Uncategorized
All Stories
-
-
A nice bit of TV
ABC World News is running a three-part series on organic food that concludes tonight. It's worth viewing, if only to see the messages the "mainstream" is getting.
-
The justices speak
David highlights a few of the difficult and interesting questions facing the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, which as you all probably know was argued this morning.
I wanted to provide a few thoughts about the argument, gleaned from my seat in the courtroom's last row, reading the transcript (PDF), and watching a fantastic panel at the Georgetown Law School discussing the argument. (You can see a webcast of the panel here.)
The justices were very engaged this morning. A quick review of the transcript indicates that the court broke into the arguments of the Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre (for EPA) and Assistant Attorney General James Milkey (for Massachusetts) more than 50 times each.
Below, I try to identify some highlights for each of the three major issues before the court. For ease, I'll refer to the advocates as the United States and Massachusetts.
-
Over half of the agency’s employees weigh in
Wow. Via jjwfmme in comments, it seems the rank and file at the EPA want to make their feelings about the CO2 issue crystal clear as it enters the Supreme Court:
In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming, according to a petition released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). ...
...
The petition signatories represent more than half of the total agency workforce. Addressed to the members of the Senate and House committees overseeing EPA, the petition argues that:
- The Bush administration strategy of "using primarily voluntary and incentive-based programs" to reduce greenhouse gases is not working nor "has [this approach] been effectively carried out;"
- EPA has abdicated its enforcement responsibilities by "failing to investigate coal-electric plants for technical options to control carbon;" and
- "EPA's scientists and engineers [must be able] to speak frankly and directly with Congress and the public regarding climate change, without fear of reprisal."
Here's the full petition (PDF) and a summary (PDF) from the coalition of EPA unions.
There's always been tension between the mid-level career staffers at various federal agencies and the political hacks the Bush administration has appointed to lead them, but this is ridiculous.
-
Seas the Day
New reports from the U.K. say climate change is altering oceans Apparently British researchers didn’t get the memo about pretending climate change is no big deal. Two new ocean-related reports say the U.K. is getting hit hard, and predict scarier stuff to come. The government-convened Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership points to surface temperature and […]
-
What Goes Around Dumbs Around
Bush administration considers unloading mercury on world market With stunning foresight, the U.S. Department of Energy is pondering a sale of more than 1,300 tons of mercury on the world market. Never mind that mercury sold overseas will, in all likelihood, just drift back to the U.S. as toxic air pollution. Never mind that, as […]
-
So That’s Why the Bay is Green
Billions of gallons of raw sewage flow into Great Lakes annually, report says The Great Lakes, subject of our favorite mnemonic device (HOMES), is being contaminated by homes — and other places where people poo. According to a report released today, 20 cities release billions of gallons of raw sewage into the lakes every year, […]
-
It’s cheaper than photovoltaic
The Guardian had a story yesterday on concentrating solar collectors. They have caught on to something I've been saying for a while: concentrating mirrors and heat engines can produce solar electricity less expensively than photovoltaic cells. Currently, we are able to store heat less expensively than electricity. -
Tolls reduce driving, but maybe not enough
On most days, my wife and I commute together by car. And since my kids started a new, out-of-the-way school, our commute has gone from a fairly straightforward 15 minute trip -- mostly in the carpool lanes -- to a congested daily slog that, depending on traffic, can last over 45 minutes.
We definitely pay for our longer commute in higher bills for gas and repairs. But we don't have to pay for the road space -- we drive on the "freeway," after all.
But stuck in rush hour gridlock, among all the other drivers parked on I-5, it strikes me that the term "freeway" is a misnomer. In fact, we do pay a toll to drive on the freeway, especially during rush hour. It's just that we pay with our time, not our money.
Perhaps it doesn't have to be that way.
