Latest Articles

Who’s On First?

Officials in suburban Detroit point fingers over contaminated park You remember when Katrina hit, and officials spent their time blaming each other instead of helping people? This is sort of like that, only smaller, and with less wind. Unsuspecting families in a Detroit suburb have played in a contaminated county park for years while city, […]

Global warming in the Supreme Court

It's the first Tuesday in November. Election Day. As in years past, today I am a patriot. I feel hopeful that democracy will bring out the best in this nation's citizens and that tomorrow (or late tonight, huddled in front of my low-quality TV) I will witness political change and renew my belief that our politicians will pave (or plant) the way to a better future.

When I think about tomorrow's leaders, I hope (almost desperately) they will have the courage to tackle global warming. The courts are unlikely to be an adequate substitute.

For the past six years, our federal government has refused to do much of anything. The most daring step taken may have occurred in 2005, when the Senate passed an amendment to the Energy Policy Act expressing its "sense" that Congress should do something. This "sense" did not remain in the law's final version, and we have yet to see it translated into action.

In light of this systematic, breathtaking political failure, environmentalists have brought global warming into courtrooms across the country. This is new territory for the judiciary. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned global warming or greenhouse gases in any of its decisions. However, the Justices are about to get their chance. On November 29th, as the dust settles from today's election, the Justices will hear Massachusetts v. EPA, which has pitted state against state (eleven states join Massachusetts, nine join EPA) and split the business community in two.

Deceivin’ Stephen

Canadians clamor for climate action while their leader ducks the issue Canadians are more concerned about the earth than at any time in the last 15 years, says a new poll. Some 26 percent feel the environment is more deserving of government attention than any other issue, and more than half of those polled would […]

Do You Zaire What I Zaire?

Africa already feeling effects of climate change, will be hit harder While some people question whether climate change is happening, many Africans are already beginning to feel its effects — and, says a new U.N. report, the continent is at greater risk than previously thought. Some 480 million Africans could face water-security issues by 2025 […]

Homeland Insecurity

World’s energy future looks dim, says new report A report issued today by the International Energy Agency says global demand for power could surge 53 percent by 2030 unless governments push clean, efficient energy. “The energy future we are facing today, based on projections of current trends, is dirty, insecure, and expensive,” says Claude Mandil, […]

Vote for Grist!

Our Election Day coverage offers hope and a blogging blitz Here at Grist, we love Election Day. There’s a certain buzz in the air, a feeling that all Americans face a united calling. Yeah, yeah, we know only 38.2 percent of Americans bother to vote — but we’re doing our dangedest to remain optimistic. So […]

College field program shows there’s more to citizenship than going to the polls.

Take a break from freaking out about the election and listen to this NPR audio clip about Whitman College's Semester in the West program. It's a biennial, semester-long environmental studies field course, with a heavy emphasis on public lands issues. If you have any passion about environmental issues, traveling, and/or camping, I guarantee this will make you want to go back to school.

(Grist featured Phil Brick, the professor in the story, as an InterActivist back in October 2005.)

I myself am an alumni of the program, and I'd say the audio clip is quite well done. It provides a good snapshot of what life is like during the semester and the kind of intellectual challenges students confront. As the narrator explains, students are "put face to face with people on all sides of complex issues. Students ask their own questions, and draw their own conclusions."

Endangered Rep. tones down committee website

It seems Richard Pombo has decided that using the House Resources Committee website as a dumping ground for anti-environmental talking points may be something of a liability. Or maybe he just thought the new techno design was nifty. You can still read about ANWR and the future of American energy, but some of the more propaganda-ish pages have come down.

I don't know if endangered species can truly "adapt" when their habitats are threatened, but they may try to shed skin.

Worldwatch releases a hopeful plan for saving the world’s fish.

There's no shortage of reasons it would really suck if present trends continued and the world's oceans stopped supporting a robust fish population.

For one, it would deal a devastating blow to human nutrition and cuisine. The sea provides us with high-quality protein and many other valuable nutrients. Poof? Gone? (Don't be smug, vegans. Fish emulsion -- ground-up fish -- is a common and valuable input for organic vegetable farming.)

As for cuisine, can anyone really bear to contemplate Southeast Asian food without fish? Then there's Italian. No spaghetti alle vongole (clams)? Or that immortal Sicilian dish, pasta con sarde (sardines)? What, the southern French won't get to make bouillabaisse, the Basques will be robbed of their cod, the coastal Mexicans can no longer do hauchinango al mojo de ajo (garlic-crusted red snapper)? What will become of Vera Cruz? Of New Orleans?

No. This is wholly unacceptable. It won't do. Such a world does not interest me. Present trends must not continue; they must end immediately.

So says a dumb article

I used this picture in an earlier article -- forgive me. It is just so appropriate to this topic. Anyway, that particular Homo sapiens hugging the dolphin carries my genes into the future.

Speaking of genes, researchers have caught a dolphin with residual back legs. I chose this particular article over the others because it is, well, asinine. I am not particularly empathetic with the excesses of the animals rights movement, but this article makes abso-fricken-lutely no sense. The author lost me immediately when she suggested that these fins will somehow "prove mammals know more than animal rights activists about the Animal Kingdom." Correct me if I am wrong, but animal rights activists also give birth to live young and then nourish them with breast milk. If you send her an email, please, be nice. Don't reinforce her warped image with aggressive and rude diatribes (like this one). God help her, she obviously just isn't that bright.