Uncategorized

More shadowboxing

Oh lordy, here's another one. Writing in the Seattle Times today, Collin Levey lobs the by-now-familiar accusation that enviros are pinning the tsunamis on climate change.

Similar talk has been heard from other eco groups, though they always clarify that they don't mean the earthquake in the Indian Ocean was caused by global warming, er, exactly.

Note that all the rhetorical work here is done by the "er, exactly," which is packed with insinuation that Levey does not unpack, because she can't, because of course "eco groups" really don't mean that the earthquake was cause by global warming.

After the usual round of accusation by way of dark innuendo, Levey gets to her point: Environmentalists, she says, oppose economic development, especially for poor nations. Their message:

Poor countries are unwise to aspire to join the industrialized world, and their "natural" disasters are a comeuppance for buying into the desirability of economic progress.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit. While there are greenies who oppose development as such, they are on the fringe. (There are fewer of them than there are of, say, right wingers planning to visit the Museum of Creation.)

It is retrograde types like Levey who see environmental protection and development as opposing forces. Mainstream environmentalism -- and even moreso cutting edge green thinking -- supports ecologically responsible development. They support leapfrogging, whereby developing countries use emerging technologies to bypass the grinding, earth-screwing, wealth-concentrating stages of industrialization whereby the developed world reached its current state of prosperity.

Thinking greens recognize that economic development is crucial to protecting the earth, but they realize that there's development and then there's development. We like the kind that benefits the poor and the earth, not just elites and industry oligarchs.

That Levey can play on this outmoded opposition in a major newspaper is not only her failing -- it is a failure of environmentalists to be more consistent and vocal in their message of hope and progress.

New metrics

I meant to link to this a few days ago: Over on Renewable Energy Access, Scott Sklar argues for the development of new economic metrics by which to assess the viability of renewable energy.

By accepting the traditional measures of viability (cents per kWh, for instance) PV and other renewables always come out poorly.

Another economic "metric" needs to be crafted and effort initiated to build support for it (such as dollars per immediate used, levelized cost, non-interruptable energy). When you take these modifiers in account, biomass, free-flow hydropower, geothermal, photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind, and waste heat/cogeneration along with other clean distributed generation and energy efficiency come out quite well.

Deck chairs on the Titanic

While it's noble that people the world over are horrified by the human toll of the tsunami (Mozambique just donated $100,000 for tsunami relief), this outpouring of sympathy is not altogether logical. As Nicholas Kristof pointed out in the New York Times, malaria, AIDS, and diarrhea each cause as many deaths each month as the tsunami did in December. If it was the actual toll of human suffering that got to us (and not just the theatrics of destruction), maybe we as a species would be more concerned about climate change. But for now, we can at least read about why investing in infrastructure in low-lying coastal areas may not be such a smart idea. Here's an interesting analysis by The Australia Institute.

A modest proposal

According to a study by the National Wind Coordinating Committee, "Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the US by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined." Let's say they lowballed things, they underestimated the number of turbines, underestimated the number of birds per turbine, and are sops to the wind industry. Let's double their number ... no, triple it.  No, quadruple! Let's say turbines kill 25,000 birds a year.

According to the National Audubon Society, house cats kill 100,000,000 birds a year.

So, much like one can offset one's carbon use by paying to plant trees, one can offset the impact of a wind turbine by tossing one's cat into its blades.

It's the least you can do to avert global warming!

Top environmental events of 2004

What were the big eco-events of 2004? More than 2,000 members of the Sierra Club voted. The results are here.

Tsunamis Tsuck

Ecological damage from tsunami may be long-lasting The tsunami that ravaged coastlines of Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, and India last week, causing some 150,000 human deaths and countless dollars in property damage, also wreaked havoc on the region’s already-fragile environment. Researchers are just beginning to survey the toll on coastal forests, coral reefs, and wetlands, […]

The year in renewable energy news

A lot happened this year in the world of renewable energy.  As Renewable Energy Access summarizes:

2004 was a banner year for renewable energy! PV production capacity reached the 1GW mark; Global Wind Power continued to blow at hurricane strength, even with a downturn in the U.S. market; Bioenergy gained critical momentum powered largely by biodiesel; Ocean Energy moved from a few ripples to serious swells in Europe and the U.S.; Green Energy purchases became synonymous with sustainable business practices; and lots more...whew!

They've got a four-part year-in-review feature that makes for great skimming.  Here's Jan-March, April-June, July-Sep, and Oct-Dec.

Readers talk back on porn, radicalism, Christmas trees, and more

    Dear Editor: Thank you, thank you, thank you! I never miss my Daily Grist, but most of what I read depresses the hell out of me. Your story on Fuck for Forest is the first thing I’ve seen in a long time that actually gives me hope for the future. I was charmed […]

You go Conoco

ConocoPhillips has decided to withdraw from Arctic Power, the main lobbying group pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We were actually going to write this up in the Daily Grist today, but our subscription to the Wall Street Journal, where it was reported, has mysteriously stopped working. (Anybody got a login they'd care to share? Not that I would ever encourage you to do something illegal, like send the login and password to droberts at grist dot org.)

Luckily, the Green Life Blog has a summary of the story, with some trenchant thoughts on its significance.

Of course, this good news is tempered by the fact that Sen. Pete Dominici (R), recently re-elected chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is hell-bent on getting into ANWR. "We are going to make a push to develop our vast oil resources in the Arctic Refuge in a way that leaves the environment pristine while stabilizing oil prices and enhancing our energy independence," he said, which is fine unless you consider he's being dishonest about the "vast" part, the "pristine" part, the "stabilize" part, and the "independence" part. Sadly, the "push" part is true.

Green coffee for the office

A short, concise, and helpful answer to the question of how to find the most eco-friendly coffee solution for your office, from Treehugger.