Uncategorized

What is your position on smoking?

Food production and transportation have been popular topics of late thanks to numerous posts by new Gristmill contributor Tom Philpott, loyal Ask Umbra readers, and the fight over synthetic ingredients in organic foods. But regardless of which side you find yourself on the various issues, there is no denying we mere mortals need food to live. So how about taking a look at another type of crop we don't need to survive: tobacco.

According to one Ask Umbra article, where a reader seeks green reasons to quit smoking:

Smoking is horrid, and the harm you are doing to your own health is just the icing on the toxic tobacco cake. From seed to smokes, those little white sticks leave a swath of death in their wake. Pesticides, pesticides, pesticides -- no large-scale crop is grown without 'em, and you can bet your tobacco has been sprayed right up to the moment of harvest and beyond. Every time you purchase a pack, you are supporting the chemical companies that make the pesticides and contributing to water pollution, habitat destruction, and the pesticide poisoning of farm workers and their families.

And she doesn't stop there folks:

Electric cars are looking good, but not quite there in terms of quality

I dropped in on the local electric car dealership the other day to kick some tires and see what's new. I especially liked the look of one model. It has four doors and a hatchback and is about the size and shape of the old VW Bug. When I checked under the hood I found six 12-volt, lead-acid batteries. It also did not have a transmission.

Global warming, in capsule form

In the midst of a long post on Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's coal-to-liquid-fuel plans, Oil Drummer Stuart Staniford provides a handy one-paragraph-long roundup of evidence on global warming. The next time someone you know asks about it, just cut and paste this paragraph and send it to them. Warming cliff notes!

[W]e are reaching the point where we can see that we are starting to make massive, probably irreversible, changes to our climate. The glaciers are in full retreat almost everywhere, the Arctic is melting (with total melting of the summer sea ice possible, though not certain, as early as 2020), the permafrost is melting, and releasing large amounts of methane, which is a very powerful global warming gas, while in the last thirty years, droughts have doubled due to warming, hurricanes are much more intense all over the globe, and are showing up in places they never did before in recorded history. Scientists have been projecting changes in ocean circulation, and lo-and-behold, they are starting to show up, including changes to the North Atlantic Circulation, although major change here was previously thought unlikely this century. There is some possibility of changes in deepwater circulation destabilizing methane hydrates in the ocean, particularly in South East Asian deeps. Oh, and the Greenland ice sheet is now melting much faster than climatologists expected, and the West Antarctic ice sheet is starting to collapse, though again, this was previously thought unlikely. Also paleoclimatological studies have made it clear that in the past the climate abruptly flipped between modes, sometimes with dramatic change in as little as three years. And we are making rapid changes in carbon dioxide, known to be critically important in regulating the temperature of this sensitive climatic system for a century now.

As he says, "maybe there's some scientific doubt still on any individual piece of the picture, but the gestalt is starting to look extremely alarming." Yes.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is already screwing up reconstruction

It's a couple weeks before Halloween, but if you're looking for a nice horror story, try the LA Times piece on post-Katrina reconstruction. You know how sometimes President Bush makes big, rousing speeches full of earnest declarations, with his chest all puffed out, making that one annoying hand gesture, and then in subsequent weeks adds several carefully staged photo-ops, and then his administration doesn't follow up on anything and whatever the subject of the speech was descends into chaotic factionalism and incompetence because, really, what Bush likes is feeling like he's being Historical and he doesn't care for the nuts and bolts of governing at all?

Yeah, this is one of those times.

I’m so, like, over it

You know what's really boring? Affected, world-weary cynicism from post-collegiate hipsters. Didn't that go out in the 90s?

(via TH)

WC action

Worldchanging is doing a book. And hiring. FYI.

Peak oil hits USA Today

There's nothing particularly new in it, but it's the front page of USA Today, so I feel obliged to link: "Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?"

It's typical mainstream journalism, scrupulously "balanced" in that it gives both sides equal time and makes no effort to evaluate their respective credibility or the validity of their claims. But it's a complex topic, so I guess that's the best we can expect.

I suspect the average reader will come away from the piece thinking, "Ho hum, another group of alarmists crying about another alleged apocalypse ... wonder what's on TV?" Which is another way of saying: Peak oil won't have bite until it hurts average people, directly and for a sustained period of time. Such is life.

Why did it take so long?

Over on Wired's car blog Autopia, John Gartner reports:

Some of the heavyweights of chemical research are bonding together to use computer modeling to develop new automotive fuels. The nucleus of the group includes L'Institut Francais du Petrole, Dow Chemical, Chevron, and Reaction Design, plus auto companies Mitsubishi, Nissan, PSA Peugeot Citroen, and Toyota.

The group will use simulations to explore new chemical combinations that could lead to cleaner and higher performance fuels. This sounds like a worthwhile venture, but why did it take so long? It's not like computer modeling is new, but I guess the inevitably of petroleum scarcity is finally prompting cooperation.

Why? Maybe greed, power and short-sightedness? Or could it be ...

Coincidentally, Booz Allen Hamilton (which is a consulting firm and not a drunkard founding father) just issued a report saying that chemical companies who spend less on R&D actually grow faster than their competitors. Talking about snuffing out a spark...

2005 EMA Awards & “The West Wing”

Tomorrow night the Environmental Media Association will be hosting the 2005 EMA Awards in Los Angeles. From the EMA website:

What Is An Environmental Media Award?

First presented by the Environmental Media Association (EMA) in 1991, the Environmental Media Awards honor film and television productions that increase public awareness of environmental issues and inspire personal action on these issues. The Awards recognize writers, producers, directors, actors, and others in the entertainment industry who actively expressed their concern for the environment through their work. The Environmental Media Awards have also honored people in the entertainment industry who have gone above and beyond their peers in consistently including environmental practices, story lines and rolemodeling. Such honorees have included Keely and Pierce Brosnan, Jayni and Chevy Chase, Blythe Danner, Dave Matthews Band, Daryl Hannah, Alanis Morissette, Willie Nelson, Edward Norton, Rob Reiner and John Travolta.

For a list of nominees, check out the EMA press release. (Look for Grist coverage of the event later this week.)

In the "Television Episodic Drama" category, my fav The West Wing has been nominated (along with Boston Legal and House) for the episode titled "The Hubbert Peak." This past Sunday, The West Wing addressed another topic familiar to us here in Gristmill: intelligent design. Candidate for POTUS Matt Santos must have been reading Gristmill, as his reasoning for opposing teaching ID alongside evolution in public schools sounds very similar to Dave's post on the subject.

And apparently, NBC is promoting a "live debate" on Sunday, Nov. 6th for which you can submit questions. So hop to it! Here's mine: "How will your administration address the issue of climate change?" Let's see if they actually answer it, or at least any enviro question, on television.

But if submitting questions to a fictional presidential debate is not your thing, how about a poll:

Does a Bear Chapeau in the Woods?

British military still using real Canadian bear fur in funny hats Over the past 30 years, Britain’s Ministry of Defense has gradually replaced animal furs in ceremonial uniforms — e.g., leopard-skin hats for military drummers — with synthetics. But so far nothing has beaten real Canadian bear pelts for those goofy tall hats worn by […]