Uncategorized

For single-family homes, small equals green

Building "green" is a great idea, but you have to watch out for marketing hype everywhere you go. This article mentioned earlier by Dave gives an example of a 5,500 square-foot dream home (over four times the size of the one that houses my family of four). Dave hits the nail on the head when he suggests, "What's missing, of course, is a commensurate rise in eco-friendly community building ..."

In that article you will find a picture of a large house sitting all alone in the middle of what appears to be a semi-desert ecosystem. The article tries to deflect criticism of the very house they chose to highlight with the excuse that it was built large so that "... people would get mad and ask questions." I'm calling bullshit. In part, because they failed to qualify the remark by stating that the most eco-friendly house is a small one (which also minimizes profit potential for the builder).

More solar, less Hoffa

I asked David Roberts, Gristmill editor, how he would feel if I used this site to pimp for issues I'm working on at Vote Solar. Would this be viewed as:

A) Helping Grist readers effectively engage in breaking developments in the environmental world; or

B) crass opportunism?

He said both. I can live with that.

So here goes. If you live in New Jersey, you have an opportunity to help jumpstart solar on the Meadowlands. It seems the Meadowlands Commissioners, tired of being known primarily for Jimmy Hoffa-related issues, are thinking about overshadowing that legacy by installing one of the country's largest solar-energy systems. Vote is April 10. Read more about it and send them a note of encouragement here.

If you live in Arizona, you might want to know that the state senate is considering a bill that would provide a tax credit for solar systems. Hmm. Solar and Arizona. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. If you agree, read more and share the sentiment here.

Dead ringers

Check out this BBC photo collage from the "Dead Ringers?" exhibit that opened yesterday at the British Science Museum. The exhibit explores the waste created by the oft-replaced mobile (Britspeak for cellphone!) and the impact of the coming WEEE legislation on industry and consumers. Displays on the latest mobile technology include biodegradable phone covers, the "first lasagne-based circuit board in the world" (!), and phones that will be able to take themselves apart for recycling (!!).

Perhaps it has less to do with material possessions and more to do with access

This week's New Yorker carries an excellent essay by John Cassidy discussing the history and evolving standards of poverty in the United States, and some of the different ways in which poverty can (and should) be measured.

Most interesting and relevant to some of our discussions is the idea of "relative poverty." If we hold most of what we call poverty in the U.S. up against the 1 billion dispossessed that Mike Davis writes about in his new book Planet of Slums, we find that most Americans are incredibly wealthy. Even if we compare poor Americans today with poor Americans in the 1960s when poverty was first "discovered" in this country, we find today's poor loaded up with stuff (most of America's poor own television sets and dishwashers and have running water and electricity, among other services).

But this kind of measurement may miss the point about poverty, Cassidy suggests:

Although many poor families own appliances once associated with rich households, such as color televisions and dishwashers, they live in a society in which many families also possess DVD players, cell phones, desktop computers, broadband internet connections, powerful game consoles, S.U.V.s, health-club memberships, and vacation homes. Without access to these goods, children from poor families may lack skills -- such as how to search the Web for help-wanted ads -- that could enhance their prospects in the job market. In other words, relative deprivation may limit a person's capacity for social achievement.

Left Behind

Pentagon aims to avoid cleanup costs by attacking EPA science Confused over who they’re supposed to be killing — their enemies? themselves? — the Defense Department in recent years has often defied U.S. EPA recommendations for environmental cleanups and toxicity standards. Case in point: A 2001 EPA draft report estimated that the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE) […]

Meet the New Boss, Slightly Less Irascible Than the Old Boss

New Exxon chair mouths same old wheeze in a breezier style Watch for new ExxonMobil Chair Rex Tillerson to lighten up the company’s communication style, but don’t expect any substantial changes in how the world’s largest publicly traded petro-corp responds to global warming. “We recognize that climate change is a serious issue,” Tillerson told The […]

Southern Land Do Need You Around, Anyhow

Big conservation deal will protect 218,000 acres of forest in the South Conservationists are celebrating the biggest sale of private land for preservation in the South’s history. The Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund have put up a combined $300 million for 218,000 acres of forestland owned by International Paper in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, […]

Chemical plant security

To turn our attention to the kind of terrorism that could actually hurt people: The failure of "strong on terrorism" Republicans to do anything to protect chemical plants and facilities -- some of the most vulnerable and dangerous targets for terrorists -- is a scandal that has gotten nothing like the press it deserves. It would be difficult to find a case where Republican "strength" more cravenly crumbled before the demands of a (heavily contributing) industry. There's no defense for it; nobody even tries to defend it. They just don't talk about it.

An explosion at a chemical plant would be a human and ecological disaster that would dwarf 9/11. (It would even dwarf a whole dealer lot full of graffiti'd SUVs!) And it's just a matter of time.

Anyway, the latest and greatest on this is Jonathan Chait's latest column in the L.A. Times. Read it and weep.

See also this NYT editorial, Carl Pope here and here, Greenpeace here, and from a couple years back, John B. Judis in The New Republic.

‘Eco-terrorism’: A subtle chill

A few bits and pieces on the "eco-terrorism" front:

This L.A. Times piece makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside:

Plug-in hybrids go viral

I'm not a big fan of flash animation. I am, however, a huge fan of plug-in hybrids. Love trumps hate in this instance, so I urge you to check out Calcar.org's efforts to spread the word on the benefits of plug-in hybrids with this piece of viral marketing.

If you make it to the end of the animation, there's a chance to sign a petition to automakers urging them to manufacture plug-ins.