Uncategorized

Inside the Bush-Blair ‘working dinner’

While I don't know exactly what is being discussed when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair meet, sources indicate that the two items on Blair's agenda ahead of the G8 Summit are aid to Africa and climate change. Item one has taken the front seat at the moment, but it also seems to be nearing a resolution.

Blair has his work cut out for him on the second one though. Even the "working dinner" failed to bring the two any closer on the issue.

For all his inaction, I think Bush does realize that it would be good to reduce emissions, all other things being equal. And maybe he honestly believes the tradeoffs that may come with reducing emissions will be too great to justify taking action.

So what's a prime minister to do? If I might be so bold as to offer a one sentence suggestion on strategy (aside from drilling home the point that the choice is not the economy or the environment), it would be to engage Bush on his own terms.

Further instructions for Mr. Blair below the fold.

Using lilacs (and other plants) to study climate change

If you're still looking for ways that you can do your part to stop climate change but you've already cut all the carbon emissions you possibly can, check out the National Phenology Network. They use data collected from lilacs (and other plants) around the country to determine global patterns in climate, by recording when plants at different latitudes go thorugh different cycles of blooming. Send in your request for lilacs and then report when your plants go through different phenological events.

(Thanks to Tammy for the link!)

The ranking of most eco-friendly cities gives too much weight to good intentions.

Via Planetizen News, here's an interesting sustainability ranking for 25 US cities. Now, I haven't had time to look through the methods thoroughly. But my first impression is that it gives undue weight to intentions, and not enough to actual performance.

For example, Portland does exceptionally well in climate and energy policy, while New York City's rank on energy policy is only middling. But this only measures what cities say about energy, not what they actually do. In the real world, however, the climate doesn't care about good intentions. And in point of fact--at least where transportation emissions are concerned--Portland eats The Big Apple's dust. Gotham has by far the most energy efficient and climate-friendly transportation system in the U.S., largely because higher residential densities and a good mix of residences, jobs, and services let many New Yorkers get around on public transit or on foot. So even though Portland is doing a good job of talking the talk on energy efficiency, in New York City they're (literally) walking the walk.

That's not to say that Portland's energy policy is irrelevant, or that rankings like these aren't a useful exercise. Far from it.  Still, actions speak louder than words -- and any attempt to measure sustainability should look far more closely at what cities actually do than at what their leaders say.

Is it appropriate for them to act as political advocates?

Over on Prometheus, Roger Pielke Jr. reports that "national science academies from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States" have jointly signed a letter (PDF) sent to "world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005," advocating the following:

New diesel design inspired by tropical fish.

German carmaker DaimlerChrysler will today officially unveil a prototype of a new diesel vehicle that it says will meet more stringent pollution-control requirements and get higher mileage. The concept car uses lighter materials and an aerodynamic design that allows it to get about 70 miles to the gallon. Although the company has not yet decided whether it will mass-produce this prototype, the diesel technology will be incorporated into future models to help meet federal emissions standards that will come into force in 2007.

Interestingly, the inspiration for the design came from the boxfish, a variety of tropical fish, and the result (with its sleek lines and boxy rear) is strikingly similar. Maybe it's just me, but the boxfish doesn't look like it'd be particularly speedy. It does, however, make for a very cute car.

East Meets Quest

China, in quest to be more efficient, could take a lesson from Japan China just kicked off a new $80 million venture to boost energy efficiency and slash pollution; it aims to quadruple its gross domestic product by 2020 while merely (!) doubling its energy consumption. For inspiration, China might look to its neighbor and […]

GM keeps digging

GM, which recently had its credit rating lowered to junk status, has a big plan to turn things around, and this being 2005, the plan involves massive lay-offs. It also involves even more investment in large trucks and SUVs. Good thinking, fellas.

Mike Millikin has the details.

Braungart in Seattle

Hey all you Seattle readers: Michael Braungart, co-author of the seminal Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, will be speaking at Seattle Center this Thursday. As you know, I'm an unabashed fanboy of his co-author William McDonough. I don't know as much about Braungart, but one can only assume he kicks equal ass.

Anyway, I'll be there, and I'll probably share some impressions with y'all. If you'd like to go, you can read about it here or buy tickets ($10) here.

International group attempts to tame China’s dustbowl.

A few days backed I asked readers to send me a copy of a (subscription-protected) New Scientist story that tantalizingly promised to cover "the biggest ecological project the world has ever seen."

Well, thanks to the magic of the worldwide internets, I now have a copy of the story (thanks Mike!).

Here's the deal: Every spring, winds kick up and start blowing dust off the plains of Inner Mongolia and northwestern China. This is a natural event -- been going on for millions of years -- but overgrazing and deforestation have dramatically increased the amount of dust and the damage it does:

Kelpie Wilson calls out the recent nuclear PR campaign.

We all know that Grist readers just can't get enough of the discussion about nuclear power. Kelpie Wilson dissertates on that very subject in an op-ed over at truthout.org. Among her many points, she notes that the nuclear industry has seized on the fact that when it comes to carbon emissions, nuclear is squeaky clean. She highlights the public-relations campaign being run by the industry to "rebrand" nuclear.

So how about it? Have those of us who have been reconsidering nuclear been conned? Swindled? Perhaps even taken in by a fly-by-night salesperson promising us seventy-six trombones?