Uncategorized

Is the popular Potter author a ‘Luddite fool’?

While enviros were praising the Canadian publisher of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for printing the book entirely on recycled paper, I didn't hear any talk about the greener eBook option. Maybe because there isn't one -- at least not legally. As Wired reports:

Although Potter has become a multimedia cash cow, with 52 million books sold and products ranging from figurines to a $2.35 billion movie series, Rowling has so far decided against publishing the stories in e-book format, a medium growing by up to 40 percent annually, according to the New York-based Open eBook Forum, a trade body.

Which of course has contributed to this:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been scanned and put online by an underground collection of fans capitalizing on Rowling's decision not to release an official e-book version. Rowling's publisher had hoped to maintain a strict embargo until midnight Friday. But by then, hundreds were already reading the book thanks to Potter fans who organized over Internet Relay Chat, or IRC, to scan and distribute the book.

Potter fans coordinated a worldwide effort to turn the book's 672 pages into a home-brew digital copy -- now available on file-sharing networks and by using BitTorrent.

So, is Rowling a "Luddite fool"? And should greens support the eBook market?

The Hills Are Alive …

As Europeans flock to urban centers, wildlife reclaim the countryside Wild boars on the outskirts of Berlin. Bears scaring schoolkids in Austria. New summer blockbuster about a wildlife invasion? Nope, it’s Europe in the 21st century. Animals long considered scarce are reappearing in the countryside as folks across the continent abandon rural villages for cities, […]

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.