Finally, a businessman who gets it.

When I set out to have an environmental discussion this week, I had in mind that I wanted to discuss the issue with someone who had an opposing view on most environmental issues. The assignment was to listen as much as you talked. I wanted the opportunity to really sit down and think about the points made by those who are not as environmentally conscious.
I enlisted the help of my friend Dan, who is a business major. He believes in big business and making money. He has openly proclaimed that the ends justify the means in regards to money. I thought that I had my work cut out for me in calmly listening. We started our discussion on Saturday during the blazing heat, and of course he wanted to probe me regarding issues of global warming and sporadic temperatures. He started the discussion by stating that global warming is not as castastrophic as some claim, but that he did agree that there is something to be said of temperatures varying from 40 degrees to 90 degrees in the span of less than a week. We then accurately discussed the causes of global warming, both of us agreeing on the science. I then asked him what he believed the solution the problem to be. He remained silent for a few minutes, grimacing at me, you could read his thought process and frustration on his face. Though he was not an environmentalist in the least, he understood the complications of the problem. He then went on to say that government regulation has been ineffective thus far, and that big change lies with the weight big businesses. However, in his opinion big businesses will never jump on board unless they is something in it for them.
I was pleased with that answer. Even though he the epitome of the business type, he understands the weight of the issue and believes the science. Although the issue isn’t his biggest concern, he understands why people are worried. Moreover, I was thoroughly impressed that he seemed as disgruntled as I am with the daunting task of trying to fix of the earth’s environmental issues.

Don't back down

I talked with a guy waiting in line to get into the environment subcommittee hearings on a climate change and clean energy bill.

Make the polluters back down.

A Frustrating Conversation

I had a conversation with my roommate, who recently became a Republican during the election, and has made it clear to me multiple times before that she doesn't believe global warming is a fact. In the past, whenever we have started talking about the environment by chance, I tended to change the subject because I didn't want to get into an argument. Needless to say, we don't get along very well.

This time around I tried to listen and see what she had to say. She is from Portland, Oregon and made the argument that there are enough environmentalists in her state that it's okay for her to leave on the lights, heat, and TV at all hours and not recycle. I tried explaining the simple science of global warming and how consumption contributes. I tried telling her the consequences of climate change, but she would have none of it. She wouldn't listen and no matter what argument I made, she steadfastly disagreed.

After this conversation I learned that she won't listen to reason, although she is respectful enough not to tear down my Powershift and Eco-Sense posters from our door. I learned it is going to take a lot more than a conversation to convince a skeptic that global warming exists, let alone convincing someone to change their behaviors.

diverse perspectives, common ground

I have to admit that I am a moderate when it comes to environmental issues which means that few would really agree with me, but few would be completely opposed to my reasoning. For this assignment I could talk to someone completely skeptical or completely activist in environmental activism, but armed with arguments from this class and with ease of access, I chose to talk to my dad, a fairly ardent skeptic.

I let my dad open the debate mentioning that I am taking a class on environmental politics in which we are examining several different aspects of environmental protection. However, the issue quickly turned into climate change since it is the most publicized issue at the moment. I mentioned that I am somewhat inclined toward the environmentalist perspective that human activity contributes to environmental problems, but that I am not convinced that our activity as of now or in the near future spells imminent global collapse. I was impressed by my dad’s arguments. He refrained from disproved conjectures about the sun or claims that carbon dioxide is not a proven cause of warming. He mentioned the low percentage of total greenhouses gasses that are produced from human activity as opposed to all of the natural processes occurring globally, a fact which we discussed in class. In response I mentioned our discussion about natural sinks stating as more of a question than a rebuttal that if the Earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, our activity may overwhelm these natural sinks and destroy its ability to purify itself. He was not familiar with the sinks idea, but acceded to the logic only in so far as we could tell the limit of our natural sinks. He said that the Earth was getting warmer but not to an unprecedented extent despite the levels of carbon.

The point I returned to after that was that for the time being he appeared to be right, but the main question right now is how do we respond to an uncertain future. He said that was a bit of a loaded question. We rarely have an organized response to an uncertain future, and we are lucky when we have an organized, effective response to one that is short-term and certain. He is very skeptical about a top-down approach that is directed by government at the expense of populations particularly when it comes to achieving benefits that may never materialize and almost surely will not be felt in our lifetime. I have no argument there; we are certainly like-minded when it comes to political issues, but I mentioned Cradle to Cradle and the concept of redesigning. He was optimistic about this possibility as it fits with our approval of private innovation for a better lifestyle.

Through our differences we appeared to reach a compromise. Both of us believe that change has to follow practical objectives and be driven by hope of how life could be organized rather fears that are vague and uncertain. There are practical reasons to change our production and consumption behavior now, and these should be the message of the environmental movement.

Optimistic book, interesting examples, complicated man

This time around I'd like you to consider the book we're reading at the moment. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?


I think the idea of asking ourselves "What will a sustaining global commerce look like ten- or even a hundred- years from no?" is a ludicrous exercise. Planning for 10 years in the future is doable and humans may actually be able to follow that plan, but predicting what human society will look like 100 years from now is fruitless beyond a few broad parameters.

I did enjoy the notion that nothing inside the Earth system "goes away," something I've been telling people for years - whether it be sewage, trash or greenhouse gases.

I think they maybe a little too optimistic, particularly on page 149 when he brings up an apocryphal Henry David Thoreau story and uses it in a way I doubt Thoreau would condone.

Cradle to Cradle was written 7 years ago, and a lot has happened since then, and some of it could be attributed to this book. A few months back I found a very scathing article about Bill McDonough, but I think it did bring up some valid points http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/the-mortal-messiah.html

Cradle to Cradle

This time around I'd like you to consider the book we're reading at the moment. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?

I was thoroughly depressed after reading the waterproof book. I understood that we have a lot of work to do and that we are kidding ourserlves if we think that we are just going to snap our fingers and expect the world to be healthy again. But I felt like the name of the book should have been cradle to cradle: the catch 22 of the environment...

I think that there can be a brigh future because of things like the actual book being an example of how we can manufacture essentials without taking more trees from the earth, the only question then is... will we be active in making that happen... i am not sure... I liked how the book was just bluntly honest but i feel like this was a little bit of a damper, because it was like... we have so much to do and from what we have been learning in class... it takes many different forums and conventions and meetings to make things happen that will make a susbstantial difference... and with this economic crisis... i am not sure if it will be in the radar of the governments and policy makers to change the habits of people...

Catch 22 of the environment... are we ready to change?

I like waterproof books

I found Cradle to Cradle really inspiring, not just from an environmental standpoint but from a social organization standpoint. I have written before that for environmental solutions to be successful, there must be a way to incorporate them into the economic demands of consumers and industry. Redesigning things to be “upcycled” achieves exactly that.

I also liked the redesign idea because its benefits are more than purely environmental. This was not the first time that I heard that chemical components in water bottles can cause cancer. At that point I think I just got frustrated and said that basically everything causes cancer now. Why must we continue to make products that are harmful to us? Additionally, why must we continue to make things to be thrown away? I will probably have to replace my computer before grad school next year because the one I am currently using is becoming really slow, the CD drive doesn’t work anymore, and it makes some scary noises that lead me to believe it will break down at any minute. It is four years old and I get really annoyed that a $2000 piece of equipment can’t last longer than that. Their idea of leasing production capacity so that manufacturers retain the product to be reused when it is time for an upgrade could be a great innovation.

However, I am skeptical that everything we produce can eventually be upcycled in the same way. Furthermore, solutions may not come fast enough to produce the ecological benefits that people are demanding right now. The authors acknowledge that this process will last forever, take significant innovation, and require many failed attempts. I like the optimistic vision. I think more effort needs to be expended to make more products perfectly reusable, but more significant changes may be necessary in the shorter term.

Oh, The Skeptics

Both websites are very convincing. Friends of Science use various tools to persuade viewers of their position. The website has various video and audio files on the subject of climate change, a fact/myth section, as well as various articles. The website does a great job of presenting a plethora of evidence that appears to be a very scientifically based. Additionally, the Grist website is very user friendly and the outline format is easy to follow. The outline begins with skeptical frames of thought and moves into scientific based subjects with examples of types of arguments. Based on the layout and content the Grist website is more convincing and appears more credible.
I think that in order to evaluate and make sense of the scientific claims on the websites the reader must evaluate other viewpoints as well. Additionally, it is important to know where the websites are obtaining their information and if their sources are credible. In order for a controversial topic such as climate change to be fully evaluated all sides of the debate must be understood. Therefore, information from the skeptics as well as the believers should be compared and evaluated side by side.

seeing what sticks

The purpose of these sites is to convince people and sway opinion. People who may have heard of the concept of climate change/global warming will search the internet in an effort to inform themselves. In doing so they may stumble upon either of these websites and be treated to a framing of the truth. Anthropogenic Climate Change is an idea so massive in scale and scope that it is to be expected the issue would be debated. And because the data records and computer models show that the waste products of our civilization are altering the very climate, major political and socioeconomic decisions will have to be made. Originally, back in the 1970s, the scientific debate was raging on whether humans were altering the climate and if that was caused by the “greenhouse gases.” This debate meant more research was conducted, then new issues were raised so more research was done (such is the probing nature of science). This continued until about the late 80s early 90s when there was a basic scientific consensus. Of course more specific research continues, just like every other scientific discipline. There is still disagreement about ancillary causes/effects, but just as scientists agree in the premise of relativity or evolution there is still disagreement over the details of anthropogenic climate change.
The best way to evaluate the scientific claims of these sites is to read their references. Many times in “junk science” claims a clever argument-builder will purposefully misrepresent a source in order to build credibility. It takes careful study and a mastery of chemical and physical jargon to properly understand papers on climatology, and while I have been studying these things for my whole undergraduate career, I don’t understand the majority of papers.
I think the Grist site is more convincing because it is much longer, has more citations from more recognizable sources, and does not make purely counter-factual claims without explaining them. It is also hard to find what kind of skepticism the Friends of Science practice, but it seems to be natural variation of the sun coupled with CO2 not being a serious greenhouse gas. The most “credible” skeptics are those that have a set angle and do not throw up every last criticism (even if the criticisms contradict) and see what sticks in the public discourse.

Dealing with the Skeptics

I think both the websites "Friends of Science" and Grist's "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" present their information in a relevant and simple way. Friends of Science uses the classic, myth vs. fact layout while Grist uses each argument against the existence of climate change and lays out multiple articles to the contrary. The purpose of these websites is to educate the public with information (no matter how truthful it is) and gain supporters of their specific movement. Grist presents more complete information, however, with each question followed by multiple responses and supporting evidence.

As we read this week in Joseph Romm's piece, rhetoric is commonly used to refute global warming. Friends of Science uses this tactic with simple and short answers to the myths, as well as using very specific words that limit the scope of the issue.

Trying to navigate the bias

I though both of these websites were really slick. Both appealed to the scientific authority and appeared to present evidence to support their claims with very different conclusions. “Friends of Science” pokes holes in the arguments of climate change believers and “How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic” refutes the arguments of non-believers in a slightly more obvious way. Both are scientific and both are political, and looking at each issue side by side makes the issue more confusing for me.

I think the only viable way to evaluate the claims is to examine them very specifically and, assuming that neither completely misrepresents the evidence, look to the specific language that each uses to refute the other. To illustrate the point, I was surprised to read on friends of science that, “To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.” So, there are a couple of key words: “proof”, “man-made”, “cause”, and “significant”. We have to realize the statements limitation. It does not state that CO2 does not cause global warming, but it may be tempting to misconstrue that idea. There are refuting essays on How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic which address those key words. First, the issue of proof is difficult because scientific evidence can only show a correlation. Man-made is addressed in that although we contribute only slightly to CO2 atmospheric levels, that little bit puts more into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb. How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic places the burden on the skeptics to determine what would cause climate change if not CO2 and related gasses and significant is judged on the basis of our geologic timescale which would predict a significant period of cooling at the present time. However, it is also interesting to note that while the skeptics have the burden of explaining what would contribute to naturally warming at this time, the believers do know that natural cooling and warming has occurred outside of human industrialization. I have to conclude that that particular claim by friends of science is not false, but it is misleading in light of other considerations. Unfortunately, I think this type of analysis (constantly looking for different sides, slants, and conflicting claims) is necessary for each connected issue to truly understand the climate change debate and make sense of the raw data.