Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Repower America for clean air.
[Read more →]

We all have choices to make in life, some easier than others.

Perhaps to basic MBA penny-pinching, earning dollars off others’ lungs through ignoring coal pollution’s externalities, or a Corporate culture that remains ignorant of social costs, one of the most popular websites in the globe made the choice to poison all 500,000,000 of its “friends” by being a Friend to unfriendly and polluting Coal-fired electricity.

Facebook recently chose to operate its first data center, located in Prineville, Oregon, US, with energy from Pacific Power, a utility 60% fueled by coal. By the way, let’s not forget that Facebook isn’t exactly the smallest of data demands: this could well be the world’s largest data center (with a power demand in the range of 30-40,000 homes).  Now, Facebook defends their decision to use a coal-heavy mix (nearly 50% more coal than the national average) since their data center will be less energy demanding (more efficient) due to the climate:

if we located the data centre most other places, we would need mechanical chillers, use more energy, and be responsible for more overall carbon in the air – even if that location was fuelled by more renewable energy.

Really? To be honest, I’d like to see the calculations and the material showing just how aggressively they are ‘greening’ their IT within the walls of the data center.

In any event, energy issues can be thought of as  a three-legged stool:

1. What we want.
2. How we get it.
3. The power sources supporting it.

Facebook is asserting that it is planning to meet [1] with a highly efficient [2] and therefore we should ignore [3].  Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.  We need to tackle all three, at all levels of the economy and society, to have any hope of navigating the Perfect Storm crisis of economic travails, peak oil, and mounting climate chaos.

And, it isn’t like data centers and computing are a small thing, irrelevant to questions of energy use and Global Warming. Let’s put this in perspective. According to one recent analysis, at current growth rates, data centers and telecommunication networks will consume about 1,963 billion kilowatts hours of electricity in 2020, more than triple their current consumption and over half the current electricity consumption of the United States — or more than France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined.

Now, to be clear, too many people are willing to exaggerate the role that IT plays in climate change when, in fact, the truth is that IT is contributing to reduced emissions in many ways and is a fall smaller problem than automobile emissions or destructive land use practices.  However, IT powered with clean energy is truly part of a solutions path compared the destruction created through powering our systems with dirtier than necessary electricity.

Well, Greenpeace has been mounting a campaign to call attention to Facebook‘s dirty coal friend.

Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International, urged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to commit his company to a plan to phase out the use of dirty coal-fired electricity. In a letter to Facebook, Naidoo said: “Facebook is uniquely positioned to be a truly visible and influential leader to drive the deployment of clean energy.”

With a documentary on Facebook’s founding about to come out, Greenpeace decided to provide a documentary of its own.   Even if I agree with Robin Wauters that some of it is perhaps of questionable taste (“What’s the point of making fun of [Zuckerberg] for being a “nerd”?”), take a few minutes to watch this; you won’t regret the time.

The basic point is true: Facebook (and Zukerberg) have a choice. They could choice to help drive clean power, purchasing wind electricity or otherwise working with Pacific Power to increase renewable power in utility’s mix.  Or, as they’ve down, they could hunker down and defend their position to buy polluting electricity. Let’s hope that they revisit that choice.

Action : Join the campaign to get Facebook to unfriend coal

PS: Now, there is another issue: Greenpeace’s servers aren’t very clean but Greenpeace is, with all the associated problems, buying offsets in recognition of its data servers carbon footprints.  Hint: Do you know where your computing electrons come from and their carbon/polluting footprint?

[Read more →]

As I write this, the count-down is on for the Progressive Automotive X-Prize winners announcement, which will start in just a few minutes. (live video) I had been planning, with the award announcement, to take the time to do a post on this prize, the process, and the winners. In short, this Prize (with 12 finalists of 111 teams with 137 entrants) seeks to help drive, with a $10 million award, forward more energy efficient automobiles.

Why this quick post: because I had not realized that the award process is actually taking place in Washington, DC, ‘around the corner from me’. And, well, if it is hard to get to the Historical Society of Washington in just a few minutes the car winners will be on Capitol Hill this afternoon.

AUTO X PRIZE: Entrepreneurs Driving the Future of Jobs and Energy Security

Congressional Briefing with X PRIZE Winners
***Winning Vehicles to be on Display at Capitol***

September 16, 2010 – Building new high-efficiency cars that reach 100 MPG will cut America’s dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. On Thursday, September 16, 2010, the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE will be announcing the winners of their 31 month-long competition to build a production-capable vehicle that can achieve this goal.

Following the announcement, the winners of the competition will head to Capitol Hill to brief Members of Congress on their solutions. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a congressional briefing with the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE winners at 2:00pm on Thursday September 16th, 2010 in 210 Cannon House Office Building.

Immediately following the briefing, Members of Congress will be able to view the winning X PRIZE vehicles, which will be on display at the corner of C Street and New Jersey Ave between the Longworth and Cannon buildings.

The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational nonprofit organization whose mission is to create groundbreaking new technologies that benefit humanity and inspire the formation of new industries, jobs and the revitalization of markets.

WHAT: Select Committee Briefing, “Progressive Auto X PRIZE: How Entrepreneurs Are Driving the Future of Jobs and Energy Security”

WHEN: Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 2:00 P.M.

WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Capitol Complex

***PHOTO Availability with winning X PRIZE vehicles and Members of Congress will take place immediately following the briefing***

Nancy Pelosi is speaking in few minutes and then Science Advisor John Holdren and President Obama is going to meet with four of the Philadelphia High School students.

Go to the web and watch the event.

Alaska’s Senatorial showdown this November is between a Democratic candidate (Scott McAdams) who might have starred on TV’s Deadliest Catch if it had been around during McAdams’ fisherman days and a Republican candidate, Joe Miller, whose out-of-touch with reality views and out-of-whack with voters policy constructs have led some to deem him America’s Craziest Catch.

This clip, of course, is time limited and therefore leaves out many of Miller’s outlandishly ignorant perspectives.

For example, when it comes to climate change, Miller speaks with talking points disdainful of science and simply ignorant.

“I think it’s undeniable, that anyone who has looked at the natural record of the Earth can see significant cyclical changes well before the industrial age, so we know the temperature change is part of the process of our existence, and frankly, you’re probably aware in the ’70s there were real concerns about global cooling.”

So much misleading truthiness in just one paragraph. For example,

1. There is no (NO) climate scientist who asserts that, throughout geologic history, there has not been (and, into the future, will be) natural variations of the Earth’s climate. The warming of the past century, however, cannot be primarily explained (with verifiable science) via natural processes. The issue is how humanity’s thumb is tipping the scales. And, here, the evidence is quite clear that humanity is changing the climate.
2. The “very real concerns about global cooling” shibboleth rises again. Very simply, peer review examination of the scientific literature of the period documents that — even then — there were greater concerns about warming than cooling in the 1970s.

This paragraph is rich in its anti-science syndrome symptoms, seeking to confuse while not adding truth to the discussion.

“We haven’t heard there’s man-made global warming.”

This is truly striking.

• Alaska is warming faster than anywhere else in the United States.
• There are already towns lost to the warming climate.
• Alaskan infrastructure is struggling to cope with warming conditions.
• Animals are changing their patterns — and dying — due to climate change.

As USA Today put it years ago, “Alaska the ‘poster state’ for climate concerns“.

And, Joe hasn’t heard?

I know Alaska is remote but does TV and the Internet somehow not reach Miller’s home and office? “We haven’t heard” might be because Miller isn’t listening.

“Second, even if we proved that, we have not proven we have a solution that works.”

Again, shibboleths and truthiness and outright deception.

“Proof” is a pretty strong standard, but we have a panoply of meaningful Silver Bullets to address climate mitigation requirements while putting people back to work, strengthening the economy, and improving national security.

And third, even if we’ve proven that, we haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the solutions like cap-and-trade that Sen. Murkowski has proposed are actually worth the cost to people.”

Who’s that “we”, Joe? There are lots of cost-benefit analyses and, the non-industry funded honest ones at least, they come down strongly that action will (at worst) have a minor cost while providing (some) insurance against catastrophic climate change.

Of course, that’s not all. Alaska’s Craziest Catch’s campaign website addresses climate change:

The science supporting manmade climate change is inconclusive. Nothing typifies that more than the metamorphosis in terminology being used. A few years ago, the dire warnings coming from Al Gore and others all spoke of “Global Warming.” The term “Greenhouse Gas” itself conjures up images of the unnatural heat found in a manmade environment. However, since the trend in more recent years has been towards cooler temperatures, those (like Senator Murkowski and others) pushing for cap and trade and other carbon emission reducing legislation have had to change their terminology to “Climate Change.” Should we take drastic measures to combat something that may not even exist, burdening our already struggling economy with billions in new taxes and regulations?

Truthiness talking points masquerading as something meriting discussion by a potential member of the U.S. Senate.

• Re the term, the International Panel on Climate Change was formed some 20 years ago and had nothing to do with “more recent years” that Miller is referring to.  And, more directly, it actually was a Republican operative, Frank Luntz, who fought hard for “climate change” rather than global warming in advice to Republican politicians and operatives:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

1) “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

• “the trend in more recent years has been towards cooler temperatures” seems a bit odd when the past decade has been the hottest decade globally since the creation of a global temperature record (past 150 years) and likely the hottest in 1000s (or more) years.  And, when nine of the ten hottest years in that recorded history are in the past decade. And, when 2010 is on track for being the hottest year in modern human history.  Seems to me that Joe needs to go back to a seventh-grade math class to learn something about how one identifies ‘trends’.
• Sadly, the science is far from “inconclusive”.  And, Joe’s assertion that it is flies in the face of the conclusions of every single relevant major scientific institution on the planet that humanity’s thumb is impacting climate conditions and that we should act to address (reduce) those impacts.

Of course, anti-science syndrome suffering Miller then seques directly into truthiness arguing that climate mitigation would cost the economy when, in fact, we should be tallying all the benefits that strong climate change mitigation efforts would produce.

While Miller might be Alaska’s Craziest Catch, when it comes to climate science, the panoply of Climate Zombie Republican 2010 Senate candidates might be America’s Craziest Catches: every single one of the 2010 Republican Party Senate candidates is, in one way or another (or in every way), at odds with the scientific community and at odds with taking meaningful action to protect Americans from catastrophic climate chaos.

[Read more →]

Whether it is Corporatist manipulation to undermine science (tobacco, chemicals) or bizarre conspiracy theory paths (AIDS is caused by West and isn’t related to sex) or overwrought Luddite parents (vaccinations), a simple truth:

Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers threaten lives.

In early 2009, Joe Romm laid out the preliminary diagnostician’s tool for anti-science syndrome .  As he noted,

Like most syndromes, anti-science syndrome [ASS] is a collection of symptoms that individually may not be serious, but taken together can be quite dangerous — at least it can be dangerous to the health and well-being of humanity if enough people actually believe the victims.

Romm laid out three key elements in the realm of climatology and climate science that are indicative of an ASS sufferer

• Focuses attacks on non-scientists.
• Repetition of long-debunked denier talking points, commonly without links to supporting material.
• Scientists (and others) who restate and republishing claims widely debunked in the scientific literature.

Romm suggested that there are many people who fit the whole diagnostic list and are appropriately referred to as  A.S.S.-wholes.

Anti-Science Syndrome sufferers, of course, are not limited to the domain of climate science. There were a range of “scientists” who questioned, no matter how often their arguments were refuted, whether tobacco could cause cancer. There are those who, perhaps in the pursuit of profit, will count up the “benefits” of (for example) insecticides without placing any value onto the costs.  Not surprisingly, there is significant overlap between scientists who are climate skeptics with those who work against science in other realms.  (Highly recommended, on this, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s Merchants of Doubt.) In other words, there is the entire realm of anti-science syndrome  — with a coterie of credentialed scientists in it — euphemistically called sound science.

Sound science is a phrase often used by corporate public relations and government agency spokesmen to describe the scientific research used to justify a claim or position. Sound science, however, has no specific scientific definition itself, so the phrase is used subjectively. “Sound science” is not a synonym of “good science” practices, but rather it is an ideological policy statement more about the criteria for the use of science in policy making. It is invoked mostly to call into question the validity of a given study or scientific statement.

Lack of “sound science” is a common critique used against public health and consumer activists in an attempt to discredit their concerns about public safety and environmental risk. Junk science is often presented as the opposite of “sound science,” usually for propagandistic purposes that favor industry.

Many* advocates of Sound Science are, in fact, Anti-Science Syndrome sufferers seeking to infect others, especially public policy, with their anti-science delusions.

When we begin to examine, truly, the impacts of these perspectives and these arguments, we find that their beliefs could provide economics for the short-term and/or specific elements (organizations), but which serve to undercut the viability and strength of the overall economic system.  Other than in terms of reducing long-term social security payments due to higher mortality, does anyone seriously want to argue that the over economic system and society are strengthened via increased tobacco smoking?  While chemicals (plastics, etc) are critical to modern society and our wealth, does anyone seriously want to argue that misrepresentations and deceptions as to the medical and other impacts of a chemical benefit society and promote long-term economic health?  Did ‘sound science’ arguing that CFCs really didn’t contribute to the ozone layer depletion, that ozone depletion wasn’t a big risk, and, finally, that dealing with the ozone challenge would be too expensive contribute to developing a healthier economic system?  And, promoting truthiness and deception-laden talking points about climate change risks and climate change mitigation benefits does not foster a stronger and more secure economic future.  In short, these Anti-Science Syndrome sufferers foster and demonstrate a fundamental Hatred Of a Livable Economic System.

While, sometimes in the short but definitely in the long-term, these anti-science syndrome sufferers undermine societal strength in economic and other terms, they do something else: they directly and indirectly threaten lives.

For example, the Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers promoting falsehoods about the risks of vaccines (re, for example, autism and vaccines foster increased risks of disease:

Concerns about a link between vaccines and autism were first raised more than a decade ago by British physician Andrew Wakefield.

His report, based on 12 children, has since been discredited and was retracted earlier this year by the journal that published it. In the meantime, it sparked a fierce worldwide debate among scientists and a health scare that caused many parents to shy away from recommended vaccines like the one against measles, mumps and rubella.

Outbreaks of all three diseases followed.

Sigh.  A direct case where Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers threatened (and, well, cost) lives. Even though this is discredited work, there are parents in my (and likely your) community who are fiercely proud that they have stood up to those wacky scientists and doctors with refusing to let their children have any vaccines. They complain that the rules won’t let their children go to the public school system without these vaccines. In this case, the authorities are siding with the science.

In that case, vaccines, there are not massive financial interests (that I am aware of) interested in undermining the science.  And, this makes it that much easier for authorities to side with science.

Sadly, that is not the case with tobacco, plastics, formaldehyde’s health risks, and all too many areas of modern human civilization. There are large — to huge — financial gains to be made with public confusion about the actual state of the science and scientific understandings.  And, these potential and real financial gains create significant incentives to undermine science and put roadblocks before government authorities acting in light of scientific understandings. The mother of all these arenas, in terms of financial interests and impacts on humanity?  Climate Change science.

The fossil foolish and related interests have, quite literally, many $trillions at stake and they are willing to spend $billions to protect $10s of billions of profits.  And, there efforts have been paying off.  Even as the scientific understanding of climate change increases, even as the world increasingly demonstrates warming and increasingly chaotic weather patterns, even as … there is (again) increasing confusion in the American electorate about climate change science.  (Actually, there is increasing certainty within one party: certainty that the scientific community is engaged in a massive fraud and that climate change is not an issue meriting concern or action.)  The 2010 election risks a serious shift in Congress away from any substantive (truthful) understanding of climate science and away from any willingness to engage in serious discussion about actions to mitigate climate change.

These Climate Zombies are essentially the epitome of Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economic System.  They are willing to sacrifice others at the altar of a false deity of “free-market capitalism” unbounded by regulation and unconstrained about concerns for “externalities”.  And, sacrifice is a quite accurate term with humanity’s impact on the climate system already tipping the scales to contribute (massively) to other species extinctions and to human deaths (through droughts, disasters, and other climate chaos impacts).  Their Anti-Science Syndrome suffering, if given even more power, will threaten even more lives in the years to come.

=================

* NOTE:   Sadly, as with many ‘green/white washing’ terms, “sound science” sounds all too good. Real scientists and substantive scientific institutions, concerned about real issues, too often end up adapting the term.

R L Miller comes to the table with thoughtful, informed, insightful, and passionate writing. This guest post is the second (here is the first and here the second) of RL Miller’s highlighting the anti-science syndrome suffering hatred of a livable economic system that is prevalent in the new wave of Republican candidates for Congress. An utter disdain for science, openly using truthiness-laden talking points that are simply false. To paraphrase a famous question, “Have you no shame, political candidate, no shame at all?”

They prowl the halls of Congress, moaning for caaasshh.

Their stupid has gone viral.

And if they win, humanity loses.

I’m tracking Climate Zombies: every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who doubts, denies, or derides the science of climate change.  Like this elected Representative, whose website proudly informs us that

Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.

[Read more →]

Earlier today, Rainforest Action Network (RAN)paid a visit to EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, and brought along a gift: a truckload of Appalachian dirt and rubble .  As per the photo, the message was simple:

EPA: don’t let King Coal dump on Appalachia.

This, of course, is referring to the damage in the ongoing War on Appalachia politely called “mountain-top removal” and the “fill” from these operations that are dumped in Appalachia’s valleys and streams with devastating impacts for the ecosystems and dangerous implications on human health.

The RAN activists dumped 1000 lbs of ‘fill’ to pressure the EPA to stand with science and veto the 2,278 acre Spruce Mountain MTR project in West Virginia.  EPA has, to date, been strongly indicating an intention to deny the Spruce Mountain permit. From nearly a year ago,

EPA is taking this action because it is concerned about the magnitude, scale, and severity of the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse environmental and water quality impacts associated with this project . The Spruce Mine as currently configured would bury more than seven miles of streams.

As per this spring,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said today it plans to significantly restrict or prohibit mountaintop mining at the Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County.

EPA said it made its decision after extended discussions with the company “failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease of the environmental and health impacts of the Spruce No. 1 mine.”

The EPA decision sparked complaints and criticism from Arch Coal and coal-state politicians.

Now, the Obama Administration recently delayed an announcement about Spruce Mountain. Some in the environmental community are, perhaps with reason, concern that mounting pressure from fossil-foolish (coal) interests and politicians could impact Administration decision-making during the election season.   Thus, RAN seeks to bring visibility to the issue and keep the heat on for a scientifically sound decision rather than a caving in to those willing to sacrifice tomorrow for the profits of burning polluting coal today.

The irony is too sweet (or, well, too painful). The RAN activists seeking to head off the dumping of 1000s of tons of material into Appalachia’s valleys and streams were, unlike those doing the permanent damage to the most diverse ecosystems in the continental United States, arrested:

@RAN activists detained at #EPA for “illegal dumping.” Meanwhile coal industry dumps in Appalachia’s drinking water everyday. #mtr #coal

To take action: RAN call form on Spruce Mountain.

Last evening, my better 95+% was flipping through the channels and received the rare: stop, go back to that. What was that? A Nissan “innovation” advertisement in which the Nissan Leaf played a prominent roll, “if you never needed to buy another gallon of gas …”

Watching this well-done advertisement made me think of Who Killed The Electric Car? and how GM used black-and-white anti-promoting advertising in relation to the EV-1 (See after the fold for examples.)

Nissan is aggressively marketing the Leaf, offering it as a sexy product which will, as well, help address the world’s challenges. And, it is doing so in catchy innovative ways. For example, there is Lance Armstrong with the Behind message to let people know that the Leaf, for the first time in his cycling career, offers the potential for biking without car exhaust in his face.

Perhaps the most aggressive, thinking of the political culture of the United States, is this strong (unstated) statement that electrification of transport is part of the path toward mitigation of (that non-existent problem of) climate change.

This Nissan advertisement stands in sharp contrast to many other car companies, such as Toyota’s support of climate deniers via the Lexus Darker Side of Green “debate” series.

As per Joe Romm,

As  an advertisement for a product aimed at a specific demographic,  I think it is quite clever.  I’d give it an A.

And maybe I should add a “+” for the fact Nissan ran this on Thursday’s National Football League opener, which featured the New Orleans Saints, the closest thing we have to America’s team thanks to Hurricane Katrina.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Romm’s post is highly recommended with many good points and a good deal of links within it.  Let me echo Romm in emphasizing the importance of a major Corporation embracing an iconic image re climate change science and using that in a prominent venue (the first NFL game of the year).

A tip of the hat to Nissan and their advertising company for putting out a scientifically sound advertisement (okay, no, don’t try to hug a polar bear) in promoting a real step forward with a product that could truly help climate mitigation solutions move ahead.

[Read more →]

Sadly, with each day, Republican Anti-Science Syndrome suffering is becoming ever more pronounced. While the attacks on science, scientific institutions, and scientific authority go well beyond this, Republican politicians are increasingly divorced from scientific institutions and knowledge in the realm of climate science.

There are, it seems, too basic groupings to consider: Climate Zombies and Climate Peacocks.

• Climate Zombies, as laid out by environmental blogger R.L. Miller, are people who stake out positions fundamentally at odds with science, stating bluntly material which is easily disprovable. They seem to rely on sound-bites from talking heads and pseudo-science rather than caring, it seems, whether their comments can stand up to any serious scrutiny.
• Climate Peacocks, as defined by the Wonkroom’s Brad Johnson, “claim to care about science, energy reform, and the environment, but have yet to find solutions to the threat of climate change.” The Climate Peacocks make noise about climate change being a serious problem but collaborate to inhibit real action from occurring.

The Climate Peacocks are a richly bi-partisan world, with “moderates” like the soon-to-be-retired Blanche Lincoln, oily Mary Landrieu, and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill all finding it too difficult to support real action to reduce emissions even while — to various degrees — agreeing climate change is real and is a problem.  There are few, however, on the Democratic Party side who take their misinformation and deceit to the level of directly misrepresenting academic studies and refusing to back off the misrepresentations when challenged as was seen with the Republican House deceptions as to the costs of climate mitigation action.

Climate Zombies, on the other hand, seem a much more partisan issue as seen in polling that shows fewer and fewer Republicans listening to science about climate change and the increasing number of openly ignorant statements about climate change coming from Republican politicians.

It has now reached the point where there is only one significant Republican Senate candidate — Mike Castle — of Delaware who does not dispute the basic scientific consensus that we must act (aggressively) to mitigate climate change or else face potential catastrophic climate chaos.  And, well, polling suggests that Castle’s days as a Senate candidate might be numbered.  Even politicians once (strongly) supportive of mitigation action, like John McCain and Mark Kirk, have retreated from those positions.  In other words, the Republican Party looks to be migrating from Climate Peacocks to Climate Zombies.

For a variety of reasons, ideological (distaste for government action) to religious (humanity can’t impact the planet) to fossil-foolish funding (donations, anyone), seemingly deliberate ignorance on basic scientific issues is becoming a core Republican Party attribute.

As with the lies about the costs of climate legislation, the deceit about and open ignorance of climate science is easily countered with accurate information but few Americans are seeing any ‘objective’ media analysis of this ignorant truthiness. Sadly, few (if any) in the traditional media seem to be noticing the Republican Party disdain for scientific institutions and scientists’ work.  And, if they are noticing, very few believe it is their responsibility to report on the Republican disconnect from scientific knowledge.

Simply put, climate change — the science about what is happening to the globe and humanity’s role in driving climate change — shouldn’t be an ideological issue. Where politics should come in is not to the question of the science but in discussing and determining what (if anything) we should about what scientists’ work is telling us. As I’ve written before,

The science is clear about the overall threat, even if specific details and specific trendlines into the future are less clear. The threat is clear — if one is open to science and knowledge. The “battle”, the political discussion space should have long been: what are the best paths forward, what are the best options / policies / regulations for moving us (the US and all of us) toward an Energy Smart future.

That the political parties, ideologies, and individuals would have different perspectives and priorities in addressing what we should (or shouldn’t) do in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation is absolutely normal and to be expected.

Sadly, however, science is a partisan issue.

And, even more distressingly, survival of the planetary system’s ability to support human civilization has become a partisan issue.

WarrenS has taken on an admirable resolution: to send a letter to the editor (LTE) (or, well, a major politician) every single day, on the critical issues of climate change and energy. This discusses his approach and here is an amusing ‘template’ to for rapid letter writing.

Now, I have always written letters and even had many published — just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.

Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters … perhaps that should change. Thus, below is what might be the first in an “unpublished letters” series publishing those LTEs that don’t get picked up by the editors.

9 April 2007

To the Editors, Newsweek,

In “The Case for a Global Carbon Tax”, Fareed Zakaria writes that “we consume three times as much energy as we did 30 years ago.” In fact, according to the US government’s Energy Information Agency, this is not true. In 1976, total US energy use was 76 quadrillion Btu. In 2006: 99.7 quadrillion Btus. That percentage increase was 31% rather than the 200% (“three times”) in the article. In that time period the US economy tripled while the US population grew by 36.9%. Thus, with a growing economy, there was actually a per capita decrease in energy use.

Mr Zakaria uses incorrect information to support an incorrect conclusion: “In the end, everyone realizes that innovation is the only real solution to the global-warming problem. And that’s where Cheney is right. Conservation and energy efficiency are smart policies, but not enough.” Well, many energy experts would disagree with this statement, such as Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), who coined the phrase “negawatts” to desribe the reality that we can save a tremendous amount of energy for less than it costs to create new energy generation capability. Study after study bear this out. Conservation and Efficiency have worked wonders and yet tremendous potential remains for even more savings.

Zakaria states that “rising living standards mean rising energy use”. This ‘truism’ is not necessarily true. California, for example, uses the same level of electricity per capita that it did 30 years ago while the rest of the nation has seen 60% increased electrical use per capita. How did California achieve this? Did Californians somehow do without the “rising living standards” that Zakaria discusses? No, absolutely not. What has occurred is a systematic investment — from power generation to the home — in better building codes and better technologies to achieve more efficient use of energy.

Sadly, this article doesn’t rest on shaky ground but on falsehoods. Getting the facts wrong in major publications does not help the nation move toward a better future.

Sincerely,

A Siegel

NOTE: Blog post version (with links sourcing the cited data) of this letter at Fareed Zakaria …Wrong Facts Drive Wrong Conclusions