Latest Articles

USDA's People's Garden may not be all it's cracked up to be

US Department of Agriculture chief Tom Vilsack may not deserve that recently awarded Grist green thumbs-up after all. Obamafoodorama (blissfully abbreviated as ObFo) has an amusing and edifying (and lengthy) disquisition on Tom Vilsack's much ballyhooed "People's Garden." When Vilsack took a jackhammer to a slab of concrete in front of USDA headquarters in honor of Lincoln's Birthday (the USDA was founded under Lincoln and referred to by him as "the People's Department"), he thought he was demonstrating the USDA's commitment to sustainable landscaping. But he did it without, it appears, much forethought.

The planning process seems to have consisted of one step: "Dig a hole." There's no design for an actual garden to go in its place -- and it certainly was not intended, as many have presumed and now demanded, to be a food garden. The landscape plan that Vilsack brandished in a USDA photo was, according to USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service spokesman Terry Bish, a prop. When ObFo asked about it, Bish said "Oh, that's old. Those are the plans from when [former Ag] Secretary Schafer was planting a tree in the ornamental garden to honor a USDA employee who was killed in Iraq."

In fact, the whole thing was a photo op that got out of hand.

But the goal of the garden changed when it became apparent that there was a groundswell of public interest in a food garden at USDA headquarters.

"Suddenly there was all this interest from the public about vegetables," Mr. Bish said. "It was a sleeper. Sometimes we do these things, and they get really big." He repeated: "There's actually no timeline for the garden. It was all about the Bicentennial. But now we have to come up with ways of maintaining it and to see how we can use it ..."

USDA sees a food problem, but not the solution

Albert Einstein once said, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them."

The same can be said of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's newfound commitment to "get Americans to eat more healthful foods while also boosting crop production to feed a growing world population." As he notes, "These two goals have often been at odds."

Two real financial thinkers venture into CNBC fantasy world; comedy ensues

Okay, this is priceless -- and anyone who wants to understand not only our economic calamity but also why we're still screwed has to watch it. Oh, and don't worry -- it's also absolutely, laugh-out-loud hilarious (in a bittter sort of way).

Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Taleb are two of our most trenchant and learned commenters on finance. It's time to start listening to them -- if Obama is serious about running a centrist administration, it's a scandal that he tapped Robin Rubin acolytes Summers and Geithner, not Roubini and Taleb, to run economic policy.

For years, the two men have been making the point that the U.S. economy is way too hinged on debt, speculation, obsession with short-term gain, and philistine optimism -- the very things raised to the level of fetish by the Rubin crowd. Roubini and Taleb predicted a cataclysmic tumbling of the house of cards built on that shaky foundation. They gained a small following, but were widely ignored -- particularly by the TV financial media, which became a craven, self-parodying machine for turning Wall Street and corporate hucksters into folk heroes.

Unforgiving math

"This not a matter of politics or morality or right or wrong. It is simply the unforgiving math of accumulating emissions."

-- U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern, accompanying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her first visit to China

Chad fights charcoal in battle against creeping desert

NDJAMENA — Authorities in Chad are cracking down on the use of charcoal to save forests and keep the desert from advancing in the Saharan nation, but discontent is mounting over the tough measures. Sanctions that began coming into effect in December include torching vehicles carrying charcoal and arresting people transporting the product, law-and-order officials […]

Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Almost every environmental organization uses this quote at some point. Mead's organizing truth is comforting to those laboring in the activist vineyards, but it is almost precisely opposite the actual approach we have taken, which would more appropriately be written ...

It goes without saying that a small group of thoughtful, committed program officers and professional staff can mold public opinion and shift voting patterns, which should change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing liberals have ever been known to do.

Recent polls show an abrupt decline in public support for environmentalism and concern about global warming, which undercuts the two central assumptions of US environmentalist strategy:

1. our main audience is the general public, to whom we must present a watered down climate story, and
2. our natural base of support is liberal Democrats.

Public support for protecting the environment, according to the recent Pew Center for People & the Press poll fell "precipitously," from 56 to 41 percent in one year, while global warming continued its downward slide, from 38 percent in 2007 to 35 percent in 2008 and 30 percent this year.

Most striking, support for environmental protection by liberal Democrats dropped 17 percent, from 74 to 57 percent, roughly the same rate as Republicans, down 19 percent, and independents, at 15 percent, and significantly higher than the 9 percent drop among moderate Democrats.

Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers?

A source close to Obama once told me, when I asked how serious the White House is about getting a climate bill this year, to watch the budget. If permit auction revenue is included, that should send a clear signal that this was no empty campaign promise.

Obama's budget outline won't be released until Thursday, but the New York Times has an early preview that includes this:

On energy policy, Mr. Obama's budget will show new revenues by 2012 from his proposal to require companies to buy permits from the government for greenhouse gas emissions above a certain cap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the permits would raise up to $300 billion a year by 2020.

This is fairly sketchy. It doesn't say anything about the amount of new revenues projected by 2012, which would be a tip-off about the strength of the targets and the percentage of auctioned permits the administration expects. Perhaps on Thursday we'll get a clearer picture. But at the very least, this is an unmistakable sign that they're serious about a cap-and-trade program with (some) auctioned permits, and soon.

Now, here's a part I'm not as thrilled about:

Since companies would pass their costs on to customers, Mr. Obama would have the government use most of the revenues for relief to families to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would cover his proposals for $15 billion a year in spending and tax incentives to develop alternative energy.

There are lots of fans full rebating (sending back 100 percent of tax or auction revenue to taxpayers) in the Grist community. I am not one of them. I am not even particularly a fan of rebating "most" of auction revenue. The fact is, we need enormous public investments in green energy and infrastructure -- far beyond $15 billion a year. Rebates should be the minimal necessary to compensate those hardest hit by higher energy prices, and the rest of the revenue should go to investments in a green economy. After all, the best way to provide long-term relief to American consumers is to accelerate the clean energy transition.

Two encouraging signs that global climate treaties might be having the intended effect

Although rumors of its death may be exaggerated, the Kyoto Protocol hasn't so far been anyone's idea of a rip-roaring success. The question remains: is the international treaty fundamentally flawed, or is it a fixer-upper that bureaucrats are slowly tweaking into an effective carbon-fighting regulatory framework?

Two pieces of recent evidence boost the fixer-upper view. The first is a report from a prominent research group suggesting that a large part of the European Union's drop in carbon emissions last year are attributable to the cap.

EU emissions dropped by 3 percent in 2008. According to New Carbon Finance, 40 percent of this drop is due to Kyoto. Another 30 percent is due to the recession. Much of the drop came from a switchover from coal to natural gas.

To be sure, this is a modest improvement. The drop itself is small, and natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Nevertheless, this is how a carbon price works: gradual, steady pressure yields incremental movement toward cleaner technologies. The mechanism appears to be sound, and legislators are presently engaged in the political task of making the cap more stringent.

Life advice from the Oscars

"All my life, I've had the choice between love and hate. I chose love. And now I'm here."

-- A.R. Rahman, winner of two Academy Awards for his music in Slumdog Millionaire

Monbiot on nuclear

George Monbiot writes a column about nuclear power and conditions under which he would not oppose it.