The conclusion Ropeik draws seems clear: Now that we know that facts are misconstrued by those trying to further their own agenda, let’s use that knowledge when trying to talk about facts in the first place. In other words, put them in context, look to culture, norms, psychology, group behavior and all the other messy things that make global warming such an intractable problem.

We—as in those worried about global warming and wanting to do something about it— also need to keep in mind how our own actions and words are perceived. It’s not so much that climate deniers don’t actually like the science. It’s that climate deniers think they don’t like the inevitable conclusion: a big government take-over, a move to zero growth, a change of the American way of life as we know it—in other words all the things the “Left” seems to think are indeed necessary to make the change, epitomized by Naomi Klein’s take on “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” No wonder the “Right” believes the “Left” has an insidious agenda, using climate policy as an excuse redistribute wealth and re-create society in their own image.

The problem with Klein’s take is that it’s smart, insightful, but only half right:

Her assessment of the obstacles to solving climate change — from ideology to misplaced faith in green consumerism — are exactly right. And she’s right that fixing this problem means changing how the world does business.

But Klein is wrong in her more serious assertion…that we can save the planet only if we abandon capitalism. …

The deeper problem is not that our markets are too free; it’s that they are woefully rigged in favor of pollution.

In other words, it’s about harnessing market forces to address climate change.

I’m under no illusion that saying as much, as many from Robert Stavins on down have been trying to do for years, will do the trick all by itself.

But—and that’s the big but here—all of that market-centric language—as much as it pains liberals to embrace it—may well be the best response to Kahan et al’s powerful psychological research. It’s about breaking all-too-simple alliances, factions, and associations.

If “Believe in Climate Science” = “Big Government” in some (most?) people’s minds, then yes, increased knowledge about climate science will turn off those who strongly believe in small government.

If “Believe in Climate Science” = “Better-Functioning Markets” = “Less Socialism” and even = “Leaner, Meaner, Better Prepared Military,” alliances may well begin to change—slowly, perhaps too slowly, but still. It seems to be the only answer we have.

Meet Solar Impulse, the first plane to fly 24 hours without fuel other than light from the sun. Last night it completed a flight from Switzerland to Spain. Next up: Morocco. And in a couple years, if everything goes according to plan, it will circle the globe.

We are still a ways off from coming close to making any of this commercial. But if I had some spare change and had to decide between blowing it onto a fossil-fueled blastoff into outer space or on a solar mission around the globe, my money would be on the sun.

April was the 326th month in a row the global temperature was above average when compared with the 20th century:

The last time the globe had a month that averaged below the 20th Century normal was February 1985. April makes it 326 months in a row. Nearly half the population of the world has never seen a month that was cooler than normal, according to United Nations data.

From AP, via Al Gore.

On a windy day, Samsø, a small Danish island, gets 140% of its electricity from wind. In truth, eleven turbines do the trick for Samsø, but still those numbers are worlds away from where the debate is in the U.S. Supplying Samsø with electricity isn’t quite the same as powering a large manufacturing center. Then again, Denmark overall gets at least 20% of its electricity from wind, and Germany is in a different league altogether.

Are there other numbers like that out there? Solar costs have plummeted in the past five years. Who has taken the most advantage of that?

The big question now is whether they will come.

One step that should help is NYC’s new bike-share program. First get the paths, then the bikes. Not a bad strategy, and there’s certainly a lot to be said for having a comprehensive approach.

NPR’s Living on Earth tells the story of the “Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program” that seems to be doing everything right by looking at things holistically. Biking became cheap in all senses of the word, and people came.

Sadly, renting bikes in NYC won’t be all that cheap. Bike rental fees will be a lot more than in either Washington or London. Let’s hope it’ll at least be convenient. Thanks to Bloomberg’s protected bike paths, it may well be faster to bike than take cabs or the subway. And there’s nothing quite like speed that gets New Yorkers going.

But “Prii” isn’t right either. In an endnote in my book, I cite a Boston Globe column by Jan Freeman, who argues the correct plural is “Prioria,” “which (a) sounds odd, and (b) is medieval Latin for priories.” Freeman continues: “While Prius drivers are a devout lot, they probably don’t think of their cars as nunneries and monasteries.” That’s true. I also cite it in my footnote.

It turns out, though, that nine months after her original column, Freeman published a correction: The plural of Prius is neither “Prioria,” nor is it “Suburban.” It’s “Priora.”

That nixes Freeman’s (and my) pun around priories. Sadly, there’s little I can do at this point other than to point to the mistake, and to thank alert reader Bill Reynolds from Belmont, MA for pointing it out.

Either way, I call Priora “Priuses” in my book chapter.

Life, though, is.

There’s nothing quite as satisfying as cooking the perfect egg. When that egg comes from Alice Waters, even better.

And knowing that Alice Waters would never have been Alice Waters, had she not been fired from her job teaching preschool at Berkeley Montessori, makes the story that much better.

The planet may not notice what you eat.

You do.

In the meantime, here’s my talk at the terrific Berlin plenary conference of the Institute for New Economic Thinking on why “Boring, old, overly precise economics 101 can get us 72% toward where we need to be“:

(My slides.)

Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy and a Nobel laureate, has argued that what the world needs is a handful of Nobel-level breakthroughs in energy technology. They sure would come in handy in the fight to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. But counting on breakthroughs is a crapshoot. We cannot rely on a miracle to navigate away from our current head-on collision with the planet.

That hasn’t stopped Breakthrough Institute co-founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger from arguing — as they did in a recent article for Yale Environment 360 — that technology research will stop the runaway train of climate change. You don’t have to bother limiting emissions through a carbon price or cap, they say, because energy innovation will come to the rescue.

Frankly, this is bunk. Reasonable people may disagree about what policies will best fight climate change. But climate science makes one thing clear: The planet must limit carbon emissions, or face a bleak future. And we will never get there unless we make policy changes that align market incentives with this goal. It’s economics 101. There’s no way to avoid making polluters pay for the damage they cause, or they’ll keep causing it. That either starts with a price on carbon or, ideally, a cap on carbon emissions.

Continue reading at Yale Environment 360.