The second equation, which resembles Newton's second law of motion, describes whether the expansion rate is accelerating or decelerating. That depends not only on the energy density but also on the rate at which the energy density changes as the universe expands. For any gas, the change in energy density when the volume expands depends on its pressure. The pressure of matter is, in the appropriate units, nearly zero, but the pressure of dark energy is strongly negative. If the pressure is sufficiently negative, it causes the universe to accelerate.
Many environmentalists are scientists, albeit often passionately prejudiced ones.
Although some of the protesters depicted in the article may disagree, I maintain that the battle is not between science and the environment but rather between good science and bad. Science has been commodified, and the medium for that commodification is the culture of private-sector funding of scientific research. Unfortunately, I think Appell missed that point, because he tries to link Carolyn Raffensperger's line of reasoning to an assertion that research specialization is the smoking gun behind a lack of environmental-impact awareness. Not only is this a non sequitur, it is untrue. Raffensperger goes on to posit that a code of ethics needs to be reinstated into the scientific community.