Strengthening community is an important benefit of eating locally

The following is a guest essay originally posted at AlterNet by David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Some 30 years ago NASA came up with another big idea: assemble vast solar electric arrays in space and beam the energy to earth. The environmental community did not dismiss NASA's vision out of hand. After all, the sun shines 24 hours a day in space. A solar cell on earth harnesses only about four hours equivalent of full sunshine a day. If renewable electricity could be generated more cheaply in space than on earth, what's the problem?

A number of us argued that the problem was inherent in the scale of the power plant. Whereas rooftop solar turns us into producers, builds our self-confidence, and strengthens our sense of community as we trade electricity back and forth with our neighbors, space-based solar arrays aggravate our dependence. By dramatically increasing the distance between us and a product essential to our survival, we become more insecure. The scale of the technology requires a global corporation, increasing the distance between those who make the decisions and those who feel the impact of those decisions. Which, in turn, demands a global oversight body, itself remote and nontransparent to electric consumers.

Turning Lemons Into Powerade

Waste Management announces $400 million methane-to-energy plan Renewable energy got a boost this week: mega-hauler Waste Management said it will...

Trees are good for a lot of things; carbon offsetting isn’t one of them

The first rule of offsets, according to Joseph Romm, is "no trees." This is a pretty good rule, as these thing go. The TerraPass offset portfolio contains no tree-planting projects, despite the fact that most consumers love trees and the fact that tree-planting projects are typically cheaper than offsets from renewable energy projects.

So if trees are both consumer-friendly and cost-effective, why avoid them? There are lots of reasons, and Romm chooses to focus on one of the more minor ones: a recent study suggesting that trees outside of tropical zones actually cause a net increase in global warming by absorbing sunlight.

Alito Bit More Critter-Hating

Supreme Court sides with developers on Endangered Species Act case Like a tormented parent with two kids in a spelling...

Flawed new analysis purports to show that there’s no scientific consensus on climate change

If those opposed to action on climate change are like Ahab, the scientific consensus is their white whale. The reason is simple: as Frank Luntz's famous memo pointed out, if they can convince the general public that the science of climate change is uncertain, they can drag the debate over policy to a grinding halt.

Thus, every so often, another argument emerges that purports to prove that scientific consensus on climate change does not exist.

This week, it's a blast from the past: an analysis of the "Web of Science" that shows that no consensus exists and only a minority of scientists support the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

First, some background. For those who aren't familiar, the Web of Science (WoS) is a massive database that includes the title and abstract of essentially every scientific paper published since the early '90s. There's also a ton of ancillary information in the database, such as how many times a paper has been cited. It's an invaluable tool to the scientific community, one I use on an almost daily basis to find papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

Naomi Oreskes, a Professor of History and Science Studies at UC-San Diego, searched WoS for papers that include the phrase "global climate change" in the title or abstract and found that basically none of these papers explicitly reject the consensus position (i.e., the earth is warming, humans are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming, etc.). See Coby Beck's writeup for more details.

A medical researcher, Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, has revisited Oreskes' analysis. Oreskes looked at papers published between the mid-1990s and 2003, while Schulte looked at papers published after 2004. I have not actually seen a copy of this new paper, but I've reconstructed its salient points from a description of the analysis found here (PDF). The abstract of Dr. Schulte's paper:

Fear of anthropogenic 'global warming' can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.

This analysis is rubbish. First, consider the following abstract, from a paper entitled, "An analysis of the regulation of tropical tropospheric water vapor":

Umbra on tidal power

Dear Umbra, Much is made of wind, solar, geothermal, and even wave power, but why doesn’t anyone talk about tidal...

Good on ’em

I just got this email from MoveOn.org: Dear MoveOn member, Did you know the U.S. right now gets only 2%...

You ever have that nightmare where the lifeline becomes a deadly snake?

India's emissions may be higher due to dams:

Carl Pope reviews Break Through by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

This is a guest essay by Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Two years ago, Ted Nordhaus' and Michael Shellenberger's widely discussed essay "The Death of Environmentalism" predicted that the cause in which I've worked most of my life was about to gasp a grim last breath. The self-proclaimed "bad boy" authors must be embarrassed now. With their new book on the same theme about to land in bookstores, environmentalism is alive and perhaps prematurely giddy over progress made and even victories won in the fight against climate change.

But don't dismiss Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility just because its authors are lousy soothsayers. The book's secondary thesis -- that progressive politics, including environmentalism, is in dire need of optimistic grounding in 21st century reality -- is too important and intriguing to leave unexplored.

Progressive politics, the authors persuasively argue, is rooted in economic, social, and environmental nostalgia. Nostalgia for the New Deal era of solidarity driven by shared material scarcity; nostalgia for the post-war era of homogeneous and stable communities held together by neighborhood, workplace, and church; nostalgia for an American landscape not yet reshaped by industrial society. Stubbornly refusing to move beyond this nostalgia, progressives cling to an interest-based politics and an almost fundamentalist faith in rationality. When their efforts fail, they conclude that the problem is corporate money or media monopolies or human nature -- anything but their own politics.