Comments chris@organicmatter has made
on JG
If you're Jonah Goldberg, there's really no need to be distracted by the merits of any particular issue; you can just focus on being a total douche.
I'm sorry, was that an ad hominem?
On Sigh posted 4 years, 3 months ago 3 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentAgain on 'the other stuff'
I had already seen the L.A. Times article linked in the comment above, but I hadn't gotten around to writing on it. When I saw the topic of this post on my RSS feed I was afraid I'd been scooped. Fortunately, I am now unscoopable.
On Legalize it, don't criticize it posted 4 years, 3 months ago 3 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentquotes
...it seems maddeningly obvious that, if everyone who purports to cherish wild landscape decides that he or she must own and live on a chunk of it, there won't be any more wild landscape. -- David Quammen
And what of Nature itself, you say--that callous and cruel engine, red in tooth and fang? Well, it is not so much of an engine as you think. As for "red in tooth and fang," whenever I hear the phrase or its intellectual echoes I know that some passer-by has been getting life from books. -- Henry Beston
On A walk on the slippery rocks posted 4 years, 4 months ago 15 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentuncertainty redux
A certain amount of skepticism with respect to the likely effects of 2-5oC warming is of course warranted, but I think you seriously overstate the case.
1.) I've got good money that I could track down a lot of ecologists and climatologists would take issue with your assertion that "we can't fully understand something as complex as an ecosystem or the global climate." The word "fully" seems to be your faux-trump here, since you can correctly claim that we will never be able to predict ecological or climatic events with 100% certainty, but for practical purposes we understand most of these systems quite well.
2.) You seem to present a case in which there is a tradeoff between biodiversity and human health here: "Some people might really like to have a certain number of a certain species around, but other people might hold human health or human lives as a priority over that species remaining in its 'natural' habitat." I don't follow this tradeoff argument, and would be inclined to suggest instead that human health is inextricably linked to ecosystem health, of which biodiversity is a good indicator.
3.) Sea-level rise is a good example for your argument, as there is a significant degree of uncertainty here. For a recent article at Organic Matter I did quick literature review to determine the likely magnitude of sea-level rise, and the information I found was consistent with the IPCC's estimate of 28-49 cm (~1-2 ft.) by 2100. You point out, mostly correctly that we have already "made our bed and have no choice but to sleep in it." I say "mostly" because you're right that a certain degree of warming and sea-level rise is built into the global climate system, but to suggest that this means mitigation is useless is fallacy. Will we have to deal with the consequences of climate change no matter what? Yes. Does that mean that we should continue to exacerbate the problem with abandon? No.
4.) I admire your argument that it would solve a root problem to increase the capacity of less-developed parts of the world to deal with inevitable problems such as sea-level rise; you're absolutely right. At the same time I have to ask exactly how you suggest we solve the thousands-of-years-old problem of poverty by the end of the century? Unfortunately the best we can do is to solve the problems that we can solve rather than those that we wish we could solve. I believe that carbon emissions can be mitigated to a sustainably low level by 2100. I do not believe that world poverty can be eliminated in a similarly short period of time.
On Samuelson takes a swing at global warming posted 4 years, 5 months ago 14 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentuncertainty
Samuelson's "uncertainty" is bunk. He makes it sound as if we're uncertain as to whether warming will be somewhere between "very little" and "maybe something significant." If I remember correctly the 99 percent confidence interval for a scenario of CO2 increasing at current rates (which, based on his first point, Samuelson ought to think is a reasonable scenario) is 2-5 degrees C.
To say that there are uncertainty about what the effects will be is only true if we don't know the magnitude. For any given level of warming we can make very likely predictions about what the consequences, and those predictions, even for the bottom end of 2-5C warming are catastrophic.
Between 2 and 3oC warming coral reefs are projected to bleach annually in many regions. At the upper end of this temperature band, the risk of eliminating the Succulent Karoo and its 2800 endemic plants is very high. Moderate to large reductions in the Fynbos can be expected, with the risk of significant extinctions. Australian mainland alpine ecosystems are likely to be on the edge of disappearance, substantial extinctions of endemic Alpine flora in New Zealand are projected [28] and European alpine systems are likely to be at or above their anticipated tolerable limits of warming with some vulnerable species close to extinction. Severe loss of boreal forest in China is projected and large and adverse changes are also projected for many systems on the Tibetan plateau [29]. Large shifts in the range of European plants seem likely and a large number of Eucalypt species may expect to lie outside of their present climatic range [30]. Moderate to large effects are projected for Arctic ecosystems and boreal forests. Within this temperature range there is a likelihood of the Amazon forest suffering potentially irreversible damage leading to its collapse [31, 32].
Please click the above link and check out the paper yourself, where you can read about what Dr. Hare predicts will have already happened between 1oC and 2oC warming, and what we can expect above 3oC.
On Samuelson takes a swing at global warming posted 4 years, 5 months ago 14 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentfreakin' sweet
The argument du jour among the few who still deny the overwhelming scientific concensus on the subject seems to be that even if global warming is occurring, it's going to do more good than harm. I call bull.
On Ana Unruh Cohen posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentglobal cooling
There was actually sound science behind that prediction and it actually enforces the evidence for a warming effect - atmospheric particulate matter (smog) was heavily increasing in the 1960's and 70's, and there were perfectly reasonable predictions that this pollution could increase surface reflectivity thereby leading to global cooling. The reason that this didn't happen was due to an opposing warming effect that we only began to observe after the Clean Air Act led to reductions in particulate pollution.
On His critics speak. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentrunning on empty
Props to the Sunday Times for beating the stuffing out of that straw man.
Of course, since they don't bother to deny that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that we need to do something about it, they really should have used the money that they dropped on their "environmental" audit to make a positive gesture, such as buying and retiring certified emissions reduction credits.
On Radiohead singer called out for hypocrisy. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 2 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentremember the last greenwashing thread?
After the last major thread on greenwashing I was surprised that people didn't get Dave's sarcasm.
[sarcasm]
DOWN WITH THE WHOLE FOODS GREEN PRETENDERS!
[/sarcasm]
On Whole Foods tries to trick greens into praising a big corporation posted 4 years, 6 months ago 8 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentpeer-review
One facet of environmental science that didn't make it into Umbra's response is peer-review. It's true that funding for research often comes from sources with agendas, but those agendas don't much matter when the paper comes in for review for publication in a scholarly journal.
Much more commonly it is anti-environmental interest groups who bypass this accepted means of filtering real evidence from agendas by funding non peer-reviewed think tanks.On Umbra on winning environmental arguments posted 4 years, 6 months ago 1 Response
financial responsibility
I'm not sure that it's possible to make any company 100% financially responsible for the possible consequences of a nuclear "situation." I'm no financial expert, but my understanding of bankruptcy law is that the company can only pay until its bled to death, after which time the rest of the owed money is defaulted and passed on to... I don't even know who - taxpayers?
Of course, this means that any company that can't pay for a disaster (and I expect that few would be able to) would end up bankrupt - something that no money-making organization wants. This being the case, your suggestion would still create a substantial incentive for companies to practice "responsible" nuclear power generation (to the extent that is possible). the problem is that many of the social costs would still be hefted onto the public.
Finally, please take all of my opinions with a grain of salt; nuclear isn't my area of expertise, and (possibly as a consequence) I tend to be willing to listen to those who talk about it as a not entirely horrific way of dealing with our carbon problem.
On Some not-entirely-coherent thoughts on nuclear power. posted 4 years, 7 months ago 34 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentdKos
Thanks for the heads up. That article was a lucky find - I have trouble wading through the many (usually loud) voices at dKos, but every once in a while I find a real gem. I rarely have the patience for longer essays, but I was riveted for every word of devilstower's piece.
I hope that my promotion of his article isn't impacting his job security...
On An extraordinary diary on DailyKos about the coal industry. posted 4 years, 7 months ago 7 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentCoal at DailyKos
There's a stupendous piece on the coal industry as a whole (with essential historical perspective) written by devilstower - a lifelong employee of the industry - floating in the DailyKos echo chamber. Check it out.
On Congress pours more money down the "clean coal" drain posted 4 years, 7 months ago 17 ResponsesOrganic Matter: Blogging the environmentAbsolutely
After writing about Wal-Mart's recent donation to preserve land equal to their literal footprint, I was skeptical for obvious reasons - the donation was a drop in the bucket, and I couldn't help the feeling that something fishy was going on. At the same time, for all their [many many many] faults, when these corporate giants do something right, they ought to hear something positive from the environmentally minded community about their actions.
I doubt there are many Grist readers who shop at Wal-Mart regularly, and I'm not encouraging anyone to start, but if we decry them even when they take steps to preserve wilderness, what incentive do they have to continue in a greener direction?
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On Corporations need to be encouraged when they embrace environmental talk, not bashed posted 4 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses@ jp
I've mulled over the nuclear option in my head again and again, and I always come to conclusion that I just don't know enough about the full costs and benefits to take sides.
jp's comment caught my attention because it deals with the whole life-cycle of uranium. I would love to see a piece on nuclear power from the point of view of uranium, cradle to grave. It occurs to me that a thorough piece of this nature couldn't help but be a fairly objective survey of all of the potential effects of a shift to nuclear. If there is such a piece that I haven't seen, I'd love to be directed to it, and if one does not exist I'd be indebted to whosoever might take up the initiative to write such a piece.
I hope this isn't too shameless, but if anyone would like to take up this awesome task but doesn't have a blog of their own on which to post it, I'd be happy to offer up my own site.On Umbra on nuclear energy posted 4 years, 7 months ago 45 Responses
Agreed
You gotta do what you gotta do to keep your efforts funded, as they deserve to be.
Also, I just noticed a Grist ad on the sidebar over at Daily Kos. Perhaps it's been there for a while and I've only recently noticed it, but I thought I'd also add that I enjoy it thoroughly.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On Comment on the new Grist ads posted 4 years, 7 months ago 2 ResponsesHave to disagree
You make some good points about Kristof's article, specifically that drawing attention to the times when enviros have been dead wrong may not be productive and that his article might have focused more on what's going well in the environmental movement. At the same time I think you're being too hard on him.
I see a wide gap between what Kristof terms "alarmism" and drawing public attention to important issues. I cringe when I hear a someone talk about global warming as the end of the world just as I do when I hear someone claim that it's all a hoax. In my mind, alarmism sends the fatalistic message that our problems are so big as to be unfixable. It seems far more productive to me to frame an issue like climate change around what can be done to solve the problem, and how we might even be able to reap economic benefits (jobs, sustainable energy) from the solution.
The fact that "41 percent of Americans considered environmental activists to be 'extremists'" in combination with the fact that "Pew Research Center found that more than three-quarters of Americans agree that 'this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment'" suggests to me that the sort of approach Kristof talks about might just lower the first number and increase the second.
I hope that all of the above doesn't sound overly critical, Dave - you do great work here and this is probably the first piece of yours that I've seriously disagreed with.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On An open letter to Nicholas Kristof posted 4 years, 8 months ago 19 ResponsesLEED
Go LEED certified buildings! I go to school in one:
Donald Bren Hall is the "greenest" -- e.g. most sustainably built -- laboratory building in the United States, and one of only four buildings in the United States that have received the U.S. Green Building Council's Platinum LEED accreditation -- the highest level possible -- since the USGBC established its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program. Bren Hall sets the highest standard for sustainable buildings of the future, and is being used as a model for facilities and operations, particularly throughout the campuses and institutions in the state of California. In July of 2003, the UC Regents adopted a Green Building Policy for all of its 10 campuses, and in November of that year UCSB committed to construct all new buildings to the level of LEED silver. This represents an extraordinary benchmark and committment [sic] to sustainability.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On A little Europhilia posted 4 years, 8 months ago 4 ResponsesDisclaimer
Forgive my lack of clarity above: Alias addict, not Ford addict.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On The family that spies together ... posted 4 years, 8 months ago 7 ResponsesFord
The thing that I find interesting is that the show obviously has a product placement deal with Ford - any "cool" appearance of a car in an episode of Alias is invariably a Ford (did I mention that I'm an addict?). They're really been pushing the new Mustang this season.
Point is, Ford isn't a company that's known for its hybrid selection. If I recall correctly (too lazy to do real research right now) the only model they currently plan to offer is the hybrid Escape. I wonder if this means that some serious hybrid development is in the works with them. I'll keep my eyes open.
More hybrid links from the Detroit Auto Show.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On The family that spies together ... posted 4 years, 8 months ago 7 Responsesleapfrogging
I would point critics in the direction of this WorldChanging post on the concept of "leapfrogging."
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On Disclaimer for all future China posts posted 4 years, 8 months ago 1 Responsecooked v. raw?
Perhaps we're talking about a distinction between raw and cooked garlic. You won't find a lot of people who aren't into cooked garlic (other than my dad), but I can't say that I especially enjoy the smell while I'm mincing it before cooking.
In addition, a number of months ago it was suggested to me that placing pieces of raw garlic near known entrances for ants would keep them out of my kitchen; perhaps this folk wisdom stems from the same biological truth that was determined by the study cited above.
Then again, I still have ants.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On Huh? posted 4 years, 8 months ago 2 ResponsesThanks for clarifying
We should be pushing for CO2 caps, but not at the expense of supporting other social policy that could have faster results, and not while overpromising about the results.
Now this is a statement that I can stand behind. You'll never catch me saying that reducing GHG emissions (and that's all major GHGs, not just carbon dioxide) isn't essential, but neither is reducing emissions a silver bullet that will solve every climate related problem. Especially since we've already pumped enough extra GHGs into the atmosphere that we're guaranteed to see an increase in global mean temperature, even if we were to cut GHG emissions by 50% effective tomorrow.
Organic Matter: Blogging the environment
On Forget about CO2 for a minute already posted 4 years, 9 months ago 7 Responsesnot so fast
In other words, if your concern is malaria, there are far more effective approaches to preparation and amelioration than reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. The same could be said of concerns about famine, dislocation, poverty, flooding, hurricanes, etc. etc. There are relatively cheap measures available that would drastically reduce the damage wrought by these phenomena -- and reducing CO2 just isn't one of them.
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate, but I've got two serious uncertainties about this approach (and no numbers to back them up, so take everything I say with a grain of salt):
1.) I don't necessarily accept that there are "relatively cheap measures" for dealing with some of these issues. Specifically I'm thinking of famine and poverty. Both are easy to rally people around, and to get governments to donate respectable sums of money toward, and yet I would argue that we've failed to make a significant dent in either problem from a global perspective.
2.) Even if we accept that there ARE cheap ways of dealing with all of the potential consequences of climate change, I'm not sure that we can extrapolate that dealing with all of them in the aggregate is cheaper than major GHG cutbacks.On Forget about CO2 for a minute already posted 4 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses