Uncategorized

Fox, hen house, etc.

Over at (the newly redesigned) dKos, Plutonium Page brings word of a questionable appointment to the U.S. EPA:

President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.

Selecting a lawyer and an engineer with one of the nation's largest corporate law firms, whose clients have deep and occasionally controversial relations with the EPA, triggered concerns that Nakayama would not be able to aggressively enforce environmental laws.

Not able to aggressively enforce environmental laws? Why, there must be some mistake!

Brush pickers chew up our forests to make your flower bouquets.

I own a piece of second-growth forestland that abuts the Tahuya forest in Washington State. It is my contribution to the wildlife conservation effort. I think of it as a small, privately owned nature preserve. By choosing land adjacent to an existing forest I have effectively increased the size of that forest. Not being part of an ecological hotspot, its preservation means far less than that of, say, the Monteverde cloud forest of Costa Rica. Nonetheless, my efforts to protect it over the years have taught me a few things.

Getting through peak oil without disruption seems unlikely.

As I said last week, I'm not sanguine about our prospects in the face of peak oil.

It would be nice if the decline of oil supplies was slow and steady, markets adapted smoothly with the introduction of alternative fuels, and we came in for the much-touted "smooth landing." But those who envision such a scenario drastically underestimate just how delicate a situation we're in. We're trying to get from one side of a chasm (an oil-based economy) to the other (a healthy economy wherein oil is marginal) on a tightrope. While patting our head and rubbing our stomach. And reciting the alphabet backwards. Drunk. On one foot. Etc.

To get a sense of what I mean, consider "Oil Shockwave," a recent wargaming exercise cosponsored by the National Commission on Energy Policy and Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE).

Eminent domain was strong enough for good urban planning already.

As promised, I have been thinking further about the Kelo decision, and I have fallen pretty decidedly into the dissent camp. My ambivalence before fell into a few main categories:

• The government can already take property if it deems it necessary and hey, economic development does help a lot of people out.
• There's a market distortion that takes place because of the fact that often it's "all or nothing" for the developer.
• If a city planner wants to make her city more "green," this decision could help -- a private company could essentially be given this task and the city would allow them free reign over a certain chunk of land.

I will refute these below the fold but I want to put this up here: The ruling doesn't prevent states or cities from passing laws against this sort of thing. Check out the Castle Coalition if you are not in agreement with the ruling and want to do something.

Publishing break

As attentive readers of Daily Grist already know, Grist kicks off its two-week summer publishing break next week, during which most of us decamp for some much-needed R&R. Normal -- and by that I mean extraordinary -- publishing resumes on July 11.

However, the blogosphere never sleeps! Or shuts up! So Gristmill will be puttering along, delivering the daily content so dearly valued by our thousands hundreds dozens of readers. Our valiant blogtern Andy will do what he does so well, and he'll be joined by some exciting guests.

So stay tuned. And a very happy summer to all of you.

The precautionary project

Speaking of the precautionary principle ... witness the Precautionary Project.

(Via Uneasy Chair)

Readers talk back about eco-friendly cities, eco-friendly clothes, and more

  Re: City City Bang Bang Dear Editor: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels definitely deserves props for pulling cities together in common cause to achieve the Kyoto Protocol. However, Nickels has a huge blind spot in his own city: actually reducing production of greenhouse gases. His investment in highways is taking Seattle in the opposite direction. […]

Reason number 5,233,294,049 …

... why it's great to be a vegetarian.

Beyond Econ 101.

The ongoing Euro-spat has pushed the debate over agricultural subsidies to the forefront. While the US does not quite have the highest ratio of farm subsidies to GDP, it's pretty close.

When it comes to subsidies, I'm of the opinion that there had better be a very good reason for them, and I don't see a good reason for farm subsidies in the US or any other developed country. I believe it was this article that led me to my current position; there are many other arguments that take the Econ 101 approach to subsidies -- they're an unnecessary distortion of the market.

Tom Friedman today resorted to calling us all French because both the US and France are clinging to these outdated subsidies.

But setting these traditional arguments aside, I think there is a distinctly environmental line of argument against farm subsidies:

But hey, it’s better than nothing.

Among the press releases meandering into the Grist inbox this morning was one from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The council's weary flacks put their best spin on today's Senate energy-bill vote with this headline:

"Senate Energy Bill: A Substantial Improvement Relative to the House Bill and to Bills Passed in 2003."

I'm laughing with them, not at them. By all means, let's take what we can get.