green third party? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 103 Responses

Moving on the local distinction

David says

It's inevitable that some store -- if not Whole Foods, an upstart competitor -- will begin defining itself with local and artisanal foods rather than simply organic

which reminded me of an NYT article on local foods from January

SIX years ago "organic" was the next big thing in grocery shopping, but the term has begun to lose its luster. It has been co-opted by agribusiness, which has succeeded in watering down the restrictions of the definition. Today "local" and "sustainable" are the new culinary buzzwords

The article focuses on New Seasons Markets which have made a significant committment to local foods - apparently 27% of their stock.
On Mackey v. Pollan posted 3 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

we're all entitled to a little hyperbole

LegumeSam says -

In the end, the regulators have a field day, the big firms win, the small firms lose, and the necessary carbon emissions are hidden either through creative accounting or exported to countries which don't care.  And capitalism continues on its merry way.

Now that's hyperbolic!

I didn't mean to imply that corporations over in the UK are altrusitic or benevolent, just that there are situations where corporations want regulations and if we could have a more balanced dialogue where regulation and business weren't artificially played against each other, we might move forward to some degree.

If corporations are going to compete over climate responses, isn't that better than them ignoring the problem altogether? Are corporations going to try to game the regulations? probably, but I would rather have some measure of oversight than toss it all and walk away because I can't bring myself to work with corporations on any level. On Across the pond looks like over the rainbow: Business and gov't dealing with climate change together posted 3 years, 5 months ago 14 Responses

additional benefits

Although carbon offsets get slammed alot for being guilt taxes, I agree with the above that they are actually really useful.

One objection I've heard is that you can only displace so much carbon without changing behavior yourself. At an absolute level that's true, but should we ever get enough carbon offsets in play at the consumer level that there's a shortage we will have a pretty incredible level of support for alternative energy programs going on.

Also by allowing us to fund alternative energy projects directly, if these programs are financially succesful, it sends a message to policy makers that we're willing to impose a tax on ourselves to create change. On Fee to be carbon free posted 3 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

another conversion?

David Attenborough has come over too

But I'm no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world.

can't put it aside for a long time

I'm frankly baffled by the very notion of putting aside the question of anthropogenic causes. At the gross level of people / not people, yes it's a tiresome discussion. But assuming we've moved past that one (finally). How exactly does Mr. Bush propose to pick which technologies to focus on? Without an understanding of causes how can you prioritize decisions about research, education or technology? On No. posted 3 years, 6 months ago 33 Responses

steaming

I had a different reaction to Ellison's piece - I thought it was sniping at the folks who have maybe gotten the ball rolling on global warming, and was a really shallow appraisal of what's going on among those already working on this. In short I was pissed.

1. I don't know what world she's living in where there's consensus on global warming. for example, if she had looked at the recent Scientific American piece and read some of the comments by skeptics she'd know that there's more than just a few people "who need to see the new Al Gore movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' to learn that global warming is real."

2. "Inconvenient truth" is the end product of Gore's round the world tour to drum up support, consensus and momentum on global warming. I saw his slide show last year and there wasn't nearly this much popular support back then. We may (and that's a big fat qualified may) be near some tipping point, but that's really because many many folks Al included have been working night and day to counter the passivity, resistance and misinformation that's been holding us up. So it's petty to critique him at this point without giving him credit for getting global warming into the mainstream.

3. It's shallow of her to criticize the trailer when with a little digging she'd know the movie and his message aren't nearly so "alarmist"

4. Given the massive resistance to global warming in this country "imaginative or daring" proposals aired 2 years ago were laughed out of the room or dismissed as whacko and extremist (and still are frankly). If we are at some point of near consensus, we are also at the very first stages of public dialogue about appropriate responses. We're already seeing more imaginative proposals and we'll see more. Ellison should have known that the leading public edge to global warming activism does not represent the sum of thought, policies and action going on behind the scenes.

5. "Denied us the leadership"? We get the leaders we pay for. Gore and so many others have been marginalized for a long time, in part because of their "extremist" environmental positions. I wonder if she had any idea what he'd been up to until she saw the trailer for "inconvenient truth?" It's not like Americans have been clamoring for environmental leadership lately.

A label is a label

I find the idea of creating a label to codify the benefits of "local" kind of ironic. for me some of the most important benefits of a local food systm are tied to it being place-based, where I can interact with the producer more directly.

A "local" label is one step in the chain of distancing that puts us back where we were. When you go to a farmers' market you don't need a label to know it's local, you ask the farmer right? If I go to Whole Foods and buy food labeled "local" what does that mean exactly? if local is more than just supporting the local economy how can a label advance those goals?

More importantly, If you're dissatisfied with what's happening with the organic label is that problem going to be solved by creating another label? Assume there's sufficient value to the local (or "wicked bitchin') label and the market grows, what's to prevent the same big players from entering the local market then?  I think a proven label makes it more attractive for big business to enter the market.
On Beyond organic: A new label posted 3 years, 6 months ago 12 Responses

intermittancy distributed

Maybe I'm being dumb, but if we're in that far off time when windmills dot the landscape, won't the intermittancy be distributed?

What I'm thinking is that wind is intermittant but not consistantly intermittant. If wind is down somewhere it is likely be up somewhere else. You don't have the constant supply in individual locations, but spread out enough windmills and can't you make your overall supply consistent? Not sure if this would apply to solar.

Of course this is in way off time when wind power is cheap enough (and politically digestable enough) to be all over. On Intermittency and storage posted 3 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Some more untangling

A whole lot of good points are made above. A few replies seem in order -

Chris writes  "doesn't industrialized food production imply that the amount of food produced exceeds local demad....Thus, while the production might be environmentally friendly, the distribution (at least within the current system) is not."

Tom echoes this with "Large-scale organic ag is nearly as reliant on off-farm inputs, often shipped from far away (note petroleum going up in smoke), as industrial ag."

I don't see sustainable transportation as intrinsic to the organic label. That's asking quite a lot of a food label. If as Tom points out the original intent of organics was to address the sustainability of the production methods then by all means (as I said originally) fight for the standard to include that. But you can't bundle into organics all sustainability issues just because you want it that way.

I agree that industrial ag are "floating on a sinking sea of petroleum", but that's a problem for all small and large industrial systems and has little in my mind to do with organic labeling per se. Currently small local farmers use plenty of oil and gas in their tractors and delivery vehicles, so they're floating on the same sinking sea (although to less of a degree).

If industrial ag sinks anytime soon the least of my worries will be greens "getting played". I'll be much more concerned with food availability at all.  Without a whole scale return to agrarian society, even under the most optimistic scenarios, I believe we're going to need to move food hundreds of miles to effectively feed a nation this size.

Industrial does not by definition mean ugly polluting and unsustainable. It has meant that, it may gravitate towards that, but that comes back to the standards issue - if we can define the terms of business conduct to be sustainable then by all means bring on the big companies. There's much they do well and we're kidding ourselves to think they're just going to go away.

I also agree with OutdoorsPros comments on snobbery and I'll go one step further. Organics are principally an affluent option in this country. If you believe organics are indeed healthier (as I do), then getting them out of upscale markets and into mass markets is a public health issue I support.
On Wal-mart's organic bomb posted 3 years, 6 months ago 40 Responses

Al interview in Newsweek via truthout

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042906A.shtmlOn Media Shower: Al over the place posted 3 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

20th anniversary of Chernobyl; other nuclear costs

This just came across my desk. A pretty intense picture of possible "costs" when we accident prone humans use nuclear power.

This is a short photo-essay with narration on chernobyl.  Be warned it's very powerful, and there's some pretty disturbing images.  Be sure to click on the play button for the essay on an orphanage/hospital that comes after the first one (which starts immediately).

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay%5Fchernobyl/?GT1=8019On How big money skews the energy debate posted 3 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

yes, we can lower the price ourself

As Bribos mentions above and biodiversivist described in detail yesterday - it's not the absolute price of gas that matters, but how our total transport needs are affected by it. My price of gas is the sum of all my transport distances BY ANY MEANS / what I pay for gasoline personally. A fuel efficient car can be part of the picture, but I can cut my price of gas in half or more by carpooling, bussing or walking. And I can do it immediately, at no extra cost. If people adopt those changes it will get noticed and possibly will influence later policies. Just yesterday a friend at the Ann Arbor Energy Office told me ridership on our bus system is way up this year. If prices stay high, and ridership grows, then bus service will get to grow, serving more people more effectively.

Forget about Washington. I (and probably most other Grist readers) are all for the fixes David lists above (or some variants of them), but 1) we're talking to ourselves about them and we're generally pretty far from influencing Washington and 2) they would take a bunch of time to implement and rely on as Bribos says "the people that put us in this position."

What we need to do is help people (especially the poor) think creatively about any and all ways they can increase their MPGPP and flog the press to spread the word. On Gas price rant posted 3 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

Inconvienent truth - live

Al Gore came to University of Michigan last year and we got to see the "inconvienent truth" live. It was a great presentation. He was articulate, funny, engaging and warm, all while blowing the socks off the audience with data and images - not sure where this guy was during the last presidential campaign. We were spared the soundtrack, but we were all pretty much feeling it. At the time I thought he was so loose and warm because he was in front of a liberal academic audience where he knew he was safe throwing down tons of graphs and charts. However, the clips in the preview show him dazzling audiences across the world with the same data dump. I am really curious how this movie plays across the land. Anyone have ideas about how widely it's going to be released? On Halloween VIV: The Inconvenient Truth posted 3 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses

whose catastrophe?

It's nice to hear some thoughts from other "peak oil moderates." I believe peak oil is a real and very pressing concern, but if you spend a little time on some of the listservs, once you get past the data dump on where we're at now, it's pure hyperbole.

My impression is that peak oil catastrophists measure and respond to the problem from a highly American perspective. The rhetoric at it's heart generally assumes 2 things.

1. People are going to degenerate to murdering barbarians as soon as gas prices hit $10 a gallon.
   
2. The only way to deal with this is to preserve whatever semblance of middle class American lifestyle you can while the rest of the world goes up in flames.

While peak oil is likely to cause severe adjustment problems, there's just too many shades of grey between where we are now and total catastrophe to throw in the towel just yet.On Peak oil: catastrophic or merely unpleasant? posted 3 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

Fear and Hope

It is important to distinguish between an informed and honest response to the problem of climate change which is rightfully fearful and our outlook on what we can do about it which can be hopeful. The rap about avoiding gloom and doom in talking about climate change is only half right. You don't want to depress people out of hand, but dodging the scope of the problem because you're afraid of turning them off limits our ability to engage people, and politicians in the problem. Who gets told fairy tales when they are afraid? Children do. We're not children, we can (and eventually will) handle the rough stuff.

People are paralyzed by climate change, not because it is too overwhelming, but because they're hearing about it in a society that has made no coherent effort to deal with it. Increasingly you hear people (Barack Obama may be the latest) talking about climate change as the next space race, or comparing it to the national mobilization of WWII, and I think that's where hopefulness comes in.  During  WWII we were confronted by very big, very scary problems - a world war led by facist countries with genocidal policies. Did the government avoid gloom and doom? No, just the opposite. People were told what the stakes were and exactly what they would and could do to help win the war. A stance of mobilization and unity behind a problem allows us to confront the very real challenges - as scary as they may be - but feel like we're 1) not alone in trying to do something and 2) hopeful that together we can beat this problem.

We should use fear and hope together. We don't just tell people what global warming is (which is overwhelmingly fearful) but we tell them how we will have to deal with it (with national level mobilization), what individuals, organizations and local governments are already doing (plenty in some areas), and what they can do to plug into that movement. If climate change is framed this way I believe people will be capable of facing the fear without losing hope.
On Hope: the new fear posted 3 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses