\nsection, to reflect Revkin’s shift<\/a> from a veteran staff reporter to a freelancer. He kicks things off<\/a> at his new digs by
\nexplaining why he prefers to think about a collective “energy quest” rather than
\na “climate crisis.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“This doesn’t mean I <\/p>\n Climate change might be <\/p>\n We’re not even <\/p>\n American Association for the Advancement of Science via Dot Earth<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n That doesn’t even count <\/p>\n American Association for the Advancement of Science via Dot Earth<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Northwest mountain towns become home efficiency lab<\/a><\/p>\n Nuclear arms reduction is better than nuclear warfare<\/a><\/p>\n
\nreject the idea that we face a climate crisis. I just don’t think that phrase
\nis a productive way to frame this challenge, particularly as defined over the
\nlast few years in the
\nheated policy debate<\/a>,” he writes.<\/p>\n
\nthe reason for the trek, he seems to be arguing, but we complete that journey
\nby watching the ground at our feet and the path ahead (by developing and implementing smart energy solutions), not by fixating on the
\nstarting point.<\/p>\n
\nclose to investing what we should be, he points out. U.S. R&D funding for energy is a pittance
\ncompared to other areas. Here’s a sobering graph Revkin borrows from Kei
\nKoizumi, formerly of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:<\/p>\n
\nmilitary spending, shown here:<\/p>\n