So I was thinking to myself, self, you should do a link dump post so you can close out some of this cluttery crap in your browser. I go to start one, and what do I find? An old link dump post that I’d never published!
So here’s an old link dump. Watch for a new one in mere days!
Thanks to the UK Times Online for deeming Gristmill "the green blog from the other side of the pond."
It’s a shame this op-ed is relegated to the Billings Gazette. I’d like to see one like it in every paper in the nation. UM professor Tom Power makes the simple point that corporate opponents of climate action try to convince the public that carbon regulations will destroy the economy by building economic models with absurd, pessimistic assumptions:
They begin by implicitly assuming that the efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases have no real purpose and, therefore, no benefits whatsoever. That allows them to focus exclusively on totaling up the costs associated with such regulation. … Second, they assume that our economy is a completely nonadaptive system that, when faced with the need to stop doing one thing that is damaging or destructive, can only throw up its arms in despair and just quit. … Third, they assume that when employment declines in the polluting sectors of our economy, those workers become permanently unemployed. … Fourth, they spin out big numbers but never put them in any meaningful context that would allow us to understand how disturbed, or not, we should be by them.
Yale has started a site called See For Yourself, where you can set up economic models using various assumptions, run a cap-and-trade program, and see what the resulting economic impact is. Fascinating stuff.
John Vidal has a long, detailed, and thoughtful look at "the green scare" — i.e., the hubbub over "eco-terrorism" — in the U.S. Love the article, but don’t love the name. Nobody is genuinely scared; there is no genuine threat. The gov’t is using "eco-terrorism" as a pretext for boosting domestic surveillance and police state tactics. It’s the oldest story in the book.
People advancing the radical idea that infinite growth is impossible in the context of finite resources are getting a second hearing. Maybe they’re onto something!
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation has a new report out showing that "promoting the green design, construction, renovation and operation of buildings could cut North American greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling climate change more deeply, quickly and cheaply than any other available measure."
The scientists in the U.K.’s Royal Society do not like coal.
Because the world does not yet have enough dumbass practices, companies in the U.S. and China are starting to use coal as a feedstock for the chemical industry.
Speaking of horrible ideas, the U.S. Air Force looks set to single-handedly create a market for coal-to-oil fuels. It’s wildly expensive, horrendous for the environment, and a terrible investment, but it’s good for the coal industry and the military, so what does all that matter?
The latest source of energy? Tornadoes.
Aussie coal companies want free GHG permits too.
A roundup of developments in algae as biofuel feedstock, including the opening of the first commercial-scale algae farm, in Texas.
It’s not green, but anyone interested in the media must read Eric Alterman’s New Yorker piece on the "death and life of the American newspaper."