Uncategorized

Even the beer industry is running out of energy

Noted, in a Slate article about declining domestic beer sales: "Why are brewers crying in their beers? In part, they're facing the same difficulties as other manufacturers. Costs for raw materials and energy are rising, and they're having difficulty passing costs along to consumers."

The writer goes on to say, at great and happy length, that the real reason Bud and its ilk are a bust is because Americans have turned into a bunch of namby-pamby Cosmo drinkers. But his quick economic aside is a nod to the fact that the energy crisis creeps into all kinds of corners. How long do you s'pose the brewers will "have difficulty" passing those costs along?

And you thought the only environmental beer fear was genetically modified crops.

Umbra on winning environmental arguments

Dear Umbra, I’ve recently been debating my cousin about the merits of environmentalism, and he consistently attacks my positions by claiming that the studies that make the case that the environment is in trouble are funded by groups that have a vested interest in maintaining that position. In other words, groups that are devoted to […]

GE commits itself to clean energy tech.

Tomorrow, GE chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will announce that his company -- the fifth largest in the U.S. -- is devoting itself to what it calls "ecomagination": the growth of clean energy, clean water, and related technologies.

This is a very big deal, about which Grist will have more to say. For now, go read Joel Makower, who -- as with most big moves in the sustainable business sphere -- has been working on this behind the scenes.

Ecomagination, says Immelt, aims to "focus our unique energy, technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure capabilities to develop tomorrow's solutions such as solar energy, hybrid locomotives, fuel cells, lower-emission aircraft engines, lighter and stronger materials, efficient lighting, and water purification technology."

By almost any measure, it's a bold move. For GE, the fifth-largest U.S. company, it represents a strategic shift that could catalyze competition among some of the world's largest companies to accelerate the emerging clean-tech economy.

Wouldn’t it suck if the earth was, like, blown up?

I saw The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy yesterday. I can't say it has an overt environmental theme, but certain parts do inspire a certain nostalgia for the earth. The whole earth, I mean.

You see, at the very beginning of the flick, earth gets destroyed to make way for an intergalactic bypass. Later on, however, our hero runs into one of the guys who helped build it (turns out the entire planet was a supercomputer designed to ... oh, nevermind). And the guy has a back-up copy. Yes, of the whole earth.

Anyhoo, this leads to one of the movie's few real moments of sentiment, as a montage shows trees and fields, crashing waves, blooming flowers, windswept mountains, and damn if it doesn't make you think, "hey, earth is pretty cool!" That might not seem like much, but for a dedicated urbanite like myself, living in a digital world where images of nature are cheap from overuse, it's something.

(As for the overall movie ... eh. It has a certain charm, but mainly it's just a busy, frenzied flurry, attempting to squeeze in as much from the books as possible. I've read the books probably 10 times each, and I still couldn't quite tell you what the movie's plot was, or why it ended when it did. Worth a matinee, I suppose.)

Backing into the future

In New Statesman, John Gray discusses the recent British election in light of climate change and peak oil, concluding:

Whatever happens in the coming years, we can be sure Britain will be gloriously unprepared. It is fashionable to bemoan public estrangement from politics, but the election campaign showed that in one respect at least, the people and the political class are at one. Neither is ready to question the status quo and think how to face the future. As a result, crucial issues about Britain's future are likely to be determined by events that voters and politicians prefer not to think about.

James Wolcott thinks "everything he says about the mass sleepwalk to the lemming cliffs applies doubly, triply, to our own hollow elections and cooked-up distractions."

Wolcott also has this to say:

Speculating on what the election might portend for "the special relationship" between the U.S. and Britain that we're all sick of hearing about, Watson noted that Blair did not distance himself from Bush and the Iraq war despite the unpopularity of both with the British public. Blair remained loyal and steadfast, and took his lumps (a loss of Labour seats).

To reward Blair and express his gratitude, [CNN's Carlos] Watson said, don't be surprised if Bush bends a little on issues significant to Blair, such as global warming and international aid.

Allow me to hazard a counter-prediction.

George Bush will do fuck-all nothing about global warming.

GM and Ford see their credit rating reduced to junk status.

As Praktike mentioned, GM and Ford both had their corporate credit rating cut to junk status yesterday.

Mike Millikin (who is, as I may have mentioned, this week's InterActivist) has some thoughts -- and hopes -- on the matter.

Also, be sure to read this Carl Pope post, which offers some great historical perspective:

This sad saga stretches back more than a quarter of a century, since the industry failed to respond nimbly to the combination of Arab oil that was more expensive and Japanese sedans that were better made. Detroit had two choices -- one was to reach out to the nation and ask for public support in dealing with its underlying challenges. The other was to try sustaining itself by putting ever larger shells of sheet metal on old truck technology, and marketing the results as a passport to freedom and safety high above the road.

The industry took the second path.

I suspect history will view this as a real landmark in the troubled life and times of the U.S. auto industry.

GM turns to greenwashing.

Look, GM, your bond rating just got lowered to junk status, and now you're participating in this pathetic greenwashing campaign. My advice: Save your advertising dollars and invest the money in catching up to Toyota and Honda.

UPDATE: Green Car Congress chimes in with some more suggestions.

Got to Admit, It’s Getting Brighter, It’s Getting Brighter All the Time

Global dimming reversed in past decade; now brightening again So, remember that big hubbub about “global dimming” a while back, whereby particulates (e.g., smog) in the earth’s atmosphere were reflecting light and taking the edge off global warming? Yeah, well, funny story: That’s not happening anymore. Two new papers in the journal Science show that […]

Copying company pledges to reduce emissions.

Today Xerox became the latest corporation to announce voluntary reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. They pledged to reduce their emissions 10 percent by 2012, or 100,000 tons a year.

The EPA wants us to clean up our houses; too bad they’re not doing their part.

On World Asthma Day -- May 3rd if you missed it -- the EPA urged the 20 million asthma sufferers across the nation to clean their houses. According to its press release, 70 percent of people with asthma could better manage the triggers that set off an attack.

Unfortunately for asthma sufferers, the last trigger on EPA's list is ozone, which is hard to control without the EPA's help. Insted of helping "better manage" ozone, the EPA has weakened controls on the industrial pollution that forms ozone, adopted rules that will delay ozone clean-up from power plants for over two decades, sought to extend ozone cleanup deadlines through policies, rules and legislation, and issued rules allowing states to weaken and eliminate even existing ozone control measures. (More here on the Bush EPA clean air record.)

Now I'll admit that the dust bunnies are usually winning the cleaning war in my house. But if the EPA expects me to better manage asthma triggers, I expect it to do its part too. It could start by using the law to inject a little responsibility into polluting industries.