Uncategorized

WED

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that today is World Environment Day. So, uh, Happy Environment, everyone!

A new think tank tries to link up justice, poverty, and green issues

There's been a lot of talk since ... well, forever, but especially since the paper that shall go unnamed, about greens forming strategic alliances with other progressive groups. One such proposed alliance is between big green groups and groups working to fight racism and poverty. Most of this, sad to say, is just talk, but Joel Makower brings word of Reclaim the Future, a new think tank from Van Jones' Ella Baker Center that's trying to make it happen.

Reclaim the Future's slogan is "Green Jobs, Not Jails," and as you might gather, the idea is "representing and empowering ecologically sound, urban entrepreneurs and the communities they provide opportunities for." Jones says the goal is to quickly find a kind of showcase project -- an urban green business that's profitably employing recently incarcerated or at-risk youth -- and leverage the hell out of it. "We want to create a demonstration project that gives us the opportunity to go out and build the political constituency that can multiply that by a thousand-fold," he says. To which I say: Godspeed.

I've often thought that all the talk about bridge-building between extant progressive groups isn't going to amount to much. Institutional cultures and habits are deeply ingrained. From Joel's post:

Clinton

I'm listening to an interview with Bill Clinton on public radio. He just claimed that his administration had the best environmental record since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration -- citing, in particular, the Roadless Rule. He also said that he wanted to raise CAFE standards, but "Congress wouldn't pass it," even when the Democrats were in the majority.

What do you think?

Update [2005-6-3 20:44:39 by Dave Roberts]: In answer to a question about managing China's transition to global powerhouse, Clinton said it's crucial to (among other things) create a new generation of high-tech, high-wage jobs. What jobs? "Clean energy."

Ira Flatow then responded that he had 8 years to advance smart energy policy, and he didn't (though less bluntly put). Clinton had three responses:

• Energy issues had low visibility back then, because other priorities were intruding and oil was cheap;
• the Republican congress enjoyed the oil and coal economy, and still does;
• and he did actually do some stuff, tax credits and such, not to mention Kyoto.

Update [2005-6-3 21:22:14 by Dave Roberts]: A caller just asked him about the hydrogen economy. His answer, paraphrased: Hydrogen is great, and eventually we'll end up there. But it's a ways out. It shouldn't take money from more short-term achievable things like hybrids, compressed natural gas, solar, wind, etc. In general, we should spend far more on the emerging clean-energy economy.

The problem is that the old energy economy -- oil and coal -- is highly centralized, with access to influence, and very well-financed. The new energy economy is decentralized, entrepreneurial, under-financed, and lacking clear markets. The feds should help it along.

Flatow then asked him about nuclear, mentioning that "a lot of green people" are saying it's the answer. His answer, paraphrased: We should "look seriously" at it, and it's clear "we can run safe nuclear power plants." However:

• Will we get enough benefits in the short run given the enormous capital requirements, or would it make more sense to use that money building up renewable energy?
• Should we build 40 new nuke plants before we know what to do with the waste (Yucca was chosen for political, not environmental reasons)?
• Is nuclear more more cost effective than "letting 1000 flowers bloom" with small-scale wind, solar, biomass, etc. projects?

My overall impression of Clinton is basically what it always was: He's a mesmerizing speaker. He talks about progressive issues in a way that seems almost calculated to piss off True Believers, but in the process sells progressive solutions to Middle America more effectively than anyone I've ever heard.

New Scientist article bleg

I too want to see the New Scientist article mentioned in this Sustainability Zone post, but I don't have a subscription either.

So I turn to my reader(s?): Do any of you have a subscription? And if so, could you send me a copy of the article? The abstract is here.

Kevin Drum concedes too much in his post on oil policy.

Part 5 of Kevin Drum's series on peak oil is out. In it, he turns from describing the phenomenon to considering what should be done about it. It's at once the most interesting and frustrating entry in what is, I should say, an excellent overall series. (If you know someone looking for an easily-digestible primer on the subject, you won't find better.)

Before I get into the weeds, let me say why I find this last entry frustrating.

As the era of cheap oil ends -- and it's already happening -- a great deal of power politics will be going on behind the scenes. There are lots of very large, entrenched financial and political interests involved in the oil game, to say the least. It is to their benefit that the transition to a post-oil world happen with as little disruption (for them, that is) as possible. If there's one iron law of socio-politics, it's that power's first imperative is to preserve power.

However, the path of least resistance for those powerful interests may not be the healthiest or safest path for the rest of us.

Greens rightly view the end of cheap oil not only as a threat but an opportunity (and no, the chinese character says no such thing). There will be some big changes. Ideally, some of those changes will meliorate things about how we live that are harmful, either materially or psychologically, and others will open up new ways of living and interacting.

Greens -- no, humanists -- should view it as their mission to advocate, early and consistently, for the kinds of changes that will do the most good for the most people, over the long term. Sometimes that will overlap with the changes advocated by the powers that be, sometimes it won't. But we should be the voice of the people; the post-oil transition is as much a populist, social-justice issue as it is environmental.

Getting back to Drum:

Greening the U.S. tax code gets sadly little attention from green groups.

This morning the Brookings Institution hosted a forum on "Tax Reform and the Environment." Along with the usual suspects singing the economic and environmental praises of ending subsidies and tax breaks that harm the environment as well as levying some that would help was one William Frenzel -- former Member of Congress and current member of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

Mr. Frenzel noted that out of the hundreds of submissions from the public to the panel a grand total of three could be generously described as support for "greening" our taxes as part of a reform package. It's been nearly 20 years since the last tax reform happened, and I know that in the current DC climate it's hard to imagine a green shift in taxes, but come on people. Don't we need to at least try?

As far as I know, no environmental group has set up a generic e-mail for their members to send to the panel. This surprises me. But you can take matters into your own hands by submitting your own suggestions.

According to Frenzel:

Joel Makower summarizes the many options for those seeking climate-neutral driving.

You've probably heard about "green tags," whereby businesses -- or events, or rock bands, or whatever -- can offset the carbon emissions of their activities by paying for clean energy credits (debits?). As the preceding sentence (doesn't) make clear, it's not entirely easy to explain exactly what a green tag is, or what it does, or how to get one.

Now a whole host of websites have popped up offering to let you offset your own personal CO2 emissions -- that is, your driving. But the services of said websites work with different figures, cost different amounts, and produce different results. What's a confused, eco-conscious driver to do?

Fear not. Joel Makower has just written a fascinating and comprehensive summary of the whole "climate-neutral driving" schtick. Get thee and read it.

The Bad News Forebears

Study suggests toxins’ effects may be passed down through generations A pregnant woman’s exposure to toxic chemicals may cause harmful effects not only in her children, but in her grandchildren and theirs, a surprising new study suggests. For some time scientists have known about “epigenetic” changes: chemical modifications of DNA that affect the way it […]

The Sawn Remains the Same

Massive Amazon illegal logging ring busted Eighty-nine people were rounded up by Brazilian authorities this week as part of a massive crackdown on illegal logging in the Amazon rainforest, causing a rare outbreak of hope among conservationists that the country’s government is finally taking the problem seriously. (The sweep came just weeks after the latest, […]

CNN founder says the network needs more environmental news, less trash

CNN founder and legendary loudmouth Ted Turner marked the 25th birthday of the pioneering cable news network this week by patting its back, but also telling staff, "I would like to see us return to a little more international coverage on the domestic feed and a little more environmental coverage, and maybe a little less pervert of the day. I mean, there's a lot of perversion around, I know that, but is it really news? I mean, some of it is. I guess you've got to cover Michael Jackson, but not three stories about perversion at the lead of every half-hour."

A "little more" environmental coverage? Does that imply that there's some already? Did I blink and miss it?