Articles by David Roberts

Global warming is not a scientific story

I'm a little late getting to this, but everyone should read Paul D. Thacker's interview with New York Times climate journalist Andy Revkin. There's one point in particular I want to comment on:

Has there been anything in your coverage that you think you've missed?

AR: Well ... I think there are ways I could have pushed to get the coverage outside the science section. There were some pretty great pieces on things like the Greenland puzzle and the whole abruptness issue, but those were always Science Times pieces and I guess that is a ghetto, ultimately. A bunch of readers won't get to see it.

This has been a failing not only of climate journalists, but of environmentalists and politicians as well.

Global warming is not a scientific story.

It's a spiritual story, about our relationship to the earth. It's a moral story, about our obligations to our descendents. It's a cultural story, about our consumerism and excess. It's a political story, about wealthy industries holding our democracy hostage. It's an economic story, about the transition to a kind of wealth that does not require waste. It's a sociological and psychological story, about the difficulty of mobilizing vast change in response to long-term challenges. And it's a personal story, about the ways we as individuals can contribute.

Science is not the story, it's the substrate. Science merely establishes that there is a story.

All of us -- climate journalists, environmental advocates, and everyone else -- need to start telling all of these stories, the whole dizzying, overwhelming, galvanizing array of them.

What energy execs are thinking

PriceWaterhouseCoopers surveyed energy execs the world over -- "116 senior executives from leading utilities companies in 43 countries" -- about the future of the energy biz. Two-thirds believe "the industry needs to adopt a 10 year focus on reducing environmental damage, developing new technologies, improving customer service relationships and finding new fuel sources." Eighty percent believe "political and regulatory factors are inhibiting the ability of the sector to respond to these challenges, and shock factors such as supply or environmental crises may need to occur to force change." Forty-two percent believe "the sector is lagging behind in the development of renewable energy sources."

Also widespread was the sentiment that "clean coal" and nuclear power would prove essential in limiting greenhouse-gas emissions.

FYI.

Thomas Edison was a smart guy

Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. ...

This scheme of combustion to get power makes me sick to think of -- it is so wasteful. It is just the old, foolish Prometheus idea, and the father of Prometheus was a baboon.

When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.

Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.

There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen, for it can not be destroyed.

-- Thomas Edison, 1910

More on the TRI

For more on administration attempts to weaken the Toxics Release Inventory -- and numerous quotes from Gristmill contributor and pundit nonpareil Clark Williams-Derry -- see this story in the Seattle P-I.

(We touched on the TRI in today's Daily Grist, and Clark wrote about it yesterday.)