Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog on the New York Times site has moved from the science section to the opinion section, to reflect Revkin’s shift from a veteran staff reporter to a freelancer. He kicks things off at his new digs by explaining why he prefers to think about a collective “energy quest” rather than a “climate crisis.”

“This doesn’t mean I reject the idea that we face a climate crisis. I just don’t think that phrase is a productive way to frame this challenge, particularly as defined over the last few years in the heated policy debate,” he writes.

Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. All donations DOUBLED for a limited time. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds

Stories like this don’t tell themselves.

Make others like it possible. Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds

Climate change might be the reason for the trek, he seems to be arguing, but we complete that journey by watching the ground at our feet and the path ahead (by developing and implementing smart energy solutions), not by fixating on the starting point.

We’re not even close to investing what we should be, he points out. U.S. R&D funding for energy is a pittance compared to other areas. Here’s a sobering graph Revkin borrows from Kei Koizumi, formerly of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Nondefense R$D spendingAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science via Dot Earth

 

That doesn’t even count military spending, shown here:

Defense research spendingAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science via Dot Earth

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.