It may be that liberals are slower readers, but, after some strident letters of protest, we've now received several supportive letters on John Barton's "How Green is Golf?" package. A couple of recent ones, the first from Ron Rubin of Atlanta:

John Barton's article on Green Golf in the May 2008 issue was phenomenal. What a great piece of investigative journalism! A welcome change from the plethora of "how to" pieces. I learned one whole lot and will never be able to look at a course the same way again. Keep up the good work!

I want to take a moment to congratulate John Barton and the publishers of Golf Digest for his well written, important and thorough article entitled, “How Green is Golf” in your May issue. As a long time naturalist and environmental advocate I shunned the game of golf until I was asked to help a nearby course get certified as a cooperative sanctuary through Audubon International. I am now a convert to the potential golf has to be a partner in the conservation movement. I have been a volunteer steward with Audubon International for five years now and have helped to certify and recertify over a dozen courses in Minnesota. I am impressed with the way that golf course superintendents and managers have put themselves and their courses through the often intense scrutiny of an environmental evaluation. Golf needs to become greener for the environment, for the survival of the game and it will bring in new environmentalist golfers who need not feel guilty for love of the game. I wholeheartedly agree that the environmental future of golf now lies in the gloved hands of the golfers themselves who I believe are ready to get on board with a new way of looking at greens from a greener perspective. I’ve even taken up the sport and after such a great article need to become a Golf Digest subscriber.

For more views, pro, con and otherwise, see the golfdigest.com forum on the environment, as well as previous posts and responses here. See also John Paul Newport's piece in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.

--Bob Carney

Nothing seems to roil our readership like environmental stories. Not only has John Barton's "How Green is Golf?" piece drawn fire (and support). Several readers took exception to Mike Stachura's piece on potential coastal flooding that warmer climates may bring .

And Mike takes exception to their letters. Here's the exchange.

First, Ohioan Ron Strah:

I'm disappointed that Golf Digest would give a platform to the alarmist predictions of Mike Stachura in his global warming feature. His dire predictions of everything south of Miami being underwater in 100 years is pure speculation if not a flat out lie. There is no "consensus" as the activists would like us to believe. Hundreds of scientists now disagree on this issue. It's nice to see that your magazine is concerned about the environmental effects of our sport, but apocalypse type scare tactics have no place in this debate, anymore than consulting astrology charts. Golfers can rest easy that Doral's Blue Monster will continue to have alligators in the lakes...instead of sharks.

And Jay Gajda of Westland, MI:

This is regarding the article "Global Warming:Our Coast Is Under Attack" by Mr. Stachura. I did not know that Golf Digest, starting with the May, 2008 issue, is now publishing articles of science fiction. It is more than enough to have to read articles like this based on junk science in regular magazines and now have to be subjected to it in our fine golf magazines. Will the author next month be nutty Al gore?

Mike replies:

Junk science? While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a sea level rise of .6 meters by the turn of the century, this estimate does not reflect what would happen to particularly low-lying areas. Indeed, the most recent IPCC Synthesis Report includes a projection of 30 percent loss of coastal wetlands. That report also includes an analysis of what likely will happen if the Greenland ice shelf disappears, a likely scenario: "Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m if global average warming were sustained..." How about this language from a 2007 NASA study: "Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century." Do we really believe that sea levels are going to rise 7 meters in the next 100 years? No, of course not. But current trends clearly predict a rise and the intensity of that rise will depend on location. Low-lying areas (precisely those where we find golf courses) are more vulnerable to the surge that will naturally accompany any kind of sea level rise brought about by climate change. Consider this language from a report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science: " In the U.S., the Southeast and Gulf coasts are particularly vulnerable.Sea-level rise and climate change issues in the coastal zone include:

* higher and more frequent flooding of wetlands and adjacent shores
* expanded flooding during severe storms and high tides
* increased wave energy in the near-shore area
* upward and land-ward migration of beaches
* accelerated coastal retreat and erosion
* intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers
* damage to coastal infrastructure
* broad impacts on the coastal economy"

NASA, NOAA, and a Nobel Prize winning organization of the leading experts on climate change in the world all agree. I think I'll go with their scenario, not yours.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: Christoph Niemann)

Dick Carver of Clifton, Virginia, is another reader who takes exception to our "How Green is Golf?" package. He brings up a provocative piece by Patrick Michaels in the Wall Street Journal.

I have been a golfer since I was twelve, and it has remained a real important part of my life. I personally believe Golf has an obligation to always maintain the environment.

However, I am disappointed in teh "advocates" you chose to make the case for the issues related to the current condition of our environment and the steps everyone in the golfing world need to take as a commitment to our Earth. In the April 18 edition of the Wall Street Journal is an op-ed by Professor Patrick Michaels, who is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. John Barton should have begun by talking to people like Professor Michaels instead of people with little science background, who promote the anecdotal approach to the current claims about global warming.

As Professor Michaels points out, these problems, including the role of golf, need to be based on honest, scientific examination, not "political concepts.

I recommend the Michaels piece. From his conclusion:

There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice – we should be talking about reality.

--Bob Carney

It was beginning to look like our readership was a whole lot more intransigent on environmental issues than we thought--previous posts and responses on the subject here--but a poll this week on our web site suggests otherwise.

We asked: In order to conserve water, would you be willing to play on brown grass during periods of low rainfall? Yes or No

Results mid-afternoon today, with about 300 responses:

Yes: 64.91%
No: 35.09%

Not exactly radical, but responsible for sure...Meanwhile, you'll find some interesting discussion on our Golf and the Environment forum.

--Bob Carney

Interesting note from Michael Morris of Santa Rosa on the How Green is Golf? story by John Barton in the May issue. The story has generated tons of comment, much of it suprisingly negative, but Michael supports one of our suggestions in particular.

Your advice to reduce golf’s environmental impact include walking instead of taking a cart.  I prefer to do just that, but some people in the US just don’t get it.  When my son and I were in Florida over the holidays, not one course would let us walk!  And that includes the PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie.  Combine that with a ‘cart path only’ policy and you get five or six hour rounds.  Funny, two years ago in Scotland we walked every time, and all rounds were under four hours except at Kingsbarns where most of the golfers were American, in carts, and playing at a six hour pace.  Walking isn’t just a good way to reduce consumption of expensive gas and electricity, it could solve the problem of slow play and expand the appeal of the game to those who don’t have time to spend all day at a course.

Michael, thanks. Because I know how much the PGA is promoting all kinds of golf, on foot or on wheels, we called PGA Golf Club and they told us we were free to walk, but we would pay the same fee as we would if we took a cart, i.e., the cart fee was inseparable. (In my view, given the courses there, still a bargain).

Geoff Shackelford mentions the story in his blog today and the comments are lively.
 
--Bob Carney

Letters and posts continue on our Green story. You seem more anxious to talk about this than John Daly's personal life, Tiger's knee surgery or even the question of whether the Masters has lost its roar. Right now, comments against our story, by John Barton in the May issue, are running well ahead of those in support. Here are two letters that represent the ends of the spectrum:

Dave Wall of Rome, Georgia:

I was disgusted to see that with the May issue my favorite publication has gone p.c. by endorsing the unproven myth of man-made global warming. What's next? Will the PGA now require all the pros to see Al Gore's hysterical move, drive electric cars and picket the White House to demand our signing of the Kyoto Treaty? Please cancel my subscription.

Dr. Stephen Goldberger, Farmville, Virginia:

I have been a subscriber since before Tiger Woods was born and, to my (increasingly weaning) memory the May 2008 issue was the strongest ever. You addressed two key issue--self-improvement and the environment--in very substantive, informative depth. It was also refreshing to see a golf-oriented magazine take the Bush Administration to task....on their dismantling of the EPA. If you put equal effort into growing the game, you should be in line for the Nobel Prize for golf. Thanks for a great issue.

Call me a radical, but here's one view: Whether you believe that human beings influence global climate change or not, you ought to be concerned that we're using water and pesticides wisely, and golf, as an industry, ought to be concerned that we're doing that on golf courses. That's why John Barton did the story and why the various experts--of wildly different opinions, by the way--cooperated.

Meanwhile, President Bush will today "lay out specific goals for limiting greenhouse gases that scientists say are responsible for warming the planet," according to the New York Times.

--Bob Carney

Well. That April golf-and-the-environment story certainly aroused your attention and, for many of you, your ire. This letter from Ken Artingstall of Glendale, California (Ronald Reagan country if I'm not mistaken), is the latest in a rapid series:

Be careful if you intend to enter the political arena in a sports publication. There are plenty of us who believe the so-called "environmental movement" is just socialism in its latest guise, "man-made global warming" is a hoax and "endangered species protection" is typical baby-boomer hubris. I no more believe humans can "control" this planet's environment than I'll be playing Augusta National on Masters Sunday. Stick to your knitting: You're a golf publication, not the Sierra Club.

Thanks, Ken. Your letter reminds me again of golf's power to bring together diverse human groups--like yours and mine, for instance. That unifying (and civilizing) power was on breathtaking display at Augusta National today, when the son shone, people were extremely nice to one another, strangers talked about a game they loved and nobody littered.

Events that can do that are an endangered species.

--Bob Carney

Topic A is how it will play...here at Augusta and, if your letters are any indication, at your home course is well. The debate over John Barton's How Green is Golf? is level orange at this point. See posts here and on our environmental forum. The debate seems to be focused on the political at the moment--"I am writing to tell you that I buy your magazine to read about golf, not the environment. I read your magazine as an escape from the everyday bombardment of politics and doom and gloom that the media gives us"--sickofgreen wrote yesterday. But eventually we'll get to playing conditions and then color becomes a measure of firmness and speed, not political position. (See Golf Digest's new definition of "Conditioning" in its course rating as a start of that conversation).

The wish here at Augusta is to have last year's firmness/speed with this year's temperatures (70s). Which would mean, one hopes (one being media, the club and the players, oh, everybody) lower scores. Already the softness brought on by last weekend's rain has some players gently predicting a return to sub-par scores. (Zach Johnson won with plus-1 in '07).

Adam Scott: It's so hard to pick a winning score, but it's playing so long at the moment; it will be hard to get a lot of shots close...I don't know, a couple under maybe, if the weather's good.

But Sean Micheel, who said that last year's high scores were "definitely" weather-related, nonetheless thought high scores could happen again if we get no more rain: "Over par could happen."

Phil Mickelson agreed: They won't be lower. I think the scores may get a little bit higher, yeah, and the length is the biggest factor. Also all of the trees and the tightening of the golf course.

Augusta will never by anything but green. But if we see no rain over the weekend and winds pick up as predicted, it will be a fast, light green and oldtime low scores will remain out of reach.

If that kind of Masters encourages golf clubs around the country to water a bit less, that's a good thing. If it pushes them to green speeds of 11 or 12, as Oakmont did last year, not so much.

--Bob Carney

We expect to get lots of mail on John Barton's How Green is Golf ? story in the April Golf Digest. However, it's doubtful that any letter will match the passion of the first, from Dick Lombardo, a Green Committee member from West Friendship, Maryland:

I think it is unfortunate that "The Most Important Article We've Ever Published" is based on the following: Global warming is real; global warming is bad; global warming is, of course, caused by man, and even its even more arrogant counterpart--by reducing our "carbon footprint" we can affect clmate change positively (global cooling?) Why did Golf Digest have to take and promote a political position? Had Mr. Barton reported that the explosion in "green" sentimentality would impose certain sure changes on golf course design, construction and maintenance, the article would have been credible and journalistic. His focus on water conservation and improved pesticide use was.

In most things scientific, we know. The only thing known about global warming is that the politically correct position is to believe in it and all of its colectivist mandates fervently. John Barton spent three months researching what environmental and global warming advocates believe, and Golf Digest devoted more than thirty pages to admonish us for daring to enjoy well-manicured and green fairways and greens. I have served on the Green Committee at my club for the last six years, and I agree that water conservation and improved and reduced use of pesticides are important considerations. Of course, course the related consequencs and benefits are known. I challenge Golf Digest or anyone else to provide evidence...that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide affect didley.

BTW, interesting piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal on golf course conditioning practices, including those here at Augusta National.

Join the discussion of golf and the environment at at our forum on the subject or right here. Dick's letter is a great start.

--Bob Carney