Latest Articles

In Arkansas, state ag officials turn to Syngenta to solve problems caused by Monsanto

In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton — genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, the seed giant’s own blockbuster herbicide. As a result, use of Roundup exploded — and the farmers enjoyed “clean” (i.e., weedless) fields of monocropped cotton. But after a point, something funny […]

From P-I-M-P to Pimp

Say hello to Lolita’s friend Hey Miami Seaquarium: We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. So why don’t you just hand over the whale, and we’ll make sure you avoid a run-in with 50 Cent’s finger gunz, Johnny Depp’s crazy-eye, and Harrison Ford’s killer smile. Photo: Johnny Nunez / Wireimage Four14een […]

CO2’s connection to global warming is not murky

I like the L.A. Times. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I'm reading a pretty good piece on how the EPA administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post), and I come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the president himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:

President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

Can't the LAT do better than "linked to global warming"? The media use the word "linked" to deal with as-yet-uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times' recent blockbuster: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring."

Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe -- there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a "greenhouse gas"? Why do you think your own story calls it a "greenhouse gas"?

Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.

[Note to the L.A. Times: I really really hope assume you know that greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, " ... carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

EPA closure of research libraries was a stupid idea, says GAO

The U.S. EPA decision to deal with a 2006 funding cut by closing several research libraries was not very well thought out, says a new report from the Government Accountability Office. To take just one example: The EPA promised to compensate for the closures by making information available on the internet, but due to copyright […]

‘Downergate’ reveals gaps in mad-cow testing and trouble in school-lunch sourcing

In Meat Wagon, we round up the latest outrages from the meat and livestock industries. Remember those “downer” cows that got forced through the kill line and into the food supply in California’s Westland/Hallmark beef-packing plant — the ones caught on tape by the Humane Society of the United States? Rest assured, friends — that […]

Conventional wisdom declares all candidates equally green

The Wall Street Journal blogs from the ongoing ECO:nomics conference:

The conventional wisdom among the boys on the bus -- including us -- has been that there's essentially no difference among the three presidential contenders on climate-change policy.

Really? I know I live in a bubble, but ... really?

Since there are some rather obvious climate policy differences between the candidates, I'm taking this to mean one of several things:

1. Conventional wisdom relegates the apparent differences between the candidates to the level of rhetoric, not policy. McCain says nice things about nuclear; Obama hearts ethanol; Clinton wants utilities to behave. All of this is just, in the WSJ's words, so much "hot air."
2. Or maybe conventional wisdom holds that the policy differences are so hopelessly wonky as to be irrelevant. Broadly speaking, all three candidates want cap-and-trade, and that's what counts. Airy details around allowance allocations are of concern only to environmentalists and congresscritters.
3. Or maybe the conventional wisdom truly doesn't understand that the candidates differ in any meaningful way on climate policy.

None of these interpretations is particularly heartening, although at least there's a logic to No. 1 and 2. No. 3 is just depressing. In any case, bear in mind that the WSJ reporting on energy issues is generally quite good, so when these reporters casually toss off the opinion that the candidates are indistinguishable, you start to gain some insight into why this issue gets so little play.

(As an aside: I'm a fan of the recent trend in blogs by journalists for just this sort of thing. These sorts of offhand, loosely structured observations would rarely make it into a feature story, and they're damned interesting.)

An interview with the founders of Method green home-care products

After spending a few minutes with Adam Lowry and Eric Ryan, I began to wonder if they weren’t part of a modern-day adaptation of The Odd Couple. The 30-something founders of the Method line of home-care products, friends since high school, are about as different as two business partners could be. Eric Ryan and Adam […]

EPA announces tough air-pollution standards for shipping industry

The U.S. EPA Friday announced tough new diesel pollution standards for the shipping industry (perhaps to distract us from Wednesday’s announcement of not-so-tough ozone standards.) The new standards for diesel trains and ships will begin to be phased in in 2015; when in full effect, they’ll require a 90 percent reduction in soot emissions and […]

Green building may be quickest path to decreased emissions

Reuters has the skinny on a new report on green building. The report concluded that building green would reduce greenhouse emissions more quickly than any other approach.

According to the article:

North America's buildings release more than 2,200 megatonnes, or about 35 percent of the continent's total, of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If the construction market quickly adopted current and emerging energy-saving technologies, that number could be cut by 1,700 megatonnes by 2030, the report said.

Alas, there are "obstacles" preventing the rapid adoption of green building techniques:

One is the so-called split incentive policy, where those who construct environmentally-friendly buildings do not necessarily reap the benefits of using them.

Also, governments and other institutions separate capital and operating budgets instead of budgeting for the lifetime of a construction project, creating a disincentive to build "green," the report found.

Oh well, I guess I'll have to make do with a nice cozy place on the Street of Dreams until green building catches on. Uh, scratch that.

Shifting military spending to fund green infrastructure

Last Saturday, I spoke at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference. I argued that diverting military spending to green infrastructure is not only good policy but good politics as well. This is a Google presentation version of the PowerPoint slide show I gave.

I gave a second short PowerPoint comparing emissions trading to rule-based regulation, also now a Google presentation.

Please note that, though web-based, Google presentations are not standard web pages. They need as much screen real estate as you can give -- usually including zooming your browser to full-screen mode.