A longtime contributor to Golf Digest, John Barton spent several months researching his May issue feature story titled, "How Green Is Golf?" Barton talked to an array of golf industry figures and penned several stories for the unprecedented 30-page package designed to educate golfers about issues facing the future of the game. He sat down with Golfdom's Geoff Shackelford to discuss what he found and the reaction Golf Digest has received.

Q: Golf Digest has called this "the more important article we've ever published." Tell us how this came about?

` Barton: We've been talking about the issue for a long time. But for a long time we felt that it was an issue readers perhaps weren't especially interested in. It's also a difficult issue to cover in an engaging way. People buy Golf Digest for instruction and equipment tips, for a good read, to relax, to escape, to do the next best thing to what they'd rather be doing, which is playing golf. They don't necessarily want to be lectured to about water tables and endocrine disruption.

But environmentalism has, of course, now become a paramount issue. It's perhaps the most-important issue facing our generation. And increasingly it's an issue that golfers, who have a unique connection to the land, are talking about. So we decided to do a kind of golf-and-the-environment primer. It's a complicated topic, and there are many different directions such a piece could go in. We felt that by interviewing a broad array of key people, we'd be covering all the bases and giving readers a variety of different and at times conflicting viewpoints, so they could make up their own minds. Devoting 30 pages to the subject makes a very strong statement.

Q: What surprised you most in your conversations?

Barton: So many things surprised me. I learned so much from talking to these guys. They were all without exception passionate and knowledgeable about the subject and I think very happy that Golf Digest was doing this piece. I was surprised at how everyone basically agreed that water is going to be a huge problem, if it isn't already. I was surprised at how terrific the Vineyard Club in Martha's Vineyard looked ... beautiful, natural and free from any synthetic chemicals. I suppose I was most moved by the sessions with Jay Feldman and Brent Blackwelder. They are both environmental activists. I'm sure there was some bluster and hyperbole among their comments. But, nevertheless, I found what they had to say very compelling, and quite different from what you hear if you only listen to industry types. Like most people, I blithely assumed that products that have been approved, that are in general use — whether it be golf course maintenance products, consumer products, food, drink — are safe. I don't necessarily think that anymore. A lot of people in the industry, for instance, will tell you that pesticide use on golf courses is perfectly safe, but then in the next breath they'll tell you how the industry is doing a marvelous job of drastically reducing pesticides across the board.

Q: Have you gotten much feedback from the golf industry yet?

Barton: By and large the initial feedback we've had from the industry has been very positive. Organizations like the USGA have been banging this drum for years, for decades, and have probably been frustrated at times by the lack of interest from the golf media. That's not to say that all of the industry liked everything in the piece. I'm sure Augusta National wasn't thrilled. There's perhaps a tendency for some people in the industry to talk only among themselves, which is why I thought it was important to get some outsider points of view into the piece as well, from the likes of Feldman and Blackwelder. Some of their comments were not particularly pro industry. But I thought they were fair. Overall, I just hope that the piece will in some small way have a positive impact on golf.

Q: Did you anticipate the feedback from readers claiming that Golf Digest was pushing a political view?

Barton: There was a very strong response from people who don't believe in global warming. I was surprised by that, because global warming was actually a very minor part of the piece — the main focus was water and pesticide use. Global warming has become a very emotional issue. A lot of people have jumped onto a kind of bandwagon of global warming denial. Because the issue is so closely allied with Al Gore, a lot of these people seem to think it is some sort of giant liberal conspiracy. It shouldn't, of course, have anything to do with party politics.

The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations of all denominations broadly agree on the facts of global warming. For anyone without a scientific background to say that they know better, that this consensus among the scientists is wrong, seems to me to be the height of arrogance. It's the same arrogance that saw Galileo put under house arrest for the last eight years of his life for the "blasphemy" of saying the earth revolves around the sun, which of course turned out to be true. So I tend to think of these people as modern-day flat earthers. It would be great if they were right, naturally, and all the scientists were wrong. But even if that were the case, wouldn't it still be a good idea to look for cleaner, more renewable sources of energy? Are these people really in favor of pollution, of wasting the earth's resources, of having to rely on odious foreign governments for our energy needs, with all the geopolitical traumas that come with that? I mean, what possible objections can anyone have to, say, exploring the possibilities of solar power?

Q: Have you gotten a lot of angry emails?

Barton: Yes, quite a few. Some canceled subscriptions. To get so angry over a story promoting environmental awareness is interesting. Perhaps some of these people are angry about some other stuff in their lives, too. But overall we've had a very large and very broad response — a lot positive and favorable responses, a lot of intelligent questions and suggestions and comments. We're running a representative spread of letters in the July issue from readers.

Q: The most interesting interview was with Vineyard Club certified superintendent Jeff Carlson. Do you think more superintendents can follow his lead or will the golf industry need to step up its education of golfers before other supers take chances and innovate the way he has?

Barton: It was fascinating to meet Jeff. He's a super-nice guy doing terrific work. He was forced to make the golf course he works on totally organic by a decree from the county. That's a unique situation. Almost all other supers in the land take their orders from the members, and the green committee. Supers will do what they need to do to keep these people happy. If they don't, they'll be out of a job. So things won't change until ordinary golfers start to take an interest in the place where they play, and start to ask questions. How much water do we use? What pesticides do we use? Could we use less? What should our golf course look like? Being completely organic isn't yet feasible in much of the country, but who knows, it may be someday. We're always hearing of courses that make great strides in that direction. That only happens when the golfers, the customers, want it and support it. And increasingly, I think they do. I hope we're all starting to realize that the urge of so many golf courses to go for the "bikini-wax look," to coin a phrase, is in most cases completely misguided.

Q: How do you see Golf Digest following up on this with industry folks. Will there be an annual "green" issue like we see in Vanity Fair?

Barton: We're right now in the process of assessing the piece we did and the feedback we received, and planning what we'll do going forward. But we'll certainly be covering this issue more in the future. There are so many areas to be covered, and so many new developments and changes. ... The 30 pages in the May issue was really just the beginning.