Latest Articles

Saline solutions

Last October, in a Gristmill guest essay, Lloyd G. Carter described attempts by agribiz interests in California's powerful Westlands Water District to suck more subsidized water out of California's rivers.  Now the District is locked in another battle -- this one over toxic soil -- that could end up costing taxpayers $1 billion. Bill Walker, west coast VP of the Environmental Working Group, explains.

-----

In a repeat of a scheme that led to one of the worst wildlife disasters in the nation's history, federal water bureaucrats are on the brink of a decision that could kill thousands of migratory birds in California's San Joaquin Valley each year -- and will cost taxpayers $1 billion.

No Onion, but it’ll do

Dave Letterman's Top Ten Dumb Guy Ideas For Lowering Gas Prices:

10. Make all roads downhill.
9. Cheaper self-service price if you pump the oil and refine it yourself.
8. Gas comes from dinosaurs, so all we need are more dinosaurs.
7. Invade Iraq.
6. Give Cheney a sawed-off shotgun and have him stick up an Exxon.
5. Tax cuts for the rich.
4. Get Bush and the Middle East to straighten everything out on Oprah.
3. Jet packs for everyone.
2. Gas only costs 12 cents a gallon in Venezuela; drive to Venezuela for gas.
1. Get tubby genius Al Gore to figure it out.

(via Sierra Club blog)

Which is thicker, blood or oil? A longtime shareholder reflects

My family has been intimately involved with Exxon through the years. My great-great-grandfather Maurice Clark went into the provisioning business with John D. Rockefeller around the time of the Civil War, but ended up selling the nascent oil-refining part of the business to Rockefeller in the late 19th century. Years later, my grandmother’s uncle ran […]

Michaels wants the balance balanced

Oh man, this is too hilarious:

It seems that [notorious climate skeptic Pat] Michaels called [CNN Friday's Peter] Dykstra to complain that the network doesn't do enough to bring out the side of those who question the thesis that human industrial and transportation activity is warming the globe. Dykstra politely disagreed, but he was curious. So he took the time to look up all of the network's pieces on the topic.

The expert CNN quoted most? Dr. Patrick Michaels. By a factor of two.

A dash of persecution complex really gives the ignorance a nice flavor, doesn't it?

Swamp coolers

If I lived in Phoenix, I would own a swamp cooler powered by solar panels. I would be immune to rolling blackouts and could reduce my electric bill by about 75% during the hot months.

Locking in global warming

What do you call it when a society knowingly cripples itself? I'm not sure. But historians studying our strange slow-motion self-immolation will find much to ponder in articles like this:

Top executives at many utility companies have reluctantly accepted that coal-fired power plants contribute to global warming, and they have begun planning for a more restrictive future.

Then there is C. John Wilder, chief executive of TXU Corp. The Dallas-based utility company is racing to build 11 big power plants in Texas that will burn pulverized coal. That process releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, the most worrisome of several heat-trapping gases widely blamed for global warming.

TXU contends Texas needs a lot more power, and it wants to be the company to provide it. Critics of its $11 billion construction program see another motivation: The federal government may slap limits on carbon-dioxide emissions. If it does, plants completed sooner may have a distinct advantage. That's because the government may dole out "allowances" to release carbon dioxide, and plants up and running when regulations go into effect may qualify for more of them than those built at a later date.

Obscene enough. But then, get this:

Nuclear security

Speaking of nuclear power, I meant to mention this a couple weeks ago:

Four years after the leaders of the world's eight largest economies vowed to raise $20 billion over 10 years to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear materials, only $3.5 billion has been donated -- and far less has been used to secure enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon.

Hundreds of tons of uranium remain at loosely guarded facilities across Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in nearly 40 other countries, according to specialists. And the need to secure the material has grown: In April, Russian police arrested a foreman in a nuclear plant for attempting to sell 22 kilograms of uranium.

Sounds like a great time to build hundreds and hundreds of new nuclear plants all over the world!

Nuclear reading

A couple weekends ago, The New York Times Magazine ran an epic cover story on the resurgence of nuclear power: "Atomic Balm?" (And when I say epic I mean it: I printed the sucker out and it came to 17 single-spaced pages.) It's invaluable if you want a broad overview of the current state of the nuclear industry, which is (boosters allege) on the verge of a resurgence.

Here's the basic lay of the land: power companies care about one thing and one thing only: cost. Right now, coal is cheap, so power companies burn coal. They will create power some other way when the money looks right. The rising cost of natural gas, the prospect of CO2 caps, and massive Energy Department subsidies are nudging them toward nuclear. What holds them back is the astronomical price of constructing and decommissioning plants -- well over $2 billion to get a plant up and running, and that's without mistakes and cost overruns, which have been ubiquitous throughout the industry's history.

Though the author, John Gertner, is scrupulously balanced, one comes away with the distinct impression that nuclear power just doesn't make sense to investors or power companies, but that the government is determined to ply them with money until they submit.

Poof …

... 4,000 square miles of carbon sink gone, and all of the associated biodiversity with it.

The timeline:

Cargill builds a port in the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso. A soy version of a gold rush ensues, destroying thousands upon thousands of square miles of the Amazon. From Agriculture Online:

[The farmers] bought land in three- or four-year payments (of soybeans). Then, with the expansion of land, they needed to buy more machinery, so they did.

An unfavorable exchange rate plunges these farmers into debt:

Ocean victories underreported

Last week, USA Today's Nick Jans reported on the triple ocean victory in the last four months -- three closures of federal waters totaling an area twice the size of Texas. Nick wonders how the largest act of conservation in our nation's history could have slipped below our collective radar screens. Don't blame us, Nick. We issued press releases, emailed our supporters, and I even blogged about it. Twice.

Since other news agencies treated the victories as "snoozers," Nick took it upon himself to emphasize the importance of these closures, and the threats still facing our oceans in this succinct yet informative article. Thanks, Nick.