Articles by David Roberts

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.

Priorities for a Healthy … zzz …

Via Jon Stahl I saw the launch of Priorities for a Healthy Washington, a coalition of Washington state enviro organizations. I looked over the site quickly and went on about my day -- it didn't make much of an impression.

Now Alex Steffen asks: Hold on, why can't enviros make a damn impression? The PHW site is business as usual, he says, "a great example of environmentalists once again describing the steak rather than selling the sizzle."

Check out the site, read Steffen's diagnosis and suggestions, and let us know what you think.