Readers write in about coal’s villainy, eating locally, sexy eco-geeks, and more

  Re: One Nation, Under Terry Dear Editor: I read Terry Tamminen’s book, and overall I think it’s a very...

Cleared up once and for all

The answer depends on the exact question you're asking. Here is my view of the scientific consensus on a range of questions:

1) Did global warming cause Katrina? Or Rita? Or any single storm?

As far as I know, there exists not a single peer-reviewed article that connects global warming with the increased ferocity of any single storm. The commonly used dice analogy provides a good explanation of why the case is so hard to make. Assume the weather is determined by rolling a six-sided die, with a six corresponding to a massive hurricane. Now assume that by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we've loaded the die to make six come up twice as frequently.

Now, we roll the die once, and it comes up six. Did it come up six because it was loaded? After all, a normal die has a 16% chance of coming up six, so it's absolutely possible that the die would have come up six even without the loading.

So the answer to this question is "maybe, maybe not, we just don't know," and I think it's likely to stay that way.

Oil imperialism is going to be the end of us

Via Political Animal, this little nugget got me thinking:

In other words, the bill to bring Army and Navy battalions back to the status they were in before the invasion ... [will be] $50 to $100 billion. "The next president will face a staggering bill," Wilkerson says, not even counting the costs of further efforts in Iraq.

So, not counting the cost of the war itself, just returning U.S. armed forces to the fighting condition they maintained back in ye olden dayes of Feb. 2003 will cost as much as $100 billion. The estimates for the total cost of the war have been pegged as high as $2 trillion.

We talk a great deal about the "externalities" of oil. It's important to remember that one of its costliest externalities -- probably No. 2 behind climate change -- is American military spending in the Persian Gulf, and at least two major wars.

From Real Life to Real Men

Leo-topia Once upon a time, we swore we’d never watch reality TV, but now we’re Dancing With the Bachelor’s Top...

An article on volcanoes and global warming

An article in this month's Scientific American titled "Impact from the Deep" has prompted me to write my first article on global warming. I avoid the topic because it is already covered practically every day by other commentaries. The article posits a theory that chronic and heavy volcanic activity caused some of the mass extinctions of the past, explaining how it happened along with some supporting evidence.

Today, we don't have thousands of volcanoes spewing forth massive amounts of CO2, but what we do have are billions of point sources of CO2 emissions. To give you a feel for the magnitude of our oil, coal, and gas burning, think back to the Gulf War and the thousands of oil wells that were set on fire. Look at that picture for a moment and ponder that cars in the U.S. alone emit five times more CO2 per day than those fires did at their peak -- and our coal- and gas-fired power plants emit twice as much as our cars.

A Stroke of Bad Luck

Lead still bad for you, and at lower levels than previously thought Lead exposure levels long considered safe for adults...

Plain speaking from an expert

To a layperson, the world of climatology can be an intimidatingly foreign land. Denizens of this world -- scientists -- speak a daunting, often-impenetrable blend of acronyms (AGW, IPCC, WPAC, ENSO), Latinisms (anomalies, coterminous, precipitation deficits), and math (confidence limits, regression-based, boundary knots).

Besides the sheer complexity of global climate systems, the dreariness of this jargon may be one of the big reasons the general public has been slow to awaken to the seriousness of the threat of global warming. In fact, a conference on climate change organized by Yale last year called for "training scientists to speak in language that is understandable to different audiences."

One scientist who needs no such training is Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and meteorologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., an institution closely linked to NASA. In the world of science, Patzert is known for his work matching TOPEX satellite weather data to the actual behavior of the Pacific Ocean and its weather systems, especially El Nino and its less-well-known counterpart La Nina. In the media world, he is a go-to guy for comments on weather patterns for the L.A. Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and CBS News, in part because he has a sense of humor.

Patzert, who has briskly guided my reporting on climate questions for years, generously agreed to an extended email interview for Grist. Since he has become known for his work with the media, and even won medals for his outreach efforts, I thought I'd begin with a question about why the rhetoric of climatology is so turgid and difficult. His answer was more than I bargained for:

Is wood-framing a green building material?

Talk about "framing" these days, and many people will think about author and linguist George Lakoff, and the post-2004-election brouhaha about how to communicate, or "frame," political ideas.

But apparently, there's much more obscure debate going on about another kind of framing -- the kind of framing that goes into building a house.

It's a bit arcane, really. But the crux of the debate is this: should traditional wood-framing count as a "green" building technique? Or is something else, such as steel or concrete, a more environmentally friendly choice?

A small price to pay

Seems like more and more people -- even conservative economists -- are going on record in support of higher gas taxes.

From an economist's point of view, it's a bit of a no brainer. Like just about any addiction, our gasoline habit carries lots of "externalities" -- costs that fall on everyone rather than just the person who uses the gas. (Think climate change, oil spills, air pollution, security vulnerabilities, international military entanglements, economic risk from oil price shocks, etc.)

If we consumers had to pay those costs every time we filled our tanks, we'd use gas a little more sparingly -- and we'd create fewer externalities as a result. Plus, the taxes could provide a source of revenue to deal with the problems created by energy consumption -- say, a dedicated funding source for ramping up efficiency.

But that begs the question -- just how high should the taxes be?