There's a piece in the NYT about the connection -- or lack of connection -- between trace chemicals in the environment and cancer. The conclusion, broadly speaking, is that science doesn't yet know enough to make a firm link, but conventional wisdom has nonetheless settled on a rather unwarranted degree of paranoia. One Brit doctor claims cancer rates -- if tobacco-related cancers are screened out -- have actually been falling for 50 years, and goes so far as to say firmly: "Pollution is not a major determinant of U.S. cancer rates." A couple of folks have blogged about this. For my part, I'm a little leery to take it at face value, given the reporter's history. (See this old Nation piece on Gina Kolata's excessive deference to the big corporations she covers.) Still, nothing is quite so screwed up and off-base as Americans' sense of the risks they face (car crashes, people. car crashes.), so anything that can take the edge off the latest overblown fear is a good thing in my book.
Yesterday I wrote about America's shame in Montreal. Today, the New York Times, which clearly knows a good idea when it sees one, is running an editorial called "America's Shame in Montreal."
First: Engineer-Poet is right -- somebody has way too much time on their hands. Second: via Oil Drum, check out the collective efforts by Kossacks to develop "A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security." They're on their fourth draft, and it's really shaping up into an impressive piece of work. I would quibble with a few details, and with the excessive focus on command-and-control regulation, but my one broad criticism is that they've ended up with a kind of melting pot of every single progressive energy idea on the planet. As an exercise in visualization and planning, it's great, but if this is going to be picked up as an actual proposal, it's in dire need of some editing. Some tough choices need to be made. There's no way, in today's political climate -- or any I can foresee -- that this country is going to be able to process 20 major pieces of legislation all at once. Especially since for each one there's going to be a major lobbying push against it by entrenched powers. But regardless: Very nice work, and a rather inspiring example of grassroots collaboration. I'll be following the progress.
Bush administration officials sense that their best chance in years to get drills into the Arctic Refuge is slipping away, so they're putting on a PR offensive. This isn't particularly newsworthy. Still, it's nice to see Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's excellent political reporter, writing a column with just the right degree of mocking skepticism, calling Interior Secretary Gale Norton "the administration's Ahab" on the subject and busting Labor Secretary Elaine Chao for passing on talking points straight from a rightwing think tank (drilling will create a million jobs -- by all accounts, she said it with a straight face). Anyway, it's a bracing exception to the normal stenography of mainstream Washington reporting. Give it a read.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is not Jon Stewart's favorite person. Last week on The Daily Show's he did a memorable segment called "Who the F**k is Ted Stevens?" (Video here.) Why is that? Well, consider the following. He and his fellow drilling monomaniacs in Congress have inflated the (already-inflated [PDF]) projected revenue from Arctic Refuge drilling to $5 billion, though the Congressional Budget Office has not yet changed its official scoring. Last week Stevens was openly discussing scaring up support for refuge drilling among Gulf-state Democrats by tying it to hurricane relief. Holding devastated families hostage. Classy. But the latest rumor -- and right now it's only a rumor, mentioned in CongressDaily -- takes the cake. Apparently Stevens is considering holding up the Defense Appropriations Bill until he gets refuge drilling in the budget reconciliation bill, which is in conference committee. Holding the military's budget hostage. Quite a mensch! Anyway, if anyone can verify (or disconfirm) this rumor, let me know.
As this San Francisco Chronicle op-ed notes, the California Public Utilities Commission is expected to revive some portions of California's SB1 (the "million solar roofs" legislation) tomorrow. (Grist readers will recall that SB1 died earlier this year, a casualty of squabbling between organized labor and state Republicans.) Though there are some parts of SB1 the CPUC cannot replicate with regulation, the steps they're taking are considerable. This is from an email correspondence with David Hochschild of the Vote Solar Initiative: Tomorrow, we expect the California Public Utilities Commission to issue their proposed decision implement a 10 year, $3 billion solar program. This will be the largest solar energy incentive program in nation and the 2nd largest in the world after Germany. It will be followed by a 30 day public comment period and then it is expected to be approved by the Commissioners in January. More heartening still is the fact that the CPUC seems to be responding to a genuine groundswell of public support: The public pressure to implement this program has been nothing less than inspiring. Over the last two months, 43,000 people wrote to the Public Utilities Commissioners to ask them to pass the Million Solar Roofs program (we worked with Moveon and about 10 other groups to do this). This is more public comment than the PUC has gotten on any issue they have ever considered, including the energy crisis. It shows public support for solar and renewables has reached a new threshold. If this goes through, and doesn't get screwed up by the legislature again, it could establish what solar technology has long desperately needed: A long-term, predictable incentive.
Remember that horrendous new mining provision that was slipped into the House budget reconciliation bill? The one that could lead to millions of acres of public land being sold off? Yeah you do. Well, a little birdie tells us that Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.), one of the fathers of the provision, will announce a "compromise" version any minute now. It will strip out Section 6104, which allows mining claimants to buy land contiguous to mining claims for non-mining "sustainable economic development." That's good, but the resulting provision will still suck, and will still allow the sale of millions of acres of public land. This is standard issue Republican strategy. Start with a provision so odious no one with a conscience could possibly support it. If you get called out, make a show of "compromising." Then you get a provision that's still odious, but everybody gets to call it a win for their side. Fie on them, I say. A pox on their houses. A fie and a pox, both.
Boy, I'm really cleaning out the closets today! Here are a few stray things I forgot to include in this morning's link frenzy. Early this month, New West ran a stellar two part series taking a look deep inside the National Park Service. Grim but highly educational. (Check out New West if you haven't -- good stuff.) A good post on Canadian tar-sands oil on Treehugger. Also on Treehugger, a post about singer-songwriter Sarah Harmer, who unlike most singer-songwriters that come up in discussions of environmental issues is fantastic. Her album You Were Here is one of my all-time faves. At Worldchanging, Jamais Cascio has a post with everything you ever wanted to know about carbon emissions, only with way, way more numbers. Also at WC, Sarah Rich writes about some fascinating citizen-initiated urban-renewal efforts in Los Angeles. Carl Pope writes about the 9-11 Commission's judgment that the administration deserves a "D" on protecting us from terror attacks -- specifically about the chemical industry's efforts to block even the most modest safety regulations at chemical plants. Joel Makower writes about the insurance industry's growing role in pushing forward international discussion of climate change. And finally, on Peak Energy, Big Gav makes a great point. I wrote a while back that enviros tend to look at peak oil and somewhat naively imagine a greener clean-energy future. Big Gav broadens the point and says that pretty much everybody sees what they want to see in peak oil:
I'm sure y'all are Montreal'd out by now, but here are two more links. I forgot to include Carl Pope's astute summary of the international situation in the post below. And John Whitehead notes some grim humor. And that's it! No more Montreal! Probably! Update [2005-12-12 11:24:3 by David Roberts]: Oh, and this: Remember that Exxon-funded plan to try to quash European support for Kyoto-style emissions caps? The guy who ran it was sent to Montreal -- as a journalist! Apparently his sole job was to lob Jeff-Gannon-style softballs in press conferences. You just can't keep up with these guys. They always out-venal your worst expectations.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.