Latest Articles

Where were younger people at Live Earth house parties?

Pretty much everyone in attendance at two Austin Live Earth house parties was a boomer. Is grassroots activism still unhip among young people?

I was a bit nervous about attending a Live Earth event. At 52, I thought I'd be at least twice the age of most of the people I'd encounter. I needn't have worried.

I attended two Live Earth house parties in Austin, Texas, and saw nobody under 30 except the kids of one of the hosts. I looked for online pictures of other parties elsewhere and saw about the same thing: mostly folks in their 50s with some 40-somethings and 60-somethings in the mix.

Well, not that dirty

I love, love that the Waste World Cup exists. This ESPN chap said it, not me: Bicycles are the new SUV. That’s all. (So my cousin came to visit a few weekends ago, and we were discussing those inevitable awkward situations when you’re at a social gathering, and you’re chatting with someone, and even if […]

Again and again

Did you miss out on seeing Live Earth as it happened? Or maybe you saw it all, but just can’t get enough? You’re in luck! You can relive your favorite performances, your favorite fashion faux pas, and all the Gore-y goodness (hologram or otherwise!) on MSN’s Live Earth site. I also recommend checking out the […]

A Grist correspondent sweats her way through Live Earth

Emily Gertz reports on environmental issues from her home base in Brooklyn, N.Y. She has written for Grist, BushGreenwatch, The Bear Deluxe, and other independent publications. She contributes to Worldchanging.com, and recently launched OneAtlantic.net: Environmental News & Views for the Atlantic Coast. Saturday, 7 Jul 2007 EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. With Live Earth over, Al Gore, […]

Live Earth was a smash hit, and more

Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: Black Coffeyville That’s a Mighty Full Circular File The Day the Music Lied? Stewards Jolly Stick It Where the Sun Do Shine Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: Diamond Off the Cuff Heads You Lose Ka-Boom

A young biodiversivist

Well, I've returned from my camping trip. This was an annual gathering of about half a dozen families. I met an interesting guy named Remy. We had much in common, including our wry sense of humor and an enthusiasm for investigating biodiversity. Upon arrival at the campsite he immediately and correctly identified a snake I had caught.

My reputation had proceeded me. Remy was looking forward to the two of us hunting snakes together. He managed to catch two. One was a 3-foot long specimen he spotted crossing the road. He grabbed it by the tail just like his hero the late Steve Irwin used to do and wrangled it into a net. I don't know who was more excited, him or me as I watched him catch it. He missed catching a racer on a night foray because it was just too fast (that's why they call them racers) but on another night he caught a shiny (it had just shed its skin) gopher snake that he pulled from a hole in the ground.

Not bad for a 6-year-old boy who probably weighs every bit of 50 pounds. The one and only thing he wanted from Santa last year was a snake stick, which he had brought along on this trip.

Breaking all the offset rules

[Important update to this post here.]

One reason I began posting my Rules of Carbon Offsets is a dubious program by the California utility PG&E called ClimateSmart, which is supposed to allow PG&E customers to become "climate neutral."

This program actually manages to violate rules zero, 1, and 2 all at once! It really makes clear why offsets are bastardized emissions reductions -- and why trees are an especially dubious offset.

This picture graces the "Our Projects" page of the ClimateSmart website. The caption reads : "Photo of van Eck Forest, courtesy of Pacific Forest Trust." Well, that burns rule 1 and 2 -- no trees, and certainly not trees in a California forest comprising half your offset portfolio. (This forestry offset is particularly outrageous, as we will see at the end of this post.)

Worse, what PG&E is offering to do is offset customer's greenhouse gas emissions generated from their electricity purchases and natural gas consumption.

The $64,000 question is why doesn't PG&E just sell renewable power to its customers? Remember rule zero of offsets:

Before you pay others to reduce their emissions on your behalf, you need to do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions first. As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself" before presuming to heal other people.

How does rule zero apply here? Consider what PG&E says:

The fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use your energy more efficiently -- taking advantage of PG&E's smart energy rebates and programs. After doing what you can to reduce your energy use, make the rest "climate neutral" with ClimateSmart.

OK, energy efficiency is the first thing you do -- I've made that argument myself many times. But after doing what you can to reduce your energy use, the obvious next step is not paying someone else to reduce their emissions, but to purchase green power, directly eliminating any greenhouse gas emissions from your electricity use.

Carbon offsets are tricky business

Joseph Romm has been running a series of "rules of the road for carbon offsets" on these pages. This is a worthwhile endeavor, and as good of an excuse as any for me to provide some shade and color to the frequently misconceived debate over offsets. Although I mostly agree with Romm's conclusions, I don't think he chose the best route to reach them.

My intent is not to rebut Romm's proposed rules -- again, I (mostly) agree with all of the guidelines posted so far, even if they do contain some important errors of fact and emphasis. And more generally, I strongly support efforts to arm individuals with more information about offset quality.

But the rules are framed a bit oddly, offered up as some sort of counterpoint to a lawless industry peddling easy environmental solutions to polluters run amok. The first post announces an "aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets."

Another reason the well-off do well

Here's a story that tracks with older reporting (such as from Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly) about the pernicious social consequences of lead.

Boy, there's a superhero quartet we could really use: Environmental Justice Crusaders, a band with superhuman powers to counteract our pervasive (and worsening) racial and economic segregation that puts the people on the bottom of the socio-economic divide into the places where the better off folks dump their environmental insults.

Monbiot: We can provide all or most of our electricity from renewable sources

In his July 3 column, George Monbiot reminds us of how much worse the threat of global warming may be than the consensus IPCC position. But he also reminds us that there are reasons for optimism too. He cites three studies that point to the fact that there is every reason to believe Europe and the UK can supply between 80 percent and 100 percent of electricity needs completely sun, wind, water, wave, tide, and minor amounts of biomass and geothermal energy, V2G Vanadium flow batteries, and pumped storage.

Given that electricity can drive just about all energetic processes of our civilization -- domestic, commercial, industrial, and transport, that means that we have economically reasonable substitutes for just about all carbon use now.