Latest Articles
-
Good stuff at WC
Two good posts on Worldchanging I’ve been meaning to call out: Jeremy Faludi makes the important point that control technologies are just as important as efficiency technologies. Control technologies allow us to control energy systems in a more fine-grained way, using only what we need — think occupancy sensors for lighting or continuously variable transmissions […]
-
Friday music blogging: Mark Ronson
Two of the best pop albums of the last year are Lily Allen‘s Alright, Still and Amy Winehouse‘s Back to Black. What do they have in common (besides cute, clever female singer-songwriters, that is)? Producer Mark Ronson. The guy’s a mad pop genius. As it happens, Ronson puts out albums of his own. The latest […]
-
More Gore
Here’s Al Gore on David Letterman, Thursday night. Bizarrely substantive! Part one: Part two:
-
On ‘scientific reticence’ and sea-level rise
Sea level rise of 5 meters in one century? Even if most scientists will not say so publicly, that catastrophe is a real possibility, according to the director of NASA's Goddard Institute Of Space Studies.
It may seem like I single Hansen out for recommended reading. But that's only because he:
- is the nation's top climatologist
- writes prolifically
- speaks with unusually bluntness for a scientist
- has been more right than just about any climate scientist
He has written a terrific piece for the open-access Environmental Research Letters on "Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise":
I suggest that a "scientific reticence" is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
I could not agree more. In researching my book Hell and High Water, many leading climate scientists spoke to me candidly off the record that they share Hansen's fear. Fortunately, more and more are speaking out.
Hansen is especially concerned that sea level rise is nonlinear:
-
Funny
Al Gore was on The Daily Show on Thursday. I thought he did quite well — and the crowd was nuts for him. Here’s part one: And here’s part two:
-
A few random notes
For Gristers in Houston, you might be interested in this event.
A good friend of mine, Emmett Duffy, has started a new blog called The Natural Patriot. Emmett is a marine scientist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Check out his entry on what it means to be a Natural Patriot -- and add this blog to your RSS reader.
-
Wind-loss, wind-gain
On the heels of last week's apparent defeat of the proposed Hoosac Wind project in mountainous Western Massachusetts due to environmental (wetland) concerns, Massachusetts' new governor has put his voice behind further offshore wind projects. The timing is interesting.
-
Continuing the debate
Recently, in the post "Global Warming and the vision thing," I criticized the use of numbers in advocating policies, arguing instead on behalf of concrete images. Jon Warnow, a Step It Up 2007 organizer, responded to my post, and I thought it would be appropriate to give him the benefit of a separate post, along with my reply:
-
Not always, but green branding has potential to connect consumers to their ‘inner green’
In an undeniable rush, corporate giants are jumping on the "green" bandwagon: Wal-mart, Ford, Dow, General Electric, British Petroleum, Chevron, DuPont, to name only a few. "There's a tendency to put a green smiley face on everything," says Joel Makower, author of The Green Consumer. And smiley faces are rearing their heads all over the place. "We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers," claims a Shell Oil ad.Right ...
But the concept isn't new. In 1999, "greenwash" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as: "Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image." Naturally, green branding breeds even greener skeptics.
There are plenty of arguments for why this is inherently bad, especially if it's just lip service -- or worse, polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't.
On the other hand, if huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward. Greenwashing, for all the ire it raises among the truly green, might have long term political benefits.
