Wired On The Environment: PASS or FAIL?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 05.29.08
My daughter grabbed our Wired before I knew it arrived, so I am late to the pile-on. The cover article is an attempt to challenge the cherished chestnuts of the green movement.
Hank at Eco-Geek did a section-by-section analysis which I think mostly gets it right, although I think Wired is cooking the books on Air conditioning; they say that it takes less energy to cool a house than to heat it, and that the carbon footprint of a house in Phoenix is less than a tenth of a house in the Northeast; a) I don't believe it and b) you can heat a house with all kinds of fuel, including that big unshielded fusion reactor in the sky; you can pretty much only cool with electricity. Hank also hides behind "nuclear neutrality" and is called out on it in the comments.
Dave Roberts crapped all over it, "This techno-futurist, hipster-libertarian, self-consciously contrarian shtick was fresh and interesting ... back in 1996, when Wired was founded. Since then, it has congealed into a set of knee-jerk mannerisms and affectations. It has lost its edge. At this point it just makes me yawn."
Not surprisingly, Michael Shellenberger loved it, saying "Wired Calls for the Death of Environmentalism" and says "It's totally provocative and interesting. While I don't agree with all of it (I'd like our few remaining old-growth forests to remain standing!) Wired nails a bunch of hugely important issues that greens (that means you, Dave at Grist) still haven't grappled with."
In the end, Alex Steffen nails it in his counterpoint in the issue and in his post in Worldchanging:
"The discussions we see today -- whether we're talking energy sources, farming practices or fashion choices -- are not even the right kind of debate. Unable to mentally grapple with the idea that we need to be aiming for total sustainability right now, we talk to death the same series of inadequate baby steps. Faced with the need to reinvent the material basis of our civilization, we argue paper or plastic." ::Wired
With electricity, it takes much less energy to cool a house.
The Wired formulae ihas generally been to throw enough outrageous social trend predictions and Silicon Valley business fads on the hot graphics covered wall that some will stick and be remembered and the rest forgotten. I recall their glorification of Global Crossing and hundreds of other unsustainable "Dot com" busters. Where are the Wired Top ten heros of the past? Plenty are investing in green schemes!
That said, the green tsunami wave of 2007 is certainly fair game for harsh criticism. However, Wired has missed the real vulnerabilities in contemporary green movement values, seemingly preferring to take a page from the GOP "Culture Wars"
Far worse characterizations are coming. At a casual gathering, recently, I was informed by a new acquaintance that 'the green movement is a resurgent form of communism in disguise; and that when Communist China aligns at last with the Kyoto treaty requirements, the lefties on both sides of the Pacific will align to subdue capitalism.'
"Big unshielded reactor in the sky"....and generally just refer to it as "the scare-ball" (cookies if you catch the reference).
I also don't buy the energy > cooling vs. heating. The way I see it, there is only so much clothing you can take off to cool down before you have to start using fans or (gasp) the dreaded AC, but you can always pile more clothes on to warm up.
An environmentally-conscious individual can do a lot to use the sun and other sustainable methods to heat a home with as little to no carbon hoof-print, so I do think it's wrong to just generalize that any home being heated is automatically using more energy than a home being cooled.
Actually, speaking as a Texan who's done some ranching you actually want to keep clothing *on* in the heat. It protects you from the sun, and holds on to water so that your sweat can cool you more effectively.
You gotta learn to move slower (the heat is actually my theory on where the southern drawl came from), and you have to learn not to work in the heat of the day. But by and large if you don't mind sweating a bit it's not horribly unpleasant. I know of people here who don't have air conditioning.
As long as we don't run out of water the South is definitely more hospitable to humans than the North even without air conditioning.
Of course, you won't be able to expect us to work 10 hour days without it.
"but you can always pile more clothes on to warm up"
And these clothes appear in your cupboard energy neutral do they?
Yep, we weighed in on this right quick: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/wired-poses-controversial-climate-change-solutions/
Yes, indeed: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/wired-poses-controversial-climate-change-solutions/
Put a slice of cheese on Wired's head. It is FAIL CAT.
The part about cutting down the old growth forests was particularly disturbing.
"I also don't buy the energy > cooling vs. heating. The way I see it, there is only so much clothing you can take off to cool down before you have to start using fans or (gasp) the dreaded AC, but you can always pile more clothes on to warm up."
Their argument is along these lines: If it's 100 degrees outside, you only have to lower the temperature 32 degrees to get to a relatively comfortable 68 degrees.
If it's 0 degrees outside, you have to raise the temperature 68 degrees to get to comfortable.
They also claim that A/C is more energy efficient per degree change than heat is.
They make a reasonably good argument.
Personally, I would rather be hot than cold, but tha's just my preference.
I heard his interview on NPR and kept thinking,
"he isn't getting into details, he is correct with some things and anyone that knows about their ecological footprint knows this stuff, and is Wired magazine needing new subscribers and ads?"
I think the thing that bothered me most was the "hyped up" title and in the NPR interview the pre-canned questions to prompt the answers.
Ha, good catch tree hugger. I also weighed in. http://www.loglo.org/2008/05/taking-wired-to-the-woodshed/
This was a very provocative article, as I believe W intended. Look at how many blogs are now linking to them.
On the main, I think this was more a case of green-flag-waving than anything else. Wired is trying to ride the wave. I don't see a whole lot of other content in their mag that is thinking critically about green issues.
On the energy for heating vs. cooling, we basically need more information. It really depends on the kind of system: oil burners are more efficient than electric heat (b/c you aren't throwing away 2/3 to 3/4 of the energy in the oil at the power plant), but when it is only a little cold a heat pump can be even more efficient, using 1 unit of electrical energy to heat the house with more than 4 times as much heat from outside (like an air conditioner operated backwards).
In both cases the key really is the size of the temperature difference you want to maintain. If, say, the difference is the same in both cases then yes, heat is cheaper. But if it is really, really cold vs. only a little hot, air conditioning can win out.
More sustainable than electricity, Maca
Calling nuclear energy "clean" or "green" is grossly inaccurate.
I volunteer for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy which have collected mountains of scientific research that clearly shows the harmful effects, of nuclear energy production, on humans, wildlife, water, food, and the atmosphere.
Anyone who says anything to the contrary is either self-deluded, uneducated, or a liar.
Period.
In general I enjoy Wired but this time they are way out of control. SUVs are harmless? Where do these guys live? TRying to attract readers' attention is one thing, writing serious observations is another...
http://electronrun.com/
http://failblog.org/
I read the whole thing and I have to say my continued reading instead of posting about each section may influence the way I percieve the article's individual sections. Basically, as soon as I saw support for Mansato my respect for the article dropped CONSIDERABLY.
1) Live in Cities - Only works because people have already destroyed the natural habitat that once existed there. This also flies in the face of leaving little or no impact in rural areas. You can actually promote biodiversity while living in rural/suburban areas, it is much harder to do so by living in a city. Also does not address the ability to work from home, thereby eliminating commuting costs altogether.
2) A/C Is OK - Partial ok on this one. Yes, AC uses less energy, but AC also supports living in areas that are naturally uninhabitable. To make these areas livable in the sense most Americans think, you have to supply a LOT of energy and products across a very large distance. That and the AC will run ALL YEAR ROUND whereas northern areas typically only run heat and no AC, thereby offsetting the energy usage (and bundling up).
3) Organics Are Not The Answer - This is where my opinion started going downhill fast. Monsanto is possibly the most evil agricultural company on the planet. You don't even have to look for it, it's all over the place, try wikipedia for a sample. Their arguments ignorantly skipped over the possibility of *gasp* local organics which are by and far the most common. They also used travel time as an organic downside, but must have FORGOT to list it as a downside to GE agriculture, which is a HUGE loss considering GE is done separately in all sorts of different areas of the country. Way to support your cause by forgetting the major facts here that you use to bash organics. GE animal plants are also a major toll on the environment, you'd think they had a heavy metal processing plant the way the areas around them look. Don't forget that all those antibiotics and hormones have to be generated in a factory and oh yeah, harvested from plants in the first place. There are some good comments, like produces more food, but others are simply wrong, like "produces food for 6 billion people". Most countries won't even accept GE products much less produce them. This also mistakingly throws into the mix that somehow people only survive due to GE, they don't, the major problem is TRANSPORTATION, NOT growth. GE is not needed.
(continued)
4) Farm the Forests - Half ok, aged trees sequester a lot of carbon and new ones provide more holding capacity. Chopping them down however will stress areas that require them to maintain their natural habitat. Using certain trees for responsible uses is ok, chopping them down just because they are old is not.
5) China Is the Solution - China produces some of the most toxic products on the face of the earth, does it in a very unsustainable way despite some advances and is NOT on the Kyoto agreement, nor do they have basic human rights. They also import most of their materials in the first place to make the products. China isn't even close to being the answer, it's part of the problem like everyone else.
6) Accept Genetic Engineering - See Mansanto article on Wikipedia.
7) Carbon Trading Doesn't Work - One out of 10 isn't bad. Give yourself a cookie.
8) Embrace Nuclear Power - Uh, no. I will however, submit that NP will give us a lot of power once we get the advances needed to supply power over long distances. Then we can throw all the waste in one specific area and all the plants there too. I'd be ok with destroying one spot of the earth to save the rest of it.
9) Used Cars — Not Hybrids - Or just recycle your older car? Sometimes you have to buy a new one because the old one doesn't work anymore. I can't complain too much though, they are mostly right here. What about bicycles? Pestering your congressman for major train systems? How about doing something OTHER THAN DRIVING?
10) Prepare for the Worst - This is NOT a proven hypothesis, that we are already over our limit. The earth has some astounding healing abilities to balance itself out, however we're throwing damage over time at it and that prevents it from doing anything. The numbers of how we'll continue to pollute even if we shut down our country is outright wrong. It completely removes the new growth of plants, trees, and revival of an entire ecosystem out of the equation. Worst of all, until proven, this is a defeatest attitude. Sure, be wary of changes, but don't go balls out saying "OH THE END IS NIGH" until you see the sky on fire.
Overall, poor article, poor background research, bad execution and elimination of some of the non-climate changing effects led to ignoring the causation of said effects which in fact was...you guessed it, climate changing effects. Looking at one piece of the puzzle is what politicians do, not smart green individuals.
Has everyone missed this?
Military Secrets Help Produce the Ultimate Synthetic Fishing Rod
By William Snyder
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/16-06/ps_superrods
What WIRED is saying, is that all the best green technologies are kept top secret by military black labs!
That article counteracts everything else in the issue... it's a Trojan Horse!
The thing about air conditioning in the desert is you can use swamp coolers to cool your house because of the low humidity. They are *very* efficient - far more than any heating system.
On AC vs. heating... I haven't read the wired article so I don't know how they came up with that comparison but consider this, when you're heating a house in Mass, the average winter outdoor temperaturemight be 20-30 degrees F and the indoor temp wil be somewhere in the 60's or a differential of around 40 degrees. When you're cooling, a house in Pheonix, the outdoor temperature might be in the 90's and you're trying to cool to the 70's, a temperature differential of around 20 degrees. In a sense, you're not comparing apples to apples. That's one of the reasons why the number of for a given house's AC (mine for example is 36k BTU's) will be much smaller than the heating system (mine for example is $144k BTU's).
Also, consider the fact that when you are heating, you are converting energy from one form to another. When you are cooling, you are moving heat energy from inside to outside. That's why your AC compressor and your fridge blow warm air out.
There are forms of cooling that don't use electricity directly, geo-thermal heat pumps come to mine.
I just read the article in question, and am absolutely disgusted. There was some great information in there, I'll give them that. But hey, look at how they gave it! The hid three fourths of the information and gave only what discounted certain "treehugger-beliefs". All they're doing is making the movement look bad! What the hell! If you want to be of any use WIRED, give some information that people need to know and let them pick what side they are on!