Latest Articles

A Stern Talking-to

Ignoring climate change far more expensive than fighting it, says British report Some folks worry that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions could hurt the economy. Turns out that’s a bit like worrying that a tracheotomy will hurt a patient in anaphylactic shock — yeah, it’ll sting, but without it the patient will croak. (Yes, we watch way […]

Umbra on Halloween

Dear Umbra, What do you recommend handing out to the trick-or-treaters this Halloween? I would like to avoid the wasteful packaging and additives found in store-bought goodies. I’d bake my own treats, but I doubt parents would let their kids eat anything that’s not individually sealed. How can I have an environmentally friendly Halloween? Robin […]

Billie Karel, advocate for pesticide alternatives, answers Grist’s questions

Billie Karel, Pesticide Education Project (PESTed). What work do you do? I am program coordinator at the Pesticide Education Project (PESTed). What does your organization do? We advocate for alternatives to toxic pesticides in North Carolina and empower people to make sound decisions about their health and environment. We do this through popular education, organizing […]

It ain’t a Senate website

I listened with great interest to the audio recording of the SEJ panel discussion described in David Roberts' recent blog post.

Much of the argument there can be distilled down to one simple question:

Where can I find credible answers to scientific questions about climate change?

Here's the scientific community's answer: look to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. A strong consensus there is the closest thing we have to well-founded knowledge, and it is entitled to substantial deference in policy debates. And if a reporter wants to write about what the "scientific community" thinks, this consensus is what they should report.

‘The scientists aren’t even sure’ — No scientist ever is

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it's our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably," "likely," "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?

Now it will cause drought in Australia

AUSTRALIA'S crippling drought will worsen if the Howard government succeeds in its push for nuclear power, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has told a conference.

Addressing the New Zealand Labour Party conference in Rotorua today, Mr Beattie said an independent study commissioned by the Queensland government showed a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired power station.

(...)

"Many towns and shires in our state are struggling to get enough drinking water, let alone enough to satisfy the amount a nuclear station would need to guzzle."

It just gets better and better, doesn't it?

Bashing carbon emissions just makes sense

I understand Jason's intent in his post about ideologues, and I agree (almost) without reservation that environmentalism needs to stay firmly in the realm of reality, facts, and evidence while eschewing fantasy, whims, and delusional optimism -- or, for that matter, delusional pessimism.

However (you knew that was coming) ...

‘One hundred years is not enough’–Yes it is

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: One hundred and some years of global surface temperatures is not long enough to draw any conclusions from or worry about anyway.

Answer: The reliable instrumental record only goes back 150 years in the CRU analysis, 125 in the NASA analysis. This is a simple fact that we are stuck with. 2005 was the warmest year recorded in that period according to NASA, a very close second according to CRU. Because of this limit, it is not enough to say today that these are the warmest years since 150 years ago, rather one should say 'at least':

1998 and 2005 are the warmest two years in at least the last 150.

See post-bovine methane generate clean electricity!

On some days it's especially fabulous to be an eco-scribe. I had one of those days on Wednesday, Oct. 25. As part of a group from the Society of Environmental Journalists, I got to tour Vermont's very first cow-power operation, in which the non-dairy output of a herd of Holsteins is turned into cleanly generated electricity. It's got the potential to help more of Vermont's beleaguered dairy farmers stay in business, while cutting their operation costs over time and keeping the methane generated by decomposing cow poop out of our greenhousing atmosphere.

The tour took place at Blue Spruce Farm in Bridport, Vermont, owned by the same family for about three generations. We begin in the barn, a vast structure lit with natural light ...

... and home to the farm's many, many Holsteins:

Liveblogging it, only two days later

At the 16th annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists, there was a panel on media coverage of global warming. One of the panelists was Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe's right-hand man (ha ha). The full roster of panelists:

• Andrew Revkin, Environment Reporter, The New York Times
• Bill Blakemore, Senior Correspondent, ABC News
• Dan Fagin, Associate Professor of Journalism/Associate Director of the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, New York University
• Marc Morano, Director of Communications, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate

Via DeSmogBlog (where I stole the picture above) comes this full audio recording (MP3) of the panel. I'm listening to it now. I shall blog along: