The release of Matt Nisbet’s Climate Shift report (and the opening of the Climate Shift Project website) has been surrounded by a storm of controversy, opened by Joe Romm’s critique of Nisbet’s financial analysis (follow up here and here; Chris Mooney on science ‘balance’, and Media Matters’ critique of Nisbet’s media analysis). I read a good deal of the report prior to actually reading anyone else’s work. And, my copy is covered with red ink of comments, questions, and challenges. A number of these red-lined items paralleled others’ critiques. Honestly, this frustrates me because the questions Nisbet asks and the answers to those are of interest and importance. The error-prone nature of the work makes it difficult to assess the value of conclusions and recommendations. Sadly, this report truly seems to require going through with a fine-tooth comb as there are major and minor problems, it seems, throughout the study.
To provide a perspective, here is an example of one of those tiny items. Table 3.1 from the report intrigued me. [UPDATE: Nisbet “randomly sampled within month one out of every four articles … resulting in a representative sample of 413 news and opinion articles.”]
Let us look at just one column[of this chart]: [the sample of] Washington Post opinion articles “pre-Copenhagen”. For 1 January through 30 November 2009, the table tells us that there were 25 opinion articles relevant to climate change/Global Warming of which 96 percent (24) were “consensus” and 4 percent (1) were “dismissive”.
Hmmmm …
[Recognizing that this is a sampling …]
Hmmmm …
Just one Washington Post opinion piece [out of every twenty-five on or related to climate science], from 1 January 2009 through 30 November 2009 was “dismissive” of climate science.
On 13 February 2009, The Washington Post published George Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers“, a truthiness-laden set of misleading and simply false statements attacking climate science and scientists. Okay, does this count as that single “dismissive” piece? [Which means that there should be 24 ‘consensus’ pieces.]
Few phenomena generate as much heat as disputes about current orthodoxies concerning global warming. This column recently reported and commented on some developments pertinent to the debate about whether global warming is occurring and what can and should be done. That column, which expressed skepticism about some emphatic proclamations by the alarmed, took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.
No reasonable media studies analyst examining climate change science issues could put George Will (using Nisbet’s categories) as anything other than “dismissive” of climate science. [Okay, now I am looking for another 24 climate science supporting opinion pieces through the year.] Thus, just two months into Nisbet’s analytical period (Jan-Feb 2009) and just one opinion writer (George Will), [I see] there is reason to question the quantitative basis for the assertion that 96 percent of the Washington Post opinion pieces during the ‘pre-Copenhagen’ period supported the “consensus view” on climate science.
[On 2 April 2009, The Washington Post published George Will’s Climate Change’s Dim Lightbulbs. The second paragraph from this ode to climate science consensus:
Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics publishedby the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998. Regarding the reversing, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has many ambitions, as outlined in a working group’s 16-page “information note” to “facilitate discussions.”
Hmmm … Still with just one opinion writer, only in month four, and we are now looking for 72 opinion pieces to provide for the 96 to 4 percent ratio.]
How many other Washington Post opinion pieces might reasonably be called “falsely balanced view” or “dismissive” in the pre-Copenhagen (or post Copenhagen period)? In this quite specific case, within moments material comes to light that calls into question a detailed item that is built on to support conclusions. Is the quantitative analysis of news reporting also poorly done? How about the analysis of other journalistic outlets? I, in contrast to Nisbet, do not have $100,000s of dollars to support my research nor 10s of unpaid journalism students to comb through articles and code them. I do, however, have enough knowledge, at hand, to know that this specific item does not stand up to my standards of accurate and truthful analysis.
Now, Professor Nisbet has confirmed in email correspondance that he would put serial misrepresenter Bjorn Lomborg in the “consensus” camp. “Lomborg’s op-eds assert that climate is real and human caused, so he does not fall into the falsely balanced or dismissive category as measured in the analysis. ” This is the case as Lomborg’s work misrepresents the science and implications of climate change (see this discussion of Lomborg’s September 2009 Washington Post OPED).
One of my graduate advisors posed an interesting question when discussing a specific book:
I really like the thesis of this book across a wide range of historical cases, many of which I know little about. It reads well and makes sense to me. However, when I look at the specific items of my expertise, I find many errors and do not believe the author used the best secondary sources to support his work. Should I take my specific expertise and knowledge that leads to the conclusion that this is a poorly done work in one section to say that this is likely the case with the rest of the book or should I follow my agreement with the thesis to embrace the work done on those periods outside my expertise?
This led to a serious set of discussions within the class that has continued to inform my thinking to date. While I would like to focus a discussion on Nisbet’s conclusions and recommendations, the serial nature of the data/analytical issues makes any leap to serious attention to Nisbet’s conclusions a rather reckless one. Sadly, the shoddy nature of much of America’s media system (and the significant PR resources supporting Climate Shift) means that too many will be making that leap.
[UPDATE NOTE: As per the comment below from Matthew Nisbet, I should have emphasized the sampling nature of the work. Reviewing the post and starting a glance through other Washington Post opinion pieces for the January 2009 through November 2010 period, the question remains as to whether this table (this material) accurately represents The Washington Post‘s publication record.]
UPDATE TWO: Others have taken up the issue of whether Nisbet’s “sampling” at The Washington Post seems to fit a reality-based analysis. Sadly, just as with the financial figures, one has to go back and do original research to place the work within context. Tim Lambert, Deltoid, did this as discussed in There’s no fooling Bryan Walsh.
I was intrigued by some of the other numbers in Nisbet’s paper. He found that in the Washington Post in the 11 months before Copenhagen 93% of the articles reflected the scientific consensus, 5% were falsely balanced and just 2% dismissive of the consensus.
This suggests that “false balance” was all but absent from the Washington Post during that period, when in fact the Washington Post was indulging in a pathological version of false balance, deciding that GeorgeWillwasentitled to his ownfacts. In the Washington Post a statement from the Polar Research Group can be balanced by a falsehood from George Will about what the Polar Research Group said.
I decided to look at the those articles myself. I selected the sample in the same way as Nisbet, except that I used Factiva rather than LexisNexis, and used all the articles rather than 1 in 4. I found that 110 (76%) reflected the consensus view, 28 (19%) were falsely balanced, and 7 (5%) were dismissive. Falsely balanced articles reporting on the science (like this one) were very rare. Instead, the falsely balanced articles were about politics, with the science being balanced by a statement from Inhofe that it was all a big hoax.
April 20th, 2011 · Comments Off on Anniversary Actions …
When it comes to marking anniversaries, champagne for two is sometimes the appropriate path but there are many anniversaries that are more appropriate marked by serious (and loud) crowds. Today is such an anniversary, where we should be working together to remind people of what occurred and what is still occurring on what merits note as a dark day in humanity’s fossil-foolish addictions.
People are taking different paths to draw attention to the anniversary. BP is marking the anniversary with donations to Republican politicians and Republican political organizations. Representative Darryl Issa is marking the anniversary with attacks on President Obama for not more aggressively supporting deepwater oil exploration and drilling (a Twit’s tweet). Credo is reminding U.S. that BP has been deducting all of the costs related to the spill so that they eliminate their U.S. tax liability. And, 1000s of people are taking their remembrance to the streets, shutting down BP gas stations in an effort to capture attention to America’s fossil foolish addiction and BP’s failures over the past year to adequately address the damage that their actions caused.
These actions have a simple and straightforward tagline: Make BP Pay!.
The Gulf is still suffering and BP hasn’t cleaned up it’s mess or paid up. It’s time for President Obama to stand up to big polluters and make BP pay!
Nissan needs to move away from commercials touting how ‘green’ the car is. They need to focus on making electric cars “cool and fun!”
The issue of foreign oil is very real. imagine a commercial where a terrorist group is discussing their financial problems and the leader pulls up a photo of the Leaf and says “they aren’t buying our oil anymore because? of this!” that would get peoples attention.
In addition to not being perfect, it isn’t necessarily truthful. After all, electric cars require mining (which pollutes), manufacturing (typically polluting), shipping (on polluting ships), etc … And, the majority of the electricity generation in the United States comes from polluting sources (coal and natural gas) and thus there are emissions associated with most Leaf drivers’ mileage.
Even with the very real problems, this is another Leaf ad to like.
Do you recognize Climate Disruption as — quite likely — humanity’s defining challenge for the 21st century?
Have Russian fires, Pakistani floods, Australian droughts and floods, shifting bird habitation, record high temperatures, melting Arctic Ice, increasingly acidified oceans, or the ever earlier flowering of your garden’s bulbs penetrated your conscience and increased your concerns about today’s climate disruption and the potential for catastrophic climate chaos in the years and decades ahead?
Are you aware of the scientific work which supports increasingly dire forecasts if humanity does not, rapidly, shift to a lower-polluting path?
Over the weekend, someone commented that they, philosophically, are trying to figure out what the moral action would be if they had been alive in 1930 and were able to see a future of World War II with the Holocaust. With that in mind, the thought continued:
I understand the science.
I have a feel for the dire risks humanity faces.
What is the ethical, moral, and correct path that I should follow?
April 16th, 2011 · Comments Off on Have some P.I.T.I.E., America.
Considering the pitiful nature of the American home financing system, with its systematic ignoring of key fiscal issues like location and energy efficiency, perhaps it is time for Congress to have some P.I.T.I.E. on us.
The current basic loan calculation: Principle + Interest + Taxes + Insurance (PITI) = the homeownership burden that mortgage lenders consider in the load process. The SAVE Act, introduced by Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO), would modify this to PITIE by adding Energy into the equation.
PITI absolutely misrepresents the situation. For many homeowners, Energy is the top cost after PI (principal & interest) payments, frequently larger than property taxes and is almost uniformly larger than that last I (insurance).
After the collapse of the housing market, interest groups and individuals started demanding a better way to assess a homeowner’s living costs. Under the current mortgage-lending process, these costs are essentially ignored. In 2007-2008, the average homeowner spent $822 on homeowner’s insurance and $1,897 on property tax, both important variables in determining mortgage lending. But in the same year, the average homeowner spent $2,340 on energy costs
The sad thing: glossy luxuries or adding another room will increase a home’s value but not super-insulating to the point of seriously reducing that $2340 in energy costs.
Granite countertops vs. utility bills. The amount a buyer can borrow for a new home is determined in large part by its expected resale value. In general, the more value-added features a home has, the higher its perceived resale value and the larger the mortgage.
Under the current mortgage-appraisal rules, however, that formula doesn’t apply to extra-cost options designed to save energy. A buyer who spends $5,000 on granite countertops or hardwood flooring can expect to be rewarded for doing so. But the buyer who spends that same amount on a local HVAC contractor for upgraded ductwork, a high-efficiency hvac system, or thicker subslab insulation has done little to increase his or her home’s value. An energy-conscious buyer’s only reward is a reduction in utility bills.
The systematic exclusion of energy issues in the home appraisal and mortgage process fosters a situation of riskier mortgages and families under greater stress. Consider my house: between energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, my utility bills are roughly twenty percent my neighbors’. My solar panels, solar hot water, high-efficiency fireplace insert, radiant heating, and improved insulation were, in combination, worth a total of $0 in two (relatively) recent appraisals supporting a refinancing. Yet, those are very tangible home assets that provide quite real ‘after-tax’ income value to my household. Those after tax dollar savings equal more than a mortgage payment. If laid off or otherwise stretched financially, would that mortgage payment+ of available money help keep a roof over my family? Energy efficiency (whether through higher mpg vehicles or through better built homes) is a key path toward providing resiliency in the face of uncertain (and generally rising) energy prices and in the face of fiscal (and other) uncertainty. And, location inefficient and energy inefficient homes foster higher foreclosure rates.
The power of this reality and the implications of following through on it has helped foster an unusual coalition in support of the SAVE Act: big builders and environmental organizations. (Though, sign, not surprisingly the real estate community is opposed, fearful (with reason?) that it could discourage people from (blindly) buying energy inefficient (wasteful) homes.) The truth is that the major builders are, increasingly, certifying their homes for energy efficiency. (Using the “HERS” (Home Energy Rating System) from the nonprofit Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). HERS and home energy rating is an item for another discussion, another day …) I have heard major builders’ executives state that the HERS-rated homes sell faster and with fewer (to no) discounts in comparison to similar (non-rated) homes. In other words, when presented a fait accompli (already built) option, the American home buyer gravitates to the Energy Smart choice. How, however, to make this a more evident and more standard part of the home ownership process.
The SAVE Act (pdf fact sheet) seeks to address the situation by adding energy into the mortgage process in two paths:
Include energy in the affordability test which would mean that the more energy efficient the home, the more a borrower could borrow with the same income level.
Provide a path for creating a “net present value” (NPV) for expected energy savings that would allow a lender to increase the loan rate.
These, combined, would incentivize banks (and appraisers) to pay (serious) attention to energy issues when examining homes and prospective buyers. This attention would migrate to the purchasers (and sellers), creating an incentive for energy efficiency that could help break through the market barriers that are inhibiting the Energy Smart choice from becoming the easy and preferred choice to make.
What would the SAVE Act help achieve?
Reducing the risk of a future foreclosure crisis by reducing the energy burden for the average homeowner.
Create jobs, throughout America, in home energy efficiency (both in new build and retrofit markets).
Ease the introduction of renewable energy systems into the home market. (A simple rule of thumb: invest in the low hanging fruit of negawatts before investing in paths to generate watts.)
Reduce pollution.
Put money into the average homeowners’ pockets.
The SAVE Act truly looks to be a win-win-win (with the losers being those not wanting to inhibit sales of burdensome energy inefficient homes and those who profit from selling polluting kilowatt hours) in the nation’s best interest.
Truth be told, it is an introduced bill in the Senate. That means it requires support. Is it time for you to call your Senators to ask if they support the SAVE Act. If so, thank them for their support. If not, urge them to sign on.
Comments Off on Have some P.I.T.I.E., America.Tags:Energy
“It was a real testament to President Obama’s commitment to young people that he met with youth clean energy leaders today, said Courtney Hight, Co-Director, Energy Action Coalition. “We are thankful he fought to save the Clean Air Act. That’s the man we elected and we need him to stand strong and stand up to big polluters and safeguard America’s public health.”
“We went in thinking we were meeting with senior staff and there walked in Barack Obama,” said Courtney Hight, co-director of Energy Action Coalition, “We got to share with him what we care about.”
Will President Obama have a youth problem in 2012? In the 2008 election, young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 picked Obama over John McCain by a 2 to 1 margin. Energy and environment are two issues that young people cite as important electoral concerns much more regularly than older adults. And when it comes to energy and environment, the administration hasn’t had all that much luck getting things done.
At Powershift, last night, attendees talked about the pressure of sitting down at the table with the President of the United States and, with all due respect, telling him that they are not satisfied with his policies and approaches on climate change. Recognizing the very difficult political situation, these concerns include the President’s emphasis of “clean coal“, expanding U.S. oil production, natural gas, and other (highly) questionable policy choices amid his energy security speech and proposals.
As the press release put it,
The young people expressed concerns with aspects of Obama’s energy policy, particularly ongoing reliance on dirty energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas. The young leaders also voiced concerns about continued subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
Yet, there was more than one note of optimism.
Although there were differences in the details of energy policy, another organizer at the meeting saw the president return to his roots.
“We saw the community organizer side of President Obama come out in this meeting,” said Maura Cowley, co-director of Power Shift. “I think we’re hoping it’s the beginning of a dialogue.”
To a certain extent, after hearing from those in the room, the President’s reaction and guidance is in line with what he has told environmental activists and organizations over the past several years: ‘Create the political space in which I can act.’
That, in no small part, is why there are 10,000 committed youth from across the nation: to be trained to become more effective activists to help create real change on the ground in their communities (their universities and beyond) and to become more effective advocates for the broader changes that the nation should take to seize the clean energy revolution’s opportunities while taking serious measures to mitigate climate disruption.
“We’re conducting the largest grassroots organizing training in history, to prepare young leaders to go back to their communities and lead, and we’re calling on President Obama and Congress to join us in standing up to Big Polluters and creating a clean energy economy,” said Maura Cowley, Co-Director of Energy Action Coalition. “Young people know we need a clean energy policy not based on things that kill people, whether it’s dirty coal or dangerous nuclear,” Cowley added.
The hardest challenges for moving to a clean energy future are not technological or engineering … they are cultural and procedural and shifting incentive mechanisms and so many other intangible — but ever so real — barriers. Breaking through these barriers to enable tangible progress is a necessary, difficult, and often messy task.
Sometimes, this process occurs with a bright light.
This evening, at Powershift 2011, Van Jones began his talk highlighting Solar Mosaiic. To provide the very short description, Solar Mosaiic will enable people to share the costs of deploying renewable energy (solar energy) one small building block at a time. Can’t afford an entire solar system but can chip in a little? You can buy your share of a deploying system and share in the benefits. As Van put it (in not direct quotes) …
Don’t leave anybody behind. Wealthy people have the solar panels. The poor have the big energy bills. The poor can’t afford the solar panels. Shift the power. We can’t afford the poor people NOT to have solar panels.
I love rich folks. But they tend to live in the hills where it is shady. Poor people live in the flat places where it is hot. How about we have the solar panels there and have the energy companies write them some checks to put some food on the table.
“We can’t afford the poor people not to have solar panels.” Mosaiic, beginning in Oakland this summer, is an effort to enable them to have those panels.
Solar Mosaic connects people who want to go solar with the buildings that have the ideal roofs and space to go solar. Mosaics are works of art where many pieces come together to form a whole. With Solar Mosaics, many people come together to build community solar projects.
From the press release,
“Community solar is an exciting new model for Oakland that addresses unemployment and the need for green energy at the same time,” shared Jakada Imani, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center. “Not only will solar help local community centers and public schools reduce their energy costs, but Solar Mosaic Oakland will give people much-needed jobs and build the local green economy. This project is a win-win for Oakland.”
By raising a total $500,000 in funds, Solar Mosaic Oakland will install 140kW of solar power on seven community buildings in Oakland. The project will create 2,240 local job hours, prevent 4.6 million pounds of coal from having to be burned, provide long-term utility cost savings for budget-strapped local non-profits, and showcase a model for cities around the world to follow. Program partners plan to raise additional funds to expand the project far beyond the first seven rooftops.
“Now, for the first time, there’s a way for every person in the country to ‘go solar’ by buying tiles in a community solar project.” remarked Billy Parish, President of Solar Mosaic. “This a model that can spread across Oakland, and then across the nation.”
Solar Mosaiic is an interesting approach to break through the barriers inhibiting rapid and extensive deployment of renewable energy systems in America. It merits watching … and encouraging.
As Energy Conservation Chair of a master metered condo, I am tracking our building’s progress and problems and invite your comments, suggestions and experiences. Maybe we can learn to solve this problem if we work together. My last entry was April 3rd: Solving the energy wasting dilemma of residential master metering.
Our building received a grant from the State of Maryland to conduct an energy audit. Our Board approved a budget including implementing some of the audit recommendations. Our local electric utility company, PEPCO, is giving incentives to get this kind of work done. And our management company didn’t move to get contracts ready for the fiscal year, starting in January. In March they finally identified a contractor and the board was ready to “sign on the dotted line.” In late March our County government announced a $1.75 million grant program available to condos like mine. It could be coupled with the PEPCO incentive, cover up to $75,000 for a single project (like our building) and cover 50%. It could not be applied to work already underway or completed. Serendipity! The delay in getting our project going makes in conceivable we could be paid back almost 100% of our cost!
Catch 22. The application needs to be in the County’s offices by April 15. Our Board president left the country for two weeks on April 12th. He was to complete the application. Tune in. I have not heard whether or not the application was sent in.
One of the realities of American politics is that the paid machine of distorting anti-science syndrome suffering haters of a livable economic system works the interpreters, HARD! When the Tea Party mobilizes 400 people in front of a scowling Abraham Lincoln at the Reflecting Pool at Faux News’ Beck and call, America’s real media shows up … in force. To see one salaried journalist for every 10-20 Tea Party activists isn’t an unusual ratio. Front page stories, CNN lead items, radio items galore will all result. And, media outlets will be deluged with complaints that they didn’t give this “mass event” adequate coverage.
10,000 of America’s most impassioned youth come to Washington, DC … meet with the President … have people being arrested at the Congress … and reminds one of the question “if a tree fell in the forest and noone heard, did it make a noise”.
This, of course, is somewhat a mischaracterization of the situation here at Powershift 2011.
The “youth blame Obama” narrative about Power Shift 2011 seems disempowering and trapped within the frame that all we needed to win was a stronger president. Coverage of Power Shift needs to break out of the hero-savior-villain electoral politics mold and elevate the transformative aspirations of this conference, namely the largest mobilization and leadership training of a generation. Sure, DC reporters love to write stories about how the disenchantment among youth with Obama over climate could affect his electoral chances, but that’s not what we’re fighting for. We’re fighting against the destruction of our air, our land, our democracy, our dreams of a better world. The dynamics of the Obama 2012 campaign and its relationship to the Millenial generation can be a powerful lever for change, but that’s all it is. A means, not an end.
The arrests in Congress did get blog posts (NY Times, Washington Post) and will likely make it into the papers and into some TV coverage.
And, yes, Faux News is at Powershift … notably seeking out the scraggiest looking attendees for interviews outside the event.
Thus, Powershift 2011 does have ‘media coverage’ but the paid journalist representation is nothing like 1 to 10 or even 1 to 100. Of course, this is partially driven by the number of attendees. 1000 journalists for 10,000 youth climate activists might be asking too much. But, we aren’t talking 100 journalists on scene. In fact, these 10,000 youth climate activists seemingly ‘merit’ a fraction of the paid staff coverage of a Tea Party corner event.
Working the mediators, the interpreters works.
NOTEs.
Powershift merits far more than cursory coverage. The speakers are impressive and exciting. The attendees are diverse and impassioned. And, well, this crowd leaves the DC Convention Center Monday to make its (their) voice heard outside the Convention halls and into the Halls of Congress.
When you log it to watch Powershift 2011 live there is a rather disconcerting element: you will be treated to a BP advertisement extolling the virtues of BP’s Gulf clean up efforts.. Hmmmm … it is hard to believe that the organizers agreed to this.
