Green Progress Being Born Right Now

This article was first published in the College Voice on 12/7/07. Written by Alex Krogh-Grabbe and Pat Wallace.

There are so many exciting changes in climate policy happening right now, that this may be old news before it reaches your eyes. While we might be anxious about this from a journalistic perspective, it’s thrilling to see that the changes we desperately need are actually happening.

Before getting to all the positive news, we want to address a few issues presented by Prof. Monce in his most recent letter. First, he tries to argue that we missed his assertion that “a single piece of confirmed contrary evidence” can overturn an established scientific theory. We didn’t miss his claim, but since policy is being formed on climate change right now, policymakers need to rely on the best science available. Even though Prof. Monce might disagree, the best available science about climate change points decisively to human-produced greenhouse gases as the primary cause.

Consider also that ethical-but-misguided scientists like Prof. Monce make up a small minority of “climate deniers”. Most of those who dispute the current state of climate science are in the employ of oil, coal, and auto companies, or far-right political think-tanks. We urge Prof. Monce to be as critical of his own theory as he asks us to be of ours.

But this dry dispute has diluted this column for too long. We’re moving on. News about climate change is now dominated by a happy and hopeful exclamation mark, not a murky question mark.

In the next few days (perhaps by the time you read this) the US Senate will vote on the 2007 Energy Bill, which has provisions raising fuel efficiency standards from 25 to 35 mpg, and possibly a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires electrical utilities to get 15% of their power from clean energy by 2020. This will be a fantastic step forward for a political body that has recently been unacceptably stagnant. It’s a great step, but it’s just one step; we must hope and demand that whoever is elected president next fall will bring the US up to par with the rest of the world. We need to work toward much higher investment in clean energy, a moratorium on new coal plants, and a reduction in subsidies for dirty energy. This will inject bright green power into our economy, creating millions of new jobs and the sort of prosperity we demand.

Also going down this week are the international climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia. Delegations from nearly every country in the world are meeting this week and next to generate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto agreement required that signatory nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Until now, only Australia and the US were the only industrialized countries to not ratify the Protocol. But just a few days ago, the brand new Australian prime minister announced that he would sign the treaty, leaving the United States as the last industrialized nation holding out against it. There are great hopes that Bali will set the stage for a meeting after the Bush administration leaves office in which a new international climate action plan can be created.

These phenomenal political initiatives show that the American people, and the people of the world, have realized that the time for environmental action is now.

Monce Letter #3

This letter originally appeared in the College Voice on 11/30/07

I’d like to respond again to Mr. Krogh-Grabbe, and now also the Renewable Energy Club (REC).

First, Mr. Krogh-Grabbe: he seems to have missed my argument in the first part of my article of November 9,16th, in which I state that all it takes is a single piece of confirmed contrary evidence to overturn a hypothesis, while it takes a very large amount of data to confirm a hypothesis. This is the way science operates. The fact that the data I presented is a “small sample” has nothing to do with its validity in refuting a hypothesis. I’ll present another example: in the late 1800’s a truly “overwhelming majority” (to use the REC’s phrase) of physicists were convincced that light traveled through a substance called the “ether”. Then along came Michelson and Morley who did an experiment to measure the ether. They failed in their attempt. In fact, Michelson remained so convinced, even after their failed experiment, that he would not give up the idea of the ether. However, that ONE single experiment overturned our notions of light, and laid the foundations for Einstein’s relativity. The experiment wasn’t really a failure, it was just nature telling us we were wrong in our thinking.

The REC accuses me of scaring them because of I offer no alternative to stopping solar variation. Of course I do not; there isn’t a solution. We live with the star we have. There is absolutely nothing we can do at present to alter in any way our star’s output. However, I don’t think all is lost. Looking at the historical data I presented I would have assumed that when presented with the fact that the Middle Ages were much warmer than today and no major ecological disaster occurred, that would be a comforting revelation. I look forward to perhaps some wine from Great Britain again. In fact, looking at the data for 10-100,000 year time frames shows the current variation to be well within past trends; there is nothing today outside of the variability the planet has shown in the past. The REC also is irresponsible when it invokes the scare image of imminent coastal flooding of New England and Florida, which I assume refers to the rising ocean levels. A very recent paper reappraises sea-level rise rates and adjusts the data using GPS techniques, thus giving an even more accurate estimate than that given in the recent IPCC report. The IPCC reports 1.8 mm/year, while the new report gives a value of 1.3 mm/yr (Woppelman et al, Global Planetary Change, vol 57, 396 (2007). I assume New London qualifies as coastal region and has an average elecation of maybe at most 2 meters. So using both the IPCC and the new values we find that New London will be under water in either 1100 years or 1500 years. That’s a long time from now. It also assumes the climate won’t change again, which the historical data tells us is most unlikely.

Where in my article did I ever exhibit a “do-nothing attitude”? If the REC is going to use personal insults as an intellectual argument, they could at least back up such statements. In the very last paragraph of the article I state quite clearly that I would like to see the entire US transportation system to be petroleum free. How is that “doing nothing?” I also never stated anywhere that I thought reducing CO2 emissions is a worthless effort. The REC might want to look back into the Environmental Modeling Committee minutes of a couple of years ago and see who was the prime supporter of installing a large number of solar panels for campus energy generation before they accuse me of trying to “stop their greening efforts.” Further, would the REC support the construction of nuclear power plants for electric generation? They have absolutely no CO2 emission. If not, I cannot take their rather emotional and political fight for CO2 reduction too seriously from a scientific standpoint.

- Michael Monce, Professor of Physics

Response to the Climate Debate

This article first appeared in the College Voice on 11/16/07.

 

In his most recent letter, Professor Monce further argues against the conventional wisdom of climate science. He points out that scientific truth is determined by repeated empirical testing, not by consensus. He accuses the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of not sufficiently examining contrary evidence, and further pushes the opinion that solar variation (not human-produced greenhouse gas) is the primary driving force of global warming. According to Prof. Monce, there are reputable studies supporting this claim.

It seems like a lot of what Prof. Monce is concerned about is that climate scientists have rushed to a conclusion about the causes of climate change. However, the leading authority on climate sceince, the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, was very meticulous in its analysis of information. It includes the input of “more than 1200 authors, [and] 2500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries” (according to the Union of Concerned Scientists). Furthermore, the full report references more than 19,000 scientific studies. Of course, the consideration of dissenting experimental results is very important for the integrity of the scientific process, but when the conclusive, repeated majority of data support a hypothesis, it must be accepted as the most likely reality. In this situation, the reality is that CO2 emissions play the primary role in causing global climate change.

Prof. Monce successfully shows in the four studies he presents that no conclusions can be drawn by looking at such a small sample size, because he admits that three different conclusions are reached in these studies. However, the 2007 IPCC report is a large enough sample size to reach a consensus. The full report spends a number of dense pages painstakingly going over the evidence about solar variation’s role in climate change. More than 750 individual studies are cited in the section that considers solar irradiance. In fact, three of the eight scientists Prof. Monce cites are directly referenced in this section. The most recent IPCC report actually changed its conclusions regarding solar irradiance due to new experimental evidence. Because of this new evidence, the effect of solar variation on global warming was modified in the new report to be less than half of the previously published value. When looked at without bias, it is impossible to criticize the IPCC of not taking a wide enough sample of climatological studies. For more information, adventurous readers are encouraged to take a look at “Section 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing” of the full IPCC report.

In conclusion, while Prof. Monce makes a good point about the centrality of repeated experimental results in science, his small survey of studies presents a false image of the state of current climate science. The IPCC considers almost 20,000 studies, and it concludes that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20^th century is very likely [greater than 90% certainty in official IPCC language] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas emissions”. This supports the statistic from An Inconvenient Truth which states that of the over 9000 peer-reviewed journal articles about climate science, none of those surveyed found results disagreeing with the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Prof. Monce tallies up the stances of his four sources, coming to the conclusion that there is no strong consensus about the cause of climate change. In comparison to the high volume of data collected by the IPCC and that presented in An Inconvenient Truth, this negligibly small sample size presents a ridiculous portrayal of an overall scientific agreement.

As a side note, we would also like to briefly object to the patronizing tone Prof. Monce takes in his letters. True, he is a tenured professor, with multiple advanced degrees. However, this is a forum where students and faculty are equals; we all have access to the same tools of rationality and research. It is inappropriate to treat fellow intellectuals as if we were students in his class, leaving us “exercises” and saying things such as “I am a faculty member” and “Since he didn’t bother to do the homework…” This is condescending and offensive. If the facts are being debated, they should presented objectively. We look forward to a continued, mature debate.

Letter from the Renewable Energy Club

This letter to the editor appeared in the 11/16/07 edition of the College Voice.

The debate being played out between Professor Monce and Alex Krogh-Grabbe regarding global warming is quite unsettling. We have had an especially hard time digesting the assertions made by Professor Monce, not because his viewpoint is in the minority, or that it completely contradicts the cause we fight for, or even the chance that he might be right. Professor Monce’s letters scare us because they are void of any alternative solution to global warming. How can we as a human race even attempt to stop solar variation?

What the last couple articles between Professor Monce and Alex have shown is that no scientist is ever 100% certain on anything. But from a political standpoint, we cannot simply ignore a ticking time bomb, especially when only one explanation provides a solution.

But let’s take a step back and assume for a moment that Professor Monce’s assertions are right, and increased CO₂ levels are not the main cause of the earth’s warming. If this is the case, would our efforts at lowering CO₂ emissions be in vain? The answer is no. At the very least, we as a community will have worked towards countering environmental and economic injustices. Our efforts will have gone towards helping low-income families living near power plants, redistributing the wealth influx generated by oil and motor companies, and producing a cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing world. The reduction of CO₂ emissions will still benefit the country, regardless of whether CO₂ is warming the planet.

If we as a college community take Professor Monce’s opinion as truth and stop our ‘greening’ efforts, we are left vulnerable. What if he is wrong? Of course, the exact repercussions of global warming are not known completely, but can anyone really ignore the images where most of Florida, Boston, the World Trade Center Memorial, and coastal regions of New England are all under water? This is a future we will not accept. We fear that Professor Monce’s do-nothing attitude may have led some people to believe that there is no humanitarian need in shutting off their lights or boycotting the sales of SUVs.

It’s pointless to argue over the root cause of global warming. Instead, we should be focused on doing whatever we can to prevent the irreversible changes to our economy, food supply, population distribution, and standard of living. So until Professor Monce provides some human solution to solar variation, we think we should be acting on the best solution provided to us: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for us to do this is through efficiency and a strong investment in clean energy. We hope that Professor Monce recognizes the importance of combating CO₂ emissions, even if he disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community about the cause global warming.

-The Renewable Energy Club

Response to “A Response to Climate Waffling”

This letter first appeared in the The College Voice on 11/9/07 and 11/16/07.

I would like to thank Mr. Krogh-Grabbe for his very thoughtful response (Oct. 19, Voice) to my letter. He raises some interesting issues to which I would like to respond.

First a few comments about the nature of science. I am glad he understands that no idea in science is ever fully proven. However, I believe he places too much emphasis on the idea of “consensus” and also authority as the indicator of scientific “truth” as opposed to what I think is the real nature of science: that of overwhelming experimental data supporting a theory. Nature doesn’t really care what the consensus of scientists is at any moment; that consensus has been shown to be completely wrong many times in the history of science. Instead, it is up the scientist to evaluate every piece of data and see if it fits or doesn’t fit with the current hypothesis. If it doesn’t fit then the hypothesis must be re-examined. A simple example: the overwhelming data is that objects near the earth’s surface accelerate at 9.81 m/sec^2. You, or any else, can do the experiment and the result always seems to be the same. However, if there was one person who came up with the value of 7 m/sec^2, and it was repeatable, then the scientific community would have to reevaluate their notions of why we predict 9.8 m/sec^2 as the correct number. In the case of human-induced climate change, there is much more than one piece of evidence pointing towards explanations other than human influence. Those who support the idea of human influence as the primary cause of the current warming must respond, in a scientific argument, to that contrary data. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe is not quite correct to say I don’t trust the IPCC, I just think they have not properly evaluated the conflicting data which does not support their conclusions.

Let’s get down to specifics. We both agree that there is a warming trend. We also both agree that CO₂ levels are rising and that a portion of that rise is due to fossil fuel burning. We both agree that the greenhouse effect exists, just look at Venus! However, Venus has a 95% CO₂ atmosphere while the Earth’s CO₂ percentage is 0.03% (3 parts in 10,000). The primary disagreement between us is that I contend that the solar influence is most likely a larger source of climate change than human produced CO₂ emissions. Like other members of the College community I can order any non-subscription journal articles from the library and they usually arrive on my computer in a day or so. That is how I have copies of those articles that I cited. However, I will now show some of that data and how it casts some doubt on the basic hypothesis of human-induced global warming.

We both seem to agree that the climate has been warming for at least the past 5-600 years since “The Little Ice Age”; well before SUV’s. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s main contention seems to be that the temperature rise during the past 2-3 decades is an accelerated temperature rise and that its primary cause is human produced CO₂. Take a look at the following graph (Fig. 1, from NASA) which puts into a longer term perspective the current temperature rise. Note how our current situation isn’t even close to the Medieval Warm Period.

 

Now, the IPCC’s position that this rise is due to human produced CO₂. However, there is another other proposed mechanism of solar variation. Let’s look at several papers dealing with this hypothesis that are published in the mainstream scientific journals. In Figure 2 we see the temperature and solar variation (solid line) data from Moberg et al. Again note on the left edge the end of the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age just before 1600AD, and the general warming since that time. The correlation Moberg et al show is quite striking and convincing as to the solar influence.

 

However, in a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Lockwood and Frohlich take much of the same data that Moberg uses and reanalyze the data and end up with the graph Mr. Krogh-Grabbe references in his article and is displayed on the link he gave to the Max Planck Institute. This graph shows no recent correlation between solar and temperature. Now, in yet another data set, this time by Scafetta and West shown in Figure 3, we see that the solar contribution past about 1970, does not correlate as well as the Moberg data does with temperature. However, Scafetta and West do attribute at least 50% of the current warming to solar influence.

And finally, we have the data of Svensmark and Friis-Christiansen which is in response to the Lockwood analysis. What is interesting about the Svensmark paper which shows a near perfect correlation of temperature with solar is that they have removed from the temperature data of the last 4 decades the influences of the El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and various volcanic events; all notorious acute disruptors of the climate.

Let’s tally the “consensus”: one for human induced warming, one for 50% human influence, and two against. As a professional scientist I find this situation fascinating in that there really is no overwhelming avalanche of data and analysis for either case. That means to me, that we have a lot more to learn about what is happening with the whole climate change business. Also, both Lockwood and Scafetta readily admit that the evidence for the solar influence being the prime mover of climate in the past is very strong. What is interesting about this position is that it requires that the sun suddenly is no longer the prime mover of climate starting around 1970. Given the historical data shown I find that a difficult assumption to make.

One final piece of data that seems timely: the paper by Soon (Figure 4) shows a strong correlation again between the sun and the Arctic temperature. Given this data it is not too surprising that the Arctic passage opened up this past summer.

 

I’ve already discussed Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s reference to the Max Planck Institute, but I also need to respond to his other reference at the World Radiation Center. At first glance their graphical data does seem to show a flat trend in solar variation. However, he seems to have missed a critical sentence in their data description: “It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and as long as it is not used for over solar cycle time scales it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year.” (emphasis mine). The model data shown is for comparison on a daily-monthly basis to the well-known 11 year solar cycle; it is not valid for decadal solar series.

Finally, Mr. Krogh-Grabbe praises, in a back-handed way, my pointing out that even hybrids come with environmental cost. I left as an exercise for the student (I am a faculty member) the energy cost of the nickel production in a hybrid. Since he didn’t bother to do the “homework” let me give the answer: the 33 lbs. of nickel in a typical hybrid, according to what I’ve calculated, invokes about a 100 gallons of gasoline energy penalty. This is obviously easily made up in about 5 tank fills with the hybrid given its relatively high mileage over the SUV. It doesn’t take into account the chemical runoff in the mining, refining, etc. of the nickel. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe might be surprised to learn that I actually think hybrids should become more widespread (SUV hybrids?) and hopefully cheaper so more people could buy them. I wonder if the Prius is a bit overpriced? Nah, that would mean Toyota might be interested in making a large profit. In fact, I would like to see the entire U.S. ground transportation system be totally petroleum-free. The problem is that that there doesn’t seem to be viable alternative (i.e. new energy source) that can handle the job. My reason for wanting this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, but I think it’s interesting that we both would like to see the same end result.

Michael Monce, Professor, Physics

A Response to Climate Waffling

This was first published in The College Voice on 10/19/07

I was troubled to read in the Voice two weeks ago a letter criticizing my use of established climate science. It seems the writer of the letter thinks that everything will be fine if we keep living as we have, and that he doesn’t trust the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, the scientific majority represented by the IPCC determined that climate change is primarily caused by humans, and this means that if we’re to protect ourselves, our families, and our land, we’re going to have to make some serious lifestyle adjustments.

Questioning the infallibility of the IPCC report is completely justified: nothing is ever sure in science. No theory in science is ever proven correct; it can only be temporarily upheld. It is wide acceptance throughout the scientific community, not certainty, that gives theories authority. That said, the 2001 Third Assessment by the IPCC was one of the most heavily peer-reviewed scientific documents ever, and the more current Fourth Assessment represents an even stronger consensus. For more information, visit http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49.

As the writer of the letter mentions, the climate has actually been warming for a long time, before the start of industrialization and the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact, the planet has been warming for approximately 17,000 years. What is new, though, is an extreme increase in the rate of warming, occurring within the past century. Due to this acceleration’s proximity to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, most climate scientists accept these as the source of recent warming.

Many studies are cited in the letter which suggest that solar irradiance and water vapor are more significant causes of climate change than greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, most of these are from a journal (Geophysical Research Letters) that is subscription-only and not available to students at the library. Thus, it is difficult for me to specifically address the data presented in these studies. However, according to the IPCC report from April 2007, “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (Working Group 2 summary, IPCC) Also, according to one of the many charts provided in the summaries of the report, greenhouse gases account for approximately 10 times the effect of solar irradiance and stratospheric water vapor combined.

It is true, though, that at least water vapor in the atmosphere does play a big part in the greenhouse effect. There is an important distinction to be made, though. As the air gets warmer, it can hold more water in suspension, which in turn contributes to the greenhouse effect and makes the air get even warmer. It’s called a feedback loop. But the key concept there is that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases do the main part of the warming, prior to water vapor having an effect.

In further objection to the assertion that the sun is the main contributor to climate change, I must note a few studies. According to the World Radiation Center, there has been no major increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, which is as far back as we have satellite data for (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant). Furthermore, the Max Planck Institute in Germany has attempted to reconstruct historical solar irradiance, and shows that there has been no significant change since 1940 (http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif), the period in which the greatest temperature change has occurred.

The writer of the letter makes one valuable point, regarding hybrids: it is important to do sufficient research before you make claims about the relative environmental worth of various products. However, the writer doesn’t seem to have followed his own advice here. He attempts to initiate a life-cycle assessment (LCA for short, the standard way of determining environmental impacts), but barely smudges the paint job: he describes some of the detrimental effects of producing nickel for hybrid batteries but fails to consider the equally (if not more) horrendous consequences of petroleum production. He may have been influenced by another attempt at a full LCA, cited in The Economist and conducted by CNW Marketing Research, Inc. about a year ago. This report concluded, roughly, that diesel vehicles are better for the environment than are hybrids. However, there are numerous problems with this LCA attempt, discussed in depth in this article from Grist Magazine: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/732. If you are interested, please read it.

Finally, if you have any quibbles about what you take to be the “gospel truth” of climate science, please check out www.realclimate.org.

Letter in Response to “If Life Gives You Lemons”

This letter, written by a Physics professor (and coincidentally, my former faculty advisor), appeared in the 9/28/07 edition of the College Voice.

Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s column of September 21 caught my attention. He seems to accept what has now become “gospel truth”: that any emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing. I would like to point out that there are now many numerous studies in well-respected journals that challenge this very assertion. Like Sam Clemens, the rumors of the death of the global warming debate have been greatly exaggerated.

Despite Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s assertion that carbon dioxide is a primary greenhouse gas, I would like to point out that instead water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas with an effect many order of magnitudes larger than that of CO2. It is in no way settled as to why there is a global temperature rise, however new data is very telling. A paper, from Duke in the last few months, shows a very striking correlation between global temperature and the solar strength. Long term data shows the global temperature has been rising since 1650 AD; well before any industrialization (Scafetta and West, Geophysical Res. Lett, 2006). Another paper demonstrates a strong correlation between the solar influence on the heliosphere and the cosmic ray influx and its role in cloud formation which can have a greater influence on climate change than CO2 levels. (Scherer et al, Space Science Reviews, 2006). Another study shows solar variation as a principle cause of Arctic temperature variations for the last 130 years (Soon, Geophysical Res. Lett., vol32, L16712, 2005). I could go on, but my point is that the scientific debate is far from settled, and trying to influence people’s life style choices based on a point of science that is under intense scrutiny is not advisable.

Before suggesting to someone about their SUV “that it’s kind of disgusting how much their car pollutes”, a student might want to calculate the amount of nickel in a typical hybrid car. From there one can calculate the energy costs to mine the nickel, transport it to a refining mill, the amount of energy needed to refine the element, the energy costs to transport the nickel to the battery plant, the energy to make the battery, and finally the energy cost to produce the hybrid. Compare that number to the energy cost savings of an additional 10 mpg and the payback time. One can then calculate the net total energy cost to the planet from the SUV compared to the hybrid. I leave it as a student exercise. Hint: Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from Sudbury, Ontario each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it’s manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota’s battery plant in Japan (Philadelphia Inquirer, April 4, 2007). All of these shipments go via diesel powered ocean going freighters and diesel-electric trains.

If Life Gives You Lemons, Throw Them at SUVs

This was first published in The College Voice on 9/21/07

For some reason, it’s hard to do really simple things. That seems oxymoronic, but I’m talking about all the really easy, small, pain-free lifestyle changes we can make to save our world from the cataclysmic changes that are probable if we don’t do anything different. I told you a few last week: use less energy and drive less.

Two other changes that are frequently associated with “environmentalism” are going vegetarian and scorning SUVs. There are good reasons for both of these, but some people take it farther than reason dictates.

The average SUV gets about 15-20 mpg, if that. The best non-hybrid cars get around 30-35 and small hybrids get around 45-50 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline that is combusted in a car produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, which you remember is the primary greenhouse gas. So, SUVs emit about twice as much bad stuff as normal cars, and about three times as much as the best hybrids. Every 15-20 miles you drive in an SUV isn’t just a few more dollars out of your pocket, it’s at least 10 more pounds of greenhouse gases than someone driving a normal car.

There are pretty substantial reasons for going vegetarian, too. There are ethical reasons and health reasons, but the ones that sway me are the climate change reasons. There was a study recently that determined that it takes 36 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions to make 1 pound of beef. Other types of meat are better, but not much. If that doesn’t make sense to you, think of all the petroleum-based chemicals sprayed on the corn feed, all the gas for the machines that harvest the corn, all the gas to transport the cows from one place to another, then to transport the meet from one place to another. It’s a whole lot of oil that goes into those animals.

So SUVs use more gas than is necessary for the job most of them do. Meat production uses a lot more oil than does the production of most plant-based protein. Most “environmentalists” don’t like driving in SUVs, and many try to avoid meat in their diet as much as possible.

However, I realized recently that what’s important in both these cases is not as much the actual driving in the SUV or eating the meat, but rather maintaining demand by buying it. Certainly each mile in an SUV means more bad stuff in the air, and each steak has a history of emissions behind it. But, if someone has meat leftover that’s just going to be thrown away otherwise, unless you have health reasons for not eating meat, there’s nothing wrong with eating it. Likewise, if you and a group of people are going somewhere, and the car that’s being taken is an SUV, it’s silly to refuse to go solely because it’s an inefficient vehicle. At college, not many of us have much choice in what sort of car we drive. The best you can do in a lot of cases is just point out to the car’s owner that it’s kind of disgusting how much their car pollutes, and leave it at that. It’s good to be pushy, bad to be a jerk about it.