It's considered dogma that conservatives just don't care that much about the environment, and that they think people who do are "radical luddites for whom economic considerations are practically irrelevant," as one conservative writer put it. But apparently the right does care about the environment—at least if you frame it in terms that resonate with them.

In a new paper published this week in Psychological Science, researchers from the University of California—Berkeley and Stanford found that most environmental messaging uses frames that liberals tend to find more engaging. Like previous studies, "The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes" found that liberals respond more to messaging about caring for other people or ensuring they are treated fairly. The study found that people who identify as politically conservatives respond better to messages that are about "preserving purity and sacredness."

The researchers conclude:

These results suggest that political polarization around environmental issues is not inevitable but can be reduced by crafting pro-environmental arguments that resonate with the values of American conservatives.

They note that this holds true for issues like global warming, where it often seems as if liberal and conservatives aren't even speaking the same language. The authors note that part of the reason there has been strong support for climate action among some evangelical Christians is that the leaders of that movement are framing it in terms that conservatives understand:

Many of these groups perceive environmental degradation as a desecration of the world God created and a contradiction of moral principles of purity and sanctity, which motivates adherents to take proenvironmental stances. More generally, most of the world’s religions emphasize humanity’s role as stewards of the earth charged with keeping pure and sacred God's creation.

Perhaps it's no surprise that terms like "purity" and "sanctity" are amenable to conservatives. Conservatives also seem to like those words when applied to sex, marriage, and abortion. In order to reach more people, environmental advocates should start approaching the issue in ways that more conservatives can identify with, as co-author Robb Willer, a social psychologist at Berkeley pointed out: "Reaching out to conservatives in a respectful and persuasive way is critical, because large numbers of Americans will need to support significant environment reforms if we are going to deal effectively with climate change, in particular."

As my colleague Tim Murphy has previously reported, Glenn Beck has a new novel out about the right's favorite environmental conspiracy. Agenda 21 is a fictionalized account of the socialist sustainable development plan that paranoid tea partiers believe a decades-old UN treaty is going to bring upon us.

The book promises to be less than enlightening, even though it turns out Beck didn't even write it; he just bought the rights to a book that some woman had already written, and then turned it into "right-wing propaganda," as the book's editor described it in a Salon piece last month. Which is why this review of it from climate scientist Michael Mann over at Popular Science is rather amusing, as it attempts to seriously evaluate some of the book's "science":

And what about the book’s treatment of matters of science? I’m usually willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of a good fictional narrative. But the conceit that human beings might in some dystopian future be imprisoned as beasts of burden and raised and kept alive purely for the energy that can be harvested from them goes too far. Such a scenario problematically neglects the laws of thermodynamics. It makes little if any sense, after all, to employ a primary energy source (be it the incoming radiation from the Sun, the heat escaping from Earth’s core, or the energy released from the burning of fossil fuels) to manufacture proteins or raise crops, only to feed an army of macrofauna (i.e. human beings), only in turn to harness the energy they produce. If it is only energy that is being sought, such a chain of energy conversion processes is inefficient to the point of absurdity. The only sensible option would be to exploit the primary energy source itself.
I did my best to ignore the implausibility of this plot device when it first reared its head in The Matrix. But it is far less tolerable when used as a foundation for a misguided anti-environmental narrative. We are forced to accept, without explanation, how decades into the future no effort has been made to take advantage of far more plentiful and efficient renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy (which, by some estimates, could provide 70% of our energy needs in the U.S. in less than two decades). Not only have renewable energy technologies apparently not benefited from the increased efficiencies expected after decades of further research and development, they appear to have vanished altogether!

Adam Langley remembers starting his high school summer days at 5 a.m. to work on Harry Yates' Christmas tree farm. In a fertile, North Carolinian corner of southern Appalachia, he and his friends would pack into a decrepit truck and roll up remote mountainsides armed with clippers, shears, and knee guards. At the top, in a plot where Yates specialized in Fraser fir, Langley and his crew spent their formative years pruning trees destined for hundreds of living rooms across the country that winter.

Langley, now an ecologist and professor at Villanova University, has worked over the past four years with his wife and fellow professor Samantha Chapman through a USDA grant to examine how North Carolina Christmas tree farms might mitigate climate change. Their results, taken from 27 sites across nine farms and published in a paper in November, show that certain techniques can allow the tree plots to act like natural sponges for atmospheric carbon. The potential, they say, lies in the dirt.

Tree farm soil, Chapman says, can absorb 10 times as much carbon as the wood itself. Cutting down on herbicide use and providing groundcover between rows of firs can double that concentration of carbon in the soil. The researchers' goal is to see if carbon sequestration could potentially be profitable for struggling Christmas tree farmers who want to sell offsets, or amounts of carbon dioxide emissions avoided. If legislation is passed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, these kinds of offsets could be sold to polluters who want to make up for their emissions elsewhere.

"The carbon builds up in the soil over time," Chapman told me over the phone. "Some is sugar that's eaten quickly, and some of it sticks around for thousands of years. And that's the kind of soil we're interested in capturing."

xmas tree
Chapman collecting soil samples at Yates' Christmas tree farm. Courtesy of Samantha Chapman

In September, Langley presented the team's findings to a conference of North Carolina Christmas tree growers. "They were very receptive," he said. "Farmers are often operating on a very thin margin. What they can do to increase carbon sequestration is in line with what they could do to improve the long term profitability of their farm."

It was only a few decades ago Christmas tree farming, as opposed to harvesting naturally-occurring forests, emerged as a relatively new and promising industry. Harry Yates, Langley's former employer who owns 200 acres of Fraser firs in Boone, North Carolina, took up the trade in 1979 when farming was beginning to boom. But the industry today is facing a significant challenge from plastic imports. "The fake trees from China, as we call them, are a major competitor," Yates told me in a gruff drawl.

Doug Hundley, an integrated pest management technician who's worked with North Carolina growers like Yates to better environmental practices for over 20 years, estimates that growers could increase tree sales by upwards of 30 percent if it weren't for the fake imports. And while natural tree sales nationwide have decreased by 6 percent over the last half-century, fake tree sales have skyrocketed. "I think that real trees are not in nearly the number of households that they could be," Hundley said.

Yates and Hundley, both of whom were in the audience during Langley's presentation, say that they're all for exploring the carbon sequestration capability of their trees, but that a profitable carbon market still seems a long way off. "We were making this green production system for plenty of other reasons besides that," Hundley says. "If it turns out that it's benefiting climate change then that's great too."

In the meantime, Langley and Chapman continue to work with a North Carolina extension agent to hammer out the mechanisms behind carbon sequestration on Christmas tree farms. Existing market or not, they're hopeful. "Especially with the current administration and the fact that extreme climate events have happened recently," Chapman says. "I think the impetus to do something is closer now."

Pregnant women are told not to do lots of things. No booze! No sushi! No deli meat! No peanuts! Stop smoking! But doctors apparently aren't warning them about more insidious substances that they encounter in their daily lives, according to a new study from researchers at the University of California-San Francisco.

Environmental Health News reported on the study on Monday:

Almost all of the doctors in the new, nationwide survey, conducted by University of California, San Francisco researchers, said they routinely discussed smoking, alcohol, diet and weight gain. Eighty-six percent also said they discuss workplace hazards, and 68 percent warn about second-hand smoke.

But only 19 percent said they talk to their pregnant patients about pesticides and only 12 percent discuss air pollution. Forty-four percent said they routinely discussed mercury with pregnant women. Eleven percent said they mention volatile organic compounds, which are fumes emitted by gasoline, paints and solvents.

Even fewer physicians warned their patients about two chemicals in consumer products that are often in the news: bisphenol A (BPA) at 8 percent and phthalates at 5 percent. Nine percent of the doctors told their patients about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), industrial compounds often found in fish.

Pregnant women are exposed to dozens of harmful chemicals every day—mercury, bisphenol A, flame retardants, and pesticides. Exposure to toxic chemicals in the womb can have a "profound and lasting impact on health across the life course," doctors have found.

Women already have a lot to deal with when pregnant, which is why some doctors say that they should be doing more to raise awareness about those potential hazards even before women become pregnant.

The United Nations talks in Doha weren't expected to produce much progress In addressing climate change. But the negotiations, which concluded Saturday, failed to meet even the low expectations that had been set for the negotiations.

Talks dragged into the evening (Doha time), as parties were still deadlocked on key points like extending the Kyoto Protocol, the emission-cutting treaty adopted 15 years ago that is poised to expire at the end of the 2012, and how to raise the $100 billion in funds to address climate change promised to developing countries. But negotiators ultimately emerged with what they're calling the "Doha Climate Gateway" (they seem to get more creative with these titles every year). Here's what it entails, as Reuters reports:

A package of decisions, known as the Doha Climate Gateway, would also postpone until 2013 a dispute over demands from developing nations for more cash to help them cope with global warming.
All sides say the Doha decisions fell far short of recommendations by scientists for tougher action to try to avert more heatwaves, sandstorms, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.
The draft deal would extend the Kyoto Protocol for eight years. It had obliged about 35 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the period from 2008 to 2012.

Preserving the Kyoto Protocol in a second commitment period (or KP2, as it is sometimes called) is a big deal, since Kyoto is the only legally binding global climate agreement we have. While the US and other major emitters like India and China are not parties to that treaty, it's something. This is especially important, since at last year's talks neogiators determined that they would not negotiate a new, legally binding treaty that includes the US and China until 2015, and that new treaty won't take effect until 2020. Brazilian Minister of Environment Izabella Teixeira summed up the outcome pretty well in her statement to the plenary session Saturday night:

We are not fully satisfied with the outcome achieved. We wanted more. We believe more is needed. But we also believe that a Conference that ensured KP2 is, by definition, a success.

But as you can imagine, small island nations and other vulnerable countries aren't exactly calling Doha a "success," given that waiting around a few more years could prove hazardous to their survival. Here's a statement from Nauru's Foreign Minister Kieren Keke, who serves as the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States:

This is not where we wanted to be at the end of the meeting, I assure you. It certainly isn't where we need to be in order to prevent islands from going under and other unimaginable impacts.
The biggest concern – and not just for small islands mind you – is the failure to deliver the mitigation ambition the scientific community says is essential to keep global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, to say nothing of 1.5 degrees, and the cascade of catastrophes that would follow.

Reactions are coming in from American and international NGOs that have been following the process in Doha. Here's Jennifer Haverkamp, the director of the international climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund, pointing out that after 18 years of meetings about how to mitigate climate change, we're now dealing with the fact that the changes are already here:

This is the next step in the UN's increasingly reactive response to climate change. First the focus was on avoiding emissions. When mitigation efforts proved inadequate, it turned more attention to adaptation. Now, as the effects of extreme weather and rising oceans hit communities from the Philippines to New Jersey, the UN has realized it must begin to grapple with the damaging effects of climate change it had been mostly trying to avoid.

And here's a statement from Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International:

Today we ask the politicians in Doha: Which planet are you on? Clearly not the planet where people are dying from storms, floods and droughts. Nor the planet where renewable energy is growing rapidly and increasing constraints are being placed on the use of dirty fuels such as coal. The talks in Doha were always going to be a modest affair, but they failed to live up to even the historically low expectations.

Harsh. Better luck next year?

Students in Nebraska are getting new standards for social studies curriculum, after weeks of intense debate. The state Board of Education reached agreement on two items of controversy this week: whether to include "American exceptionalism" and how to teach about climate change, the Lincoln Journal Star reports.

The fight had been over whether to explicitly teach the idea of American exceptionalism, as one board member proposed, and whether to include information about climate change, which the current standards do not mention. The board approved the standards after making some changes:

The words "American exceptionalism" do not appear in the final draft, but the concept does. In the sixth- through eighth-grade U.S. history standards, one of the “indicators” -- examples of what to teach -- is the "unique nature of the creation and organization of the American Government, the United States as an exceptional nation based upon personal freedom, the inherent nature of citizens’ rights and democratic ideals."
Likewise, climate change appears in the sixth- through eighth-grade geography standards, but is presented as a theory, not as fact, asking students to evaluate "recent global climate change theories, and evidence that supports and refutes such theories."

polar bear photo: Ansgar Walk via Wikimedia Commonspolar bear photo: Ansgar Walk via Wikimedia Commons

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published its seventh-annual Arctic Report Card this week, and though they didn't hand out a grade as they have in the past, it might as well be marked "G" for grim. Here are six of the biggest problems up north.

Virtually the entire length and width of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet melted for the first time in 2012. This year was also the longest melt season ever witnessed. Plus Greenland's ice lost some of its glitter as exposed soot, dust, and other particles blew onto the snow, darkening it and making it even more susceptible to melt. The more Greenland melts the more sea level rises.

Snow cover extent in both Eurasia and North America hit new record lows in June—the third time in five years that North America has set a new record low and the fifth year in a row that Eurasia has. The rate of June snow cover loss over Northern Hemisphere lands between 1979 and 2012 is -17.6 percent per decade—a faster decline than sea ice loss. Loss of spring snow cover affects the length of the growing season, the timing and dynamics of spring river runoff, permafrost thawing, and the yearly breeding and migratory clocks of wildlife. These schedule changes can throw species wildly out of sync with their environment—animals might migrate after their forage food has passed peak nutrition, for example—threatening their survival. 

Arctic sea ice reached its smallest coverage, or extent, on record, 18 percent smaller than the previous record low set only five years ago and 49 percent below the 1979-2000 average. As the ice pack shrinks the ocean absorbs more sunlight and warming accelerates causing even more ice loss. Consequently wind patterns, clouds, ocean currents, and ecosystems are undergoing rapid transformations.   


Arctic sea ice used to persist for many years, getting older and thicker with each passing year. Nowadays, not only is the area or extent of sea ice dwindling, but its volume too. The loss of old, thick, melt-resistant ice can easily become a self-reinforcing process. When old ice melts away—or when young ice fails to survive melt seasons—the ice that remains in the Arctic is predisposed to melt quickly the following summer. And that's what's happening in the 21st century, as you can see in the animation showing ice volume from 1987 to 2012 (below). Watch how old sea ice, on which so much Arctic life depends, is fast disappearing.


High primary productivity created by blooms of phytoplankton are normal at the edge of sea ice. But when this image was captured  scientists at sea discovered a massive bloom reaching up to 62 miles / 100 kilometers under the thinning ice—yet another change in yet another Arctic ecosystem.


The loss of the polar ice cap over the Arctic Ocean exposes the waters to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide like never before. No one yet knows what scary changes will ripple out from that.

All background maps and data visualizations courtesy of the NOAA team. See originals and more here. All graphic mashups: Julia Whitty.

Last week, the Interior Department announced its decision to let a historic Northern California oyster farm's permit expire to make way for the West Coast's first marine wilderness. In response, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company's owner, Kevin Lunny, filed suit this week in hopes of saving his company. That's not a big surprise: Lunny told the San Francisco Chronicle that the news had left him in "disbelief and excruciating sorrow." Here's the twist: As the East Bay Express reported, Lunny is being represented by a low-key, free-market advocacy group—a somewhat strange bedfellow for a company that bills itself as a environmentally sustainable operation and has enjoyed strong support from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The group representing Drakes Bay Oyster Company, Cause of Action, is run by Dan Epstein, a former GOP counsel on the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under California Republican Darrell Issa. Epstein is also a veteran employee of billionaires Charles and David Koch; he used to work at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and for a Koch Industries lawyer. Epstein supports Lunny's lawsuit against the National Park Service and the Interior Department, he said in a statement, because "we refuse to let the NPS and Secretary Salazar get away with exerting power that destroys a business and a community under the guise of authorized discretion."

Cause of Action alleges that the government failed to fulfill its obligation to conduct a proper environmental review and relied on flawed science showing that the oyster farm harmed the environment in its decision not to renew its permit. But in reality, according to interior secretary Ken Salazar, the decision was made to avoid setting a precedent that would threaten longstanding National Park Service policy to let permits expire on public land chosen by Congress to become wilderness. (Congress flagged Drakes Estero, where the oyster farm has operated since the 1930s, as a "potential wilderness" site in 1976.)

Epstein's advocacy work, in any case, hasn't always been so noble as coming to the rescue of a family business. After congressional conservatives slipped a measure into a recent spending bill that banned federal grants from going to 501(c)(4) non-profits engaged in lobbying, Cause of Action sent letters to at least 20 groups using federal money to fight obesity and tobacco use, warning them they might be sued. The group said it sent the letters "only as a convenience," but critics contended it was an attempt to intimidate the non-profits.

This time, no one can claim that Esptein is hiding his free-market, Koch-esque motive for helping Drakes Bay Oyster Company: "Cause of Action is committed to ensuring that federal agency decision-making that can affect economic prosperity in the United States is held to the scrutiny of public accountability," his statement also read.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, is a favorite punching bag for climate deniers. The panel, made up of scientists from around the world who evaluate and coalesce the best and latest science on climate change, issues new reports every five to six years; the fifth report is will begin rolling out in 2013. But while deniers love to cry that the IPCC is "alarmist," the comparison between what the panel has predicted over the last 20 years and what actually panned out in the real world shows that the IPCC has "consistently underestimated" the impacts, according to a new report highlighted by the Daily Climate.

The piece draws from new research from Naomi Oreskes, a history and science professor at University of California—San Diego, and Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University. Among the examples of the panel's conservative predictions:

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.
Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Among the challenges for the panel are the fact that, as IPCC Vice-Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele describes, the authors work to "achieve consensus" and include the "full diversity of views that are scientifically valid."

See the full piece on the report here.

Here we are again: around the international negotiating table, this time in Doha, Qatar, taking miniscule steps towards tackling climate change. "Has it always been this way?" I hear you ask. Why, yes. It has. And these invaluable 83 seconds—produced by the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo—will help you understand why.