Odds and Ends

Odds and Ends edition of the blog today:

First Odds and Ends item: pet peeves. Energy efficiency, energy conservation, and alternative energy are three different concepts. Since President Obama announced tax credits for home improvements, this may begin to get muddled into a "one and the same", but they are very different and the differences matter.

Energy efficiency: Using less to do the same amount of activity. Cars that get 40 MPG are more efficient than those that get 20 MPG.

Energy conservation: Cutting back on energy used (usually by doing less). The car analogy here is driving less by more effectively planning trips.

Alternative energy: Has everything to do with what the energy source is and nothing to do with how much is getting used. Solar, wind, and geothermal are alternative energy sources, but you can still use them inefficiently.

Note, the first two save you money. The third only saves you money if the alternative energy is priced cheaper than the conventional energy. All three are essential for true sustainability.

Second Odds and Ends item: Al Gore is once again proving he can swallow his foot whole. With all due respect for the attention that Gore has brought to the issues of the environment, he has perhaps done as much to harm the cause as he has to help it. Only time will tell what the balance of Gore's contributions will be, but times like this only leave us wondering if he will have hurt more than helped.

Climate Action Hero

Climategate Exposed!

In the aftermath of "climategate" this blog examined the importance of global climate change to the sustainability effort. Now, with the benefit of time and careful examination, it is appropriate to talk about the hacked East Anglia e-mails and their repercussions. Whereas before the story of these e-mails was that they existed, we can now be a little more careful about what exactly they say and what that means for climate science.

To review: in late November e-mails that had been hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were released to the general public. The e-mails caused quite a stir in America (indeed around the world) because they appeared to show a deliberate effort on the part of leading climate researchers to....well,....do something. Actually, a clear headed reflection on the level to which it was possible to know anything in the immediate aftermath shows the only thing we really knew right away with any certainty was these were not the e-mails in which the scientists had planned the office Christmas party. The rest of the muddled picture involved threats against fellow scientists, talk of mysterious "tricks", and even a rousing discussion of the true meaning of peer review.

What mattered most about these e-mails was not actually what the e-mails said, but what people thought they said. So the war over saying what the e-mails said began. Conservative politicians and personalities lined up on the side that saw these e-mails as the smoking gun in a long planned conspiracy to rob from the rich of the world and redistribute their wealth to hopeless third world countries who would immediately become organized enough to rub it in America's face. Liberal personalities vigorously denied the e-mails said anything at all. And even if they did say something, it was obviously being said way out of context. Which is a time honored political tactic that liberals are never guilty of.

But because some people still actually care about the facts of a news story. And because those people happen to work for the otherwise incredibly boring Associated Press, we are finally getting a picture of what was really in those pilfered e-mails. An independent review of the e-mails by five AP reporters produced the following results:

-CRU scientists have bad manners while discussing other scientists

-CRU scientists should have remembered that they are scientists and not politicians or used car salesmen

-CRU scientists should spend more time reading, "What NOT To Do On Your Work Computer" articles on Yahoo!

On a serious note, the AP review of the e-mails showed very many cases of poor taste and nearly zero fabrications of significance to the overall science of climate change. Climategate has allowed everyone an insight into the ultra competitive world of cutting edge science and has highlighted the need for greater transparency in the pursuit of sound scientific evidence. Indeed, particular climate scientists come out looking like jerks. What it unequivocally has not done is crack the basic foundation of global climate change science.

Unfortunately, as noted earlier, it matters very little what these e-mails actually said. We had two weeks to battle this out on the news channels and the talk radio shows. For two weeks, talking heads "debated" what exactly was in these e-mails. All of this happened before anyone had actually taken the time to read them. Now that the AP report has been released, it is unfortunately too late to be bothered with for most people.

It would be nice to see this new review of the e-mails discussed on as large a scale as the initial news story. It would do the scientific community good and also serve as a caution to many who make their profession out of being a pundit. No one ends up looking good here. Except the AP. And that's saying something, because those guys are really boring.

Can Sustainability Survive? (Part II)

Part Two of a Three Part Discussion on whether sustainable thinking has gained enough momentum to endure and achieve its aims.

Part Two: Has sustainable thinking progressed far enough into our culture to remain relevant for the foreseeable future?

It is virtually impossible to miss a concern for the environment as you go about daily life in America. Whether the messaging is part of a genuine effort to change our interaction with the environment or just part of a greenwashing campaign, we are now living in a green era. An era in which care for the environment has gone from the nagging of protesters (although they are still around) to the chic clothing, shopping bags, cars, and technology of the sustainable future.

But is the presence of green in most facets of daily life enough to guarantee that it will continue to be a relevant way of life? Probably not.

In order to have staying presence sustainability and sustainable thinking must have a hook. An anchor. Gravity. Something that makes it worth paying attention to not just in the short term, but for the long term as well. In some ways, up until recently, it had been the persistence of environmental advocates that lent this gravity to sustainability. Sustainability's presence as a buzz word in popular culture is relatively new, but the ideas of sustainability are much older. Dedication to the cause carried sustainable thinking through many other cultural shifts, until such a time (around the turn of the century), when sustainable thinking became popular thinking. It was now suddenly popular to be green, popular to drive hybrid cars, popular to shop for eco-friendly products.

Popularity is wonderful. It is also fickle and sustainability advocates should recognize that it is a poor indicator of how far you have gone in creating a shift in the American mindset.

This is not to say that cultural enthusiasm for sustainability is doomed to peak low and die out. Expect it to do the opposite. It is an area in which the potential for growth in popularity and relevance is huge. Ideally, sustainable thinking would become such a part of the national psyche that we would never see it die out. Rather, this is only to say that when it comes to penetrating culture, sustainability advocates have a long way to go. Issues related to the environment have dropped far down the list of concerns that Americans have about their lives and with good reason. It is difficult to care about the survival of the environment when you feel your own survival is at risk because you cannot afford to put food on the table.

This assessment is not a damning of the sustainability endeavor. It is a caution against thinking that a cultural shift has already occurred. Sustainability advocates have made excellent and commendable progress. But right now, the movement is one without a hook, without a compelling gravity that has connected meaningfully with the broader American public. While keeping the movement at the forefront, advocates should be considering what story is the best story to tell the American people. Once they find this story, they will have created a sustainable movement.

My other posts should give an indicator as to what I think the compelling story for sustainability is. A future post will depict this story in greater detail. Part Three of this series will speak about the business world and if sustainability has become a permanent part of doing business.

Does Sustainability Need Climate Change?

Much has been made in recent days about science that either supports or does not support the idea of global climate change and its resulting effects. Laying aside the strictly scientific questions, this post considers whether the sustainability movement needs global climate change in order to be relevant to America and the rest of the world.

The most recent news item surrounding climate change has nothing (and everything) to do with the Copenhagen negotiations coming up next week. Hackers were successful in stealing e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that show some of the leading climate scientists in less than a flattering light. Aside from the personal shortcomings that may come off in the text of the e-mails, there has also been a wide amount of controversy surrounding phrases that seem to suggest that climate science isn't the bedrock of truth that we might think it is.

The object of this post is not to explore whether or not the climate science is solid or whether or not the faith that has been placed in climate scientists is merited. Instead, the controversy has sparked another question: if climate change isn't happening, what would that mean for sustainability? Or more appropriately, does sustainability need climate change in order to remain relevant?

To those who have a rock solid faith in climate change science, this may seem like an absurd question to be considering. "Why not," they might ask, "spend time focusing on defending the climate science instead of wasting time responding to situations that are not true?" The reason I have decided to speculate on this topic is two fold. First, I have no ability to defend the raw science of climate change. Secondly, the question I am proposing is absolutely vital to advancing the sustainability framework in the minds of those who do discount climate change. Right or wrong, a wide portion of the population does not believe climate change science is accurate enough. Advocates of sustainability must have an answer for why their way of viewing the world is still relevant. One would hope that sustainability has more than just one leg to stand on.

Admittedly, the recent advancement of the sustainability framework owes a great deal to the discussion surrounding climate change. Most of the time, in popular media and in politics, sustainability and climate change can seem like interchangeable topics. A reasoned examination of both shows that neither is interchangeable with the other. Although, if climate change is real it would be a large portion of the sustainability framework. Still, sustainability covers our entire interaction with the environment including sub-divisions that are related to the ideas of climate change but are robust enough to stand on their own. These are the issues such as natural resource depletion, water shortages, toxic chemicals, our disposable society, and the protection of biodiversity. All of these issues fall under the umbrella of sustainability.

So the answer to our question is easy in one sense. Does sustainability collapse when climate change is eliminated from the picture? Of course not. Many environmental issues remain that provide sustainability sufficient reason to be a foremost consideration in our time. A more interesting and difficult question to pin down is this: does sustainability need climate change in order to remain as pressing and immediate a concern?

This circles back to the reality that without climate change, sustainability would not have risen as quickly as it has to the forefront of our culture. Climate change, rightly or wrongly, ignited a concern in people that immediate action was needed on environmental issues. It is fair and right to say that without climate change, sustainability may not even be on the radar screens of businesses, citizens, and governments. It is also fair to say that while some of the time lines for action on other environmental issues are pressing, none pack quite the emotional punch of the worldwide flooding, natural disasters, and talk of a return to another ice age that climate change conversations entail.

So it is certainly easier to get people to pay attention to sustainability if they are already concerned about climate change. Remove the support of climate change concern and sustainability more than likely drops off the map for many people. Therefore to remain relevant, advocates for a more sustainable method of living will have to put in extra work in order to make a case that doesn't include climate change. Should they? My answer is unequivocally yes. Make the case that sustainability is essential, regardless of what an individual might think about climate science. A more clear way of looking at this might be this: set aside all the debate over climate change and think for a moment how un-sustainable California's water supply and delivery system is. This is a real environmental issue that sustainability has much to say about. The input of the sustainability framework on the water resources issues in California is good input regardless of climate change.

Climate change should continue to be investigated honestly by the best and brightest minds in the scientific community. But to make sure the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater one day, sustainability advocates would be wise not to pin their entire movement on climate change science. Even legitimate science could one day be rejected by policy makers. Sustainability proponents should take a lesson from investment advisers and diversify, diversify, diversify. There are plenty of reasons to keep up the push.