The 350.org folks and all their thousands of friends all over the world had a big event on May 5.   Here’s the video:

Here’s a look at how the Arctic has been melting.  (Click on the image to go to NASA for a full explanation of what you’re seeing here.)

What we’re seeing all over the world is an accelerating rate of the thawing of permafrost, and the melting of sea ice and glaciers.  I’ve written about this in the context of the Himalayas several times including here.  To go deeper, as it were, on this global phenomenon and how it is being driven by warming and, to an alarming extent, black carbon, visit Ice Core Perspectives from the Climate Change Institute of the University of Maine.  In the meantime, watch this video from Reuters.

So you should find an event near you this coming Saturday and get out, make your voice known, and help connect the dots.

Meanwhile, a paper published yesterday in the prestigious journal Science, looks at data from the fifty years between 1950 and 2000 on ocean salinity patterns and reports the expression of “…an identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle.”  What does that mean?  The NY Times article on the paper says the findings in the paper imply “…that the water cycle could quicken by as much as 20 percent later in this century as the planet warms, potentially leading to more droughts and floods.”  An accompanying article in the same issue of Science is titled The Greenhouse Is Making the Water-Poor Even Poorer.  Here’s the bottom line on the science:  “Theory and models predict that a strengthening greenhouse will increase precipitation where it is already relatively high and decrease it where it is already low.  A new study of the ocean’s changing salinity …confirms that this mechanism of water-cycle amplification has been operating for the past half-century.”

The science is, yet again, being proven by extensive data.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued preliminary findings from its Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) last fall.  I reported here at the time that the report “…enumerates a number of key themes, including that climate extremes have been well documented, along with various kinds of attendant weather anomalies, and that these are going to get worse.”  (See this video from the SREX.)

One further note:  The apparently beautifully prepared documentary series running now, Frozen Planet, is devoted to a comprehensive look at conditions in the Arctic and Antarctic.  It explores the wildlife, the people and the increasingly difficult conditions relative to warming that they are experiencing.  However, the series seems to studiously avoid the obvious factor of climate change in producing these dire effects for the denizens of the Earth’s poles and, for that matter, for the whole planet.  This article from the NY Times last week, No Place for Heated Opinions, quotes Anthony Leiserowitz  of Yale:  “Many organizations, and it sounds like Discovery is one of them, appear to be more afraid of being criticized by climate change ‘dismissives’ than they are willing to provide information about climate change to the large majority of Americans who want to know more about it.”  Bill McKibben, of 350.org, had an even more stringent take:  “It’s kind of like doing a powerful documentary about lung cancer and leaving out the part about the cigarettes.”  Ouch.

The inherent gross inefficiency of the internal combustion engine surpasses even that of conventional thermal power plants.  About 5% of the energy in the fuel actually moves a typical automobile.  Battery electric vehicles, fuel-cell electrics, plug-in hybrids and others that eschew ICE technology get much more bang for the buck.  California is proving this, as are many others.

It would follow, of course, that Lower Gasoline Consumption = Lower GHG Output.  Moving to EVs, fuel-cell cars and these others will serve to radically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide coming from our vehicles.  In the US, more than a third of our total greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector.  But, you will not be surprised to learn, the GHG-reduction benefits of a low or zero-emission vehicle depend on the source from which the electricity is derived.  Solar or wind-powered electricity, for instance, is going to greatly boost the environmental benefits of our growing use of these clean technology vehicles.

The venerable Union of Concerned Scientists has just come out with a comprehensive report, State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States, detailing to what extent this is true, including a regional breakdown in the US for what benefits accrue given the source of the power.  Their conclusions include the facts that:

• Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with a fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon)—even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids.
• In regions with the “cleanest” electricity grids, EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids.
• EVs charged entirely from renewable sources like wind and solar power produce virtually no global warming emissions.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Electric-drive vehicles (EVs) also compare well on fuel costs, saving their owners as much as $1,200 a year over the average new conventional internal combustion compact car that gets 27 miles per gallon (assuming the price of gasoline is $3.50 a gallon).”

The implications are pretty big.  We not only can rid ourselves of the oil addiction but we can save ourselves, at the level of the individual consumer and at the macroeconomic level, a truckload of money, not to mention the blood, sweat, tears and toil that come with climate change, conventional air pollution, price volatility, the insecurity of our supplies, and a host of other ills associated with the fact that transportation in the US and in the world relies on oil for 95% of its primary fuel.

How, then, do we fully decarbonize our transportation systems – or at least get ourselves away from oil?  The Rocky Mountain Institute has thought through this question rather at length.  Their recent book, Reinventing Fire, has an extensive discussion of precisely how to do this.  The section devoted to transportation lays it all out in detail:  fit, electrified automobiles; using vehicles more productively; tripling heavy-truck efficiency; enhanced airplane efficiency; and fueling efficient vehicles with diverse options.

Here’s a video with their guiding genius, Amory Lovins, that highlights their approach on a key component – vehicle fitness:

Here’s just a quick hitter, bringing you a snappy, very well-informed, entertaining smart grid video from Accenture, the global consultancy.

Our event was much smaller and more intimate – a salon as it was called.  The discussion was hosted by The World Policy Institute and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.  The Böll Foundation folks have been doing pathbreaking work for years on renewable energy and other clean tech.

Flasbarth talked about how the German people’s antipathy toward nuclear power, which predated the Fukushima catastrophe, along with a lucid recognition of the dangers of climate change, had made the German government, along with industry, science, and the non-profit communities really focus on how to transition to a nuke-free, carbon-free future.  This would be, in essence, a technology-driven energy economy.

He talked about how the government is now aiming toward a 100% renewable electricity supply by 2050.  The press release on this from the agency (from almost two years ago now) quotes Flasbarth as saying that “The results of the study demonstrate that electricity supply can be generated completely from renewable energies by 2050 and that secure supply can be guaranteed at all times.”

Feasible?  It’s already well in train.  In fact, solar PV penetration into the German electric markets is already lowering the price for wholesale electric power at the hours of peak demand by 40% from only very recently.  This recent item from Renew Economy lays out how this is being accomplished.  I asked President Flasbarth to comment on this and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.  Prices during peak demand hours, as you know, have traditionally been way above the average for the rest of the day.  Solar PV is standing this paradigm on its head.  You have high demand on hot sunny days – largely because of air conditioning. But, you are also going to have the highest boost from PV during that same time under those same conditions.  Ergo, with sufficient PV capacity installed, you are going to be able to supply more-than-enough peak power to offset demand and lower prices.

And, my dear friends, the Europeans have been installing PV at astonishing rates.  See this graphic showing new installed (and decommissioned) capacity in Europe in 2011.  (See the full report for 2011 from the EWEA here.)

Asked about public support in Germany for the phasing out of nuclear power and the transition to 100% renewables, Flasbarth confirmed it was very enthusiastic.  For one thing, there is a robust renewable energy industry in Germany which supports nearly 400,000 jobs.  That’s a winning argument.  For more, see this paper from the Heinrich Böll Foundation:  Myths and Facts: The German Switch from Nuclear to Renewables.

I, for one, am chortling in my joy!

]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/04/14/100-renewables-for-germany-2050/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/04/05/nordhaus-mckibben/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nordhaus-mckibben http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/04/05/nordhaus-mckibben/#comments Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:20:46 +0000 Bill Hewitt http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=58836 I wanted to note some follow-up discussion to material that I have flagged here recently at the blog.  The first was my post On the Denialists from March 2nd.  The NY Review of Books has printed a reply to William Nordhaus’s refutation of the claims ...]]>

I wanted to note some follow-up discussion to material that I have flagged here recently at the blog.  The first was my post On the Denialists from March 2nd.  The NY Review of Books has printed a reply to William Nordhaus’s refutation of the claims of the climate denialists, that I discussed at earlier post.  Nordhaus responds to their reply.  I will let these speak for themselves.

I wrote more recently, on March 15th, on Bill McKibben’s essay, framed as a book review, on fracking.  In To Frack or Not to Frack, I took exception to some of McKibben’s premises.  Most of all, what I find particularly disappointing in some of the activism these days, particularly in the anti-fracking movement, is the near-total disregard for the efficacy of environmental regulation.  This is part of the argument that John Deutch makes in his response to McKibben’s review.  Deutch, a former top agency official at both Energy and Defense, and also CIA Director, chaired the DOE committee that reviewed fracking’s problems and offered solutions.  McKibben responds to Deutch as well.  As much as I respect McKibben’s work over many years, it really bugs me that he, along with too many others, seems to categorically reject the notion that government can, and has so often proven, get the job done.

Okay, the U.S. may have been the first to the moon, but we have not been the first to regulate greenhouse gases.  However, we’re getting there.  California has been advancing its cap-and-trade regime among other terrific programs, we’ve got the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and there are all sorts of other programs moving forward, including the federal government’s GHG regulatory regime.  In the endless foofaraw surrounding federal programs, very much exacerbated by the political climate of the day, it might be tough to miss the fact that the EPA has been steadily, carefully, but inexorably moving toward a comprehensive program.  As this press release yesterday indicates, EPA has been mandated by a Supreme Court ruling and the Clean Air Act to determine if greenhouse gases are an “endangerment” to the public health and the environment, and, if so, to regulate those GHGs as air pollutants.  That’s what’s been underway for a couple of years.  Yesterday’s announcement of the first rules to curb greenhouse gases from new power plants is another critical step along this path.

The unsinkable Lisa Jackson said:  “Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies – and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow. We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”  The Washington Post article on this watershed moment reports on the requirement  for “…any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.”

Excelsior as we say in New York.

However, when it comes to natural gas and its extraction from shale deposits using hydraulic fracturing, I think, although he’s got valid concerns, he’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  In his article, he makes the ubiquitous arguments against fracking that many folks make these days:  it can contaminate groundwater and surface water and it can also exacerbate air pollution, including a potential burst in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from fugitive emissions.  These are not idle concerns.

However, there are aspects of the big picture that McKibben and others seem to neglect – or at least to which they don’t give sufficient credence.  First of all, the anti-fracking activists with whom I’ve spoken don’t believe for a second that regulators can handle the problems.  McKibben reflects this near-total skepticism about the power of environmental regulation:  “In any event, overmatched regulators who can’t even keep an accurate count of the number of wells are having a hard time coping with waste products—especially since the political power of the industry just keeps growing.”  I don’t buy it.  Why?  Because I’ve seen environmental law and regulation work and perform miracles over 40+ years.  Strong laws don’t get passed and tough regulations enacted and enforced, to be sure, without sustained pressure and the involvement of environmentalists.  But when we do bring focus and commitment to bear, good things happen.

Because of the spotlight on fracking, the State of New York is in the process of creating very strict, very thorough regs.  The EPA is also involved in a comprehensive study and has recently initiated a rule-making for fracking wastewater.  The US Department of Energy commissioned a task force with some blue chip environmentalists, like Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, and Kathleen McGinty, a former head of Bill Clinton’s White House Council on Environmental Quality.  The task force’s final report has 20 concrete recommendations that would, if fully implemented, make the industry’s activities safe and help produce a clean, useful product.  I flagged some of the progress along these lines last year here.

(Beyond hydraulic fracturing, it should be noted, is a waterless fracking technique being developed using propane.  If it proves its promise, a lot of our problems here become greatly diminished.)

McKibben offers that what there is to like about natural gas is that it can and does displace coal use.  Well, Joe Romm reported recently that coal power has dropped below 40% of U.S. electricity, the lowest in 33 years.  One of the principal drivers for that has been fuel switching to natural gas.  Natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide that coal does in power production.  That, my friends, is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

But gas does more.  It has far fewer emissions across the board, including for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, particulates and mercury.  Particulates are, not incidentally, another potent climate forcing agent.

But natural gas has other benefits.  One very big thing it does is that it fuels the cogeneration plants that are growing in number and importance as essential parts of our power production.  The one at NYU, where I teach, approaches 90% efficiency.  That compares rather favorably, wouldn’t you say, to the approximately 37% efficiency of a conventional central thermal electric power plant.  What criminal waste!  What we need to be doing now is building cogeneration facilities by the dozens.

The very good people at the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins and his crew of extraordinarily thoughtful engineers, scientists and designers, have come up with Reinventing Fire, a plan to wean the United States from coal and oil.  Natural gas is a key enabler for that felicitous outcome.   Natural gas displaces oil as well as coal.  It has a key role, in Lovins’s vision:  “Natural gas can be used across a wide spectrum of centralized and distributed applications including combined heat and power— a key component of the industrial sector transition away from oil and coal.”  For the purposes of eliminating oil from transportation by the year 2050, natural gas has a number of roles:  as a feedstock for hydrogen production for fuel cells, to power utility-grade and distributed generation facilities for electricity for vehicles, and for direct use in vehicles.  Natural gas used for hydrogen, for instance, generates two to three times less CO₂ per mile than gasoline.

Another argument made by some concerned about the future of renewable energy is that the burgeoning of natural gas will crowd solar, wind, geothermal, etc. out.  However, one savvy clean tech analyst, Ron Pernick, from Clean Edge, thinks that natural gas is perfectly complementary to the continued growth of renewables.

McKibben, Lovins, geniuses like the late Hermann Scheer, among many others, and not to mention you and I, all agree that the big picture requires a transformation in how we do business.  Natural gas, safely and efficiently sourced, is an immensely valuable tool in our transition to a fully decarbonized world.  At this late date, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  We’ll get to perfect a little later.

The outstanding documentary, Gasland, which by the way bored my students to death, asked a central question: is the production of shale gas worth it? And what are the consequences of its production? Its answer is clear: no, it is not worth it considering the environmental consequences caused by the process of hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking. Fracking is the process which allows detaching the gas from the rocks by injecting a mix of water and over 500 “unidentified” chemicals.

These chemicals have been scientifically proven to be dangerous to human life and pollute water and river networks making them undrinkable and deadly. Such claims have been rejected by elected officials in Europe and the U.S. Interestingly, the debate on the risk of shale gas production in the U.S. is nonexistent thanks to the institutionalized lies of lobby groups and the Republican Party. The Republican Party has emerged as an “anti-environmental party” for the benefit of illusory energy autonomy and the interests of a few private companies. Massive amounts of money have been spent on TV commercials claiming that shale gas will save America from its oil dependence on foreign countries and make the nation “greener”. On the other side of the pond, the debate on shale gas does exist. One of the reasons is that the European regulations are much stronger on energy companies, which has not been the case in the U.S. For example during the Bush administration, the government decided to create a loophole in the Clean Water Act for the energy companies involved in the production of shale gas. However, some EU Member States like Poland have been following the American path by launching massive drilling despite the ecological risk. Poland has been trying to free itself from Russian gas dependency. Britain was also drilling, until recent studies have proven that the fracking process was causing earthquakes in England. Since then, Britain has stopped the drilling.

Earthquakes have also been monitored in the U.S. close to areas where fracking is prolific. France has been opposed to it for environmental reasons. President Sarkozy declared the ban on fracking will be maintained until scientific proofs that it won’t “massacre: the landscape. Strikes in Bulgaria have recently taken place, as citizens are increasingly worried about the environmental consequences on the quality of water. Bulgaria has been leading the European anti-fracking movement.

Last, the outstanding documentary, If a Tree Falls, nominated for the 2012 Oscar for Best Documentary (which it of course did not win), looks at the broken political system in the U.S. where government officials do not listen to citizens’ voices. The use of force – property destruction without human casualties – in the case of the Earth Liberation Front was framed by the U.S. government as terrorist actions. Interestingly, the U.S. government does not have a problem calling radical environmental groups terrorists, but has never used the same narrative towards private companies like BP, Exxon Mobil and others. Violence is not a solution and should not be a means to an end, however the level of property destruction caused by the 2010 BP oil spill is considerably higher than the one caused by the Earth Liberation Front. The documentary clearly shows how peaceful citizen actions are frequently bypassed by government officials and private interest groups. The power of private companies and their tight connection with government exacerbates this issue. The institutionalization of private interests is not as deep in Europe, nevertheless, major European energy companies, such as Gaz de France and others, are nationalized, making it harder for citizens to have an impact on shaping greener policies. This must change.

Shale gas is the latest illustration of Western dependence on “conventional” sources of energy. In the case of Europe, the dependence on Russian gas and oil from North Africa and the Middle East has been a problem this last decade. The U.S. has been also extremely vulnerable and is not scared to use its military in order to ensure its energy imports. The volatility of oil and gas prices has been a major concern on both sides of the pond, especially with the latest political transitions in the Middle East and North Africa. Nuclear energy does not seem a viable long-term solution as proven by the Japanese disaster. Since the catastrophe of Fukushima, Japan has cut all nuclear power plants and instead reopened the old coal and gas power plants. It is time that the Euro-Atlantic community had a real discussion, involving government agencies, think tanks, NGOs, civil societies, and citizens.

The fiascoes of the UN Copenhagen and Durban talks illustrate the inability of governments to make the right decisions on climate change for a simple reason: short term benefits. Until the old mindset that green economies are not sustainable remains, the world will not move forward. Environmental policies seem to be a case where policies are forced by the bottom to the top, not the other way around. The members of the Euro-Atlantic community will meet this May in Chicago for a NATO and G8/G20 meeting. Why not including a Green Transatlantic Meeting led by heads of state? The common theme of all these eco-documentaries is that we can change our way of life in making it greener. If we fail to do so, the cost will be greater than the billion of dollars accumulated by a few.

Icebergs in Iceland’s Jökulsárlón lagoon, which is constantly growing as the Vatnajökull glacier—Europe’s largest—melts; photograph by Olaf Otto Becker from his book Under the Nordic Light: A Journey Through Time, Iceland, 1999–2011, which has just been published by Hatje Cantz.

The distinguished economist William Nordhaus has a succinct and useful piece in the latest issue of the “NY Review of Books” that refutes the now mildly famous letter to the Wall St. Journal from 16 scientists from January.  (I am reminded of the famous quote from Erwin Chargaff about James Watson and Francis Crick:  “That… such giant shadows are cast by such pygmies only shows how late in the day it has become.”)  Nordhaus dignifies the Denialists by calling them skeptics in his piece:  Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong.  (This apparently is being played back on us as the scientific community and the activists who have been trying to respond appropriately to their findings are now labeled “Warmists.”  HT to my correspondent NJCons.)  Real scientists are skeptical about data, hypotheses, models and the like.  This is the hallmark of their profession and their art.  Real scientists, writing in peer-reviewed journals, have no cavil with the underlying phenomena associated with climate change:  the greenhouse effect, anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases, the many indicators of change, the impacts and the implications for our planet.  As Naomi Oreskes established nearly ten years ago, there is indeed a scientific consensus on climate change.  (If you want to know where there is some disagreement and where more science needs to be done, refer to this excellent story, The real holes in climate science from Nature.)

So, in a nutshell, Nordhaus eviscerates the piffle that the Wall St. Journal promulgated.  (Surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would’ve said, that the Journal is pushing this line.  How could you expect anything else from a paper run by a man of such intense personal integrity and moral probity as Rupert Murdoch?)  But read what Nordhaus has to say.

What could prove to be a critical component in the effort to successfully confront the climate crisis was launched today by Hillary Clinton at the State Department in Washington.  Secretary Clinton announced the formation of the “Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants.”  What are these short-lived climate pollutants?  Methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  I’ve written a few times here about the effort to bring the critical importance of these pollutants into sharper focus.

One of the leading scientists in this effort, Dr. Drew Shindell at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has done groundbreaking work in highlighting the climate forcing of both black carbon and of methane.  An even more prominent scientist, Dr. Mario Molina, a Nobel laureate for his work on identifying the influence of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) on the stratospheric ozone layer, which led directly to the successful international conventions to phase these ODCs out of production and use, has been working in recent years on the fluorinated gases, or F-gases.  HFCs are F-gases.  Another leader in the campaign to address these short-lived climate pollutants is Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD).  A release today from the IGSD describes the importance of this work, and also includes an op-ed from Molina and Zaelke.

Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Program, was at the launch today too.  In his remarks, he said “…that swift action on the multiple sources of black carbon, HFCs, and methane can deliver extraordinary benefits in terms of public health, food security and near term climate protection.”  Nature News covered the story noting that this new effort targets “‘short-lived climate forcers’ in order to minimize global warming’s immediate impacts and buy time on the most troublesome greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.”  The Coalition is not in business, the speakers at the launch made plain, to avoid responsibility for dealing with the heart of the problem:  carbon loading to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and the pernicious impacts of land-use changes and pollution from deforestation and many of our industrial farming practices.

What to do?  Provide better cookstoves for the developing world is one thing.  Manage our waste much more efficiently, to minimize black carbon and methane production, is another.  Phasing out HFCs is still another, along with capturing and destroying ODCs.  For more on these strategies and others, see the IGSD’s web pages for its Fast-Action Climate Mitigation Campaign.

Here’s a transcript of the remarks from Secretary Clinton, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Achim Steiner and others from today, and a video of the event.

Leave it to Gary Trudeau to distill something to its basics.  God love him.  As Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted some time back, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  The science is settled.  And no, my Denialist friends, I am not going to enter into yet-another long hassle.  You can take that elsewhere.  I’m here to confront the reality of the climate crisis, to shine some light where I can (as best I can) on the lies and the political chicanery that are so persistent, and to highlight and promote best practices that are fostering our progress toward sustainability.  If you want to debate the science, I’m happy, yet again, for you to splatter your biases and ignorance at the folks who deal with this every day at Skeptical Science and RealClimate.  Also, pick up Merchants of Doubt to see how and why the attempts to deny science take place in the first place.  (Hint:  It’s about the money.)

]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/02/06/facts/feed/ 8 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/02/04/black-helicopters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=black-helicopters http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/02/04/black-helicopters/#comments Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:13:17 +0000 Bill Hewitt http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=54158 A comment came in recently asking me if I characterized American voters of being fanatics if they voted for and supported those politicians who fight, tooth and nail, against progress on confronting the climate crisis and fostering our transition to clean tech.  I said, “Um, yes.” Here’s ...]]>

A comment came in recently asking me if I characterized American voters of being fanatics if they voted for and supported those politicians who fight, tooth and nail, against progress on confronting the climate crisis and fostering our transition to clean tech.  I said, “Um, yes.”

Here’s an article from today’s NY Times, secular socialist internationalist freedom-hating jack-booted thugs that they are, describing Tea Party people who think that fighting sprawl is a UN plot.  Agenda 21, a set of sustainability principles that was fostered at the Earth Summit in Rio 20 years ago, it seems, is quietly undermining American freedom.  Did you know that?

For more on this sort of – what the hell else would you call it but fanaticism?! – see my paper on the American right wing, or the work of folks like Chris Mooney or George Lakoff.