Latest Articles

Investigative journalist reveals serious safety concerns about GM food

Note: For the next few days I’ll be reporting from Eco-Farm, the annual conference held by the Ecological Farming Association of California. At Eco-Farm, some 1,400-1,500 organic farmers, Big Organic marketers, and sundry sustainable-ag enthusiasts pack into a rustic, beautiful seaside conference hall an hour-and-a-half south of San Francisco to talk farming amid the dunes. […]

The best climate strategies don’t start in your backyard

In my line of work, one sometimes hears strange things. These include allegations that leaf blowers or pet manure should be high-priority targets for reducing climate emissions. I'm in a myth-busting mood today, so I am happy to report that leaf blowers don't really rate.

In the U.S., the emissions from all leaf blowers, both residential and commercial, for all of 2008 will be roughly equivalent to the emissions from driving that occurred between the arrival of the new year and 11:00 a.m. on January 1.

Add to that the entire year's worth of snowblowers, and you can equal the driving emissions up until 1:30 p.m. on the first.

Add in all lawn mowers, both residential and commercial, including the big riding and tractor-type units. Add in rototillers and other turf maintenance equipment. Add chainsaws, chippers, stump grinders, and shredders. Now add trimmers, edgers, brush cutters, and any other garden tool you can think of. The combined emissions from all of that racket-making equipment, for the entire year, is roughly equal to the driving that occurred before afternoon rush hour on January 6.

Of course, that's not really the whole story.

Even Republicans will have to acknowledge global warming in the presidential race

In a report for "The Campaign Spot" on the National Review, Jim Geraghty gently broke the bad news to conservatives that yes, global warming will be an issue in the 2008 campaign, and the Republican party will concede the time has now come to act to reduce the risks.

To make his case, first Geraghty gave the mic to a fire-breathing Giuliani supporter named Robert Tracinski, who declared for Real Clear Politics:

But the biggest problem for Republicans with McCain's candidacy is his stance on global warming. McCain has been an active supporter of the global warming hysteria -- for which he has been lauded by the radical environmentalists -- and he is a co-sponsor of a leftist scheme for energy rationing. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Actwould impose an arbitrary cap on America's main sources of energy production, to be enforced by a huge network of federal taxes and regulations.

The irony is that McCain won in South Carolina among voters whose top concern is the economy. Don't these voters realize what a whole new regime of energy taxes and regulations would do to the economy?

No matter what happens, there is likely to be a huge debate in the coming years over global warming -- whether it's really happening, whether it's actually caused by human beings, and what to do about it. But if the Republicans nominate McCain, that political debate will be over, and Al Gore and the left will have won it -- thanks to John McCain.

Geraghty let that stand, thinking others would agree with him that it was an extreme statement. He went on to try and reason with the NR crowd:

NYT endorses Clinton and McCain, notes McCain’s climate advocacy

The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their respective parties, noting that McCain “was an early advocate for battling global warming.”

Schools should be talking about climate change solutions

At some point in the 1980s or 1990s, environmental issues became hopelessly and depressingly politicized. By "politicized," I mean it stopped being acceptable to talk about environmental issues in, for instance, a high-school setting, in the same way that evolution was made into a controversial subject to talk about in many school settings. I'm not sure when I would pinpoint that this politicization really sunk in, but I'd be interested in what those who were around at that point might have to say. By the Republican revolution of 1994 -- around the time I first became aware of something called "politics" -- this seems to have already definitively taken place.

But in the past of couple years, while it has remained fairly partisan, climate change has been rapidly depoliticizing as an issue. Even with a former Democratic vice president as its standard-bearer, it's now acceptable for companies, organizations, and institutions that would never consider taking what they see to be a political stance on an environmental issue -- or any other issue not directly concerning their core business -- to take a stance on climate change.

In my role as a grassroots organizer with a student environmental organization, it has only recently become possible to approach a wide variety of potential coalition partners for the very first time. My organization could never have approached a typical university president to register the school's public opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- but we can and do approach hundreds to work on climate change.

This is phenomenally important in repositioning the environmental movement beyond its role in the '90s as a "special interest." It's an immense boon to anyone trying to figure out how to spark the political moment that could result in good clean-energy legislation getting to the president's desk, and the society-wide coalition that will succeed in getting her or him to sign it.

I'd measure the completion of this depoliticization process to be when primary and secondary schools start including climate change -- and then carbon reductions and clean energy -- in their curricula, assemblies, and more. I'm not talking about when high schools stop teaching kids that there's a scientific climate debate -- I mean when they take the only step a responsible educator could take and ask students to consider this: Now that we have a problem, what are the solutions to this problem?

Obviously, we're not there yet.

Mexico City encourages transit ridership with women-only buses

Women in Mexico City have long been deterred from riding public transportation by the very real possibility of being groped or verbally harassed while packed in with other passengers. “A woman could enter a metro car a virgin and come out pregnant,” says one female rider. The subway system has female-only cars during rush hour […]

How fake trend pieces are born

Culture reporter wants to write something on green, but needs something new, a counterintuitive trend piece that can get some attention. PR shill pitches reporter on fake trend: blue is the new green! Perfect. Reporter calls actual green journalist. Actual green journalist points out that trend is fake. Even better! Now you’ve got a trend […]

How we can make progress with climate change mitigation

There's a great deal of buzz in D.C. right now over the prospects of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. A major environmental group (Environmental Defense) is running radio spots urging congressional passage this year, while a key Lieberman aide has been quoted as saying that the already compromised bill is open for further compromise (if that will get more votes). One issue up for discussion is preemption -- that is, taking away the right of states to limit greenhouse gases.

With that in mind, it might make sense to consider the views of a genuine eco-battler, my friend Dan Becker, long a Sierra Club activist who waged an often lonely war for years to improve federal fuel economy (CAFE) standards.

Green-collar jobs mean standing up for people and the planet

For those of us who are a part of the movement for "green-collar jobs," last Sunday's Democratic presidential debate was a real watershed moment.

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were in the debate of their lives. And all three of them passionately championed the importance of creating good jobs in the clean energy sector. They presented "green-collar jobs" as a way to simultaneously boost the economy and beat global warming.

Their words were like music to our ears. It felt like a victory for all of our organizations, which have been making this argument for some time. So ... hats off to the Apollo Alliance, Ella Baker Center, Workforce Alliance, Center for American Progress, Sustainable South Bronx, Center on Wisconsin Strategy, 1Sky, Energy Action Coalition, Green For All, and many more.

And then yesterday The Washington Post ran a major story on green jobs, Time magazine has taken up the issue, and CNN just featured it on their Situation Room. So it is now official: our demand for "green-collar jobs" has finally broken through!

But before the concept gets watered down by its very popularity, now might be a good time to give a clear and uncompromising answer to this question: What is a green-collar job, anyway?

The most critical assumption on cellulosic biofuels: yields

My most critical assumption with cellulosic biofuels is on land efficiency: tons of biomass per acre, and hence gallons of fuel produced per acre, and more accurately, miles driven per acre. I believe biomass yields per acre will multiply by two to four times from today's norms.

The lack of genetic optimization and research on cultural practices, harvesting, storage, and transport with would-be energy crops -- miscanthus, sorghum, switchgrass, and others -- means that there is significant potential for improvement. The application of advanced breeding methods like genetic engineering and marker-assisted breeding, limiting water usage through drought resistant crops, and large-scale application of biotechnology (i.e., optimizing the process by which plants conduct photosynthesis, or reducing stress-based yield losses) will also contribute to increased yields with fewer inputs.

More importantly, different energy crops are likely to be optimal for different climates -- jatropha makes sense on degraded Indian land, but not in the American Midwest. Rather than a single dominant energy crop, we are likely to see a variety of feedstocks that allow specialization to local conditions, mixes, and needs, while mitigating the risks.