Latest Articles

Obamas keep current White House chef instead of bringing in sustainability-focused one

Foodies have been wondering who will feed the Obamas when they move into the White House on January 20. Some gourmands and sustainable-food advocates have argued that a chef who will focus on local and organic foods should replace current White House Executive Chef Cristeta Comerford.

Gourmet editor Ruth Reichl and restaurateurs Alice Waters and Danny Meyer sent a letter to Obama asking him to pick a chef who is sustainability-minded, and might even use foods from a White House garden. Michael Pollan called for the same thing.

Reichl and friends even offered to help Obama find the right chef for the job. "A person of integrity who is devoted to the ideals of sustainability and health would send a powerful message that food choices matter," they wrote. "Supporting seasonal, ripe delicious American food would not only nourish your family, it would support our farmers, inspire your guests, and energize the nation."

But sustainable foodies won't get their way on this one (just as they didn't with Obama's choice for secretary of agriculture). The Obamas are planning to keep the current chef, a transition official says.

Massive flooding in western Washington linked to man-made causes

After digging itself out of "Snowmageddon" over the holidays, western Washington was hit with heavy rainfall this week, causing massive flooding. Roads, including major arteries like I-5 (pictured above), are closed and entire neighborhoods evacuated.

Sure, Seattle's known for its rain, but this is ridiculous! So who's responsible? Well, us, it turns out.

Scientists say a man-made triple whammy of logging, development, and climate change are to blame. And we shouldn't be surprised ...

A year ago (almost to the day), University of Washington geologist David Montgomery issued a warning to state legislators about the flooding that ravaged the region in 2007:

Question of the day

Why does Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, want a carbon tax?

Raise your hand if your answer is: because he sincerely thinks that is a more effective way to achieve the substantial emission reductions required to forestall catastrophic climate change.

TVA says leak has stopped but 'some materials flowed into Widows Creek'

You can't out-irony real life. The Tennessean has the story:

TVA is investigating a leak from a gypsum pond at its Widows Creek coal-burning power plant in northeastern Alabama ...

Seriously, Widows Creek coal plant? What PR guy thought that up? The same genius behind Frosty the Coalman, Clean Coal Night, and Deck the Halls with Clean Coal?

TVA says the leak has stopped, but not before "some materials flowed into Widows Creek." At least they won't have to change the creek's name. The story continues:

Gypsum is a byproduct of coal-burning power plants when "scrubbers" are added that use limestone spray to clean air emissions. This pulls sulfur dioxide from the emissions ...

Tighter air emissions controls result in additional waste byproducts. Gypsum can be used in building materials.

As always, the enviros are really to blame. If it weren't for their pesky laws, the pollutants would be in the air where they belong:

Oil giant forecasts continued rise in emissions through 2050

Exxon-Mobil believes the world is doomed to drought, floods, massive refugee crises, disease, and rising sea levels. According to its "outlook for energy: a view to 2030," global CO2 emissions will rise 30 percent by 2030. That will effectively make holding global average temperatures to 2 degrees over pre-industrial levels -- what the IPCC says is necessary to avoid catastrophe -- impossible. To hit that target, global emissions must peak by 2015.

Of course Exxon doesn't put it that way. They just cheerfully chatter on about all the great energy they're going to sell to meet all that demand -- that is, the role they're going to play in rendering the earth hostile to their grandchildren.

From Smoke to Sass

Smokin’ hot Does this dress make my butt look recycled? Here’s the scoop Can we rename an old Ben & Jerry’s flavor to honor a new president? Yes Pecan! The full Vermonty At the Miss America Pageant later this month, Miss Vermont will walk the stage in an eco-friendly hemp gown. And perhaps Miss Texas […]

Before we debate gas taxes vs. mileage taxes, Oregonians must pay for roads with those taxes

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski (D) has attracted a lot of attention by calling for an expansion of a pilot program that replaces the gas tax with a per-mile tax which charges the same fee to a Hummer driver as a Prius driver.

The pros and cons of mileage taxes vs. gas taxes are discussed in a post to the political blog BlueOregon, and the same essay was sent out as a query on a transportation activists' listserv. I started several times to respond ...

But I end up stopping, because this whole discussion ignores the elephant -- heck, the blue whale -- in the driveway.

Cheap oil: Be careful what you wish for

This guest essay was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom's kind permission.

-----

Only yesterday, it seems, we were bemoaning the high price of oil. Under the headline "Oil's Rapid Rise Stirs Talk of $200 a Barrel This Year," the July 7 issue of the Wall Street Journal warned that prices that high would put "extreme strains on large sectors of the U.S. economy." Today, oil, at over $40 a barrel, costs less than one-third what it did in July, and some economists have predicted that it could fall as low as $25 a barrel in 2009.

Prices that low -- and their equivalents at the gas pump -- will no doubt be viewed as a godsend by many hard-hit American consumers, even if they ensure severe economic hardship in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Kuwait, and Venezuela that depend on energy exports for a large share of their national income. Here, however, is a simple but crucial reality to keep in mind: No matter how much it costs, whether it's rising or falling, oil has a profound impact on the world we inhabit -- and this will be no less true in 2009 than in 2008.

The main reason? In good times and bad, oil will continue to supply the largest share of the world's energy supply. For all the talk of alternatives, petroleum will remain the number one source of energy for at least the next several decades. According to December 2008 projections from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), petroleum products will still make up 38 percent of America's total energy supply in 2015; natural gas and coal only 23 percent each. Oil's overall share is expected to decline slightly as biofuels (and other alternatives) take on a larger percentage of the total, but even in 2030 -- the furthest the DoE is currently willing to project -- it will still remain the dominant fuel.

A similar pattern holds for the planet as a whole: Although biofuels and other renewable sources of energy are expected to play a growing role in the global energy equation, don't expect oil to be anything but the world's leading source of fuel for decades to come.

Keep your eye on the politics of oil and you'll always know a lot about what's actually happening on this planet. Low prices, as at present, are bad for producers, and so will hurt a number of countries that the U.S. government considers hostile, including Venezuela, Iran, and even that natural-gas-and-oil giant Russia. All of them have, in recent years, used their soaring oil income to finance political endeavors considered inimical to U.S. interests. However, dwindling prices could also shake the very foundations of oil allies like Mexico, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, which could experience internal unrest as oil revenues, and so state expenditures, decline.

No less important, diminished oil prices discourage investment in complex oil ventures like deep-offshore drilling, as well as investment in the development of alternatives to oil like advanced (non-food) biofuels. Perhaps most disastrously, in a cheap oil moment, investment in non-polluting, non-climate-altering alternatives like solar, wind, and tidal energy is also likely to dwindle. In the longer term, what this means is that, once a global economic recovery begins, we can expect a fresh oil price shock as future energy options prove painfully limited.

Clearly, there is no escaping oil's influence. Yet it's hard to know just what forms this influence will take in the year. Nevertheless, here are three provisional observations on oil's fate -- and so ours -- in the year ahead.

Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal'

Part 1 presented a new study by power plant cost expert Craig Severance that puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour -- triple current U.S. electricity rates!

Those ideologically promiscuous folks at the Heritage Foundation have replied with "New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic." Craig's point by point response follows a few of my comments.

Heritage is a leader of the conservative movement stagnation. They have written "the only thing a green 'New Deal' will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom," comparing such a policy to "collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany," and their Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change is quite confused about both of the subjects he analyzes.

The key paragraph in Heritage's new critique is:

'Minimalist' cooking master connects the dots between food, climate, and bad health

The great Mark Bittman -- whose new book I am eager to get my paws on -- delivers a powerful spiel connecting the industrial food system with climate change and the health-care crisis. Watch it.