Over a year ago I wrote a piece for Slate entitled, “GMO opponents are the climate skeptics of the left.” I pointed out that, when it came to biotechnology, certain environmentalists and supposed food safety advocates acted similar to those who denied the scientific consensus on global warming. Mark Lynas recently tweeted a good example of this:
— Mark Lynas (@mark_lynas) November 27, 2013
My Slate piece gave anti-GMO greens heartburn. It also didn’t please climate skeptics. So I can well imagine how both groups will react to a new editorial in The Economist, which carries this subhead: Read More
after a decade in which Americans are listening to you less and less, these warnings have to get more shrill just to have an impact — which, of course, only undercuts the reputation and credibility of those speaking so shrilly.
I know who and what you think this is in reference to. Actually, it’s an observation on neoconservative communication, from the always-astute Daniel Drezner, at his Foreign Policy blog.
But it sure can apply to other political and policy realms, where a similar communication pattern has played out. Along those lines, it’s worth revisiting a piece of advice from this excellent 2010 paper: Read More
The business journalist Marc Gunther has a really good article at the Guardian on yet another battle brewing on the GMO front. It’s about a food advocacy group’s campaign to stop McDonald’s from using new strains of a genetically modified potato, which as Gunther writes,
are designed to deliver both environmental and health benefits. They reduce black spots from bruising, which cause a portion of each year’s potato crop to go to waste as unmarketable. They are also intended to make fried potatoes safer by lowering levels of asparagine, a naturally occurring amino acid that reacts with sugars at high temperatures to produce acrylamide, a potential carcinogen.
I kinda doubt that the self-appointed consumer watchdogs who oppose this potato eat at McDonald’s, much less care about improving the quality of fast food.
So this is surely part of the broader anti-GMO campaign, which the food movement has hitched its wagon to.
In his discussion of this latest battle, Gunther makes an important point about a main facet of the GMO debate: Read More
In a 2010 editorial, the journal Nature told embattled climate scientists to wise up and “acknowledge that they are in street fight” with their nastiest detractors. At the time, this seemed like a reasonable admonition, since climate scientists were indeed under siege following an illicit disclosure of emails that put the climate science community in an unfavorable light. In truth, climate scientists were already grappling with how to deal with their harshest critics.
It’s probably safe to say that a few of these scientists are (understandably) embittered by this experience and that several have come to mirror their antagonists. You often see them trading rhetorical blows and insults on Twitter and in climate blogs. It’s quite a spectacle. At some point, you have to wonder if the endless sparring will exhaust all the combatants and perhaps run its course. For the sake of climate science, that can’t happen soon enough.
Meanwhile, the poisonous debate has grown worse, with self-appointed soldiers of the warring sides seeing enemies at every turn. Some of these climate soldiers are always on the lookout, like snipers, eager to take out (or at least undermine) a perceived foe. A case in point happened on Twitter today, when climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli fired this missive: Read More
In a world where everything from revolutions to extreme weather events is attributed (in some way) to global warming, it is helpful when a body of diverse experts come together to review and discuss what we currently know about the impacts of climate change. So the report issued yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences is very much worth reading if you are interested in this aspect of the climate debate. Its importance is captured nicely in this nugget from the news release: Read More
There are certain tropes that linger in the public imagination long after they’ve been discredited. Such is the case with the “balance of nature.” In 2009, the ecologist John Kricher wrote a book about this “enduring myth,” and years before that, another ecologist, Daniel Botkin, published his seminal Discordant Harmonies in 1990, which I think was the first mainstream book “to challenge the then dominant view that nature remained constant over time unless disturbed by human influence.”
The shelf life of this outdated ecological concept rankles Botkin, who last year wrote:
People give lip service to the idea that nature may not be constant, but when it comes to passing laws, setting down policies, giving advice, and deciding what to do, most of the time we act as if nature was balanced — constant. That is, as long as we stay out of the way.
He’s right. The meme is still very much part of our popular environmental discourse, thanks in part to journalists (and scientists) who continue to use the term, as in this 2009 Smithsonian article and more recently, in today’s New York Times piece on the beetle infestation in New jersey’s Pine Barrens:
Scientists say it is a striking example of the way seemingly small climatic changes are disturbing the balance of nature.
That scientists are still perhaps framing ecological problems this way is troubling. Botkin took note on Twitter. Read More
Guest post by Candace Sheppard
A day after a study was released last week about wind turbines killing more than 600,000 bats in the United States in 2012, the Environment America Research Policy Center released its second report about wind energy’s growing environmental and health benefits and the rapid rise of wind energy in the United States.
Maybe the timely release of the report was a bit of damage control. Some additional good news about renewable energy came from the group Environment New York, which asserted, in a separate report, that wind power was providing “huge environmental benefits for the state.” In its news release, the group claimed that wind energy allows New York state to offset “more than 1, 834,576 metric tons of climate-altering carbon pollution which is the equivalent of taking 382,203 cars off the road.” To put it another way, the group says recent increases in wind energy have helped New Yorkers avoid “1,724 tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxides which contributes to asthma, and 2,130 tons of sulfur dioxide which is a major component of acid rain.”
Those numbers sound impressive given that New York State, according to the report, is now the 14th windiest state in the U.S. as of 2012.
However, some context is in order. Read More
Guest post by Jess Scanlon
Today millions of Americans gather for the traditional Thanksgiving harvest festival. At many of these celebrations the centerpiece of the Thanksgiving dinner is a roasted turkey.
From an environmental standpoint, the turkey falls somewhere between chicken and eggs. A Cornell study shows it takes 14 units of fossil fuel to produce a serving of turkey. In comparison its a 4:1 ratio for chicken and a 26:1 ratio for eggs.
The environmental impact of a turkey or any animal can be calculated two ways: The resources that went into raising it and the resources used to transport it to market. The larger portion of this is the production, comprising approximately 83 percent of the bird’s impact according to Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Buying from a local vendor can reduce the number of miles the turkey travels to the platter by thousands of miles in some cases, but only reduces a small portion of the emissions associated with the bird. So what the individual farmer does in raising the hen or tom has more impact than the consumers’ decision to buy local. If saving that little amount helps your conscience, then buy local. Doing so also helps money stay in the local economy. Still, there are nuances to the local option, which Slate’s Green Lantern summarizes:
The caveat with locavorism, however, is that the equation isn’t always simple. Assessing the environmental impact of food production requires complex life-cycle analysis, of which food miles are only one component. For example, the benefits of a shorter farm-to-market journey may be negated if the local operation isn’t as energy efficient as its distant rival.
In New York City and elsewhere, the turkeys can come from the farmers’ market or the supermarket (or restaurants for those beyond the help of the Butterball Hotline). Birds can also come in organic, free range or fried from other venues. With all these options, knowing which one is the best environmentally is not as simple as deciding white meat or dark meat. Read More
All you people indifferent to climate change, listen up:
Global warming is accumulating in the Earth’s climate system at a rate equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations, 2 Hurricane Sandys, or 4 magnitude 6.0 earthquakes per second.
This, according to a new widget created by the folks at Skeptical Science. Such a handy little app!
After John Cook tweeted news of this latest messaging brainchild, an interesting exchange ensued between him and climate scientist Doug McNeall. Read More
There are signs that China is trying to rein in its smog problem by reducing its coal dependence. That’s a win for the planet, right? Not exactly, as Christina Larsen reported several months ago in this Bloomberg story:
Unfortunately, one scheme to limit coal burning by converting China’s plentiful coal supplies into synthetic natural gas (SNG) presents a host of other ecological worries. To date, China’s government has approved construction of nine large SNG plants in northern and western China, which are projected to generate 37 billion cubic meters of gas each year when completed. At least 30 more proposed plants are awaiting approval.
None of these planned plants are located near large Chinese cities, so the emissions generated in producing the gas will not hang directly over metropolises. But that doesn’t mean the coal-to-gas conversion process is clean. According to a new study (PDF) in Nature Climate Change, the entire life cycle of harvesting coal and turning it into gas produces from 36 percent to 82 percent more total greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal directly—depending on whether the gas is used to generate electricity or power vehicles.
But hey, let’s not complicate a nice silver lining story, shall we? If China is tackling its coal problem, we should be encouraged that “efforts to improve its air quality will also bring reductions in CO2 emissions,” writes Jennifer Duggan, a Shanghai-based journalist and Guardian environment blogger.
Why is this a misleading narrative that we should be wary of? Read More