Latest Articles

The latest primary dispute: Does Obama take oil money?

This is a new ad from Obama, playing now in Pennsylvania: In response, the Clinton campaign rushed out a statement claiming that Obama does too accept money from oil and gas companies: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for […]

Impromptu food court musical

They promise that they’re not wasting trees …

Notable quotable

“I’ll retract the rape complaint from the wombat, because he’s pulled out. Apart from speaking Australian now, I’m pretty all right you know. I didn’t hurt my bum at all.” — New Zealander Arthur Cradock, who was subsequently charged with “using a phone for a fictitious purpose”

Americans favor conservation and see economically sound opportunities in protection

Standard survey questions often uphold (or manufacture) false dichotomies. Case in point: the perpetual practice of pitting the environment against the economy. Nonetheless, these questions can reveal interesting trends over time. And every now and then, the numbers show that the public sees right through "either/or" questions that just don't add up -- like recent research that shows Americans link economic opportunity to environmental protection.

First, recent trends on that pesky "environment vs. economy" question:

According to a new Gallup poll conducted March 6-9, despite fears of a looming recession, Americans continue to favor protecting the environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth: 49 percent to 42 percent. But this seven-point margin is down from the 18-point margin of a year ago, when 55 percent favored the environment. Further, the 49 percent of Americans currently favoring the environment over growth is only two points above the historical low over the past couple of decades.

Earth Google

Google is celebrating Earth Hour. More here. Don’t forget to turn your lights off for an hour tonight at 8pm.

Report: carbon tariffs could bring manufacturing jobs back from China

Via Greenwire (sub rqd), a new report from Canada-based investment bank CIBC shows that if the U.S. passes domestic carbon caps, and China doesn’t, and the U.S. responds with "carbon tariffs," it could spark a return of manufacturing jobs: The report finds that a carbon tariff, combined with triple-digit oil prices, “could reverse the migration […]

Plush toys recalled due to fire hazard

Polar bears soon to be extinct due to risk of overheating!

A Nobelist speaks

This talk (about 85 min) by Prof. Steven Schneider (of the IPCC) is titled "Climate Change: Is the Science Settled Enough for Action?" That turned out to be a bit of a trick -- the talk is actually more of an exploration of what "settled enough" would mean, and why we need to be acting.

It's a little slow in spots, but it picks up towards the end, and he really shines during the Q&A. There's something in here for almost all the regular Gristies who post or comment about the subject, and an interesting response on the "mitigation vs. adaptation" question.

Friday music blogging: The Black Keys

The Black Keys are an indie band that’s gained a bit of a cult following over the last few years for their swampy lo-fi blues — like the White Stripes with less polish. On April 1 they’re releasing Attack & Release, which I think is going to be a breakthrough for them. It’s more varied […]

‘Run of river’ projects set for a boom?

When I bought my house, I didn't realize that the stream that travels its acres is perennial and spring-fed ... which seemed like the perfect scenario for a microhydro generator. These units make a lot of power all day and night, unlike solar and (usually) wind. It works by siphoning off a portion of water to run through a pipe, then through a generator, and then back into the creek. Voilà! So I did the measurements and found 140 gallons per minute, which is about enough for the purpose, but less than a 20 foot drop in elevation, which is the killer. Microhydro usually requires either high head or high volumes to pencil out, but I have barely the minimum of each.

At best, it would account for 20 percent of the house's needs -- not quite good enough for me to think too deeply about the capital expense or the fact that the town's Conservation Commission probably wouldn't allow the use. Other nearby commissions have also been unfriendly to residents employing or proposing it on their properties, even though microhydro is not a consumptive use and requires no dams.

I have some small consolation, though, knowing that all the electricity in this portion of my county's grid is already 100 percent hydro, due to its proximity to the Deerfield River (one of the most developed rivers in the country, with small dams working up a good portion of its length from southern Vermont into western Massachusetts). Which is nice, in a way: the next nearest power plant to my community uses coal from a mountaintop removal mine in Appalachia, so this somewhat green power is welcome.

So I was interested to see news that small hydro is possibly on the verge of a boom, with new estimates of 30,000 MW of potential small hydro capacity in the U.S. alone. This would build on small hydro's ubiquity in the industry, if the article is right that 80 percent of the existing hydro projects in the U.S. are low power (under 1 MW) or small hydro (1 to 30 MW).

The industry is saying it can get more power out of falling water without any more dams: