Uncategorized

The gall of Small

A little over a year ago, federal investigators found that Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lawrence Small's private collection of Amazonian artifacts contained several hundred items (mostly feathers) that violated, among other laws, the Endangered Species Act. He was convicted in Jan. 2004 and sentenced to 100 hours of community service.

He is now arguing that he should be allowed to use those 100 hours to read books on, chat with politicians about, and lobby to change what he calls an "outmoded" law.

U.S. Attorney Frank Whitney told U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle, who is handling the case, that Small shouldn't be allowed "to satisfy his obligations to the community for his criminal conduct by reading and chatting with prominent political figures. To do so would minimize his criminal activities and remove any deterrent value of his sentence."

Allowing Small "to spend time learning about the Endangered Species Act so that he may change the law he violated fails to promote respect for the Endangered Species Act."

You think?

(Via Kevin Drum via Sam Heldman)

Sustainability Sunday

Sustainability Sunday over on Worldchanging is always good reading, but today's is particularly meaty. Don't miss Gil Friend on Kyoto and sustainable business, Mike Millikin on the state of sustainable transportation, and Jamais Cascio on the need for distributed computing systems to run future energy grids:

... distributed energy is currently more costly than centralized power (PDF). Some of that cost comes from managing the complexity of variable power generation, changing usage patterns, and a multiplicity of sources. Distributed energy resources will have to be managed more like a computer network, complete with abundant routers and switches. The success of distributed energy is ultimately dependent upon the increasing availability of computer-enabled power networks, or "smart grids." And smart grids for distributed power, in turn, will increasingly rely upon the availability of distributed computing.

Also, while you're over there, you might as well check out the Jon Lebkowsky post on efforts by telecom corporations to shut down municipal provision of free wireless service, and the larger implications thereof.

Easterbrook’s lies on “Clear Skies”

Ever since his 1995 book A Moment on the Earth I have been disappointed by Gregg Easterbrook's message that because we have made so much progress in cleaning up our environment, we need not remain vigilant in fighting to protect our air, water, and natural places from those who would profit from their destruction. During the Bush administration's tenure, for the first time since our environmental laws were passed, key environmental indicators (such as urban air quality and rate of cleanup of our toxic waste sites) are reversing.

Easterbrook's latest missive, "Clear Skies, No Lies," regurgitates arguments and statistics fabricated by the nation's largest polluters and oft cited by the Bush-Cheney administration in its war on our environmental protections -- particularly when touting its "Clear Skies" bill.

Markets, etc.

I agree with every word of this post on the Commons blog, and almost every word of the Michael DeAlessi-authored report to which it points (thought admittedly I only read the short version (PDF)). It also met with approval from Sustainablog and EnviroPundit. The basic point is that private efforts at conservation are often more flexible and effective than government programs. An ancillary point is that mainstream environmentalists often resort reflexively to government when looking to address environmental problems. Both true.

Commons is, of course, written by libertarians -- or as they call themselves, "free market environmentalists" -- and I usually disagree with them. If I'm behind private conservation efforts, why do I disagree with them?

The hockey stick

The folks over at the Indispensable RealClimate.org set out to write a "Dummies Guide to the Latest 'Hockey Stick' Controversy" "in language even our parents might understand." It's a great read, as always, but all I can say is, they must have really smart parents.

It Takes a Pillage to Raze the Wild

Illegal logging operation in Indonesia feeds China’s appetite for wood A three-year investigation of some of the last remaining intact tropical forests in the Asia-Pacific region has revealed an enormous international smuggling ring, possibly the largest in the world involving a single type of wood, says a report from two enviro groups. In a billion-dollar-a-year […]

Inhofe tries to intimidate clean-air officials

John Paul, a regional air pollution officer from Dayton, Ohio, dared to argue in congressional testimony last month that the Clear Skies Act was "simply not protective enough" and "far too lenient" on polluters.

For that sin, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Senate Environment Committee, is going to make Paul and his cohorts pay.  

More no-nukeness

The kick-off of Kyoto, new reports on the dangers of global warming, and a flurry of Congressional activity have created a cultural moment ripe with potential. While environmental organizations are largely blowing it, the nuclear industry sees it for what it is: a huge opportunity. They have begun a PR push to position nuclear as the "eco-friendly" alternative to oil and gas, and they have no shortage of apologists -- some in the executive branch -- helping them along. Those greens who think nuclear is a poor choice for the future had better get their shit together and start a counter-PR push of their own, quick. (On that note, see this post.)

Anyway, speaking of nuclear boosterism, Joel Makower takes a few well-aimed swipes at this almost comically credulous, gee-whiz Wired article on how wonderfully awesometastic nuclear power is. Worth a read.

Not so black and white on Kyoto

This BBC story on the French love affair with nuclear power makes the somewhat surprising point that even with 78% of its power generated by its 58 nuclear plants, France is not on pace to meet its 2008 greenhouse gas emissions reductions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, only the U.K. and Sweden among E.U. signatories are on target to meet the 8% reduction in emmissions by 2010.

This unsettling situation makes at least two things quite clear:

1. Transport (not fueled by nuclear power) must be responsible for a very large portion of greenhouse emissions;
2. the Europeans are in danger of their words speaking louder than their actions when it comes to meeting the reductions mandated by Kyoto.

It is no excuse for American inaction, but failure to meet these commitments may have the effect of undermining the case for the multilateral environmental mechanism while reinforcing the image of Europeans as aspirational rather than serious about meeting targets and timetables.    

That’s just crazy talk

On the CNN home page this morning, a headline quietly announced what scientists and environmentalists have been shrieking about for a while now: Experts: Earth getting warmer, people to blame. The article, reporting on the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting, quotes Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography: "The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people."

Rational, you say? I popped on over to Fox News to see how they were handling the story. Hmm, no mention of global warming amidst the Jacko reports on the home page. Let's see what a search on the term brings up. Ah, yes: there's the chilling report of "Manufacturers Stymied by Air Pollution Controls." And then, in "Kyoto Count-Up," we learn that Wednesday was the day the Kyoto Protocol -- aka the "global economic suicide pact" -- went into effect around the world, "but, fortunately, not in the U.S. and Australia."

It's good to find some level heads in these crazy times.