Latest Articles
-
Reps. DeLauro and Gilchrest want to invest in local infrastructure.
Update [2007-5-4 15:15:3 by Tom Philpott]:Oops. I misinterpreted this bill. It’s what’s known as a “marker bill,” not intended to be voted on, just to express the opinions of the legislators. Thus its lack of a “commodity title” doesn’t mean its sponsors intend to eliminate commodity payments, as I assumed. Nevertheless, the bill contains good […]
-
When it’s the Bush administration talking about Hanford
The following is a guest post from Natalie Troyer, publications and volunteer coordinator at Heart of America Northwest. —– Sheryl Crow — who was joking, people — recently suggested that folks use “only one square [of toilet paper] per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.” […]
-
Superfund broke thanks to bankrupt polluters
The Center for Public Integrity continues with their massive report on the state of Superfund with a new story today on the $700 million tab that bankrupt polluters have skipped out on.
-
It’s done
It appears that all the haggling is done and the Working Group III report from the IPCC is ready to go. It will be formally released tomorrow. Andy Revkin has a preview, and the NYT also has a Q&A with Revkin about the all-night negotiations that just ended. More to come.
-
Technoscientific and … not
I’ve been musing a bit on two different sorts of environmentalism, and I’ve recently come across two good exemplars. First, in Orion, Curtis White argues that environmentalists are involved in a futile enterprise as long as they fight from within the system — as long as they use technoscientific, rationalist, bureaucratic language to fight problems […]
-
-
Shot down
Alex Cockburn, who has long been a low-key denier of the human contribution to climate chaos, has decided to take his contrarianism on this issue loud and proud. Because Alex is a bit too prominent to simply ignore, George Monbiot takes a few minutes from his busy schedule to tear the piece into little tiny shreds.
It takes Monbiot only a few sentences to point out that all the arguments Cockburn makes are well known and widely discredited, and that Alex uses zero references. Cockburn's sole source seems to be a guy he met on a Nation cruise. Alex is not only taking a highly destructive position, he is doing so without bothering to do his homework. Monbiot goes on to quote Cockburn himself on the nature of crank arguments. I recommend reading Monbiot's refutation, even if you are familiar enough with the debate to spot all Cockburn's scientific mistakes unaided. Because Monbiot illustrates here how, if circumstances force you, to deal with an opponent who makes an argument totally unworthy of any respect.
-
We’ve got it figured out
It's a big problem, but I've been thinking hard about it and I think I've got it figured out:
-
Uh, literally
An Inconvenient Truth replaces the Gideon Bible in fancy new hotel. Dirt-worshiping hippies rejoice.
-
A good argument
Via Brad Plumer, this might be the most honest, good-faith argument about nuclear power I've read in the last, oh, year or so. You can read Max Schulz's pro-nuclear argument here, and then read the anti-nuclear side by Bruce Smith and Arjun Makhijani.
No surprise, I come down on the anti-nuclear side myself, but at least Schulz doesn't simply ignore or refuse to acknowledge the real risks of nuclear power (waste, proliferation, costs). And in his reply at the bottom of Smith and Makhijani's piece, he makes a reasonable argument that Smith and Makhijani are soft-pedaling the costs associated with wind's intermittency.
