A surprising idea for "solving" climate change
November 21, 2007 9:34 AM Subscribe
The historically significant* "4th IPCC report on global warming" was published in full last weekend to wide publicity. Part 1 "The Science". Part 2 "The Impacts" and Part 3 "The Solutions" - each about a 1000 page 6 pound brick, but summaries make it accessible. Beyond its gloomy dire warnings and calls for immediate action, observed global measurements of CO2 levels are already worse than the worse case scenarios and some say the report is overly conservative and already outdated. However there is a surprising idea for "solving" climate change (TED) that may be inevitable.
Not to worry. It is all a part of a cycle and will turn better years from now.Scary stuff from lety bloggers and science people and untrustworthy UN.
posted by Postroad at 9:44 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by Postroad at 9:44 AM on November 21, 2007
Surprising -- and stupid! How often do those go together!
posted by lodurr at 9:46 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by lodurr at 9:46 AM on November 21, 2007
(... also I will nitfilter a bit about the title tag. You're leding with the IPCC report, and Keith's wildly rash suggestion is just a sweetener at the close. I realize this is a common way to formulate news stories, but it's annoying.)
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on November 21, 2007
there is a surprising idea for "solving" climate change (TED) that may be inevitable.
Surprising? Hardly. Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.
As a counterbalance, however, I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the "stabilization wedge" concept proposed by Pacala and Socolow of Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The opening line of their 2004 unveiling of the wedges in the pages of Science is worth repeating endlessly until we're all completely clear on it:
Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration.
Full disclosure: I once sat on a climate change discussion panel with David Keith here in Calgary. He's a very bright and passionate man, but like a great many scientists his skill at reading public moods and social trends is quite weak.
As far as I can tell, he fails to recognize a significant difference between solar-power advocates working out of their garages in 1980 and the German government providing comprehensive incentives to spur the installation hundreds of thousands of small-scale solar plants. Or, put another way, between buying a CFL bulb that flickers and hums for ten times the price of incandescents at the Clean Calgary Association retail store in 1995 and buying flicker-free ones for maybe double the incandescent price in a ten-pack at Wal-Mart today.
posted by gompa at 9:58 AM on November 21, 2007
Surprising? Hardly. Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.
As a counterbalance, however, I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the "stabilization wedge" concept proposed by Pacala and Socolow of Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The opening line of their 2004 unveiling of the wedges in the pages of Science is worth repeating endlessly until we're all completely clear on it:
Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration.
Full disclosure: I once sat on a climate change discussion panel with David Keith here in Calgary. He's a very bright and passionate man, but like a great many scientists his skill at reading public moods and social trends is quite weak.
As far as I can tell, he fails to recognize a significant difference between solar-power advocates working out of their garages in 1980 and the German government providing comprehensive incentives to spur the installation hundreds of thousands of small-scale solar plants. Or, put another way, between buying a CFL bulb that flickers and hums for ten times the price of incandescents at the Clean Calgary Association retail store in 1995 and buying flicker-free ones for maybe double the incandescent price in a ten-pack at Wal-Mart today.
posted by gompa at 9:58 AM on November 21, 2007
BUT WHAT ABOUT INFLATION DOESN'T THAT MEAN TEMPERATURES FROM 1924 OR WHATEVER DON'T COMPARE TO TODAY LOL "SCIENTISTS" AMIRITE?
posted by DU at 10:09 AM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 10:09 AM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
about the title tag. You're leding with the IPCC report, and Keith's wildly rash suggestion is just a sweetener at the close.
lodurr, it's all about attracting attention in a noisy and competitive environment. Title tags are important for those reading via a blog reader and a plain-jane title of "3rd part of 4th IPPC report" won't get many click-throughs because its already been widely reported. How something is packaged and presented makes a difference if it will be consumed or not, and if things are consumed or not makes a difference in how the world operates, so it may seem manipulatory on one level, on another level the style of a post and the content of a post are equally important (content doesn't matter if few people read it). This is all very post-modern, but as the Democrats have shown us over the past years, just giving rational data and expecting people to change doesn't work, you have to jazz things up and use framing and other techniques. This tends to grate on traditional rational thinkers (ie. Enlightenment ideas of rationality), but that is wrong, science has shown the way the brain operates and its mostly sub-conscious over which we have little control.
posted by stbalbach at 10:27 AM on November 21, 2007
lodurr, it's all about attracting attention in a noisy and competitive environment. Title tags are important for those reading via a blog reader and a plain-jane title of "3rd part of 4th IPPC report" won't get many click-throughs because its already been widely reported. How something is packaged and presented makes a difference if it will be consumed or not, and if things are consumed or not makes a difference in how the world operates, so it may seem manipulatory on one level, on another level the style of a post and the content of a post are equally important (content doesn't matter if few people read it). This is all very post-modern, but as the Democrats have shown us over the past years, just giving rational data and expecting people to change doesn't work, you have to jazz things up and use framing and other techniques. This tends to grate on traditional rational thinkers (ie. Enlightenment ideas of rationality), but that is wrong, science has shown the way the brain operates and its mostly sub-conscious over which we have little control.
posted by stbalbach at 10:27 AM on November 21, 2007
I do understand that how things are packaged makes a difference, stbalbach, thanks for the explanation but I did learn that before I took a job at a marketing firm.
I just find pandering to the poor interpretive and analytical skills of the readers to be a little irritating. Let's just say it's a personal thing and leave it at that.
posted by lodurr at 10:41 AM on November 21, 2007
I just find pandering to the poor interpretive and analytical skills of the readers to be a little irritating. Let's just say it's a personal thing and leave it at that.
posted by lodurr at 10:41 AM on November 21, 2007
I'm kind of surprised at the backlash against the idea of the "geoengineering", I mean, obviously it would be nice if we could solve the problem with self-restraint, but to me it just seemed like there was a gap between what could be accomplished by self-restraint over the long run and the current increase in temperature, and it just seems like even if every government adopted the measures recommended, it still wouldn't really solve the problem fast enough.
So why all the immediate dismissal of trying to counteract greenhouse gas with particulate matter? It's not like people are taking about changing the sky's color or or making the atmosphere hazy or whatever. Why so much resistance?
posted by delmoi at 10:56 AM on November 21, 2007
So why all the immediate dismissal of trying to counteract greenhouse gas with particulate matter? It's not like people are taking about changing the sky's color or or making the atmosphere hazy or whatever. Why so much resistance?
posted by delmoi at 10:56 AM on November 21, 2007
Because it's screwing with a critical and complex system in ways that are far from certain to have the intended effect -- and quite likely to have deleterious unintended effects.
It's not like surgery. At least with surgery when you kill one patient, you've got a ready supply of extras to refine the technique on. With geoengineering, you get exactly one shot. And I just don't believe that our record warrants enough confidence in that one shot being the right one.
posted by lodurr at 11:04 AM on November 21, 2007
It's not like surgery. At least with surgery when you kill one patient, you've got a ready supply of extras to refine the technique on. With geoengineering, you get exactly one shot. And I just don't believe that our record warrants enough confidence in that one shot being the right one.
posted by lodurr at 11:04 AM on November 21, 2007
Hmm, according to this guy we could create "a new ice age" for ether $130 million dollars or $650 depending on whether he's talking about the US GDP or the world GDP when he says ".001% of the GDP" and why use such an unintuitive figure?
I agree with the guy, and I do think it's important to talk seriously about it.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 AM on November 21, 2007
I agree with the guy, and I do think it's important to talk seriously about it.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 AM on November 21, 2007
"...according to this guy we could create "a new ice age" for ether $130 million dollars or $650 ..."
Amazing. If given the choice between driving less and creating a new Ice Age, there's no doubt in my mind we would choose the Ice Age.
Keep on truckin', humanity.
posted by Avenger at 11:27 AM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
Amazing. If given the choice between driving less and creating a new Ice Age, there's no doubt in my mind we would choose the Ice Age.
Keep on truckin', humanity.
posted by Avenger at 11:27 AM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]
this is the only good reason i can think of to terraform Mars. That way we can screw that place up first before we try it here.
posted by garlic at 11:39 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by garlic at 11:39 AM on November 21, 2007
Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century.
We also already possess the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to make things much, much worse.
The solution technologies are getting cheaper (i.e., roll-printed thin-sheet solar cells). When the solution technolgies become cheaper to implement than the problem technologies (i.e., coal-fired power plants), the carbon and climate problem will be solved.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:17 PM on November 21, 2007
We also already possess the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to make things much, much worse.
The solution technologies are getting cheaper (i.e., roll-printed thin-sheet solar cells). When the solution technolgies become cheaper to implement than the problem technologies (i.e., coal-fired power plants), the carbon and climate problem will be solved.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:17 PM on November 21, 2007
I think we should just take our lumps and deal with the new paradigm. Perhaps future generations, when actually having to deal with the world we've left them, will make wiser choices.
posted by black8 at 12:42 PM on November 21, 2007
posted by black8 at 12:42 PM on November 21, 2007
We already had this discussion.
Scroll down for bonus discussion on the role of aerosols in mitigating global warming.
posted by Mister_A at 1:25 PM on November 21, 2007
Scroll down for bonus discussion on the role of aerosols in mitigating global warming.
posted by Mister_A at 1:25 PM on November 21, 2007
When the solution technolgies become cheaper to implement than the problem technologies (i.e., coal-fired power plants), the carbon and climate problem will be solved.
I hope that is true, but what the climate scientists are telling us is we have very little time - because the little bit of carbon released by humans may be enough to upset the delicate balance and release a tsunami of carbon from natural sources and there is nothing we can do about a run-away greenhouse effect (except maybe geo-engineering, which IMO is inevitable).
posted by stbalbach at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007
I hope that is true, but what the climate scientists are telling us is we have very little time - because the little bit of carbon released by humans may be enough to upset the delicate balance and release a tsunami of carbon from natural sources and there is nothing we can do about a run-away greenhouse effect (except maybe geo-engineering, which IMO is inevitable).
posted by stbalbach at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007
Is there a place to get this online? The IPCC only has the 3rd report online as far as I can see...
posted by blindcarboncopy at 2:15 PM on November 21, 2007
posted by blindcarboncopy at 2:15 PM on November 21, 2007
the climate scientists are telling us is we have very little time
Good point, stbalbach. The solution technologies need to get cheaper, faster. I think it can happen. As I pointed out in my thin-sheet solar cell link, and as gompa noted above, it's happening now.
As you say, we're racing against the clock. One thing's for sure at this point: if we want to win this race, doing nothing and continuing with business as usual is not an option.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:34 PM on November 21, 2007
Good point, stbalbach. The solution technologies need to get cheaper, faster. I think it can happen. As I pointed out in my thin-sheet solar cell link, and as gompa noted above, it's happening now.
As you say, we're racing against the clock. One thing's for sure at this point: if we want to win this race, doing nothing and continuing with business as usual is not an option.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:34 PM on November 21, 2007
.... and Australia's deputy Prime Minister's position on the issue? You guessed it.
Who to believe on this complex issue? The IPCC or this former real estate agent?
posted by mattoxic at 3:16 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
Who to believe on this complex issue? The IPCC or this former real estate agent?
posted by mattoxic at 3:16 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]
like a great many scientists his skill at reading public moods and social trends is quite weak.
And I am glad this is so. Scientists should be unaffected by public sentiment and popular or even political trends. Or am I misreading your comment?
The problem with geo-engineering solutions is that they look pretty on paper but hardly so in reality. In this case, the photophoresis effect works in theory, I will not doubt that, but in nature with a lot of other forces acting on the particles (background flows, interactions with other molecules, vertical circulation -to name a few) is it as efficient a mechanism? Will sulfates escape the mesospheric grip to enter my troposhere and rain on my tomatoes? Or on my drinking water reservoirs? Are costs for cleaning up the mess taken into account in his budget calculations? Pinatubo cooling lasted 2 years, Keith's action should be semi-permanet or at least until oil use reduction kicks in: is the ecosystem going to remain unaffected? Well, to be fair, David Keith admitted it "...we are in the middle of thinking about it". Okay then. I will not keep my hopes up.
In the end it comes down to this: he is proposing reduction of the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. That's what this is about. So what are we talking here, extended winter? Should I worry about my heating bills? Are we going to be even more depended on oil?
Another example that comes to mind is the "iron-fertilization of the ocean" idea and what a flop that turned out to be. As soon as they went out in the field to test the theory.
Anyway, I do not believe we should discount geo-engineering by default. Some ideas, maybe even this one, we should pursue on the experimental level. Not in practice directly. Otherwise, we might be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. And after all, the decisive and courageous action to take is still cutting oil and coal dependence. Beat about the bush (oy!) all you want. Go nuclear, if you like. You still have to cut down on fuel.
posted by carmina at 4:51 PM on November 21, 2007
And I am glad this is so. Scientists should be unaffected by public sentiment and popular or even political trends. Or am I misreading your comment?
The problem with geo-engineering solutions is that they look pretty on paper but hardly so in reality. In this case, the photophoresis effect works in theory, I will not doubt that, but in nature with a lot of other forces acting on the particles (background flows, interactions with other molecules, vertical circulation -to name a few) is it as efficient a mechanism? Will sulfates escape the mesospheric grip to enter my troposhere and rain on my tomatoes? Or on my drinking water reservoirs? Are costs for cleaning up the mess taken into account in his budget calculations? Pinatubo cooling lasted 2 years, Keith's action should be semi-permanet or at least until oil use reduction kicks in: is the ecosystem going to remain unaffected? Well, to be fair, David Keith admitted it "...we are in the middle of thinking about it". Okay then. I will not keep my hopes up.
In the end it comes down to this: he is proposing reduction of the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. That's what this is about. So what are we talking here, extended winter? Should I worry about my heating bills? Are we going to be even more depended on oil?
Another example that comes to mind is the "iron-fertilization of the ocean" idea and what a flop that turned out to be. As soon as they went out in the field to test the theory.
Anyway, I do not believe we should discount geo-engineering by default. Some ideas, maybe even this one, we should pursue on the experimental level. Not in practice directly. Otherwise, we might be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. And after all, the decisive and courageous action to take is still cutting oil and coal dependence. Beat about the bush (oy!) all you want. Go nuclear, if you like. You still have to cut down on fuel.
posted by carmina at 4:51 PM on November 21, 2007
me: like a great many scientists his skill at reading public moods and social trends is quite weak.
carmina: And I am glad this is so. Scientists should be unaffected by public sentiment and popular or even political trends. Or am I misreading your comment?
Misreading my comment, yes, at least somewhat. By all means, David Keith's work need not take public sentiment or trends into account.
But Keith also wears a sort of advocacy hat. He speaks out regularly here in town in favour of a carbon tax and more or less against renewables and efficiency measures of the sort Pacala and Socolow recommend - mainly, near as I can tell, because he thinks there isn't now and never will be sufficient public-sector will and/or private-sector prodding to make it happen at a large scale.
I don't think that's a particularly well-informed nor astute reading of the public mood these days. In my work as a journalist covering this beat (shameless self-link), I've been flat-out amazed by how quickly the ground's shifting. I can't believe the stuff I've heard in recent months (much of it off the record, admittedly) from gas-pipeline execs, heads of multinational shipping companies, even (especially?) chief geologists of the world's biggest oil companies. Everyone is talking about that big leap we all need to take; most of 'em, though, have heretofore remained too timid to take it.
(I'll mention Wal-Mart again: everyone screamed "greenwashing" - or simply reckoned it was a smart but cosmetic PR move - when they started their big sustainability push. Talk to, say, the people who do their packaging, who are now scrambling to reinvent the way they do business to follow their lead. Wal-Mart remains far from saintly, but its emissions footprint is genuinely shrinking, and that took one enormous change of direction for a company that large.)
I think, moreover, that David Keith does a grave disservice to the problem he claims to be dedicated to solving by using a platform as prestigious as TED to explore near-apocalyptic what-if? scenarios. I've more or less told him so, and to be fair, he thinks I'm naive about the ways of the world. Thing is, I think a working journalist generally has a better grasp on the ways of the world than a cloistered scientist, so his take on things doesn't sway me one half-inch from my certainty that if - fine, if - people in greater numbers begin to see fighting climate change as a dotcom-scale business opportunity (which it most certainly is), if we get get deliriously Boo.com excited about this stuff, if the conversation shifts from the flavour of our bitter medicine to the delectability of those locally grown heirloom tomatoes in enough circles - if that happens, I think we can beat this thing.
And I am more convinced every day that that's the way the wind's blowing.
posted by gompa at 6:19 PM on November 21, 2007 [3 favorites]
carmina: And I am glad this is so. Scientists should be unaffected by public sentiment and popular or even political trends. Or am I misreading your comment?
Misreading my comment, yes, at least somewhat. By all means, David Keith's work need not take public sentiment or trends into account.
But Keith also wears a sort of advocacy hat. He speaks out regularly here in town in favour of a carbon tax and more or less against renewables and efficiency measures of the sort Pacala and Socolow recommend - mainly, near as I can tell, because he thinks there isn't now and never will be sufficient public-sector will and/or private-sector prodding to make it happen at a large scale.
I don't think that's a particularly well-informed nor astute reading of the public mood these days. In my work as a journalist covering this beat (shameless self-link), I've been flat-out amazed by how quickly the ground's shifting. I can't believe the stuff I've heard in recent months (much of it off the record, admittedly) from gas-pipeline execs, heads of multinational shipping companies, even (especially?) chief geologists of the world's biggest oil companies. Everyone is talking about that big leap we all need to take; most of 'em, though, have heretofore remained too timid to take it.
(I'll mention Wal-Mart again: everyone screamed "greenwashing" - or simply reckoned it was a smart but cosmetic PR move - when they started their big sustainability push. Talk to, say, the people who do their packaging, who are now scrambling to reinvent the way they do business to follow their lead. Wal-Mart remains far from saintly, but its emissions footprint is genuinely shrinking, and that took one enormous change of direction for a company that large.)
I think, moreover, that David Keith does a grave disservice to the problem he claims to be dedicated to solving by using a platform as prestigious as TED to explore near-apocalyptic what-if? scenarios. I've more or less told him so, and to be fair, he thinks I'm naive about the ways of the world. Thing is, I think a working journalist generally has a better grasp on the ways of the world than a cloistered scientist, so his take on things doesn't sway me one half-inch from my certainty that if - fine, if - people in greater numbers begin to see fighting climate change as a dotcom-scale business opportunity (which it most certainly is), if we get get deliriously Boo.com excited about this stuff, if the conversation shifts from the flavour of our bitter medicine to the delectability of those locally grown heirloom tomatoes in enough circles - if that happens, I think we can beat this thing.
And I am more convinced every day that that's the way the wind's blowing.
posted by gompa at 6:19 PM on November 21, 2007 [3 favorites]
Hi gompa, nice to meet you and thanks for the link.
I do not know David Keith personally, although I've met several people who work in the bio-geo-engineering field. Not to be pedantic, mitigation is a difficult problem and involves a lot more knowledge and expertise than one scientist(=specialist in one field) can provide. David Keith is not an atmospheric or climate scientist, so I do not expect him to be aware of all the potential risks and feedbacks involved. He does not have to. He is an engineer and he brings in a potential engineering solution to the problem. It is the role of other scientists from different (and his own) fields to evaluate his assertions (he did mention in the talk that his work is under review) before they become viable alternatives to existing and tested methods. He really has not proven anything yet.
But I agree with you, shifting the focus from what it should be (i.e. fuel consumption, land usage, pollution) is a disservice --particularly in light of the fact that he has not proven anything yet-- and it gives the false impression that we have time to lose, but that is only if the media, the politicians and the general public give it more weight than it should have. So, I do not think it's you who is naive here, but probably he?
posted by carmina at 7:38 PM on November 21, 2007
I do not know David Keith personally, although I've met several people who work in the bio-geo-engineering field. Not to be pedantic, mitigation is a difficult problem and involves a lot more knowledge and expertise than one scientist(=specialist in one field) can provide. David Keith is not an atmospheric or climate scientist, so I do not expect him to be aware of all the potential risks and feedbacks involved. He does not have to. He is an engineer and he brings in a potential engineering solution to the problem. It is the role of other scientists from different (and his own) fields to evaluate his assertions (he did mention in the talk that his work is under review) before they become viable alternatives to existing and tested methods. He really has not proven anything yet.
But I agree with you, shifting the focus from what it should be (i.e. fuel consumption, land usage, pollution) is a disservice --particularly in light of the fact that he has not proven anything yet-- and it gives the false impression that we have time to lose, but that is only if the media, the politicians and the general public give it more weight than it should have. So, I do not think it's you who is naive here, but probably he?
posted by carmina at 7:38 PM on November 21, 2007
Won't the TED solution have the side effect of reducing the pan evaporation rate leaving us with a drier earth while keeping tempuratures level?
posted by humanfont at 7:56 PM on November 21, 2007
posted by humanfont at 7:56 PM on November 21, 2007
Keith says in his TED talk that there is no "we" when it comes to geo-engineering. If China is dieing in a drought it may very well just go ahead on its own and do it. In fact, if the SE United States is turning into a Mexican climate zone and Atlanta is evacuated, the US may knee-jerk react the same way it reacted to 9/11 - war on climate change. There is no international treaty or body or even research on geo-engineering.
gompa, Wal-Mart is being driven right from the top, the Walton's are big believers in climate change and want to go everything they can to help. The stuff they are doing now is just the start. It is far from greenwashing, they are really driving innovation not only by demands on their suppliers but demands for technical solutions to reduce overall energy usage. As much as I love to hate Wal-Mart, they are a prime mover in a positive direction.
posted by stbalbach at 8:49 PM on November 21, 2007
gompa, Wal-Mart is being driven right from the top, the Walton's are big believers in climate change and want to go everything they can to help. The stuff they are doing now is just the start. It is far from greenwashing, they are really driving innovation not only by demands on their suppliers but demands for technical solutions to reduce overall energy usage. As much as I love to hate Wal-Mart, they are a prime mover in a positive direction.
posted by stbalbach at 8:49 PM on November 21, 2007
In the end it comes down to this: he is proposing reduction of the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. That's what this is about. So what are we talking here, extended winter? Should I worry about my heating bills? Are we going to be even more depended on oil?
Huh? The whole point is that the temperature would stay the same, rather then rising.
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on November 21, 2007
Huh? The whole point is that the temperature would stay the same, rather then rising.
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on November 21, 2007
delmoi, global warming refers to globally averaged temperatures increasing by a certain number, but in some regions temperature rises more (polar regions) and in others changes less, even though the secondary effects of GW (draughts, more evaporation etc) are felt indirectly everywhere. An equi-distributed tracer in the mesosphere will achieve the more or less the same reduction of temperature everywhere, since it will be reducing sunlight at an equal amount. So, some areas will be getting "colder than without GW" if the Arctic is to be cooled enough to not melt the ice cap. Note, in his talk, he mentions a mechanism that will bring more sulfates over polar regions (probably addressing this point) but that implies a continuous energy source to sustain this.
What I am trying to say is that unless you take into account the atmospheric circulation you really do not know how such a solution is working out.
posted by carmina at 9:18 PM on November 21, 2007
What I am trying to say is that unless you take into account the atmospheric circulation you really do not know how such a solution is working out.
posted by carmina at 9:18 PM on November 21, 2007
As much as I love to hate Wal-Mart, they are a prime mover in a positive direction.
I agree 100%. I never in a million years would've expected Wal-Mart to be the catalyst for North America's wholesale shift to high-efficiency light bulbs and green-roofed warehouse stores, and I think it's great.
I put "greenwashing" in quotes because it's not my take - it's what the usual environmentalist suspects all said. There's a great synopsis of it in this Fast Company story about Adam Werbach's work with Wal-Mart.
posted by gompa at 9:35 PM on November 21, 2007
I agree 100%. I never in a million years would've expected Wal-Mart to be the catalyst for North America's wholesale shift to high-efficiency light bulbs and green-roofed warehouse stores, and I think it's great.
I put "greenwashing" in quotes because it's not my take - it's what the usual environmentalist suspects all said. There's a great synopsis of it in this Fast Company story about Adam Werbach's work with Wal-Mart.
posted by gompa at 9:35 PM on November 21, 2007
Report Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science
posted by homunculus at 1:33 PM on December 10, 2007
posted by homunculus at 1:33 PM on December 10, 2007
Fed up with politicians and the media, scientists are pleading to the world to wake up to the imminent threats of global warming.
posted by homunculus at 7:55 PM on December 11, 2007
posted by homunculus at 7:55 PM on December 11, 2007
« Older "Teenage Stories." | Cooking the Books Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by stbalbach at 9:35 AM on November 21, 2007