We are what we think. With our thoughts we create the world. -- Buddha OK, first, let me hasten to say that I find myself, as most any physical scientist would, irritated by the ancient quote above. I expect a modern person to know, though the Buddha may or may not have known, that the logic of the physical universe is so intricate and so precise that mere human thoughts are grotesquely insufficient to create it, that some objective reality must exist. What You Think About Determines What You Think There is another sense, though, in which it is precisely …

It's really an absurd travesty when starvation gets blamed on "global warming do-gooders," and we haven't seen the last of that. The problem is miscast, though. There isn't a food shortage, at least not yet. There is a food price crisis, which is a very different beast. Are its roots in the huge resource gap between the relatively rich and the very poor? If that's true, it has broad implications. Here's one way of looking at it, from the Omaha World-Herald: The list of likely damages from global warming is long and includes those from rising sea levels, more intense …

The only way to a soft landing is down. In a brief article on DeSmog by Emily Murgatroyd, a Cato Institute type, Jerry Taylor, is quoted as saying Scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change. Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits. Can we consider this claim, or is it somehow protected by a taboo? Is one a Marxist or even a Stalinist for pointing out that economists are …

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a seminar hosted by several departments at the University of Texas on the topic of "peak oil." The occasion was the visit of David Sundalow of the Brookings Institution, who is hawking his new book Freedom from Oil. This was mutually convenient for him and the university, which is trying to carve out a position as an optimistic, rolled-up-sleeves, can-do problem-solver in the fields of energy and water. I have no objection to that approach and am pleased to be somewhat distantly associated with it. That said, I did not leave the event …

Pretty much everyone in attendance at two Austin Live Earth house parties was a boomer. Is grassroots activism still unhip among young people? I was a bit nervous about attending a Live Earth event. At 52, I thought I'd be at least twice the age of most of the people I'd encounter. I needn't have worried. I attended two Live Earth house parties in Austin, Texas, and saw nobody under 30 except the kids of one of the hosts. I looked for online pictures of other parties elsewhere and saw about the same thing: mostly folks in their 50s with …

The bad news is that we are in quite a pickle. The good news about the bad news is that the national science academies of the G8 countries, along with those of Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, China, and India, have issued a unanimous and remarkably strong statement (PDF) about our global energy quandary. The bad news about the good news about the bad news is that the press is almost totally silent about it, at least in English-speaking countries. Among the crucial statements in this document (PDF): "Our present energy course is not sustainable." "Responding to this demand while minimizing …

Is climate change the most important global problem we face? This seems on its face a good question. Economists like Bjorn Lomborg take this reductionist recipe, spice it with an unshakable confidence in future growth, and conclude that climate should be low on our list of priorities. Lomborg's arguments follow from his assumptions. If his conclusions are wrong as they appear, perhaps the logic is wrong, or the data, or the underlying premises. All of these are good places for skeptical inquiry, and may be fruitful, but there is yet another place to look. I suggest that Lomborg asks the …