Latest Articles

Art and environment panel discusses price of public art

I was staring out the window at the Olympic Sculpture Park's beautiful landscape when, about 30 minutes into a panel discussion about art and the environment, moderator Lucia Athens finally mentioned the elephant in the room -- or rather, the sacred cow.

It came in the form of a question thrown out to the panelists -- architect Tom Kundig, style expert Rebecca Luke, and artist Roy McMakin -- about a new bill that would cut the money funneled to public art projects (about one-half of one percent of state building funds). Proposed by Washington Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens), who has said he considers public art to be a "sacred cow that should be put out to pasture," the bill would save the state $5 million in the next budget.

"Absurd" was Kundig's response. Stand back and look at the proportion, he advised; this bill doesn't look at the big picture of how much money is put toward other, more wasteful projects.

It's not just about the money, McMakin said. Public art is about culture, and it's about jobs. "Art is woven into the culture of the built environment around us."

Why should you care about this public art battle?

What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change?

The greenosphere is in a frenzy about new polls showing that Americans neither understand nor particularly care about climate change -- one from Rasmussen, another from Pew. A few semi-coherent thoughts:

Lots of folks seem to be having exactly the wrong reaction to this, which is that enviros need to try even harder to "raise awareness" of climate change and "educate the public" on climate science. Ugh.

The public is already "aware" of climate change. It's friggin' everywhere. It gets as much as or more publicity than virtually any other sociopolitical problem outside the economic downturn. Pop stars are writing songs about it fer chrissake. Awareness: check.

As for educating the public on the science, guess what? The public's kinda ignorant about science. Have you seen the polls on evolution, or ghosts, or aliens, or telepathy? They're horrifying. There's a lot to know these days, and most people don't know most of it. Changing that is impossible a long-term undertaking we don't have time to wait on.

So, if people are already "aware," and a renaissance of widespread scientific literacy is unlikely in the next few years, what direction to take from these polls?

You have to start with plausible answers for why so many people refuse to believe in or prioritize climate change.

Obama administration on green investment

From the energy & environment agenda on the spiffy new White House website:

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Not create but help create jobs -- government as partner, not mommy or daddy.

Not just spending but strategic investment -- emphasizing positive rate of return rather than cost.

Not replace but catalyze private efforts -- use government to nudge markets in the right direction.

Not return to pre-industrial Nature but build a clean energy future -- active not passive, ahead not backward, implying work (build) and thus jobs.

They're just good at this stuff.

LaHood on the auto industry and Obama's clean-car moves

"The car manufacturers knew this was coming. I don't think you're going to see them get a lot of heartburn over this."

-- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on President Obama's announcement that his administration is moving toward stricter regulation of auto fuel economy

Is U.N. secretary-general planning pre-Copenhagen gathering?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is set on jump-starting international climate negotiations, according to a Financial Times article (registration required).

The report appears to be based on comments made today by Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the UN climate convention. De Boer's remarks, made at the Globe International meeting in London, were picked up by other news organizations, but the FT's reporters put much greater emphasis on Ban's apparent plans to call a summit in the near term.

The BBC piece makes no mention of a summit, while Reuters buried the summit mention further down, suggesting that the U.N. chief isn't as far along in planning as the FT piece would make it seem. From the Reuters piece: "De Boer said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hoped to convene a 'small but representative' group of governments and heads of state in the spring to identify key political issues. 'What I would like to see come out of a process like that is first of all a shared vision that politically has to be delivered and agreed in Copenhagen,' he said."

Ban certainly did talk climate change with two high-level U.S. officials today, as made clear in this bit of the transcript from the daily U.N. press briefing:

Question: What did Secretary-General Ban say to Susan Rice when he met with her this morning?

Deputy Spokesperson: As you probably heard, Susan Rice came out at the stakeout this morning, and I certainly can confirm that the subjects that she mentioned and the way forward that she laid out is in line with the readout that I received. Just to recap, for those of you who may have missed the readout of the Secretary-General's conversation with President Obama on Friday afternoon:

The Secretary-General received a call early on Friday afternoon from President Barack Obama. The two leaders discussed a range of issues of common concern and interest. The Secretary-General underlined the importance of the US-UN partnership and stressed the need for the two to work closely together on major issues like the global economic crisis, climate change, food security and in the resolution of regional crises, particularly those in the Middle East and Africa.

The Secretary-General and the US President discussed ongoing efforts at UN reforms and the Organization's need for adequate political support and funding. The Secretary-General was encouraged by the US President's assurance of strong support as the Organization makes further progress in this direction. They also looked forward to mutual visits.

The Secretary-General also had a very cordial conversation with United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, at which they discussed issues of multilateral interest and importance such as food security, the Darfur peace process, climate change and management reform in the UN. The Secretary of State emphasized the importance of working together with the UN in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq. And the two leaders discussed greater cooperation in UN reform and budgetary issues as well as mutual visits.

Based on this readout and Susan Rice's readout at the stakeout, I think you have some idea of where we are going on this.

How will EPA move forward on revisiting Calif. waiver?

Now that President Obama has directed regulators to revisit California's request for a waiver to set higher tailpipe emissions standards, what's next?

A statement from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson wasn't too revealing on the process for revisiting and approving the waiver: "Knowing EPA has the full support of the President as we proceed to revisit the Bush era denial of the California waiver is very encouraging. The President's actions today herald a sea change in America's commitment to addressing climate change."

Jackson had already promised as much in her confirmation hearing, so this isn't terribly enlightening. Attempts to get more, er, details out of an EPA spokesperson were unsuccessful. Luckily, the agency has put together this handy guide to waivers. One tidbit:

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air-pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government's. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California's rules may go into effect. Once California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a notice for public hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written comment period typically remains open for a period of time after the public hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and the administrator determines whether California has satisfied the law's requirements for obtaining a waiver.

Under the Clean Air Act's Section 209, the EPA is supposed to grant a waiver unless it finds that California "was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards." Other reasons for rejecting a waiver are if the state "does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," or if the state's policy conflicts with other sections of the act.

Because the Bush administration's EPA already went through the entire process of reviewing the information on this waiver, it's unlikely that Obama's team will have to go through that again; the science and the law haven't changed (despite the Bush administration's best efforts). According to David Doniger, the policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, the most likely scenario is that Jackson and her staff review the previous records and come to their own determination about whether to grant the waiver.

Umbra on smoke detectors

Dear Umbra, How should we safely dispose of old smoke detectors? Don’t they have small amounts of radioactive material in them? We tried bringing them to our town’s recycling center, which refused them, and the board of health would not take them at the hazmat pick-up day. It seems really wrong to toss them in […]

Book coming out in 2010!

My book with this title will be coming out in fall 2010 by Palgrave. Look for it!!

Utah ORV trail system a poor model

The Paiute ATV Trail, in central Utah's Fishlake National Forest, and adjacent BLM land comprise a network of roads and "motorized trails" that have been linked and promoted for off-road vehicle recreation by public lands agencies. The routes range from custom-designed ATV-only tracks to paved roads through small towns. The majority of the trail uses ordinary dirt roads on federal public lands, sharing them with general traffic.

Its supporters promote it as a win-win model for public lands throughout the nation, bringing in tourism dollars and resulting in less damage to the landscape overall: Theory has it that when you build and sign roads for off-road use, there's no need to go off-road.

Only not. As this story in Wildlands CPR's journal The Road RIPorter states, it doesn't lead to less damage, only more: the Fishlake has a higher density of "user created" routes than do many other forests without a designated ATV-trail system. And the economic benefit to the local area is overblown: The study on its fiscal impact does not stand up to scrutiny.

My advice to these guys: Take a hike.

NYT's Revkin seems shocked by media's own failure to explain climate threat

Who determines the set of ideas the public is exposed to -- and how they are framed? The national media.

The media's choices are especially important in a decade when the Executive Branch -- the principal force for setting the national agenda -- was run by two oil men who actively devoted major resources to denying the reality of climate science, ignoring the impacts, and muzzling U.S. climate scientists.

Yet the national media remains exceedingly lame on the climate issue, as a searing critique by a leading U.S. journalist details (see "How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics"). The media downplay the threat of global warming (and hence the cost of inaction). And they still hedge on attributing climate impacts to human action.

This criticism extends to our premier reporters, such as the New York Times' Andy Revkin. Indeed, I (and dozens of other people) have an email from last week that Andy sent to Mark Morano (denier extraordinaire staffer for Senate denier extraordinaire James Inhofe). Andy asserts:

I've been the most prominent communicator out there saying the most established aspects of the issue of human-driven climate change lie between the poles of catastrophe and hoax.

Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, "A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate," that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The "middle stance" is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax -- which is why I call them denier-eq's.

Now if the top NYT reporter is pushing the mushy middle -- if he writes things like "Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans, if his stories have online headlines like Arctic Ice Hints at Warming, Specialists Say -- why on Earth would it be news that the public is itself stuck in the mushy middle?

And yet in both the NYT article and his blog, Revkin makes a huge deal of a poll that, if anything, merely reveals how bad the media's coverage of the issue is. His blog post, "Obama Urgent on Warming, Public Cool" and his article, "Environmental Issues Slide in Poll of Public's Concerns," completely misframe the issue. Let's start with the blog: