Uncategorized

You gotta be kidding me

Factory farms are a major source of pollution in the Midwest, and regularly violate air quality laws and regulations.  The Bush EPA's solution? Exempt them from Clean Air Act standards.

Look! No more violations!

Here's a press release from the Environmental Integrity Project:

Hydrogen ho!

Here's a great speech from Metaldyne CEO Tim Leuliette on energy independence and what a real push for a hydrogen economy would look like (PDF) (he calls Bush's $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative "a token gesture"). It's a relatively good (and short) read, but if you want the cliff notes and some juicy quotes, check out the summary at Green Car Congress.  Here's a tidbit:

It's an issue we raise periodically and then put away when concerns fade from the nightly news. It's an issue we like not to talk about unless we have to. It's an issue that with one senseless act, one government collapse, one hiccup in a global distribution system, will become our worst nightmare.

The issue is the drug that our industry, our society, is hooked on...it's called oil.

Land of the free, home of the spent uranium

I was medium-surprised to read that the U.S. just signed a 10-year agreement to take spent uranium fuel rods from Australia, but I was outright baffled to read that "the U.S. already accepts spent fuel containing uranium previously enriched in the U.S. from 41 countries." We do? Where do we put it?

Inhofe is better than fiction

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: global warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state." Awesome!

Hm.

Over the last two days, a question has circulated around the NEW office, asked by green architect and NEW friend Rob Harrison. His quandary: Which car should he buy to replace an automobile that was totalled?

He's narrowed his choices to four -- a super-efficient Toyota Prius, a VW or Subaru station wagon, or a 1992 Honda Accord -- and is weighing factors including price, reliability, safety, utility, and environmental performance.

I can't claim any special expertise on the subject, but I can say this much (and I'm preparing to duck when people start throwing blunt objects at me): For most city dwellers, buying a new Prius is a fairly expensive way of reducing your environmental impacts.

Oxford green, for now

Did you know that the University of Oxford is run entirely on renewable energy? Me neither. But maybe not for long.

Who you gonna believe?

I'm currently writing a review of Michael Crichton's new book State of Fear (should be done and published next week, several months after anybody gives a damn). In it, smarty-pants characters who think global warming is a hoax argue against borderline-retarded characters who believe it's a real phenomenon. The smarty-pants cite many scientific papers in support of their view; the borderline-retarded do not.

Setting aside the dubious literary merits of this arrangement, it raises an interesting question I think people ought to discuss more forthrightly: Why do non-scientists believe what they believe about global warming?

(Warning: extended ramble ahead. Click at your own risk.)

Ford u-turns in EV kerfuffle

Following a seven-day protest at a Sacramento dealership, Ford Motor Co. announced today that it will reverse a decision to repossess and scrap any remaining electric-powered Ranger pickup trucks.

Public outcry on the original decision began with California drivers Bill Korthof and Dave and Heather Raboy who had leased the zero-emissions vehicles from Ford during a new-vehicle pilot program and weren't quite ready to give them up to the junkyard. They joined with other supporters who staged a round-the-clock sit-in at the downtown car lot. And, according to a press release from Jumpstart Ford, the protestors plan to stay put until Ford follows through on the deal.

Peer review

The indispens... uh, hang on, let me check my thesaurus ... the necessitous RealClimate has a stellar essay up on the subject of scientific peer review, a topic that anyone who ever talks about climate change ought to know a little something about. They agree with the general sentiment that non-peer reviewed scientific papers shouldn't be taken seriously, but go on to say that peer review is not a magic bullet. It's an important process, but doesn't ensure scientific validity.

The best part is a discussion of some of the many recent peer-reviewed papers that have been hyped as overturning the scientific consensus on anthropocentric global warming. They show how the peer review process breaks down, and more importantly, how even after the scientific community has refuted some of these papers, they go on being hyped by climate change skeptics. Specific examples abound.  Here's the money passage:

More death

Speaking of the death of environmentalism, there's a good post and discussion of the issue over on greenState, which I shall be adding forthwith to our blogroll.