Uncategorized

Voluntarily cutting growth or consumption seems unlikely; what is the alternative?

The COP-11 talks -- or rather, "the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in conjunction with the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention" -- are coming up in Montreal at the end of the month. The protocol (itself a product of COP-3) went into effect in February. According to the treaty, the parties to the protocol were supposed to have an agreement about post-Kyoto steps before it went into effect.

There is no such agreement -- nor, apparently, does anyone think such an agreement will emerge from COP-11.

"There is a consensus that the caps, targets and timetables approach is flawed. If we spend the next five years arguing about that, we'll be fiddling and negotiating while Rome burns," [Australian Environment Minister Ian] Campbell said.

The big complaint from the U.S. and Australia (and, increasingly, Kyoto participants) is that developing countries like China and India are not bound by the protocol. With billions of poor waiting for the fruits of modern society, robust growth, and economies driven by cheap, easily available coal, these countries will soon swamp any CO2 reductions made by developed countries.

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently agrees. He echoed this line of thinking in an Observer editorial hyping the importance of the climate talks opening today in London between the G8 countries and developing-world nations. He has been increasingly blunt lately about the fact that he no longer believes the Kyoto model ("caps, targets, and timetables approach") can work; this week's talks will focus instead on technology.

COP-11 may play out as a big international bitching session about the U.S.'s refusal to ratify Kyoto. But even if the U.S. and Australia committed to Kyoto, and every country already involved in Kyoto magically met its targets (which seems unlikely), worldwide CO2 emissions would not be reversed or even stabilized. A Kyoto best case scenario is still a grim outcome for the planet.

I may be pilloried for this by my environmental brethren, but I'm inclined to think Blair is right that "no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." It would be nice if they would. It would also be nice if they gave ponies to all their small children. But we'd have to see a pretty drastic change in geopolitics -- nay, human nature -- for such behavior to become the norm.

People want better lives. Countries want to develop. If our survival depends on voluntarily slowing or stopping development, we're probably well and truly screwed.

The alternative is to put our time, energy, money, and international agreements behind techniques and technologies for sustainable development. It's a long shot, but it's starting to look like the only one.

Mo’ better design

The mtvU episode in which Cameron Diaz and William McDonough surprised Stanford's "Maintaining Sustainable Building Projects" class is now available (though you need the dread IE to watch it).

Sadly, the class didn't seem too interested in Professor McDonough's lecture on cradle-to-cradle design until Cameron appeared. As Ms. Diaz said, "sustainability isn't sexy ... which is why I am here." (Ok, the second part was my addition.)

And Bill, what is up with the bowtie? You're on MTV, yo!

Dumping to a Conclusion

Louisiana officials and enviros clash over disposal of hurricane debris The pressure on regional officials to cleanse New Orleans of the trash and debris left by Hurricane Katrina is intense — so intense that eco-groups say they’re cutting corners, sending garbage to areas not equipped to handle it, and on the verge of creating a […]

Arbor Slay

Poverty drives forest loss in Malawi Southern Africa’s Malawi (yes, it’s a country — look it up) loses about 200 square miles of forest a year to illegal logging for firewood and charcoal; over a fifth of the nation’s forests disappeared between 1990 and 2000. Twenty-three tree species are endangered, streams are drying up, air […]

We’ve Got a Beef With That

Federal grazing program loses money hand over hoof Aren’t you just sick of welfare queens sucking off the public teat? We’re talking, of course, about Western ranchers who graze their cattle on public land. A new analysis from the Government Accountability Office reveals that 10 federal agencies spent $144 million managing the government’s grazing program […]

TRI

Bush Greenwatch is good today, with a brief rundown on the woefully underreported story of the U.S. EPA's plan to dramatically cut back the Toxics Release Inventory program, which requires corporations to regularly measure and report their toxic-chemical discharges. The program has, according to the EPA's own data, been a huge success. But apparently Big Business is annoyed by all the paperwork ...

XX Winter Games coming up in Italy

So did you know the Winter Olympics are only a few months away? Because I didn't. I've read about the enviro-hell that is Beijing 2008 and the enviro-heaven that is London 2012, but it totally didn't occur to me until now that the luge (my favorite sport to say) will be broadcast to you and me in February. Torino 2006, baby!

Oh good. They appear to be looking out for the environment.

Sorry -- perhaps this doesn't belong on Gristmill, but I don't have a blog of my own, and I feel like the world (environmental and otherwise) needs to be made aware of the mascots of Torino 2006. Watch the video to be inspired amused vaguely uneasy.

"Neve": she is a gentle, kind and elegant snowball; "Gliz": he is a lively, playful ice cube ... They are the symbol of a young generation that is full of life and energy.

Until their cute little heads melt from global warming! Sigh ...

Heard the one about the eco-mag looking for jokes?

A couple of weeks ago, we asked you for green knock-knock jokes. We got some creative replies, but we know there are more yuks to be had!

So we proudly present the new, improved Great Green Grist Joke-Off. Anything's fair game now: guys walking into bars (ouch), priests changing light bulbs, organic chickens crossing the road. Or link to stuff you've seen: cartoons, gut-busting clips from the Daily Show, ridiculous headlines from your local paper. You name it, we'll guffaw at it. Or at least cluck our tongues softly and shake our heads in wonder.

So go on ... show us the funny! Because if we can't laugh, we'll cry. And nobody wants to see that again.

 

Tectonics puts things in perspective

One of the reasons it's hard to get people to worry about climate change is that it's often considered a long-term problem. Hell, even I have trouble getting worked up about it some days, and I'm paid to do so.

So I was intrigued by this note from a scientist I'd contacted for a story: "Whereas your group is focusing on short-term trends such as climate change and global warming, we are investigating the long-term effects of plate tectonics ... Whereas climate change happens on a time scale of a few hundred years, the formation and breakup of continents takes millions of years."

See, it's all in how you look at it.

More Alito

Well, there isn't much out there specifically on Alito's environmental record. It's fairly clear where he's coming from, though.

This is a classically Bushian (Roveian?) maneuver. Alito is a big fat red flag on the abortion issue, waved in front of both sides' bulls. You can bet the sturm und drang of the coming weeks will focus almost exclusively on abortion and other social-conservative issues. This is the fight the Angry White Men of Bush's base want, and it's a fight for which abortion-rights defenders are perpetually geared up.

Meanwhile, as Brad Plumer astutely notes, the real story here is that Alito is a favorite of the business community. As with his constitution-in-exile brethren, he can be expected to take every opportunity to limit the ability of Congress to regulate the private sector. No doubt he has deep philosophical justifications for this pattern of rulings, but of course in practice he'll just be another soldier in the corporatist army. The political party he'll be enabling has no interest in small or limited government.

It's possible to imagine Bush nominating a business-friendly judge that isn't hardcore on social-conservative issues -- indeed, it could be argued that both Roberts and Miers fit that bill. But can you imagine Bush nominating someone who's hardcore on social-conservative issues but soft on federalism, the commerce clause, and other biz-related issues? The question answers itself.

Why the Republican base allows itself to be played again and again by an administration whose central and only real allegiance is to corporate cronyism is an enduring mystery. But progressives shouldn't take their eye off the ball.

(It's worth noting that not everyone thinks federal regulation is necessary to protect the environment. Some folks think it does more harm than good. But if you, along with most mainstream greens -- indeed, most of the American public -- believe the excesses of capitalism require some restraint, it's fair to characterize Alito as anti-environmental.)