As the “energy sprawl” idea has been discussed and debated in the media, I (one of the paper’s co-authors) have  grown a thick skin against criticism. Perhaps the harshest piece of invective, however, still bothers me: the criticism by Matt Wasson in the Huffington Post.

The factual criticisms Matt makes aren’t that troublesome to me, and I can understand his perspective as someone who works to minimize the impact of coal mining on the environment. Matt makes the point that an acre of coal mining is not necessarily the same biodiversity impact as an acre with wind turbines, a point we totally agree with (that’s why we made it in the original paper!). And of course our one measure of land-use can’t capture all of the myriad ways energy production affects the environment; it was never meant to.

What bothers me is the accusation that my scientific paper is “poisoning” the public debate about climate change and energy policy. Indeed, Matt advocates “burning” his post (and perhaps my paper), as if retaining memory of energy sprawl issues was morally corrupting. What does this say about the way we today regard the meaning and responsibility of science to advocacy…and the fragility of public discourse?

I suspect similar criticism will be made of the recent paper by Searchinger and others in Science, which makes the point (intellectually related to the energy sprawl issue) that if land-use change for energy production is not accounted for in climate change policy, extra carbon could be released. From a certain perspective, Searchinger’s article is inconvenient for environmental NGOs just as much as my paper is…if not more so.

But what an anemic view of democracy! As if a scientific paper which complicates the advocacy position of environmentalists is somehow morally equivalent to the myth of death panels hidden in the health care bill! Matt’s title reflects a misunderstanding of science’s relationship to the environmental movement. It is not the job of scientists to produce papers that reinforce a preconceived advocacy position. Rather, it is the job of scientists to lay the facts on the table, so those facts can inform advocacy.

To be sure, any one scientific paper can be interpreted different ways be different actors. Different environmental NGOs may have different positions on what Searchinger’s article means for their advocacy on energy policy, for example, but they can still acknowledge that there is a scientific issue there to consider.

And what an anemic view of the media! As if the political discussion about climate change is so fragile that our messaging must be simple and without nuance! I think this is a very TV-era mentality, where infrequent, carefully-worded press releases could control the public debate. While some of that phenomenon still exists, in a world where thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of activists and lobbyists work on climate change issues, it strikes me as a bit naïve.

I would rather make sure that the scientific facts are out there, and then trust in the marketplace of ideas to sort out over the long term what is important and what is not.

(Image credit: the_russians_are_here/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

1. The Conservancy’s very own Duncan Marsh was quoted in this Associated Press article about an unfortunate hold-up at the U.N. climate talks happening right now in Barcelona.  Marsh says that further delays could be “tragic,” preventing necessary discussion on emissions targets.
2. It might be toxic to your wallet, or to your emotional and physical well-being, but the city of Las Vegas is the least toxic of 40 major metropolitan areas, reports GreenBiz.  Based on its number of Superfund sites, facilities that release toxic chemicals and air quality ranking, it turns out it’s Atlanta we’ve got to be really worried about.
3. Strange bedfellows Glenn Beck and PETA (yes, really) are ganging up on climate warrior Al Gore, claiming the former VP’s a hypocrite for his meat-eating ways.  Huffington Post Green says new BFFs Beck and PETA prez Ingrid Newkirk called Gore a “baby” and “steakaholic” on Beck’s Fox News show last night.  BURN!
4. German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the goal of encouraging the U.S. to “to fall in line with Europe” on climate change issues and legislation, according to Twilight Earth.  Hey, if Glenn Beck and PETA can team up for a cause, anything’s possible.
5. Treehugger reports that super-high-end fashion houses Yves Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney and Balenciaga have pledged to significantly reduce their carbon footprints by December 2010 by reducing the amount of paper they use, avoiding fiber from high conservation value forests, and purchasing only recycled or FSC-certified products.  Let’s celebrate by you buying me a Balenciaga handbag!

It’s Election Day in the United States — get out and vote! Then immediately get back on your smartphone and check out the hottest in online green this morning — including what might possibly be the best green name ever…

1. Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is disappearing — but is that climate change’s fault? Two research teams are disagreeing, reports The New York Times, with one blaming a decline in moisture rather than rising temperatures. (No word on which side of this debate the band Toto — which had the 1982 smash hit song “Africa,” which in an eerie coincidence mentions both Kilimanjaro and “the rains of Africa” — comes down. We’ll keep you posted.)
2. Meanwhile, Nepal’s cabinet plans to meet on Mount Everest to show the world how global warming is melting Himalayan glaciers, reports Associated Press. (No need for oxygen tanks — they’re only going to base camp, not all the way up.)
3. The leader of Orthodox Christianity — Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who calls himself “the green patriarch” — is in Washington this week, talking up the spiritual importance of environmentalism, reports the Washington Post.
4. Speaking of the Post, check out their great infographic tool that tracks total national per capita CO2 emissions since 1950. (Hat tip: Treehugger.)
5. Which societies will survive climate change best? Gaia Vince (which has to be one of the great green names in history) surveys the field at Yale Environment 360 and likes…Laos, among other places.

(Image: Mount Kilimanjaro. Credit: Picture_Taker_2/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

What’s more frightening than more Americans getting their news from Jon Stewart than a newspaper? When Jon Stewart says putting giant reflective mirrors into space will slow climate change…and he means it! It’s real scary stuff, kids, so we put it last in this morning’s Coolness to give you a good fright for the weekend! (Like you needed one.)

1. Wind turbines get bad press for killing migrating birds, bats…anything that flies. But a new study reported in CleanTechnica says cats and buildings kill far more…and that climate change poses the biggest threat of extinction to bird species. (Those darn outdoor cats…)
2. Were expectations too high for Copenhagen to begin with? A new study in Nature Reports Climate Change says researchers who study cooperation think “trying to get an effective multi-faceted treaty agreed between 192 nations is a waste of time,” reports Climate Feedback. Ouch! (But bilateral deals are a much more effective first step, says the report…and it seems U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern might now agree, reports The Guardian.)
3. Could reducing air pollution speed up global warming? A new report in Science magazine says some aerosols actually have an atmospheric cooling effect…perhaps akin to a giant antiperspirant. (Hat tip: Journal Watch Online.)
4. Nothing is ever easy, is it? Solar farms, it turns out, demand a lot of water for cooling — pitting them smack against water conservation in the perpetually H2O-challenged state of California, says EcoGeek.
5. Jon Stewart endorses geoengineering (you know, like placing reflective mirrors in Earth orbit or seeding clouds) as the most viable solution to climate change, prompted by the arguments of Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner. Problem is, Levitt and Dubner are wrong, say a growing number of people. Treehugger reviews the debate.

(Image credit: jpstanley/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

It’s indeed a bright green morning today, with positive news everywhere: International Climate Day of Action a big success! Smart meters galore! And here’s the big news: a new study shows your personal actions can make a difference in the fight against climate change! Take that, all you climate change pessimists.

1. Bill McKibben says we need to “stop whining and man up” to the fact that we can fight climate change. Grist chatted with him about 350’s International Day of Climate Action on October 24 (see video above), which included thousands of events around the world. Did you participate?
2. If you don’t already have a smart meter in your home, now’s your chance to get one — a government grant for $3.4 billion will install 18 million smart meters into houses across the United States to help improve energy efficiency.
3. And just in case you’re thinking that a smart meter won’t make much of a dent in climate change, a new study found that 33 simple household improvements could reduce national carbon emissions by 7 percent –enough to offset emissions from the petroleum, iron, steel and aluminum industries combined.
4. Can conservationists save the world? It’s the vision and hope of Nature Conservancy President and CEO Mark Tercek. Read a Reuters interview with Tercek about using market forces to protect nature – and how conservation is in everyone’s economic interest.  
5. Scientists have a new tool in the battle to save frogs from a deadly fungus that’s killing them all over the world: a highly-technical protocol for detecting the fungus in frogs is now available online, making it possible for scientists everywhere to have the information they need.

1. The Royal Botanic Gardens in England announces that it’s collected seeds from almost 10 percent of the 300,000 seed-bearing plants on Earth…the first phase of a project to create a seed bank of every plant known to man. (Hat tip: Yale Environment 360.)
2. The Oregonian newspaper reports on controversial scientific findings that Chinook salmon might be adapting to survive dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers in the Pacific Northwest…by delaying their trips up the river a year and growing bigger. (Hat tip: WaterWired.)
3. Could solar panels really be contributing to climate change by reradiating heat because they’re so dark? (Come again?) Ask Pablo of Treehugger punctures the myth, started (Pablo says) by the authors of the book Freakanomics.
4. Climate change reported on TV? Not likely, says a new report in the journal Communications Research, which states people who use the Internet and read newspapers are much more likely to be concerned about global warming. (Hat tip: Mongabay.)
5. Here’s a new one on Cool Green Science: Are conservationists too optimistic? A new study in the journal Biological Conservation says “conservationists are setting population targets too low to give species a decent shot at long-term survival,” reports Journal Watch Online. (You need a miminum of 5,000 adults, say the authors.)

Phew, that was a furious Blog Action Day ‘09 yesterday — with more than 13,000 blogs posting 27,000 blog posts in 24 hours on climate change in 155 countries to almost 18 million readers. (The Nature Conservancy and Cool Green Science were thrilled to be partners in the effort.) But the sun has risen again — and this day brings new word of disappointment for extremely rare turtles, a decrease in American driving, and bad news for freshwater species. Consume it all below:

1. It’s back to the, er, drawing board for the last female Yangtze giant soft-shelled turtle in the world (see video) — she (known by the nickname “China Doll”) laid 188 eggs this year, but none of them hatched, reports EcoWorldly.
2. Why is Senator Lindsay Graham now supporting a climate change bill? The Vine says the South Carolina Republican has  been swayed by the climate-change-is-a-national-security argument and by South Carolina hunters who are seeing the effects of climate change on the landscape. Kate Galbraith at Green Inc. says his constituents are giving him heat for his new stance.
3. More ice, please! Bright Green Blog reports that the Arctic ice cap is melting so fast, it will be gone during summers in a generation, says a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge.
4. Has driving jumped the shark? Fifty percent of American drivers are driving less than usual, says a new Harris poll reported in Environmental Leader, with 18 percent walking to places more than they did six months ago. (Self-powered scooters don’t show up as an option in the poll, even though they’re seemingly everywhere these days.)
5. Finally, some cheery news for the weekend: Freshwater species are the most threatened on Earth, reports Mongabay, with their extinction rates four to six times that for terrestrial and marine species. Even worse, say scientists, the problem is being completely ignored at the policy level.

Hey, Mr. and Ms. Cool, Green and Scientific — it’s Blog Action Day! Thousands of bloggers are blogging against climate change today…including Cool Green Science! (Find out more in the video above.)

What can you do RIGHT NOW to help slow climate change? Try these Nature Conservancy action items for starters:

1. Use our Planet Change interactive website to send a message to world leaders at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December — and learn more about how nature + people = solutions to global warming.
2. Use our carbon footprint calculator to add up your impact on climate change — and get tips on how to reduce it.
3. Offset that carbon footprint with our certified offset program.
4. Get tips on becoming more energy efficient from a former Nature Conservancy scientist.
5. Then use email, Twitter or Facebook to let your friends and followers know about what you’re doing and the importance of facing up to climate change, today.

Cool Green Science is proud to join more than 10,000 other bloggers on Blog Action Day. Join us in raising awareness about what causes climate change, what its consequences are, and how you can take important action to slow it down.

Thirteen years ago, The Nature Conservancy teamed up with Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza, American Electric Power Company, BP America and Pacificorp to buy out four logging concessions adjacent to Bolivia’s Noel Kempff Mercado National Park.

In addition to protecting almost 832,000 hectares of forest habitat and doubling the size of the national park, this purchase (which became known as the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project) aimed to test an idea that was appealing in principal but not yet tested in practice — that saving trees could reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Today, there is broad agreement among businesses, environmentalists, local communities, and government leaders that forest protection must be part of the solution in the global fight against climate change.

That consensus was most recently highlighted at the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles and in the findings of the bipartisan Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests.

Why such broad consensus? Because deforestation accounts for about 17 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions — more than from all the planes, trains and automobiles on Earth.

Slowing — and eventually stopping — that deforestation is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. And it is something we can do right now.

But in 1996, discussions about how to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) were in their infancy.

Trees obviously store carbon as they grow, but there were outstanding questions about how to measure the emissions reductions and to assure that saving trees in one place would not just displace logging elsewhere.

A report from Greenpeace being issued today revisits some of those old questions in an attempt to criticize the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and to discredit emissions offsets that businesses might claim by supporting such efforts in the future.

The Nature Conservancy respectfully disagrees with Greenpeace’s assertions – a disagreement based on our experience working on the ground for more than a decade to develop high quality forest carbon projects, and on the documented accomplishments and lessons learned from the Noel Kempff project.

As the world’s first project of its kind, the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project was a pioneer project that tested and refined the science of forest carbon accounting and monitoring. It is the first — and still only — REDD project to have its carbon benefits verified by an independent third party.

The Noel Kempff project also serves as an example of how well-designed forest carbon projects can result in real, scientifically measurable and verifiable emissions reductions with important benefits for biodiversity and local communities. These benefits and reductions include:

• Avoiding 1,034,107 metric tons of verified CO2 emissions — emissions that would have been caused by logging and deforestation between 1997 and 2005;
• Preserving a rich and biologically diverse forest ecosystem that was chosen as a UNESCO World Heritage Site for its outstanding biodiversity value;
• Helping local indigenous communities achieve legal status as “Communities of Native Peoples” and obtain official land title;
• Providing alternative, environmentally sustainable economic opportunities for the local communities, especially via community forestry, and jobs in park monitoring;
• Establishing an endowment which is used to fund project activities and preserve the park for future generations.

The Nature Conservancy and other organizations are now building on the experience and lessons learned in Noel Kempff to inform scientifically rigorous methods and standards for other forest carbon projects, and we are undertaking REDD projects that span entire political jurisdictions in Berau, Indonesia and Para, Brazil.

Projects like these are critical stepping stones that can help inform development of national-level programs and build up the capacity and expertise that countries will need to protect their forests on a national scale.

Getting REDD right and doing it at national scales is essential for making forests a part of the climate solution.

The Nature Conservancy is proud to have had the courage to take the first steps with the Noel Kempff Climate Action project.

We remain steadfastly committed to working with partners from all sectors to learn from, improve on and share the lessons of our experience in Noel Kempff and other forest carbon projects around the world.

(Image: Arcoiris waterfall at Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia, South America. Credit: Hermes Justiniano.)

Good morning, Cool Green News addicts! We know you missed us yesterday, but we’re back with some hot links to get your day started. Dams are coming down, a literary classic offers lessons in the climate change debate and a note of hope emerges around the U.S. climate change bill currently stalled in the Senate. Read on!

1. Some call it a stunt, others a protest — the Maldives government will be holding its next session of Parliament underwater to call attention to the watery future the country faces if sea level rise due to climate change isn’t slowed. (See the Associated Press video above.)
2. The destruction of a massive and long-standing dam in Oregon is a sign that the United States’ era of dam building is giving way to a new era of dam breaching, reports the Los Angeles Times.
3. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” Indonesia and the United States aren’t quite London and Paris circa the French Revolution, but they do present some interesting parallels in the global climate change debate – read The Nature Conservancy’s piece comparing the two countries in The Jakarta Post.
4. A new study finds that community-owned forests provide better benefits in terms of carbon storage and human well-being than government-owned forests. The authors argue that this information could help countries design the most effective forest carbon programs. (Hat-tip: Conservation Magazine.)
5. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator John Kerry published a joint op-ed in the New York Times this weekend with the optimistic title “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation),”  giving many reason to hope that passage of a bill is still possible.