Latest Articles

Activist says he was shot in confrontation with whalers

The captain of the radical anti-whaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society says he was shot in a clash with Japanese whalers on Friday. Paul Watson says he found a bullet in his Kevlar vest; Japan’s fisheries agency disputed the accusation, saying those onboard the whaling ship retaliated with non-lethal flash grenades after activists threw stink bombs […]

Would Jesus eat fish during Lent?

Jennifer Jacquet of the Sea Around Us Project just published a solid and timely essay with Science & Spirit magazine. The piece begins by asking:

If Jesus can turn two fish into enough to feed five thousand people, now would be a good time to intervene. According to researchers, each American ate nearly a half-pound more seafood last year than the year before. As we reach the end of the Christian season of Lent -- the period in which seafood consumption is at its highest -- scientists predict that, if the trend continues, wild marine fisheries will disappear in the next forty years.

At issue is whether fish is meat (which, of course, it is). But in the 11th century, the Catholic Church "banned meat but sanctioned fish as a show of penance on Fridays and during the 40 days before Easter. When other observances with similar restrictions were added to the equation, the prohibition meant more than one hundred fish-only days per year" for Catholics.

If the Pope is a Gristmill reader, then here's a call to action on your recent pledge to protect creation!

Green Living For Dummies: yet another addition to slew of easy-being-green books

I know no Grist reader will need this book (especially if you’ve got Grist’s opus), but the ubiquitous bumblebee-colored series has now turned its all-dummifying eye to the environment. Somewhere between Heartburn & Reflux For Dummies and Coaching Lacrosse For Dummies is your chance to learn what you’re really supposed to do with those mysterious […]

Bush touts his climate leadership

I have nothing pithy to add to this story, but only because the inanity of the quotes is so hard to top.

From Restructuring Today ($ub req'd) (my emphasis on the good bits):

New certification planned by safety group

Maybe this all makes more sense to green builders than it does to me, but I see news today of plans to develop another new green-building certification, this one sponsored by the International Code Council. It seems like only yesterday three weeks ago that the National Association of Home Builders launched its own “education, verification, […]

Startup company makes thin-film solar cells via new process

Solar company Konarka has announced that it successfully developed a new process to manufacture solar cells that could lead to a range of new solar-powered products and applications. The solar cells are made without silicon and are manufactured into a thin, light film via an inkjet printer, which means they don’t need to be born […]

Manhattan Declaration disses IPCC, Gore, any attempts to reduce CO2

Okay, so at the recent Heartless Heartland skeptic/denier/disinformer/climate-destroyer conference (I promise to propose a better term this week!), one of the few attendees who was a non-non-believer in science emailed me the following:

Marc Morano, Sen. Inhofe's press secretary, just cited your post on the dangers of consensus as an example of how deniers are forcing climate action proponents to retreat. "We're making them afraid of using the term 'consensus'!"

Now, that is humor! After all, my article is titled "The cold truth about climate change: Deniers say there's no consensus about global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations [that are much more worrisome]," and it explains that:

1. "Consensus" is far too weak a word to describe the collective scientific understanding of the dangers of human-caused global warming.
2. The reality of climate change is almost certainly going to be much worse than the "consensus" as that term is normally used (to describe the IPCC reports).
3. The deniers are peddling pseudoscience.

Senate passes consumer-safety bill that would reduce toxics in toys

The U.S. Senate has passed legislation aimed at decreasing consumer exposure to dangerous products (like, oh, lead-tainted toys, to pick a random example). Specifically, the measure passed Thursday would increase the staff and budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission; sharply reduce acceptable levels of lead and phthalates in toys; create a database of public […]

No special revelation

Southern Baptist Convention to back off from outright denialism tomorrow?

Bush’s refusal to consider clean technologies could be repeated by McCain

So, who said:

With $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.

Yes, that would be our president, three years ago. And yet with oil at nearly twice that price, Bush still refuses to cut subsidies and shift that money to clean technologies. And he still claims that the solution to our energy and climate problems is "technology, technology, technology, blah, blah." But, as we've seen, that is all just rhetoric or sleight of hand.

Daniel J. Weiss, Director of Energy Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has an article on the urgent need for this switch in priorities: "Unbearable cost of oil: Record prices require Senate action." As Weiss points out, this will be one more chance for McCain to do the right thing: