-A Green Game...Sort Of:  Golf Digest (the original American version) offers an extensive series of articles in their May issue on golf and the environment, and it is fascinating to see the degree to which reader response is negative.  To be sure, this reaction might be different were these pieces running in a different golfing country – say, Australia or the United Kingdom – for among traditionally golf-strong nations, we Americans are probably better at ignoring the logic of the climate change argument than anyone.  My personal concerns here are twofold.  First, there is the obvious: We may not be absolutely certain what climate change is all about, or even if it meaningfully exists at all.  But as our surprisingly responsible Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has observed, if your child feels ill and 98 of 100 doctors suggest they’re suffering from a particular disease, do you follow the advice of the 98 or roll the dice with the two who say the kid is fine?  Then, of course, there is the ever-popular perspective that suggests – irrefutably, I think – that if we address the issue needlessly (i.e. the present climate issues are only a fluke), the worst thing that happens is we leave a cleaner planet to future generations – and how bad is that?  But for golfers in particular, I sense a larger and more potent issue here, if not today then certainly in the near future: land usage.  As populations continue to grow and major cities expand, the notion of building golf courses in larger metropolitan areas becomes a fantasy.  First, suitably large pieces of land are virtually nonexistent – a problem exacerbated greatly by the failure of the game’s governing bodies to meaningfully regulate equipment (i.e. the 7,400 yards now required of a “championship” layout eats up a lot more real estate than the old 6,800-yard model).  Perhaps more importantly, at what point does an overcrowded society begin to question the utility of 200-acre tracts of valuable, well-located land serving the private recreational needs of a comparative handful of affluent people?  True, the land was fairly acquired and is privately held, but anyone believing that such legality guarantees the safe future of these courses must be completely unaware of the American concept of eminent domain, which allows governments to appropriate properties (generally with market value compensation) when the land is deemed necessary for public-good items like roads, schools, and the like.  The underlying point to all of this, then, is basic: Aside from simply doing the right thing environmentally, does it not behoove the game of golf to be as green friendly as possible simply in its own self-interest?  It seems to me that as the general public becomes more environmentally savvy (and usable metropolitan area land similarly scarce), America’s private clubs hardly need to provide even more ammunition to potential critics and/or appropriators.  In other words, if you’re not damaging an area’s wetlands, laying down pesticides that might potentially affect the water supply, etc., the surrounding community might be a bit more inclined to live and let live.  So regardless of one’s position on climate change, for golfers, being environmentally friendly might really be viewed more as a matter of pragmatism.  Or self-preservation.

-Quotable: “Standing on the first tee, crowd 20-deep, 500 cameras – obviously that's how he plays every round of golf his whole life.  He's become so comfortable with that and that's a huge advantage for him." – Justin Rose, on Tiger Woods’ potential advantage in big events.