Uncategorized

Howl’s About That?

Enviros celebrate 10th anniversary of wolf release Today marks the 10th anniversary of the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, an area from which they were eradicated by the 1920s. The transplant experiment, meant to help restore wolf populations protected under the Endangered Species Act, stirred strong feelings, both positive and negative, in 1995, […]

Waste to energy

Folks in the U.S. tend to be convinced that technology will save us. Traditionally, environmentalism has opposed itself to this tendency, scolding that technology is, in fact, the source of all eco-evil. I would suggest that, while technology's record is, shall we say, mixed, this is the wrong way to go, both substantively and politically. More on that subject later.

I certainly count myself a technological optimist, so I get excited about every story like this: Today, Treehugger gives the rundown on two new machines that make energy from waste. The first creates (brace yourself for some technical jargon) a really ginormously strong tornado that batters the waste into power. The second does something that even the Treehuggers don't pretend to understand -- "a thermal depolymerization process" -- to squish virtually any carbon-based waste into three products: "high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing." They're pretty psyched about it:

That sounds weird, but imagine this: If this thing works, most toxic waste problems would disappear--and so would imported oil. According to its manufacturers, if the U.S. were to convert its agricultural waste alone into oil and gas, according to Discover magazine, it would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. Four billion barrels! That's nearly as much as we import each year.

Yes, yes, it's still in development, might not pan out, might have unforseen side effects. But still: Neat.

Climate models

A favorite rhetorical tactic of global warming skeptics is to point out that climate scientists use models, which they imply are less scientific than the hard data used by other disciplines. This is, on its face, dumb. Every scientific field uses data to develop models, uses models to predict future data, and where there are discrepancies modifies either the data collection methods the models (or both). Climate science does the same. There are, however, interesting and unique features of climate models, and the indispensable RealClimate offers a quick synopsis thereof. It's slightly technical, but good reading nonetheless.

How Stella Got Her Mangrove Back

Enviros push for green reconstruction in wake of tsunami As tsunami relief efforts continue and plans for rebuilding begin, enviros hope sensible ecological practices will be taken into consideration. World Wildlife Fund on Monday called for careful coastal planning as reconstruction efforts get underway, as well as an end to over-logging in the region and […]

Oh You NAS-ty Boys

NAS report on safe perchlorate levels creating controversy A National Academy of Sciences panel report on safe levels of perchlorate — an ingredient in rocket fuel, firecrackers, and road flares — in drinking water has some enviros up in arms. The report, released yesterday, suggests that levels of perchlorate about 20 times higher than the […]

Bloggy Style

Instead of yelling at us, yell at each other! Here at Grist HQ, we receive lots of letters from readers, more than we can possibly print in our Letters to the Editor section. We love hearing from you — but wouldn’t you like other readers to hear you as well? If only there were some […]

Priorities for a Healthy … zzz …

Via Jon Stahl I saw the launch of Priorities for a Healthy Washington, a coalition of Washington state enviro organizations. I looked over the site quickly and went on about my day -- it didn't make much of an impression.

Now Alex Steffen asks: Hold on, why can't enviros make a damn impression? The PHW site is business as usual, he says, "a great example of environmentalists once again describing the steak rather than selling the sizzle."

Check out the site, read Steffen's diagnosis and suggestions, and let us know what you think.

Politics after disasters

Here's a fascinating piece by Peter Ford in Christian Science Monitor on the political effects of natural disasters throughout history, with some discussion of the possible political ramifications of the tsunami. Good to see someone going a little deeper than the "man clings to tree for two weeks" level.

Meteor Blades

Dan E. Arvizu will take his seat as the eighth director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on Friday. The federally funded, privately managed lab is the premier U.S. research institution for renewable energy and also conducts research into energy efficiency.  Its goal is not only to pioneer new technologies, but to get the fruit of its endeavors into the marketplace.

All I know about Mr. Arvizu is what I read in the DOE press release and what little is available about him on the Internet. He seems to have plenty of the right credentials and experience for the job. I wish him well.

But a new director won't mean more money for the laboratory, which will be operating on around $200 million again this year, about a sixth of the nation's entire renewables and efficiency budget. That's less than half the 1980 budget of NREL's predecessor, the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), where I went to work in 1978. Indeed, this year's entire R&E budget, which is poking at the $1.3 billion level, is only 40% of the R&E budget of a quarter century ago. It ought to be 400%. That would put it in the range of three months worth of what we're spending on Iraq.

Paper or pla… oh, fer chrissake!

Can you ever have enough answers to the paper-or-plastic question? Of course not! Here's another, from Treehugger.