Latest Articles

Federal food-aid package promotes GMOs

A $770 million food-aid package proposed by the Bush administration may also aid U.S. agribiz, as the feds have slipped in language promoting the use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Proponents of bioengineering say that GM crops are hardier in harsh climates and can produce higher yields; opponents say that just ain’t the […]

California concludes majority of emission reductions will come through regulation

No state has done more to study the nitty-gritty of reducing emissions than California, and the California Air Resources Board recently revealed some of its thinking on how to achieve the state’s ambitious emission goals. Its conclusions should spark some serious discussion among those who — like John McCain — think cap-and-trade is going to […]

Senate turns back sneak attack from climate action opponents

Opponents of climate action launched a surprise assault last Friday night. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) led an attempt to add an amendment to the budget bill that Congress should hold off on enacting cap-and-trade legislation until China and India take more action.

You'd expect Climate Security Act co-sponsors like Virginia's John Warner, Minnesota's Norm Coleman, Maine's Susan Collins, and North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole to oppose the amendment.

But then another surprise -- South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, Florida's Mel Martinez, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Kansas' Pat Roberts, Oregon's Gordon Smith, Maine's Olympia Snowe, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, and New Hampshire's John Sununu also voted against it. In all, 61 senators voted to kill Sen. DeMint's amendment, with 12 Republicans joining nearly every present Democrat and independent (West Virginia's Sen. Robert Byrd voted for it).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) then led a counterattack.

Corporate evangelical leaders cloak opposition to climate policy behind concern for poor

Those of you following Grist’s news feed (if you’re not, you should) are aware that last week a group of conservative evangelicals launched the "We Get It!" campaign, arguing against action on global warming. We’ve written a great deal on Grist about the split in the evangelical leadership between those who recognize the danger of […]

Chafee: ‘GOP genuflects before Old King Coal’

The former Senator from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, plants his boot on the ass of his one-time Congressional colleagues: Indeed, “here we go again,” with the Bush EPA weakening environmental rules on building power plants near national parks. The environment is a key issue for many Americans but you would never know it by how […]

Wind power: a core climate solution

Wind power is a key climate solution. It is one of the few zero-carbon supply options that can plausibly provide more than one of the 14 or so "wedges" we need to stabilize below 450 ppm of CO2 (see "Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 2: The Solution"). I plan to go through all of the major solutions this year.

The stunning new Bush administration report, 20% Wind Energy by 2030 (discussed here), convinced me it was time to write a long piece, which has just been published in Salon. The article -- "Winds of change: The U.S. can greatly boost clean wind power for 2 cents a day. Now all we need is a president who won't blow the chance" -- explains the more than 2,000-year history of wind power, how conservatives cost America the chance to be the world wind leader, and why the global industry is so successful in spite of our government's relative apathy:

Grist is cooking up a new site; what do you want to see in it?

I have exciting matters to discuss, but first, two apologies. First apology Lately, my blogging has been cursory, rushed, incomplete, and a little sucky. I haven’t been responding to emails, writing the longer pieces I’ve promised various people, or otherwise keeping up with my professional obligations. "What’s new?" you ask. What’s new is that I […]

Presidential candidates may forgo shooting small animals to impress voters this year

This presidential election, for the first time in decades, will not feature candidates for the highest office in the land donning hunting gear and going out with guns to shoot small animals fleeing in terror. The contrast to the 2004 election, in which both candidates made a publicity stunt out of killing for votes, is stark.

In September of that year, The Arizona Republic published in September a strong op-ed by former White House speechwriter Matthew Scully, who excoriated both presidential candidates for killing innocent creatures while trolling for votes. Scully, a true-red Republican who loathes cruelty to animals, wrote:

What we don’t know (but think we do) about oil prices might hurt us

Predicting the future is hard. It's so difficult that even teams of analysts using fancy models get results like this:

This isn't back-of-the-envelope stuff. This is the U.S. Energy Information Administration's official prediction for oil prices, circa 2007. According to the "high price" scenario, oil may reach $100 per barrel some time around 2030. But wait: oil was at $127 last week. So, not only was the EIA projection wrong -- it was wildly and completely wrong.

Okay, everyone makes mistakes, even energy analysts. In 2008, the EIA cleaned up its act and produced this forecast:

An alternative to global industrial agriculture

At the conclusion to an article on the global food crisis, Walden Bello discusses an idea put forward by an international farmer's group, Via Campesina: