Articles by David Roberts

The important thing

I have great respect for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., but this AlterNet essay exemplifies a fundamental flaw in the thinking of current mainstream environmentalists. His argument is that, despite Bush's re-election, the election actually demonstrated broad support for environmental protections. He says:

In the face of recent rhetoric about an alleged mandate, it's clear the challenge is greater than ever. But the important thing is that the fundamental politics of the environment did not change with this election.

But this gets things backwards. The "important thing" is not that despite Bush's election, people still support green positions. The important thing is that despite people's support of green positions, Bush got re-elected.

Broad support for environmentalism should not be blithely considered good news for enviros. We are losing -- losing elections and losing momentum. That we are doing so despite public support for the substance of our agenda is an indictment, not an indication that the losing is some sort of incidental challenge.

Winning is not everything, as Vince Lombardi once said. It's the only thing.

What a Falloon!

I groaned when I saw this story on global dimming the other day. It's about a documentary soon to be aired on BBC, presenting the research of Dr. Peter Cox. The spin Reuters' Matt Falloon puts on it is that reducing fossil fuels will accelerate global warming. Who knows why he's adopting that spin. (Or why he says "Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all," which is narrowly true but distorts what is a broad and robust consensus on the issue.) Falloon is, wittingly or unwittingly, providing yet another piece of ammunition for climate change flat-earthers to forward to each other and trumpet on talk radio. The notion is, to be blunt, hoo-ha.

For a sensible look at global dimming, see our article "Dim Sun," this BBC story which describes Cox's report more fully, and this helpful summary by Jamais Cascio.

Waste to energy

Folks in the U.S. tend to be convinced that technology will save us. Traditionally, environmentalism has opposed itself to this tendency, scolding that technology is, in fact, the source of all eco-evil. I would suggest that, while technology's record is, shall we say, mixed, this is the wrong way to go, both substantively and politically. More on that subject later.

I certainly count myself a technological optimist, so I get excited about every story like this: Today, Treehugger gives the rundown on two new machines that make energy from waste. The first creates (brace yourself for some technical jargon) a really ginormously strong tornado that batters the waste into power. The second does something that even the Treehuggers don't pretend to understand -- "a thermal depolymerization process" -- to squish virtually any carbon-based waste into three products: "high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing." They're pretty psyched about it:

That sounds weird, but imagine this: If this thing works, most toxic waste problems would disappear--and so would imported oil. According to its manufacturers, if the U.S. were to convert its agricultural waste alone into oil and gas, according to Discover magazine, it would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. Four billion barrels! That's nearly as much as we import each year.

Yes, yes, it's still in development, might not pan out, might have unforseen side effects. But still: Neat.

Climate models

A favorite rhetorical tactic of global warming skeptics is to point out that climate scientists use models, which they imply are less scientific than the hard data used by other disciplines. This is, on its face, dumb. Every scientific field uses data to develop models, uses models to predict future data, and where there are discrepancies modifies either the data collection methods the models (or both). Climate science does the same. There are, however, interesting and unique features of climate models, and the indispensable RealClimate offers a quick synopsis thereof. It's slightly technical, but good reading nonetheless.