Uncategorized

Beak Truth to Power

Scientists question ivory-billed woodpecker evidence Conservationists and bird lovers have been enjoying their euphoric high from the rediscovery of the legendary, turns-out-not-extinct-after-all ivory-billed woodpecker. So leave it to a trio of meddling scientists to come along and harsh the buzz. Three biologists have written a paper questioning whether the evidence gathered to support the alleged […]

Denver U. law students work on green case against feds.

Did you know this?

Thirteen years ago ... Congress passed a law mandating that, by 1999, 75 percent of the federal fleet of light-duty vehicles (excepting emergency and tactical vehicles) be capable of running on alternative fuels rather than on gasoline. State governments were given until 2001 to meet the same mandate.

It's true.The law in question is Public Law 102-486, otherwise known as the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The bill begins with a bang:

Google expands its borders

Google Earth has been out for a while now, so I hesitate to post on it, since anyone who thinks it's a cool idea has probably already heard about it. But it hasn't been mentioned here yet, and this little treat today (make sure you zoom all the way in) seemed occasion enough.

People have also been using the software to look at large-scale impacts humans have had and continue to have on the environment, a la the UN atlas, only more interactive.

Wilson weighs in; corn withers

Kelpie Wilson, environmental editor of truthout.org, writes today on the possibility of corn as fuel. Fuhgeddaboutit, is the short answer.

Citing the Patzek/Pimentel paper mentioned in the lively comments section of biodiversivist's "Bad idea" post, Wilson notes that the current energy bill (great resource on that here) is going to have some interesting results if it's passed -- it will both encourage ethanol production and demand that less fossil fuels be used.

But increased ethanol production will actually lead to an increase in the amount of fossil fuels used: "We would use less fossil fuel and produce less greenhouse gas by burning the fossil fuel directly in the motor vehicle." Yet another reason to take a pass on this year's energy bill as the LA Times editorial board suggests.

Wilson actually concludes that we might be better off using corn for cars, because this would mean less high-fructose corn syrup, which she asserts has an even worse effect than the biofuel. However, it's clear that biofuel is not going to be a feasible solution for the global car fleet, even if demand is significantly reduced. There is certainly low-hanging fruit to be grabbed, but biofuel is going to remain a niche market.

Holmstead resigns

Jeff Holmstead, head of the Bush administration's EPA air department and all around promoter of the "Clear Skies" initiative, just announced his plans to leave the agency at the end of August. Next steps for him? Traveling the world with his family for a year. Best decision the guy ever made ...

A walk on the slippery rocks

"Philosophy," you scoff. "What is it good for?"

Not much, really. But I studied it for a long time and still enjoy seeing it pop up here and there. I was happy, for instance, to see my favorite philosopher make it to (a distant) No. 2 on the BBC poll of best philosophers evar, and also to see him given a 9 out of 10 on Sartwell's rather more idiosyncratic ranking.

"Generally speaking," ol' Dave Hume said, "the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." So true.

Just to pretend this post is about the environment, here are a few quotes about nature from philosophers.

Most incorrect:

Nature does nothing uselessly. -- Aristotle

Most correct but misunderstood:

The goal of life is living in agreement with nature. -- Zeno

And finally, back to my boy Hume:

It is a great mortification to the vanity of man, that his utmost art and industry can never equal the meanest of nature's productions, either for beauty or value.

Got any favorite quotes about nature? Leave them in comments.

Could it work?

Biopolitical anticipated this post with his comment -- in fact, my post on the gas tax started off on the topic of road privatization but then, well, veered off course.

I like the idea of road privatization on the surface. The road system is similar to the mail system in that when it was instituted, there wasn't really a private company that had the necessary capital to take on such a project themselves. Now, however, we have FedEx and other shipping companies that do have that capital for shipping, and which would undoubtedly have branched into mail delivery were it not for the government monopoly. Why not the same for roads?

There are a few considerations here:

Notes on the new Supreme Court nominee.

Ha. Well, that whole post was sure pointless.

Bush has nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. More later.

Update [2005-7-19 22:18:50 by Dave Roberts]: Well, I've read around a bit, and there doesn't seem to be much exciting to say about Roberts. He is by all accounts an extremely good lawyer, intelligent and thoughtful. He's known for his level, collegial temperament and ability to find consensus. Ideologically, he's extremely conservative, in the Scalia and Thomas mold, but not doctrinaire. His confirmation is inevitable, and while I'm sure Dems will kick up a little dust, they won't go to the mat over this guy. Says law school professor Robert Gordon:

All the indications are that he will become another vote to expand presidential power in national-security affairs, to limit the federal government's authority to regulate business and the environment and protect civil rights, to make it harder for women, minorities, labor and the disabled to pursue practical remedies in the courts, and to favor a larger role for religion in public life and as object of public subsidy. He is most likely to do this incrementally, case-by-case, rather than by sweeping new doctrines.

On the right, they seem not thrilled but certainly not disappointed. For a range of conservative opinion, visit redstate.org, the best conservative blog going.

Libertarians seem oddly silent on the subject of subsidies that benefit the oil and gas industries.

Warning: This post is just as wonky and boring as the title makes it sound.

This essay by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren of the Cato Institute perfectly captures a real confusion I have about libertarians.

They discuss the two versions of the energy bill -- House and Senate -- and say pretty much what you'd expect libertarians to say: Every provision that has government giving money to a market actor, taking money from a market actor, or restricting the behavior of a market actor is bad, bad, bad.

Okay, fine. But what's the motivation?

Here are the two possible versions of libertarianism:

Vague on social conservatism; hard right on federalism.

Below, Chris requests information on what appears to be the likely Bush SCOTUS candidate: Fifth Circuit Judge Edith "Joy" Clement. Ask and ye shall receive.

Here's what I gather from my quick scan: Clement has a pretty thin record, so it's impossible to tell where she stands on many major issue. (She is, in other words, a "stealth nominee.") Reading the tea leaves, the scuttlebutt seems to be that her support of the social conservative agenda is subtle, but her support of the rightwing business and regulatory agenda ("constitution in exile") is overt and robust. This is more or less what I predicted here.

Jeffrey Rosen writes: