Uncategorized

Dropping Acid

EPA asks companies to phase out toxic chemical PFOA The U.S. EPA, having recently discovered that P stands for “protection,” has asked DuPont and seven other chemical companies to phase out use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon cookware, stain-repellant fabrics, microwave popcorn bags, and other scarily ubiquitous household […]

Another pundit on the take

Is every conservative pundit on the take?

Today Paul D. Thacker reports in The New Republic that Fox News columnist and junkscience.com proprietor Steven Milloy -- stalwart defender of tobacco and fossil fuels -- has been receiving hefty payments for years from, uh, tobacco and fossil-fuel companies.

However, unlike other news outlets that have dumped pundits after finding out they're receiving money from the subjects of their columns, Fox has been looking the other way (to put it charitably). Thacker concludes:

Perhaps the real reason the news organization tolerates Milloy is that his pro-industry, anti-environmentalist views dovetail nicely with those of its political commentators. Still, this misses an important distinction. Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.

It’s biofuel realities that matter, not airy scenarios

All due respect to the intrepid folks at ThinkProgress, but I think this defense of biofuels falls a bit short. There's this:

First, developing a biofuel economy can actually help reduce hunger and poverty by diversifying agricultural and forestry activities, attracting new farmers, and investing in small and medium enterprises. Increased investment in agricultural production has the potential to boost incomes of the world's poorest people.

In what world does "investment in agricultural production" benefit "the world's poorest people"? The trend for the last half-century has been for agricultural investment -- read, subsidies -- to go to mega-agribusiness. If biofuel really catches on, if a robust global market develops, is there any reason at all to think that the same huge corporations won't dominate it?

I was browsing through this month's Atlantic Monthly; in the first 20 or so pages, I saw two advertisements touting the magic of ethanol. Guess who paid for the ads? Siemens and Archer Daniels Midland. Not exactly "small and medium enterprises."

And this:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Over on Alternet, Traci Hukill has a nice and fairly comprehensive piece up about the U.N.'s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Worth a read.

Coal industry suggests more mountaintop mining; Bush appointee just walks out

Well, they've got balls, you gotta give them that: Coal industry flacks, in response to safety fears raised by the Sago mine accident (among others), say that hey, maybe we'd all be safer if we just blew off the tops of the mountains instead of sending people in.

"Technology has driven the fact that we can produce more coal with less workers, so there's fewer people exposed to hazards," said Joe Lucas, executive director of industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.

The mind boggles.

In other mine safety/brass balls news, on Monday David Dye, the acting head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, was testifying before a Senate subcommittee about the administration's response to Sago. After an hour of questioning, he declared that he was busy and walked out. Seriously -- just walked out.

Senator Specter responded with frustration: "I can understand your pressing other business. It may well be that some of the senators here have pressing matters, too. We don't think we are imposing too much to keep you here for another hour."

After Mr. Specter added, "That's the committee's request, but you're not under subpoena," Mr. Dye got up and walked out.

"I can't recollect it ever happening before," Mr. Specter said of the departure. "We'll find a way to take appropriate note of it."

Think Progress has the video.

Where do they find these people?

Scientists find a new place for humans to destroy

Apparently there's a planet similar to Earth out there. Which is comforting, considering we might need a new one soon.

It’s ugly

I know Hurricane Katrina is so 2005, but nonetheless there are some loose ends and ongoing outrages that deserve a little attention.

• The White House was warned, hours before Katrina hit, that New Orleans would likely be flooded. As you may recall, they didn't do much about it. You might also recall that Bush said "no one anticipated" a breach of the levees. That was -- what's the polite term these days? -- misleading.
• The Bush administration has refused to turn over documents and emails relevant to its preparation and response to the hurricane to Congressional investigators. Joe Lieberman, ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, says the Bushies have also instructed other government departments not to cooperate. He says they're trying to run out the clock on the investigation.
• Former FEMA director Michael "Brownie" Brown (who came in at a lowly 35 on the America's most loathsome list, though I would argue for higher placement) kept his $148,000 FEMA salary for two months after he was booted, allegedly to serve as a consultant and help Congressional investigators figure out what went wrong. But now he's refusing to cooperate with the investigation -- though he's taking money to speak on the very same subject at conferences. Toad.
• Meanwhile, New Orleans remains a farrago of opportunism, venality, and despair.

I don't know about y'all, but I feel super comfortable about what might happen in the wake of another terrorist attack or weather disaster. We're in good hands!

Update [2006-1-25 16:34:13 by David Roberts]: On Katrina, James Wolcott is a good read.

Sagebrush ecosystems are overlooked by conservationists cause they’re, um, not pretty

Oregon State University just won a $3.6 million grant for sagebrush-ecosystem restoration. That's good news -- sagelands conservation always seems to take a back seat to other landscapes. I wonder if the explanation for sagebrush's short shrift isn't surpisingly superficial (how's that for alliteration?). Looks matter, and sagebrush just doesn't sell like the prettier places do.

If so, sagebrush ecology is paying the price for its lack of glam appeal. The American West is home to 100 million acres of sagebrush country, but it is a battered landscape. As the AP story today puts it:

Because of the invasion of non-native plants, increasing wildfires and the expansion of juniper woodlands, sagebrush ecosystems have become one of the most threatened land types in the United States, researchers say.

"We are losing sagebrush-steppe ecosystems at an alarming rate, as wildfires fueled by cheatgrass sweep across the landscape," said project coordinator Jim McIver, an associate professor of rangeland resources.

The ongoing tragedy of conservation biology, with its limited resources, is that large attractive creatures -- "charismatic megafauna," in biologist speak, such as the ivory-billed woodpecker -- generate most of the hoopla and therefore receive most of the protection. Less sexy creatures are often ignored, though they may be no less critical to complete and well-functioning ecosystems.

Landscapes tend to go the same way as wildlife. People get animated by old-growth forests, coastlines, canyons, and alpine settings. These are the places we protect in national parks, photograph endlessly, and write volumes of earnest prose about. Big conservation organizations have little trouble "branding" these ecosystems and drumming up the dollars necessary to protect them from depredations. But sagebrush country is another matter.

Tadpole Position

Real-world combos of pesticides highly lethal to frogs, study shows Frogs exposed to a pesticide mix similar to what’s found on the average farm die in greater numbers than those dosed with just one pesticide, a new study shows. In new research in the online edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scientists at UC-Berkeley […]

America’s most loathsome

Did you know that you're the fourth most loathsome person in America (for 2005, anyway)?

And my fellow blogger Tom will be happy to see that someone agrees with him about the Mustache of Understanding, who comes in at No. 7: