...
Here's my take on Environmentalism. It isn't about 'Saving the Planet', such as 'Saving the Soul' that religions preach. It's about making your life a little nicer and leaving the place a little nicer for the next person. I don't toss trash out my car window on the freeway for convenience. Also, you may argue, but I don't like breating in exhaust fumes or drinking water laced with DDT.
I don't see anything wrong with making the place a little nicer... a little cleaner.
so does that imply those of us not converted want the place a little worse, and a little dirtier?
the environmentalist movement, and liberalism in general from my view, is to do really miniscule things, like converting to a different light-bulb, for the SOLE PURPOSE of making you feel good, that you are doing something to save humanity...when in reality, you aren't doing anything, and probably making the world a WORSE place, given all the unintended consequences like mercury.
i WANT to make the earth a better place and a little nicer, and cleaner, but sorry, if you think changing a light-bulb is gonna do it, take a step back and see how assinine that point of view is.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I guess asteroid strike or galaxies colliding are things out of our control at this point. But seemingly in the meantime we do have a responsibility to protect our home. And I believe we do have a responsibility to use less, consume less and to leave the planet in a more healthy condition that we have done in the last 100 or so years. Who knows what will happen? I'll probably be dead long before the end of the earth, but I'm still going to do everything I can to lessen my footprint.
I agree. But I am an environmentalist, I still think, for selfish reasons. I want to protect the world for humans, my potential future little climbers being high up on the list.
I also like to live in a world with a diversity of wildlife that captures my imagination, so I try to look after other species, and their habitats.
I am happiest when I am in vast mountains of unspoilt wilderness, so for my sake I make what small effort I can to ensure that they are protected.
I am also cursed with a nagging sense of guilt whenever I see species or habitats destroyed... so to aleviate that guilt I once again do what little things I can.
So in the end I am a conservationist so that humans can continue to enjoy as long and happy an inhabitance of this magnificent universe as is possible.
But then, it is now only 1 999 999 999 999 years and 364 days until andromeda strikes...
so does that imply those of us not converted want the place a little worse, and a little dirtier?
the environmentalist movement, and liberalism in general from my view, is to do really miniscule things, like converting to a different light-bulb, for the SOLE PURPOSE of making you feel good, that you are doing something to save humanity...when in reality, you aren't doing anything, and probably making the world a WORSE place, given all the unintended consequences like mercury.
i WANT to make the earth a better place and a little nicer, and cleaner, but sorry, if you think changing a light-bulb is gonna do it, take a step back and see how assinine that point of view is.
...
What is so assinine about trying to do your part NOT to contribute to pollution? What is wrong about caring about our environment? How many people do you know who changes one light bulb and stops there and call themselves environmentalists? You may do things to make yourself feel better... I don't. I do things because I don't like the results of doing nothing. You are making those assumptions about yourself, not me. It's up to you to waste and pollute... or do nothing about it... which is fine by me. I choose to do something about it.
You'll find me on the beach with a Hefty bag and a screener picking up trash and cigarette butts from the sand. I don't complain about litter... I pick it up. I don't care anymore about who tossed that McDonalds cup out the window... I just make sure it goes in my bag. I stopped being one of those people who says, "Someone ought to do something about that" and have become that someone that is doing something about it. I don't do for an ego boost... I do it because I understand that trash isn't going to pick itself up. I don't expect you to do what I do... you make your own choices.
I'm guessing you don't know a lot of people who care about the environment... our oceans... the wildlife. I do. I understand how you can make up characitures of people you neither know nor care about... I don't care. I know that your perception of them is incorrect. I know who I am and I know that you can never be able to accurately see me through your jaundiced eye.
So, keep telling me I am doing more harm in this world... for whatever reason you see fit. I really don't care what you think of me. I know what I'm doing.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree. But I am an environmentalist, I still think, for selfish reasons. I want to protect the world for humans, my potential future little climbers being high up on the list.
I also like to live in a world with a diversity of wildlife that captures my imagination, so I try to look after other species, and their habitats.
I am happiest when I am in vast mountains of unspoilt wilderness, so for my sake I make what small effort I can to ensure that they are protected.
I am also cursed with a nagging sense of guilt whenever I see species or habitats destroyed... so to aleviate that guilt I once again do what little things I can.
So in the end I am a conservationist so that humans can continue to enjoy as long and happy an inhabitance of this magnificent universe as is possible.
But then, it is now only 1 999 999 999 999 years and 364 days until andromeda strikes...
Ultimately I think that's all Joe and Jane Citizen can do, small things that will hopefully add up.:) And given the situation as it stands at the moment, I really can't see how we can afford not to. Now that "environmentalism" appears to be more mainstream, probably due to necissity more than anything, I can see it becoming more and more politicized and more of a political "football" as pollies, lobby groups and corporations all fall all over themselves to push their agenda. All I can really do is support those organizations with a proven track record whose efforts I agree with, and consume less myself. And I'm not above writing the odd letter or standing up with a placard or two if necessary. And certainly my vote, :rolleyes: at some point must count for something?
Yeah, too many beautiful spots on this planet, especially in this country, too many beautiful places where Mother Nature really turns it on with the magic that I can't afford not to support her.
so does that imply those of us not converted want the place a little worse, and a little dirtier?
the environmentalist movement, and liberalism in general from my view, is to do really miniscule things, like converting to a different light-bulb, for the SOLE PURPOSE of making you feel good, that you are doing something to save humanity...when in reality, you aren't doing anything, and probably making the world a WORSE place, given all the unintended consequences like mercury.
i WANT to make the earth a better place and a little nicer, and cleaner, but sorry, if you think changing a light-bulb is gonna do it, take a step back and see how assinine that point of view is.
i think your rationalization of environmentalists and liberals is for the SOLE PURPOSE of making YOU feel good ... it makes no sense whatsoever ...
there is less mercury in a CFL then in your watch battery or in a thermometer - and since when does one person who just changes light bulbs be considered an environmentalist ... it's about making choices in your everyday life ... if you REALLY cared for the environment you can accept that small changes done by many people can foster real change ... and you would be looking at yourself first before generalizing others ...
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-2188
Tel: 202-797-6000 Fax: 202-797-6004 http://www.brookings.edu
How do people learn about global warming?
That – more than the merits of any scientific argument – is the most interesting question posed by
Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.
The plot of Crichton’s 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness – an MIT professor fights a wellfunded
network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular “natural” disasters.
But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making
two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton’s high
profile and ability to command media attention, these
arguments deserve scrutiny.
First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for
global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the
conclusions reached by the National Academy of
Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change — for example, he does not believe that
global temperature increases in recent decades are
most likely the result of human activities. In
challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton
rehashes points familiar to those who follow such
issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained
below.
Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In
particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality,
failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members
of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia
and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately
unpersuasive as well.
MICHAEL CRICHTON AND GLOBAL WARMING
by David B. Sandalow
January 28, 2005
1. Climate Science
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.
First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer than
the surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century
are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by
the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise.
Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not
affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from
urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data,
concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average
temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In
contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the
view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based
thermometers.”
Second, Crichton argues that global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast
doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since concentrations of greenhouse
gases were rising during this period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were falling
calls into question the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures.
Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, from
1940-1970. Temperature is the result of many factors, including the warming effects of greenhouse
gases, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a
game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each team changes frequently.) The fall in
Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of cooling factors
during that period, not the absence of a warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases.
Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling
factors will outweigh greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse gas
concentrations are now well outside levels previously experienced in human history and climbing
sharply. Unless we change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-made greenhouse
gases in the last century will be dwarfed by much greater warming from such gases in the next
century. There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as those that dominated the
temperature record from 1940-1970 will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the
decades ahead.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing temperature declines during the past century in
places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse
(New York) and Navacerrada (Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average
temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature declines is inconsistent with the conclusion
that the planet as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it will warm more in the next
century if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to climb.
Crichton makes other arguments, but a point-by-point rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A
thoughtful rebuttal of that kind can be found at http://www.realclimate.org.) Climate change science is a
complex topic, not easily reduced to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton’s scienceargument-
within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The
opening paragraph of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request from the Bush White
House read:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,
in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a
reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are
expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer
model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and
increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be
critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academies Press (2001).
Time will tell whether this report or Crichton’s novel will have a greater impact on public
understanding of global warming.
2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in Crichton’s novel. Crichton argues that concern
about global warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, entertainment moguls, the
scientific establishment and general public. In Crichton’s view, many assertions are accepted as fact
without critical analysis by the vast majority of those who have views on this issue.
On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer people who have sorted through the minutiae
of climate change science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard, global warming is like
Social Security reform, health care finance, the military budget and many other complex public
policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once wrote, “Most people don’t think about
most issues most of the time.” When forming opinions on such matters, we all apply certain
predispositions or instincts and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust.
Of course this observation applies as well to the economics of climate change. The perception is
widespread in many circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be ruinously expensive.
How many of those who hold this view have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton
never musters outrage on this topic.
Crichton’s complaints are particularly striking in light of the highly successful efforts to provide
policymakers and the public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on climate science.
Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists,
economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill the peer-reviewed literature on the
science on global warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at work on the fourth.
In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this
topic, including the report cited above.
Crichton’s view that the American media provides a steady drumbeat of scary news on global
warming is especially hard to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found that the
rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times more often than global warming in the Lexis-
Nexis database. Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end without ever seeing a
global warming story.
Furthermore, the print media’s “on the one hand, on the other hand” convention tilts many global
warming stories strongly toward Crichton’s point of view. As Crichton would concede, the vast
majority of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening as a result of human
activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions could be very serious. Still,
many news stories on global warming include not just this mainstream view but also the “contrarian”
views of a very small minority of climate change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a
result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
Crichton’s most serious charge is that “open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is
being suppressed” in the scientific community. As “proof,” he offers the assertion that many critics
of global warming are retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is any basis for
these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton should back up his claims with more than mere
assertions in the appendix to an action novel.
Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard with regard to all the arguments in his
book. He is plainly a very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School graduate. A
millionaire many times over, he doesn’t need to be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say
on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for
peer review. The result could be instructive – for him and us all.
David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution.
Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard with regard to all the arguments in his book. He is plainly a very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School graduate. A millionaire many times over, he doesn’t need to be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result could be instructive – for him and us all.
David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution.
That was exactly the problem I was having with the initial article. It wasn't well written and was seemingly an opinion piece that appeared to be written purely for the purpose of creating controversy.
he also wrote or directed such masterpieces as "Twister" and "Congo"... i should definitely believe this guy over the entire scientific community :rolleyes:
one thing is fact, he sure does have a great imagination
Let's see proof from the people who support the banning of what was a very effective tool in fighting malaria. I'mnot here to do research for the lazy.
uhhh AGAIN - in this thread no doubt ... this whole DDT banning costing lives is complete BS - if you got something against environmentalists - make a legit argument ... not one that has been debunked eons ago ...
he also wrote or directed such masterpieces as "Twister" and "Congo"... i should definitely believe this guy over the entire scientific community :rolleyes:
one thing is fact, he sure does have a great imagination
THAT'S IT!!! Congo!!! I knew I'd read one of his books at some point!
I was struggling to remember what it was. Thanks!
Separating Fact from Fiction in Crichton's 'State of Fear'
With State of Fear, novelist Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain) has written an entertaining book where the scientific debate over global warming provides the backdrop for his hero's heart-pounding, edge-of-your-seat struggle against evil and his search for love. Like other writers who take on science themes, often exaggerating the data for dramatic effect, Crichton betrays an incomplete knowledge of the technical issues and the full dimensions of what is a very robust body of evidence and analysis. Wittingly or not, he is prone to selective use of data, indiscriminate acceptance of dubious sources and just plain errors of fact.
Dispelling Crichton's Myths
Here are just a few contentions that are made by Crichton's "climate skeptic" hero in the book, together with what the scientific evidence actually says.
State of Fear: Temperatures in some locations are actually cooling, so how can the globe be warming?
The facts: True, temperatures are cooling -- in a few select locales. Global warming refers to a warming of the average global temperature. It does not preclude cooling in some locations. Indeed, if some locations are cooling while the globe is warming on average, it follows that there must be other areas that are warming even faster than the global average. In fact, that is exactly what is happening in the Arctic, where temperatures over the past few decades have risen twice as fast as the global average, with potentially disastrous environmental consequences (see our January 2005 Solutions newsletter).
This is but one example of Crichton's selective use of data in his book to advance a specious argument. The establishment of a global trend requires that one consider a global database, not data from a few select sites. As in the case of global temperatures, Crichton uses selective and incomplete data to argue that glaciers are not melting and that sea levels are not rising. The fact is that a careful analysis of the complete global database firmly establishes that ice over the land and sea is thinning and melting and that, on average, sea levels are rising.
State of Fear: The record of increasing surface temperatures cited as evidence of global warming is actually caused by the so-called "Urban Heat Island Effect," and is thus a local, not a global, phenomenon.
The facts: Urban areas do tend to be warmer than rural areas. As the world becomes more urban, average surface temperatures will appear to be increasing. However, the surface temperature record that is used to track global warming has been carefully analyzed to filter out urban heat island effects. Moreover, the evidence of global warming goes well beyond surface temperatures. Contrary to the flawed arguments advanced by Crichton (see above) sea ice is melting, glaciers (like those in our own Glacier National Park) are disappearing, ocean temperatures are on the rise, the permafrost in Alaska is melting and sea levels are increasing.
State of Fear: If carbon dioxide (CO2) is supposed to be causing a global warming, why was there a global cooling between 1940 and 1970 when CO2 concentrations were increasing?
The facts: It is true that temperatures have not strictly followed the trend in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Over the past century, temperatures first rose, then fell slightly, then rose again, while GHGs rose steadily the entire time. But there's a simple explanation: there are many factors in addition to GHGs that affect climate. These include natural forces, such as changes in sunlight intensity and volcanic eruptions, and other human-produced effects such as those caused by sulfate aerosols from sulfur oxide emissions. Sunlight variations can either warm or cool the planet depending upon the direction of the change. Volcanic eruptions and sulfate aerosols, on the other hand, have a cooling effect. The actual variation in temperature reflects the net effect of all of these influences.
Since the non-GHG effects change over time, the pattern of observed temperature changes should not be expected to directly follow the trend in GHGs. The slight global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s appears to be the result of a decrease in solar intensity and a rapid rise in global sulfur oxide emissions. (During this period, both the United States and Europe relied heavily on coal with little or no controls on pollutant emissions, and as a result, global sulfur oxide emissions are estimated to have increased by a factor of about three.) Together, these effects acted to offset the warming effect of increasing GHGs.
By contrast, over the past 25 years, direct satellite measurements of solar intensity exhibit little or no trend and global sulfur oxide emission increases have been modest, while CO2 and other GHG concentrations have continued to increase. The result has been the rapid rise in global average temperatures experienced in recent decades. It is not possible to explain this rapid warming without invoking a dominant role for human-produced CO2 and other GHGs.
State of Fear: Even if warming is occurring, there is little evidence of human causality.
The facts: Attribution of global warming to a specific cause or causes is admittedly difficult, but a variety of independent lines of investigation all point to human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs as a major culprit:
No one has been able to put forward a self-consistent and quantitative explanation for the warming in the latter half of the 20th century without invoking the effects of the GHG from human activities;
The "smoking gun" pointing to industrial emissions as the culprit in global warming has been identified in the spatial and temporal worldwide patterns of warming in the atmosphere and oceans; and
Global temperatures in the last few decades appear to be warmer than in any other time period over the past 2,000 years.
State of Fear: Predictions of global warming are based on climate-model calculations that cannot be relied upon; results from different models disagree by more than 400%.
The facts: Highly advanced climate models have been thoroughly and carefully vetted by the scientific community. It is true that these models project a wide range in the warming of the globe by 2100 (i.e., from about 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit). Much of this range arises from differing assumptions about economic, demographic and technological trends that influence CO2 emissions, not in the models' simulation of the effects of these emissions on climate. All of the models predict that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to further warming of the globe and that the more we emit CO2 in the future, the more the globe will warm. This is actually good news because it suggests we can actually do something about global warming; that is, cut emissions of CO2 and other GHGs.
State of Fear: The published conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that served as a catalyst for international action on global warming are a misrepresentation of the deliberations that actually occurred and have been put forward to advance a political agenda.
The facts: This is nonsensical. In the first place, scientists played a central role in preparing and writing the IPCC reports. Secondly, if the IPCC had misrepresented the science of global warming, there would be a parade of scientists writing letters to newspapers, submitting papers to journals and holding press conferences alerting the world to the hoax. Suffice it to say, there is no parade. Thirdly and most importantly, following the latest IPCC report, President Bush commissioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to form a committee of climate experts to independently review the scientific understanding of global warming. The committee included seven members of NAS and one Nobel Prize winner. It was chaired by the now president-elect of the NAS. The committee reported: "the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global warming that has occurred in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community."
State of Fear: The scientists who developed the evidence for global warming cannot be trusted. They have "cooked" the data; they have a vested interest in advancing a global warming agenda; and/or they have a "herd instinct" that causes them to support the accepted view of things.
The facts: Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
A huge community of scientists from different organizations using different approaches and assumptions are working on the problem and publishing their findings, usually in peer-reviewed journals -- there is no way to "cook" the data and not be found out.
It is not clear what special interest scientists have in advancing the proposition that human-caused global warming is occurring. Some of the most outspoken proponents work in federal laboratories with their source of funding, the U.S. government, openly negative about global warming,
Scientists by nature are skeptics. Their reputations are made by upsetting the accepted view, not by supporting it. If a scientist were able to prove that the globe is not warming or that the warming is caused by natural processes instead of GHGs, he or she would instantly become a world-renowned scientist. That has not happened, but it is not for lack of trying.
For more, see a detailed point-by-point discussion of Crichton's assertions and interpretations, by Gavin Schmidt, a NASA/Columbia University climatologist.
Misstating Fear
Perhaps more disturbing than Crichton's faulty science, however, are the assertions he makes, through his protagonist, about the fundamental untrustworthiness, dubious motives and non-accountability of environmentalists (as well as scientists and media professionals, who can readily defend themselves).
To the contrary, Environmental Defense is a science-based organization, employing 29 PhD scientists in a wide range of disciplines in the natural and physical sciences. We don't invent problems. Nor do we advance solutions without compelling scientific evidence of their efficacy. And as for accountability, our financial records, including complete tax filings and independently audited financial reports, are readily available online for anyone to scrutinize. Our major donors are identified in our annual report.
We would be happy for Mr. Crichton to visit and challenge our scientists, or to examine our financial reports.
As for the charge that environmentalists are determined to foster a "state of fear" with regard to the environment (hence the title of his book), we would point out that modern citizens have virtually unlimited access to information from a huge diversity of sources -- to say nothing of their own direct observation of the world immediately around them -- from which they can draw their own conclusions about the endangered state of the environment.
Ours is but one interpretation of the real world data. If it didn't pass the "sniff test" of being confirmed by other independent information and observation, we would simply be tuned out. In the age of instant and universal availability of global information, the notion that any organization -- be it an environmental group, a media outlet, a government, a corporation or a scientific body -- could stampede an unwitting citizenry over a cliff is ludicrous on its face.
We Don't Know Everything, but We Know Enough to Act
Ultimately, Crichton's greatest disservice is to argue that insufficient certainty about climate change data should lead us to do nothing ... make no interventions.
In a world where scientific certainty is elusive in any domain, the fact is that the data on climate change and the impact of GHG emissions is more than sufficient to justify precautionary action. This is precisely why hundreds of governments, academic bodies and corporations have sounded the alarm and already are planning, advocating and taking immediate ameliorative steps to curb damaging emissions.
Rarely does the scientific study of complex systems such as the climate reach a point of closure with all scientific questions answered, as Crichton would naively require. People and societies regularly take action in the face of uncertain future risk -- using a seat-belt when driving, taking out life insurance or beefing up security at our nation's airports.
The economic, health and ecosystem risks from inaction far outweigh the inconvenience of moving away from a carbon-based energy economy. Nothing could be more imprudent than sitting on our hands in the face of a steadily accumulating body of evidence that global warming is occurring, and is already having harmful impacts, and that these will only get worse the longer we wait to act and will take a century or more to undo, if ever.
In the practical world, what must be weighed are the potential risks of future global warming, and the range of possible costs to us and our children of doing nothing, versus the possible costs of taking action to avert these risks. The overwhelming majority of informed observers who have assessed the risks and costs have concluded that steps should be taken now to limit the human-contribution to global warming by placing reasonable caps on CO2 emissions. The costs would be modest, and the potential benefits are significant and go well beyond concerns over global warming. For example, improved energy efficiency would yield direct economic benefits and increase our global competitiveness, while reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
Environmental Defense is a leading national nonprofit organization with 29 Ph.D. scientists and 32 master level scientists and economists on staff. Since 1967, we have linked science, economics and law to create innovative, equitable and cost-effective solutions to society's most urgent environmental problems.
Comments
so does that imply those of us not converted want the place a little worse, and a little dirtier?
the environmentalist movement, and liberalism in general from my view, is to do really miniscule things, like converting to a different light-bulb, for the SOLE PURPOSE of making you feel good, that you are doing something to save humanity...when in reality, you aren't doing anything, and probably making the world a WORSE place, given all the unintended consequences like mercury.
i WANT to make the earth a better place and a little nicer, and cleaner, but sorry, if you think changing a light-bulb is gonna do it, take a step back and see how assinine that point of view is.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I agree. But I am an environmentalist, I still think, for selfish reasons. I want to protect the world for humans, my potential future little climbers being high up on the list.
I also like to live in a world with a diversity of wildlife that captures my imagination, so I try to look after other species, and their habitats.
I am happiest when I am in vast mountains of unspoilt wilderness, so for my sake I make what small effort I can to ensure that they are protected.
I am also cursed with a nagging sense of guilt whenever I see species or habitats destroyed... so to aleviate that guilt I once again do what little things I can.
So in the end I am a conservationist so that humans can continue to enjoy as long and happy an inhabitance of this magnificent universe as is possible.
But then, it is now only 1 999 999 999 999 years and 364 days until andromeda strikes...
What is so assinine about trying to do your part NOT to contribute to pollution? What is wrong about caring about our environment? How many people do you know who changes one light bulb and stops there and call themselves environmentalists? You may do things to make yourself feel better... I don't. I do things because I don't like the results of doing nothing. You are making those assumptions about yourself, not me. It's up to you to waste and pollute... or do nothing about it... which is fine by me. I choose to do something about it.
You'll find me on the beach with a Hefty bag and a screener picking up trash and cigarette butts from the sand. I don't complain about litter... I pick it up. I don't care anymore about who tossed that McDonalds cup out the window... I just make sure it goes in my bag. I stopped being one of those people who says, "Someone ought to do something about that" and have become that someone that is doing something about it. I don't do for an ego boost... I do it because I understand that trash isn't going to pick itself up. I don't expect you to do what I do... you make your own choices.
I'm guessing you don't know a lot of people who care about the environment... our oceans... the wildlife. I do. I understand how you can make up characitures of people you neither know nor care about... I don't care. I know that your perception of them is incorrect. I know who I am and I know that you can never be able to accurately see me through your jaundiced eye.
So, keep telling me I am doing more harm in this world... for whatever reason you see fit. I really don't care what you think of me. I know what I'm doing.
Hail, Hail!!!
Ultimately I think that's all Joe and Jane Citizen can do, small things that will hopefully add up.:) And given the situation as it stands at the moment, I really can't see how we can afford not to. Now that "environmentalism" appears to be more mainstream, probably due to necissity more than anything, I can see it becoming more and more politicized and more of a political "football" as pollies, lobby groups and corporations all fall all over themselves to push their agenda. All I can really do is support those organizations with a proven track record whose efforts I agree with, and consume less myself. And I'm not above writing the odd letter or standing up with a placard or two if necessary. And certainly my vote, :rolleyes: at some point must count for something?
Yeah, too many beautiful spots on this planet, especially in this country, too many beautiful places where Mother Nature really turns it on with the magic that I can't afford not to support her.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i think your rationalization of environmentalists and liberals is for the SOLE PURPOSE of making YOU feel good ... it makes no sense whatsoever ...
there is less mercury in a CFL then in your watch battery or in a thermometer - and since when does one person who just changes light bulbs be considered an environmentalist ... it's about making choices in your everyday life ... if you REALLY cared for the environment you can accept that small changes done by many people can foster real change ... and you would be looking at yourself first before generalizing others ...
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-2188
Tel: 202-797-6000 Fax: 202-797-6004
http://www.brookings.edu
How do people learn about global warming?
That – more than the merits of any scientific argument – is the most interesting question posed by
Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.
The plot of Crichton’s 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness – an MIT professor fights a wellfunded
network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular “natural” disasters.
But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making
two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton’s high
profile and ability to command media attention, these
arguments deserve scrutiny.
First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for
global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the
conclusions reached by the National Academy of
Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change — for example, he does not believe that
global temperature increases in recent decades are
most likely the result of human activities. In
challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton
rehashes points familiar to those who follow such
issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained
below.
Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In
particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality,
failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members
of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia
and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately
unpersuasive as well.
MICHAEL CRICHTON AND GLOBAL WARMING
by David B. Sandalow
January 28, 2005
1. Climate Science
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.
First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer than
the surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century
are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by
the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise.
Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not
affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from
urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data,
concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average
temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In
contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the
view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based
thermometers.”
Second, Crichton argues that global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast
doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since concentrations of greenhouse
gases were rising during this period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were falling
calls into question the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures.
Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, from
1940-1970. Temperature is the result of many factors, including the warming effects of greenhouse
gases, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a
game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each team changes frequently.) The fall in
Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of cooling factors
during that period, not the absence of a warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases.
Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling
factors will outweigh greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse gas
concentrations are now well outside levels previously experienced in human history and climbing
sharply. Unless we change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-made greenhouse
gases in the last century will be dwarfed by much greater warming from such gases in the next
century. There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as those that dominated the
temperature record from 1940-1970 will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the
decades ahead.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing temperature declines during the past century in
places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse
(New York) and Navacerrada (Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average
temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature declines is inconsistent with the conclusion
that the planet as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it will warm more in the next
century if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to climb.
Crichton makes other arguments, but a point-by-point rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A
thoughtful rebuttal of that kind can be found at http://www.realclimate.org.) Climate change science is a
complex topic, not easily reduced to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton’s scienceargument-
within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The
opening paragraph of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request from the Bush White
House read:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are,
in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a
reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are
expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer
model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and
increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be
critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academies Press (2001).
Time will tell whether this report or Crichton’s novel will have a greater impact on public
understanding of global warming.
2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in Crichton’s novel. Crichton argues that concern
about global warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, entertainment moguls, the
scientific establishment and general public. In Crichton’s view, many assertions are accepted as fact
without critical analysis by the vast majority of those who have views on this issue.
On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer people who have sorted through the minutiae
of climate change science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard, global warming is like
Social Security reform, health care finance, the military budget and many other complex public
policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once wrote, “Most people don’t think about
most issues most of the time.” When forming opinions on such matters, we all apply certain
predispositions or instincts and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust.
Of course this observation applies as well to the economics of climate change. The perception is
widespread in many circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be ruinously expensive.
How many of those who hold this view have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton
never musters outrage on this topic.
Crichton’s complaints are particularly striking in light of the highly successful efforts to provide
policymakers and the public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on climate science.
Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists,
economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill the peer-reviewed literature on the
science on global warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at work on the fourth.
In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this
topic, including the report cited above.
Crichton’s view that the American media provides a steady drumbeat of scary news on global
warming is especially hard to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found that the
rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times more often than global warming in the Lexis-
Nexis database. Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end without ever seeing a
global warming story.
Furthermore, the print media’s “on the one hand, on the other hand” convention tilts many global
warming stories strongly toward Crichton’s point of view. As Crichton would concede, the vast
majority of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening as a result of human
activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions could be very serious. Still,
many news stories on global warming include not just this mainstream view but also the “contrarian”
views of a very small minority of climate change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a
result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
Crichton’s most serious charge is that “open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is
being suppressed” in the scientific community. As “proof,” he offers the assertion that many critics
of global warming are retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is any basis for
these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton should back up his claims with more than mere
assertions in the appendix to an action novel.
Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard with regard to all the arguments in his
book. He is plainly a very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School graduate. A
millionaire many times over, he doesn’t need to be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say
on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for
peer review. The result could be instructive – for him and us all.
David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf
Seems much clearer to me now why he's even getting airplay, if there's a book in the pipeline. Bit of publicity.
That was exactly the problem I was having with the initial article. It wasn't well written and was seemingly an opinion piece that appeared to be written purely for the purpose of creating controversy.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
he also wrote or directed such masterpieces as "Twister" and "Congo"... i should definitely believe this guy over the entire scientific community :rolleyes:
one thing is fact, he sure does have a great imagination
uhhh AGAIN - in this thread no doubt ... this whole DDT banning costing lives is complete BS - if you got something against environmentalists - make a legit argument ... not one that has been debunked eons ago ...
THAT'S IT!!! Congo!!! I knew I'd read one of his books at some point!
I was struggling to remember what it was. Thanks!
Yes! A great imagination!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
With State of Fear, novelist Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain) has written an entertaining book where the scientific debate over global warming provides the backdrop for his hero's heart-pounding, edge-of-your-seat struggle against evil and his search for love. Like other writers who take on science themes, often exaggerating the data for dramatic effect, Crichton betrays an incomplete knowledge of the technical issues and the full dimensions of what is a very robust body of evidence and analysis. Wittingly or not, he is prone to selective use of data, indiscriminate acceptance of dubious sources and just plain errors of fact.
Dispelling Crichton's Myths
Here are just a few contentions that are made by Crichton's "climate skeptic" hero in the book, together with what the scientific evidence actually says.
State of Fear: Temperatures in some locations are actually cooling, so how can the globe be warming?
The facts: True, temperatures are cooling -- in a few select locales. Global warming refers to a warming of the average global temperature. It does not preclude cooling in some locations. Indeed, if some locations are cooling while the globe is warming on average, it follows that there must be other areas that are warming even faster than the global average. In fact, that is exactly what is happening in the Arctic, where temperatures over the past few decades have risen twice as fast as the global average, with potentially disastrous environmental consequences (see our January 2005 Solutions newsletter).
This is but one example of Crichton's selective use of data in his book to advance a specious argument. The establishment of a global trend requires that one consider a global database, not data from a few select sites. As in the case of global temperatures, Crichton uses selective and incomplete data to argue that glaciers are not melting and that sea levels are not rising. The fact is that a careful analysis of the complete global database firmly establishes that ice over the land and sea is thinning and melting and that, on average, sea levels are rising.
State of Fear: The record of increasing surface temperatures cited as evidence of global warming is actually caused by the so-called "Urban Heat Island Effect," and is thus a local, not a global, phenomenon.
The facts: Urban areas do tend to be warmer than rural areas. As the world becomes more urban, average surface temperatures will appear to be increasing. However, the surface temperature record that is used to track global warming has been carefully analyzed to filter out urban heat island effects. Moreover, the evidence of global warming goes well beyond surface temperatures. Contrary to the flawed arguments advanced by Crichton (see above) sea ice is melting, glaciers (like those in our own Glacier National Park) are disappearing, ocean temperatures are on the rise, the permafrost in Alaska is melting and sea levels are increasing.
State of Fear: If carbon dioxide (CO2) is supposed to be causing a global warming, why was there a global cooling between 1940 and 1970 when CO2 concentrations were increasing?
The facts: It is true that temperatures have not strictly followed the trend in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Over the past century, temperatures first rose, then fell slightly, then rose again, while GHGs rose steadily the entire time. But there's a simple explanation: there are many factors in addition to GHGs that affect climate. These include natural forces, such as changes in sunlight intensity and volcanic eruptions, and other human-produced effects such as those caused by sulfate aerosols from sulfur oxide emissions. Sunlight variations can either warm or cool the planet depending upon the direction of the change. Volcanic eruptions and sulfate aerosols, on the other hand, have a cooling effect. The actual variation in temperature reflects the net effect of all of these influences.
Since the non-GHG effects change over time, the pattern of observed temperature changes should not be expected to directly follow the trend in GHGs. The slight global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s appears to be the result of a decrease in solar intensity and a rapid rise in global sulfur oxide emissions. (During this period, both the United States and Europe relied heavily on coal with little or no controls on pollutant emissions, and as a result, global sulfur oxide emissions are estimated to have increased by a factor of about three.) Together, these effects acted to offset the warming effect of increasing GHGs.
By contrast, over the past 25 years, direct satellite measurements of solar intensity exhibit little or no trend and global sulfur oxide emission increases have been modest, while CO2 and other GHG concentrations have continued to increase. The result has been the rapid rise in global average temperatures experienced in recent decades. It is not possible to explain this rapid warming without invoking a dominant role for human-produced CO2 and other GHGs.
State of Fear: Even if warming is occurring, there is little evidence of human causality.
The facts: Attribution of global warming to a specific cause or causes is admittedly difficult, but a variety of independent lines of investigation all point to human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs as a major culprit:
No one has been able to put forward a self-consistent and quantitative explanation for the warming in the latter half of the 20th century without invoking the effects of the GHG from human activities;
The "smoking gun" pointing to industrial emissions as the culprit in global warming has been identified in the spatial and temporal worldwide patterns of warming in the atmosphere and oceans; and
Global temperatures in the last few decades appear to be warmer than in any other time period over the past 2,000 years.
State of Fear: Predictions of global warming are based on climate-model calculations that cannot be relied upon; results from different models disagree by more than 400%.
The facts: Highly advanced climate models have been thoroughly and carefully vetted by the scientific community. It is true that these models project a wide range in the warming of the globe by 2100 (i.e., from about 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit). Much of this range arises from differing assumptions about economic, demographic and technological trends that influence CO2 emissions, not in the models' simulation of the effects of these emissions on climate. All of the models predict that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to further warming of the globe and that the more we emit CO2 in the future, the more the globe will warm. This is actually good news because it suggests we can actually do something about global warming; that is, cut emissions of CO2 and other GHGs.
State of Fear: The published conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that served as a catalyst for international action on global warming are a misrepresentation of the deliberations that actually occurred and have been put forward to advance a political agenda.
The facts: This is nonsensical. In the first place, scientists played a central role in preparing and writing the IPCC reports. Secondly, if the IPCC had misrepresented the science of global warming, there would be a parade of scientists writing letters to newspapers, submitting papers to journals and holding press conferences alerting the world to the hoax. Suffice it to say, there is no parade. Thirdly and most importantly, following the latest IPCC report, President Bush commissioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to form a committee of climate experts to independently review the scientific understanding of global warming. The committee included seven members of NAS and one Nobel Prize winner. It was chaired by the now president-elect of the NAS. The committee reported: "the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global warming that has occurred in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community."
State of Fear: The scientists who developed the evidence for global warming cannot be trusted. They have "cooked" the data; they have a vested interest in advancing a global warming agenda; and/or they have a "herd instinct" that causes them to support the accepted view of things.
The facts: Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
A huge community of scientists from different organizations using different approaches and assumptions are working on the problem and publishing their findings, usually in peer-reviewed journals -- there is no way to "cook" the data and not be found out.
It is not clear what special interest scientists have in advancing the proposition that human-caused global warming is occurring. Some of the most outspoken proponents work in federal laboratories with their source of funding, the U.S. government, openly negative about global warming,
Scientists by nature are skeptics. Their reputations are made by upsetting the accepted view, not by supporting it. If a scientist were able to prove that the globe is not warming or that the warming is caused by natural processes instead of GHGs, he or she would instantly become a world-renowned scientist. That has not happened, but it is not for lack of trying.
For more, see a detailed point-by-point discussion of Crichton's assertions and interpretations, by Gavin Schmidt, a NASA/Columbia University climatologist.
Misstating Fear
Perhaps more disturbing than Crichton's faulty science, however, are the assertions he makes, through his protagonist, about the fundamental untrustworthiness, dubious motives and non-accountability of environmentalists (as well as scientists and media professionals, who can readily defend themselves).
To the contrary, Environmental Defense is a science-based organization, employing 29 PhD scientists in a wide range of disciplines in the natural and physical sciences. We don't invent problems. Nor do we advance solutions without compelling scientific evidence of their efficacy. And as for accountability, our financial records, including complete tax filings and independently audited financial reports, are readily available online for anyone to scrutinize. Our major donors are identified in our annual report.
We would be happy for Mr. Crichton to visit and challenge our scientists, or to examine our financial reports.
As for the charge that environmentalists are determined to foster a "state of fear" with regard to the environment (hence the title of his book), we would point out that modern citizens have virtually unlimited access to information from a huge diversity of sources -- to say nothing of their own direct observation of the world immediately around them -- from which they can draw their own conclusions about the endangered state of the environment.
Ours is but one interpretation of the real world data. If it didn't pass the "sniff test" of being confirmed by other independent information and observation, we would simply be tuned out. In the age of instant and universal availability of global information, the notion that any organization -- be it an environmental group, a media outlet, a government, a corporation or a scientific body -- could stampede an unwitting citizenry over a cliff is ludicrous on its face.
We Don't Know Everything, but We Know Enough to Act
Ultimately, Crichton's greatest disservice is to argue that insufficient certainty about climate change data should lead us to do nothing ... make no interventions.
In a world where scientific certainty is elusive in any domain, the fact is that the data on climate change and the impact of GHG emissions is more than sufficient to justify precautionary action. This is precisely why hundreds of governments, academic bodies and corporations have sounded the alarm and already are planning, advocating and taking immediate ameliorative steps to curb damaging emissions.
Rarely does the scientific study of complex systems such as the climate reach a point of closure with all scientific questions answered, as Crichton would naively require. People and societies regularly take action in the face of uncertain future risk -- using a seat-belt when driving, taking out life insurance or beefing up security at our nation's airports.
The economic, health and ecosystem risks from inaction far outweigh the inconvenience of moving away from a carbon-based energy economy. Nothing could be more imprudent than sitting on our hands in the face of a steadily accumulating body of evidence that global warming is occurring, and is already having harmful impacts, and that these will only get worse the longer we wait to act and will take a century or more to undo, if ever.
In the practical world, what must be weighed are the potential risks of future global warming, and the range of possible costs to us and our children of doing nothing, versus the possible costs of taking action to avert these risks. The overwhelming majority of informed observers who have assessed the risks and costs have concluded that steps should be taken now to limit the human-contribution to global warming by placing reasonable caps on CO2 emissions. The costs would be modest, and the potential benefits are significant and go well beyond concerns over global warming. For example, improved energy efficiency would yield direct economic benefits and increase our global competitiveness, while reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
Environmental Defense is a leading national nonprofit organization with 29 Ph.D. scientists and 32 master level scientists and economists on staff. Since 1967, we have linked science, economics and law to create innovative, equitable and cost-effective solutions to society's most urgent environmental problems.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4371