Latest Articles

Chicago overturns 2-year old ordinance banning foie gras

In The New York Times Dining section yesterday, I read this:

Chicagoans can feast on foie gras once more. The Chicago City Council just repealed the ban on its sale that it put in place two years ago.

Now I know that many of my vegan friends will go ballistic on me when I say that this is a good thing, but this is a good thing. The animal rights groups who supported this measure did so because they saw it as a layup -- an easy target. Who would oppose a ban on something only rich, snobby, hoity-toity gourmands consume?

Besides the measure being silly government intervention, it reminded me of the folks who say they won't eat veal because they heard it was cruel ... as they pull up to the KFC drive thru.

Banning foie gras saves a few ducks and geese. Wanna make a difference? Ban CAFOs. You needn't stop eating meat (unless of course you want to, that's entirely up to you), just stop eating feedlot meat. Get your beef, pork, and chicken from the farmer down the road, from the farmers market, from a CSA. Trust the source, and you'll trust the food.

Climate change messing with ecology worldwide, study says

Climate change is messing with ecology worldwide right now, according to a comprehensive new study in the journal Nature. Researchers examined data on shifts in over 28,000 plant and animal systems and over 800 environmental changes across all the world’s continents for the past 30 years. In 90 percent of the cases of change in […]

Polar bear is endangered, but ‘Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska’

The Department of Interior suffers from a rare form of bipolar disorder called bye-polar disorder. There is one major symptom of this disorder: You list the polar bear as "threatened" because of its melting polar sea ice habitat, but then do nothing to actually protect that polar habitat from its primary threat, greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

The disorder is accompanied by an occasional burst of logic, as when the DOI noted:

Snippets from the news

• Sea lions died of overheating, not gunshots. • Accountants see a bubble in renewable energy. • Juneau is a role model for reducing electricity use. • Starbucks struggles to go green. • Detroit builds condos out of shipping containers.

John Edwards endorses Barack Obama

Former presidential hopeful John Edwards has at long last endorsed a candidate: Barack Obama. Edwards, whose strong stances on the environment pushed his Democratic rivals to toughen their green proposals, said of his choice, “Democratic voters in America have made their choice and so have I.” Hillary Clinton‘s campaign, which had also pursued Edwards’ endorsement, […]

Bush admin to list polar bears as threatened; advocates pledge to continue the fight

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne was flanked by two large television screens rolling video of polar bears as he discussed his department’s decision Wednesday to declare the bears “threatened.” The video bears — and the bears in the many photos on display at the press conference — were fat and happy, wrestling on solid ice floes […]

Obama talks up green while courting manufacturers

Barack Obama courted manufacturers in Michigan Wednesday, touting proposals to boost both green energy and the auto industry. He talked up a plan to auction carbon credits and use the funds to boost clean technology (and, in turn, green jobs), and said he would help the U.S. auto industry get back on its feet while […]

Lisa Heinzerling responds to Richard Revesz on cost-benefit analysis

The efficient wasteland

In his essay, Richard Revesz argues in favor of a "cost-benefit environmentalism" that embraces economic analysis and "uses both reason and compassion to justify strong environmental rules." It is wonderful to have such a prominent fan of cost-benefit analysis explicitly embrace environmental values; this doesn't happen every day. The trouble is, however, that cost-benefit analysis is at odds with fundamental premises of environmentalism, and it's not particularly good at either reason or compassion.

Environmentalism has many subtleties and variations, but I think most environmentalists share certain core beliefs. They are convinced that the future matters -- that we should protect the earth and its inhabitants into the indefinite future. They worry about other people and other living creatures and about their own complicity in causing others' suffering through environmental degradation. They prefer concreteness over abstraction: They don't just want to read about nature; they want to experience it. They understand the reasons that reason cannot know: the small shiver of joy upon seeing spring's first warbler, the glimpse of the infinite in a summer storm.

Sprawling Atlanta seeks new routes to the future

The City in the Forest hopes to get back to its roots.Despite its reputation as a city of wall-to-wall subdivisions, office complexes, and shopping centers, Atlanta’s not a complete stranger to matters of green. At the time of its mid-19th century founding, in the woods at the end of a railroad line, it was called […]

The delayers’ paradox

The primary goal of the global warming deniers and their disciples is to waste time and delay action, which is why I prefer to call them delayers.

(This post is inspired by the surprising finding that only 27 percent of conservatives say the earth is warming because of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels.)

The delayers' paradox

The deniers and delayers are those who argue that failing to embrace strict reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions will not lead to serious or catastrophic impacts. The delayers' paradox is this: If we all actually were persuaded by the deniers and delayers, it would lead to levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations that ensure the most catastrophic impacts imaginable, proving them (fatally) wrong.