Latest Articles

Chilean salmon-farming industry in a sad state

A virus called infectious salmon anemia is sweeping through Chile’s fisheries, bringing attention to the condition of the country’s third-largest export industry. On expansive salmon farms, fish are bred in crowded underwater pens. Fish poop and food pellets contaminate the water. As many as 1 million nonnative salmon escape each year, gobbling native species and […]

Young theologian discusses denomination’s recent declaration

Jonathan Merritt is a young theologian in Atlanta who broke into the national conversation this month by championing, within the conservative Southern Baptist faith, the declaration of a new set of principles regarding creation care and climate change.

While noting continuing debate on some global warming questions, the declaration made a point of stating that we as a species can damage the planet and that such actions are wrong. The declaration stressed that "we do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action," and that "humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change -- however great or small."

The declaration was signed by three of the four most recent presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the current office holder, Frank Page. In a phone interview, Merritt conceded that the resolution, like all resolutions issued by the SBC, is non-binding, but he and his fellow counselors are pleased that, since the declaration made the national news, hundreds of prominent Southern Baptists have signed on, including divinity school presidents, pastors, seminary professors, and missionaries.

Merritt said that it represented an "evolution" of the Southern Baptist position on the issue, but the mildness of that description is debatable. In the Resolution on Global Warming issued in June 2007, the Southern Baptist Convention used the dismissive rhetoric of climate change denial, claiming the science was "divided" on the question of global warming and that measures to reduce emissions were "very dangerous" and costly. Because the Southern Baptist denomination is the second largest in the country, with over sixteen million adherents, the church's position on social issues makes news.

Not only do these believers stake out a new position on the issue, but they use the language of repentance to describe the change, which makes their change of heart sound almost like a conversion experience. The declaration mentions the "study, reflection, and prayer" the signatories underwent before reaching consensus on the declaration, and added in a widely-quoted statement:

We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed.

I asked Merritt about this language, saying that if I were a reporter in a courtroom, I would describe this as a statement as "remorseful."

Fewer zero-emission vehicles will be required on California roads by 2014

California’s Air Resources Board has voted to reduce the number of zero-emissions vehicles required to be sold in the state by 2014 from 25,000 to 7,500. It’s a hefty reduction, though less dramatic than the recommendation by CARB staff that the requirement be cut to 2,500 vehicles. Not-quite-zero-but-still-relatively-less-emissions vehicles, like plug-in hybrids, will make up […]

A roundup of news snippets

• Chemical manufacturer Dupont is being sued for noncompliance with pollution laws. • New England is not on track to meet greenhouse-gas reduction targets, says a report. • Denmark is building 20,000 electric car recharging stations. • Paying bills online saves 24 square feet of forest a year, says a new study.

Why consumer protection means selling carbon permits

One of the thorniest problems in cap-and-trade programs is deciding how to distribute the carbon permits. Should the public sell pollution privileges or give them away for free?

Some folks worry that if we make polluters pay for carbon permits, they'll just raise prices for consumers. That's a perfectly legitimate concern. Unfortunately it turns out to be true, whether we sell the permits or give them away for free. Prices rise by the same amount in either scenario. (The only difference is whether polluters reap windfall profits or whether the public earns revenue from selling the permits.) It may be counterintuitive, but it's true.

It's also very hard to explain why this is the case without resorting to a lecture on economics. So in an attempt to clear things up, Sightline has put together this easy-on-the-eyes summary. It comes in four parts:

1. A simple explanation.
2. A slightly more detailed explanation.
3. A look at Europe's carbon trading market.
4. A review of the (basically unanimous) economic literature.

Take a look and let us know what you think.

Recent studies: organic ag is just as productive, and better for you

For years, industrial-food enthusiasts such as Norman Borlaug have attacked organic farming on two grounds: 1) it produces essentially the same nutritional results as chemical-intensive farming, and 2) it’s less productive. Both of those criticisms are crumbling. This month, the Organic Center released a “state of science” analysis of peer-reviewed studies comparing the nutritional content […]

Washington governor may veto bill restricting toxins in toys

Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire may veto legislation that would be the toughest in the nation at making sure toys are free of (or low in) lead, cadmium, phthalates, and other toxins. Even though a slew of amendments exempt certain playthings, from tricycles to pellet guns to sleds, Big Toy officials have warned Gregoire that […]

BREAKING: Al Gore still not running, though superdelegates may force him to, only probably not

In his column today, Joe Klein spins out a preposterously unlikely scenario whereby the Democratic superdelegates get together and conspire to pass over both Obama and Clinton and instead hand the nomination to … Al Gore. Two or three paragraphs in I thinking, oh, Joe, pish-tosh. Then: Pish-tosh, you say, and you’re probably right. OK […]

How the Monterey Bay Aquarium makes its safe-seafood list

When it comes to safe seafood, the list-makers don’t horse around. Photo: SqueakyMarmot Back in the late 1990s, I happened to attend an exhibit at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California called “Fishing for Solutions.” The experience profoundly changed my attitude toward seafood and the supposedly limitless abundance of the sea. The exhibit focused not […]

Prius ‘proven’ to get worse gas mileage than BMW 520d

This story in the U.K.'s Times Online is racing around the interwebs. Google "BMW 520d" and note how many pages deep it goes. Two goofballs journalists took a road trip, one in a Prius and the other in a BMW 520d. The BMW purportedly got about 4 percent better gas mileage than the "gas guzzling" Prius, which amazingly only managed a dismal 40 mpg. Coincidentally, that is exactly what our Prius got on a road trip last summer, which was not only jammed with people and camping gear but also had a giant cargo carrier strapped to the roof! Odd how the Prius always manages to lose these contests ... unless they're performed by independent third parties like Consumer Reports (Prius: 44 mpg, TDI Jetta: 34).

The Prius has set the bar and competitors are finally going after it. This is how homo sapiens are. This is what motivates them to build skyscrapers and airliners. For the first time in human history, they are finally competing over green issues, which is all good. The following story carefully orchestrated farce is, in reality, a tribute to the Prius engineering that kicked this whole show off. Somebody has a serious case of mileage envy.