“Attention Environmentalists: Keep your SUVs. Forget organics. Go nuclear. Screw the spotted owl.” Wow, if that is not an attention getting headline I don’t know what is. Well that is what is stated on the cover of the June issue of WIRED magazine. The headline continues “If you’re serious about global warming only one thing matters: Cutting Carbon. That means facing some inconvenient truths.”
So what is this all about? Yes our climate crisis is important but forget organics, drive an SUV… huh? According to WIRED magazine, “The war on greenhouse gasses is too important to be left to the environmentalist” and we need to push everything aside and just focus on our reducing our CO2 emission. Forget about everything else? Our health, cleaning up toxic areas, erosion, our culture and work only on global warming?
This single minded way of looking at the environment is split up into “10 tenets” of what WIRED magazine calls “the new environmental apostasy.”
Here’s what WIRED says:
(1) Live in Cities. WIRED posits that urban dwellers emit less greenhouse gases than those living in suburban sprawl. Well this is true. As reported by Reuters on May 30th in a story entitled Big US Carbon Footprint Lie East of the Mississippi, “metropolitan areas, where people drive shorter distances and use less electricity in their homes, are greener. On average, an urban dweller’s carbon footprint was 86 percent of a suburban or rural resident’s.” So we should all move to cities? Is this realistic? Cram everyone into NY, LA, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver? LA where you can only see the surrounding mountains when it rains and the smog settles? What about health issues? Also, “green” goes beyond just CO2 emissions. Cities can’t sustain themselves. Central Park isn’t a farm, and Staten Island isn’t used as a giant diary. So yes, urban areas may emit less greenhouse gasses per person, but they are still massive heat islands, net consumers of food, oil and other things that are generated by the generation of CO2, NO2 and SO2.
(2) A/C is OK. According to WIRED it takes more energy to raise the thermostat in New England to 70 degrees when it is zero outside then it takes to lower the temperature in Phoenix to 70 degrees when it is 110 degrees outside. Therefore using the A/C emits less greenhouse gases in heating a house in winter. Well how about all the greenhouse gases emitted from shipping all the food that does not growing 110 degree weather to feed those people using the A/C or all the water that needs to be pumped into the swimming pools to cool down those sweating people in Arizona.
(3) Organics are not the answer. WIRED magazine’s argument here is organic dairies do not produce as much milk as industrial dailies. Organically fed animals take longer to fatten up before going to market. More time breathing means more time to burp, fart and poop emitting more greenhouse gases e.g. methane. Organic farmers do not produce as much produce per acre as industrial farmers. Even so, organic farming has become big business delivering “wholesome” food to moms like me across many thousands of miles; think grapes from Chile or Strawberries from California. Well this is one that rips my heart out. Don’t eat organic? Are they kidding? First, don’t we need to be healthy and alive to save the environment? Organic produce and meats are significantly more nutritious than industrial foods. (To read more about the nutritional difference of organic over industrial produce read my past post “Another Point of the Organic Industry!“) The pesticides and fertilizers that are used on industrial farms are ALL made out of fossil fuels, degrading the land and polluting the water from runoff. And the same trucks and planes that are hauling the organic foods are also hauling their industrial counterparts. So organic or industrial? Go organic. Now I will agree with WIRED on one point. Buy local. But local industrial is worse than shipped organic. WIRED’s reporters would have us eat the pesticide laden lettuces grown locally. Yuck! Not for me and my family.
(4) Farm the Forest. WIRED reports that 55 years is the age at which a tree’s ability to absorb carbon begins to decline. Their solution — cut down trees and plant new ones — clear old trees and landfill the scraps. So now we need landfills for trees? Then they suggest planting seedlings and cut them down as soon as their CO2 absorption declines and make furniture. According to Alex Steffen of Editor of WorldChanging.com in his rebuttal article in WIRED, “Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old.” He continues to say “Chopping down forest causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated plantings a dodgy prospect.” Gosh, clear cutting just doesn’t make that much sense does it? Old growth is still better than no growth.
(5) China is the solution. WIRED says it is the solution because China is producing 35% of the worlds photovoltaic factories (solar panels) and soon will produce inexpensive wind turbines–though there is currently more than a 3 year backlog of orders for wind turbines globally. I would not say that this makes China the solution. With China’s population at more than 1.3 billion and rising, they are more of the problem than the solution. China heats itself with coal, can’t feed itself, and has become the fastest consumer of oil and other petroleum-based products in the world. Additionally, China (like the US) has not signed the Kyoto treaty, so they will pump the greenhouse gasses out as fast as they can. So they are the solution? Also, just between you and me, while I love solar and wind, neither are base-load solutions, and can only supplement coal, gas or nuclear plants (and yes I know all about geothermal, but there aren’t enough resources to really make a difference.)
(6) Accept genetic engineering. WIRED believes that we need to look at Mosanto, Dupont and Syngenta as saviors who will feed the world- where’s Bob Geldoff when you need him? They gleefully report that genetically engineered crops creates higher yields, and that they are the only hope for biofuels. WIRED’s reporters even discuss genetically created meat — lab-grown animal flesh–think Soylent Green–its people. (To read some of my rants on Monsanto check my past post on milk labeling.) Are they kidding?
(7) Carbon trading does not work. Now I cannot dispute or agree with this position. I have limited knowledge on this issue. According to WIRED magazine, the trading system put forth by the Kyoto Protocol will slow rising emissions by 6.5 days. That does not sound so good. They feel that a carbon tax would do a better job. To understand the difference between carbon trading and tax read “Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading: What’s the Difference, and Which is Better?” by Kevin Baumert posted on the Global Policy Forum. Also, check out Gar Lipow pieces on Grist called “Emission trading: A mixed record with plenty of failures, regulations work better.”
(8) Embrace nuclear power. Well I am not sure I can embrace something that leaves us with a lot of radioactive waste. However, nuclear power does emit a lot less carbon than coal as it is currently used but it is not zero–there is no zero carbon electricity generation. Uranium needs to be mined, refined and enriched; the power plant needs to be built and operated; each step uses fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases. The biggest issue for me is safety. A nuclear accident could do extreme harm to people and the environment — killing thousands of people, injuring hundreds of thousand and contaminating a very larger area of land. Is that worth it? I say no, my husband says yes.
(9) Used cars not hybrids. A company called CNW Marketing Research Inc. released a study titled Dust to Dust Energy Report which analyzed data on the “energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrap.” Based on the results of this report, which used data points from 2005 and earlier including setting oil at a maximum of $80 per barrel and gas at $3.00 per gallon (a worse case scenario they say), WIRED suggests that we purchased a used car and that a hybrid such as a Prius has a larger carbon footprint than a Hummer. From concept to road, CNW discovered that because of the nickel hybrid battery of hybrids the complete carbon footprint is higher than a Hummer. To get the full gist of the study you have to read it but what WIRED is suggesting is purchase a used car that the first owner already paid off the carbon debt such as a 1994 GeoMetro XFi – what they say is the most fuel efficient car there is. However, I do not think I would put my kids in a car that has no airbags with all those “green” Hummers on the road. By the way, I not sure how this all applies in 2008 when oil is at $140 a barrel and gas is as high as $4.40 in some places.
(10) Prepare for the worst. So WIRED says some type of climate change is going to happen and I agree with them. We are already seeing it around the world. But this just means we have to get with the program and stop delaying the necessary steps needed. We have been talking about this for years and we still see delays. The auto industry should be forced to build more fuel efficient cars. Heavy manufacturing industries need to be forced to reduce carbon. Utilities need to invest in new energy sources. Ethanol subsidies need to end. There is so much that must be done.
Does that mean I need to buy more bikini’s to prepare? Not sure what WIRED wants us to do.
What do you think? What are you doing?
Oh. My. Well. By their rules, then, I should be living in a small apartment in the middle of Phoenix, yes? Reading things like this makes me wonder if someone who isn’t necessarily well versed in other theories might feel completely helpless. Barring the more controversial aspects of their article, the first few principles are completely impractical for the vast majority of your average folk. So how many then, will feel paralyzed and will do nothing?
06/12/08 » 9:49 am »
I think the most environmentally destructive thing to do is to make people feel as if they are defeated and can do nothing. Wired is doing just that. Happy people, who feel they can make a difference spread by example and as we all add up we have a huge impact at making a lighter footprint. Instead of taking the fatalistic doom attitude, they should be educating the masses, children, media, everyone about all the simple viable ways they can help clean up the mess.
Wired will get alot of backlash from that article consdiering how many SUV’s were given’ up and production being reduced to 40% already.
06/12/08 » 11:53 am »
I subscribe to wired, and love it, but there is an element of We’re Bad Boys– We Can Shake You Up to their writing.
For solid information about what really makes a difference and what doesn’t, I go to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices is a great antidote to that helpless feeling.
06/12/08 » 3:10 pm »
“How to Sell a Lot of Issues of Wired Magazine” It is always interesting to read alternative theories. This hearkens back to the “nuclear is the true environmental answer” debate.
06/12/08 » 3:29 pm »
I hate to say it, but nuclear is actually the “cleanest” form of base-load energy around right now.
Until we figure out how to make carbon-based fuels burn cleaner, we’re pretty well screwed. Power demands are growing nationally between 10-15% annually, while supplies are growing around 4%.
So either we all turn a lot of stuff off (including our computers, laptops, iphones, etc.,) or we add a ton of capacity. And given that we get almost all our base load power from coal, nat. gas or nuclear (solar, wind and other forms of alternative energy just are not consistent enough to provide power 24/7) we need to figure out a better way to make energy.
Btw…don’t get me started on the b.s. of compact fluorescents. Its all about LEDs.
06/12/08 » 5:39 pm »
If Lewis is smart enough to say: “It’s all about LEDs”, he should also be smart enough to read another article in this headline grabbing issue of WIRED about how classified nano-chemistry released for commercial applications designed a better fishing rod! Now that should tell you something, that many solutions to the climate change crisis are kept under wraps by a secretive military only interested in single applications of patents for weapon development. Compartmentalization is hindering our quest for more efficient energy conversion technologies benefiting the whole of society.
Nuclear is NOT the cleanest form of base-load energy. High density storage batteries for wind, solar, and other forms of renewable electrical generation could be that by now, if the best battery chemistries in the world weren’t still languishing in University labs, bogarted by Darpa and other military interests! We (Electrifying Times) have reports from the last li-ion conference that chemistries capable of taking an electric car 3000 miles on one charge are available… but guess what? Who controls energy technology investments?
This is not about oil and coal vs. nuclear. This is about oil, coal and nuclear vs. decades of energy conversion suppression orchestrated to benefit the interest of energy centralization fattening a few families in Greenwich and the Hamptons who still control major energy corporations like ExxonMobil.
LEDs, which we know could reduce electrical consumption on this planet by more than 50% in less than ten years if we put our back into it, are right now, being held back by General Electric and its LED partner Phillips who are using patent law infringement as a pretext to prevent China from unloading LED shipments in US harbors, while themselves are producing LEDs by the trickle!!! Don’t get me going about how Duracell and Eveready took 20 years to be dragged into the rechargeable market, while still urging consumers to buy throw away alkalines!
Pick your fights and your enemies very carefully. There is no worse resistance to positive change on this planet than the nuclear power industry. They incarnate everything that is egregiously wrong with the way we produce and consume energy. Nuclear radiation is the number one cause of cancer on Earth… the medical evidence is being suppressed by the American Cancer Association, one of the most corrupt charities in America. WIRED is owned by Conde Nast, which has resisted printing any of its titles on recycled stock… only paid lip service to the environment by publishing one green issue of Vanity Fair a year, stealing article concepts from journalists like myself because they can’t deal with my convictions, refusing to give me a well deserved byline. They feel they have to tone down everything for mass consumption, to keep their SUV advertisers.
Don’t buy into a magazine that screams nuclear is good for you on Day-Glo virgin stock! Makes you sound like a pinkerton.
06/12/08 » 8:50 pm »
RemyC:
You say that “Nuclear radiation is the number one cause of cancer on Earth…” – and somehow connect this to nuclear power entirely? What about the immense number of other sources of radiation? Do you seriously expect people to believe that nuclear reactors are the sole source of cancer causing radiation? Or even a significant source?
The amount of radiation that any given person is exposed to due to nuclear power plants pales in comparison to the myriad sources of radiation in our every day life.
What about the carbon footprint of producing, setting up and maintaining wind and solar farms? Let alone the immense amount of physical space they use compared to their output… and then what about when its not sunny/windy? Then theres the birds, surely you’ve heard about all the issues around birds falling victim to gigantic wind turbines.
You may be scared of the big bad “R” word but its a part of our everyday life. Heck, people have naturally radioactive granite counters in their kitchens that cause them to receive more radiation on a day to day basis then someone who works with radioactive materials in a plant/lab.
The possibility of absorbing a significant amount of radiation due to proximity to a nuclear power plant is minimal at best due to the many safety precautions in modern nuclear power plants.
06/13/08 » 12:41 pm »
Green your next seminar and skip the “Nice. Plastic forks”. : Ecopreneurist
[...] our over-wired world, live events are a luxury, an hour or three to feel how much we really love context and [...]
06/14/08 » 12:51 pm »
Though I’ve got my opinions, I won’t get into the nuclear argument here again. Instead, I wanted to say that i think one problem we have in this discourse is the separation of environmentalism and concern for carbon emissions. It should be logical that the two go hand-in-hand but alas the current dialogue happening in the US media does not combine the two. If all we’re concerned about is carbon emissions, then maybe Wired is right. Nuclear is relatively greenhouse-gas free and the largest consumer of energy is industry and unless big-business cuts their consumption, every little thing we do (like switching to LEDs or not driving our SUVs) isn’t going to be effective. I think why this article makes us crazy is because as environmentalists we know this issue is about more than just carbon emissions. And we know that making a huge difference requires a philosophical sea change that Wired doesn’t seem to be advocating but which is the only way we can move beyond these silly discussions on how great a difference a light bulb can make and move on to bigger issues.
06/15/08 » 2:26 am »
I’m curious as to how WIRED defines “environmentalist”. I would say that anyone who intentionally works to improve environmental quality, including the authors of the article in question, fit the bill. The magazine simply makes an inflammatory statement to sell copies.
WIRED’s declarations can hardly be taken seriously, when they miss the very real problems of soil loss, nutrient pollution, stormwater management, intensive animal agriculture, and fisheries over-use. Their advice on diet falls short by neglecting carbon benefits of reduced meat consumption, losing weight, and consuming in-season produce. A couple of hours of research, a conversation with an agronomist, or some common sense would have shed light on most of these.
Hair-splitting over definitions and shoddy research aside, most of what WIRED has written isn’t new. The “environmentalists” they ridicule with broad-brush have been praising the merits of urban living for years. The first time I heard this advice was in 1995, when a couple of MD State Assembly members lectured for a course I was taking. At the time, they were already working to encourage movement into cities. It wasn’t a new idea back then. Likewise, Nuclear energy has some vocal supporters in the environmental movement, like Stewart Brand, James Lovelock, and Patrick Moore.
I think there is an environmental benefit to the use of nuclear energy, but primarily as a temporary solution. WIRED misses the fact that a more sustainable, more efficient solution is a combination of mass-localization, and resource conservative lifestyles. Rather than simply replacing coal-fired nodes on the grid with nuclear (or wind-powered nodes), in the long run individual buildings need to produce more of their own power by whatever means is geographically appropriate and sustainable. Long-distance transmission wastes a great deal of energy.
The article is a publicity stunt, but one that may legitimately get people who bristle at the word “environmentalist” thinking about environmental problems.
RemyC,
What’s your source on the nuclear radiation / cancer issue? I’m not sure that what you’re saying is necessarily true of nuclear power plants per se. According to EPA and NRC radiation exposure from living near a nuclear plant is less than what people are exposed to for medical purposes or from nature. Under normal conditions, coal-fired plants expose local people to more radiation than do nuclear plants. Even nuclear failures can be greatly overblown. For example, people living within the vicinity of the Three Mile Island accident received an additional dose of radiation that was much less than what you’d experience from a chest x-ray. Radioactive materials can be managed safely.
06/17/08 » 9:34 am »
I understand that Wired is trying to sell more copies, but the way they’re doing it is (in my opinion) irresponsible and misleading.
06/17/08 » 9:53 am »
The naturally occuring radiation you get from space, coal burning, rocks under your house, is not at all the same kind of thing as the elements vented and leaked by nuclear power plants… They’d like for you to think so, it’s been their credo, but it’s a lie. There’s no such thing as enriched uranium let loose by nature, let alone plutonium… these elements didn’t exist in the natural environment until we spent billions to produce them and put them there… “nuclear energy, but primarily as a temporary solution.” yeah, right, which is why we’re going to craddle this waste for thousands of years. Temporary as in forever! Everytime you fire up a new nuke, you dump the responsibility of watching over it to hundreds of future generations… Rust never sleeps… it’s suicidal, criminal, and why I won’t ever buy into the argument that nuclear is an option. It’s never been, never will be, it’s sheer madness, perpetuated by a folly of greed, grandeur and stupidity. It’s been going on since the Manhattan Project. We have to put a stop to it, otherwise there won’t be anything left to save, ultimately all these reactors will go critical, will collapse from old age, accidents will happen, are happening, and our environment will become so radioactively toxic, we’ll simply vanish like a failed experiment… maybe that’s our faith, but not on my watch! Shut down Indian Point! Shut them ALL down!
06/25/08 » 6:18 am »