Uncategorized

A controversial New Orleans landfill is set to close, but eco-disaster still looms

 The logistics of cleaning up New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina are almost beyond comprehension. Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality says some 15,000 houses are slated to be torn down, and demolition is the likely fate of 80,000 more. As a result, DEQ estimates, the city will ultimately truck off and dispose of […]

Which of these four is not like the other?

Far be it from me to criticize content on our very own site, but this piece makes no sense to me.

For one thing, the four cited cases -- Pat Robertson accepting global warming, Frank Luntz accepting global warming, Wal-Mart greening its operations, and the Sierra Club endorsing Lincoln Chafee -- have very little in common, politically, economically, or culturally. There's no reason a position on one would imply a position on another.

For another, just who are these reactionary, progress-inhibiting progressives? It's telling that not a single person or statement is cited.

For another, how is it possible that environmentalists are both losing miserably and failing to acknowledge their many victories? Which is it?

The whole thing reads like a bank-shot defense of the Sierra Club's endorsement of Chafee. But if Renstrom and Perkowitz want to defend that, they should defend it directly, as Carl Pope does here and here. I don't agree with it, but it's worth discussing.

Simply lumping those who oppose the endorsement in with some vaguely defined set of anti-progress progressives doesn't do much to advance that discussion.

Supreme Court CO2 case

Gack! I'm so far behind on blogging I don't know where to begin.

Here's something: A while back I was casting about for good commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court CO2 case. This piece on Seed isn't great, but it does have some insight, like so:

A victory for the environmentalists would give the federal government the power to regulate CO2 emissions -- and the power to decide how strictly or loosely to do so. On the other hand, an EPA victory hands this power back to the states, including the petitioners -- who would then have the authority to set their own standards. Paradoxically, a ruling against the petitioners might ultimately result in the major emissions restrictions they seek.

In depth on damn dams

If you liked yesterday's Daily Grist story on the Sardar Sarovar dam in India, check out two books from astute observers of global dam protests and the power of emerging non-state networks of activists. Both Sanjeev Khagram (University of Washington) and Ken Conca (University of Maryland) are academics, but they write in clear, comprehensible prose for those who are willing to work a little.

Good news/bad news

First, the good news:

The United States is supporting joint efforts by the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam to establish the "Heart of Borneo" conservation plan, an initiative intended to protect biodiversity by preserving 220,000 square kilometers of equatorial rainforest on the island of Borneo...

Now for the punch line:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced July 28 that the U.S. government would donate $100,000 to help advance the project.

Kerry op-ed on global warming

Presidential hopeful (though, as my granddad used to say, you can hope in one hand and pee in the other and see which one fills up first) John Kerry has an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle today, full of his usual baroque, mildly dolorous phrasing (he always sounds like he's imitating JFK, but the flop sweat shows, even in print). It's about climate change, how Bush sucks on it, and what we need to do about it. It's basically a capsule version of the longer energy speech he gave earlier this year.

Michigan 7th

With all the Liebermania, another primary went under the radar, but it's an interesting one for greens.

Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate Michigan Republican, lost a primary challenge to far-right bomb-thrower Tim Walberg, who -- backed by out-of-state money from the right-wing Club for Growth -- bashed Schwarz for his sane heretical views on abortion and stem-cell research. (Schwarz is an old-school fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican.)

So in November, Walberg will face off against Sharon Renier, an organic farmer, musician, and long-time enviro:

Does a gallon of ethanol really require five gallons of water?

"1,000 gallons a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

No, that's not an Exxon exec's fantasy CAFE standard. It's how much water will be required by an ethanol plant slated to open in Pennsylvania's coal country, according to this report.

My calculator informs me that "1,000 gallons a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week" amounts to about 526 million gallons of water per year. The above-linked article claims that the Pennsylvania plant will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol annually. That means it takes about five and a quarter gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol -- and that doesn't account for irrigation water for corn production.

Fascinating.

Blair’s rigged energy review

Remember the comprehensive energy review (PDF) done by Tony Blair's UK government about a month ago? The one that concluded that nuclear power is peachy, which coincidentally was a position Blair had been propounding for months beforehand?

Well, check this out:

More on Lieberman stuff

Last night I wrote about Lieberman's loss, the growing split between interest-group-based "checklist liberalism" and progressive movement-building, and the implications of both for environmentalists.

Today, Garance Franke-Ruta adds some thoughts: