Uncategorized

Logically, Bush could just decree it.

Consider:

• President Bush argues that we are at war (against "terror"), that the war will go in indefinitely, and that he alone decides what constitutes a cessation of conflict.
• President Bush argues that the executive branch has what amounts to absolute power on matters of national security during wartime, irrespective of statute and without Congressional oversight.
• President Bush argues that making the U.S. independent of "foreign oil" is an issue of national security.
• President Bush argues that drilling in the Arctic Refuge could help make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Given the above, why can't Bush just decree that the Arctic Refuge will be opened to drilling?

‘When you drive, society becomes an obstacle.’

This screed by George Monbiot is mostly directed at a particular set of UK organizations, but it contains worthy insights with broader application:

Increased lava flow …

I once claimed that environmental humor is never funny.

But Will Ferrell as President Bush, speaking on global warming? Kinda funny.

(via EE)

Chock full of good news … ha ha …

Top 10 lists are all the rage, but if seeing King Kong the other night taught me anything, it's that more isn't always better. In that spirit, here are my nominations for the top five environmental stories of the year.

1. Katrina

The discussion about Hurricane Katrina and global warming largely missed the point. Of course global warming didn't cause Katrina -- any given weather event is the nexus of thousands of causes, proximate and distal. The exact degree of attribution scientifically supported is a question for eco-wonks and science geeks.

The point about Katrina that will linger in the public's mind is: Oh, that's what climate can do.

And, relatedly: We are totally and completely unprepared.

2. Bush wins on climate change

Despite taking fire from an astonishing array of sources -- Tony Blair, Democrats, city mayors, state attorneys general, celebrity spokesfolk, science advocacy groups, a majority of the public, and even Republicans in Congress -- the Bush administration succeeded in delaying significant efforts to address climate change for another year. At home, at the G8 summit, at the Montreal U.N. climate talks, it simply dug in its heels. No one figured out how to move it.

McKibben in NYRB

I don't have a new intro, so I'll just steal my last one:

"Every column Bill McKibben writes on climate change becomes more dread-laden and portentous, but I never stop enjoying them."

The latest is "The Coming Meltdown," in the New York Review of Books. There's not a lot of new info in it (unless you're interested in the two books reviewed), but as always, it's engagingly written and contains some juicy quotes. How about this, from Harvard's James McCarthy:

Scientists are by training and nature conservative and ... have probably underestimated our impact. Fifty years from now -- I hope I'm wrong -- I think you may be living in a world where you don't go outside between one and four in the afternoon.

Whee!

And some classic McKibben:

It is hard not to approach this year's oncoming winter in an elegiac mood .... We are forced to face the fact that a century's carelessness is now melting away the world's storehouses of ice, a melting whose momentum may be nearing the irreversible. It's as if we were stripping the spectrum of a color, or eradicating one note from every octave. There are almost no words for such a change: it's no wonder that scientists have to struggle to get across the enormity of what is happening.

Aargh! My brain!

Wow.

Every year, the Edge Foundation asks an enormous array of smart people (scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, intellectuals of every stripe) a single question and publishes the results. This year's question:

WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

What you get in the answers are the good bits: The most intriguing ideas of the world's top thinkers boiled down to their essence.

It's some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever read, and after two hours I've only scratched the surface. I really can't recommend it highly enough.

What would your answer be?

(via BoingBoing)

Happy New Year

Happy 2006, all you Gristmill readers!

Sorry for the lack of posting lately. I've been taking a "vacation" (look it up), hanging out with family and not thinking at all about the environment. Coupled with that, I've had a mild case of blog depression lately -- which I will shake off completely, starting tomorrow!

I may have one of those year-end roundups so de rigeur in the blogosphere tomorrow, but in the meantime, don't miss Joel Makower's trying-to-put-on-a-happy-face-but-really-quite-melancholy state of green business post.

Alternative fuel update

I noticed that part of the funding from the latest defense spending bill (the same one that failed to drill in the Arctic Refuge) will be used to study the use of alternative fuels in the military.

This got me to wondering if the military is already using biodiesel, which led me to this older article on Wired, which suggests that the U.S. military may be the biggest consumer of biodiesel in the U.S. What a brilliant backdoor means of subsidizing American farmers. Order the military to use biodiesel (apparently regardless of cost) whenever it is available -- sweet. Now, if they can just convince us to flush it down our toilets.

Thailand jumps on the bandwagon, joining Malaysia, Indonesia, Africa, and South America in the frenzy to feed our rainforests and food crops to our cars:

Notices that Bush admin does not take climate change serious; lies repeatedly

The Washington Post editorial board is shocked, shocked to discover that when it comes to policies on global warming, the Bush adminstration can't be trusted to tell the truth on methodology or effectiveness. In sum, emissions are going up and the voluntary measures put in place not only don't work, but in many cases don't exist.

If it can't get its numbers right, why should we take seriously the White House's declared intention to forge a "constructive and effective approach" to climate change at all?

Indeed.

RealClimate, one year in

The folks at RealClimate reflect on their first year of blogging.

I would call what they've done a fairly hearty success. My one complaint is that, if your stated goal is to communicate accurate science to outsiders, you would do well to minimize technical jargon and focus on clear, accessible prose. Some of the posts are so dense that I hesitate to recommend them.

But regardless, it's an invaluable resource. If you don't have the RSS feed in your reader, get it.