UPDATE: I admire Joe Romm at Climate Progress, but he has to get over his reviewer shtick where he says “One of my most tedius [sic] jobs here at Climate Progress is to read all the crap major articles published on global warming, and sort the wheat from the chaff.” Then give it up, Joe. He told people to stay away from Monbiot’s wonderful Heat without reading the book; now he dumps on the Times for including a few things he doesn’t like in its catalog, with the admonition “You can skip the whole thing”, boldface Joe’s. His blanket denunciations of anything that has a line in its index that he doesn’t like are not helpful; there is a lot in that Times magazine that will open a lot of eyes.

And yes it is my job to read everything and save the time of my readers. Movie and theater and restaurant and book reviewers do the same thing — and sometimes when they come across a real lemon, they pretty much make the same complaint.

And you took my opening line out of context — I was trying to make a humorous point about the role reversal between the MSM and the blogosphere.

And I can’t recommend Monbiot’s book to my readers. There are now a zillion global warming books — far too many for 99.99% of people to possibly read them all, and readers should know it isn’t in the top 10.

Oh and as for repeating my original typo and putting a (sic) after it — tsk, tsk — everybody makes typos while blogging. I count four mistakes in your post (here). But I wouldn’t reprint them on my blog with the word (sic) after them to try to make you look foolish.

The science: David Archer’s “Global Warming: Understanding the forecast” (rigorous)
Easier is W.F. Ruddiman’s “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”

The potential future effects: Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”

A solution: Joesph Romm’s “Hell and High Water”

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but…. great post!

I found myself depressed after reading it. Here we are facing an uncertain future of rising energy prices, faster-than-expected coal-burning in China, food shortages related to biofuels expansion, and important questions to debate (as we’ve been doing) related to energy policy and instead we get Michael Pollan suggesting that planting a garden is some kind of transformational political act and catalogue of uninteresting ideas and technologies. I’d say if the economy tanks then next Earth Day we’ll look back on all of this as a rather unsustainable green hype bubble.

Michael

I’ll take all those “megatons of pyrite” you can ship FOB via CNR to me in Burnaby, BC. The price of sulfur has just gone thru the roof, and now is over $600 US per ton. A few years ago the price was as low as $20 US per ton.

Using dirt-cheap BC hydro power (ca. 5 cent per kwh) i’ll roast the ore in electric ovens to give iron oxide and SO2, which I’ll convert ot sulfuric acid acid

… which I’ll convert to sulfuric acid. I’ll then load the iron oxide and sulfuric acid into bulk carriers, ship these off to resource-hungry China, and get filthy rich. Hopefully, some of the pyrite will contain enough gold to pay for the cost of the electrIcity.

Agreed on Michael Pollan’s piece. As someone who writes about the environment for a living, I was overjoyed to see Pollan tackle the angle that’s so difficult for readers, and thus, for writers as well: Bridging the gap between what people think and what those people do. You wonder how many times you can write that people can make a difference by changing a light bulb. To me, Pollan’s 1,500 or so words were more helpful than the rest of the magazine because it addressed the underlying issue upon which all the various options we’re given rely — the desire to actually get up and do it.

I thought, finally, a mainstream magazine issue that reflects the the enormity, the scale, and the degree/diversity of change required in how we live our lives, and the infrastuctures that support that.
I am certain this volume got many who may think that loosing the throw-away bags, screwing in a cfl or buying a hybrid are all they can do, to begin to understand that the solutions are much more complex, and that every bit of it matters. It’s also beginning to build recognition that sustainability is not only about climate change and co2 emissions.

There are hundred of tip sites and books and people out there giving how-to advice to the consumer, but its the Times’ job to inspire bigger thinking and spur innovation. I think this issue did just that.

As far as the subhead promise, I didn’t read it as bold Steps I could take to make to make my carbon footprint smaller, but bold steps that we, humanity, are taking to make our carbon footprints smaller.

On the format . . . while I agree that some of the type was difficult (too light) to read, I think the layout design makes it perfect to read over the course of the week, which is how many NY’ers tend to read the Sunday mag.

Bravo to the NYTimes for its successful first all-sustainability Sunday mag.