Latest Articles
-
Blog democracy scares the pants off of media traditionalists.
This ignorant blather about green blogs echoes many, many similar critiques from crusty old farts who fear the democratization of media. Without the "gatekeepers" of the traditional media, they cry, why, just anything can be published! By anyone! Even someone of ... low upbringing!
Indeed, Mr. Ladle fears that unless the onrush of rabble is tamed and domesticated, "we run the risk of creating a generation of eco-illiterate consumers and voters at a crucial time for the Earth's diminishing resources."
Yes, we wouldn't want to risk that. Why damage all the fine work the established media has done educating consumers and voters about environmental matters?
-
Um, actually it matters whether global warming is human-caused or not.
Yesterday, President Bush said:
There's a debate over whether (global warming) is manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives -- one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil for economic reasons and for national security reasons.
I've heard him mention "getting beyond" that debate before, and it doesn't make sense to me. This doesn't seem like the kind of debate that can just be put aside. If it's the case that human activity is driving rapid global warming, then obviously scaling back GHG emissions should be our first priority. If it's the case that human activity isn't driving global warming -- that warming is part of a natural cycle -- then reducing GHG emissions isn't a priority at all.
-
Scientists: Gore is right
Ah, so the MSM isn't useless after all! This AP story by my beloved Seth Borenstein is just delicious:
WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
But wait! What do conservative op-ed writers think about it? Where's the balance, Borenstein?
And just to further tickle me, we get this little jab at the end:
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.
Scrumptious.
(via TP)
-
Interview with makers of Who Killed the Electric Car?
Hoping to share a little bit of the spotlight with that other eco-themed documentary -- alongside which it debuted at the Sundance film festival -- Who Killed the Electric Car? will drive (without emissions!) into theaters next month (or tomorrow, if you're in NYC or L.A.).
On June 9, I sat down for a wide-ranging discussion with Chris Paine, the director, Chelsea Sexton, an activist prominently featured in the film, and Wally Rippel, an engineer who played a role in developing the power system for the late, lamented GM EV-1.
For still more electric-car interview fun, go here.
-----
DR: So I started watching this movie, about this one peculiar car, and then about halfway through all the sudden I'm watching a movie about fuel economy and global warming and energy security. Did you use the former as a hook for the latter, or did the former just carry you into the latter?
CP: That's an excellent question. When I started filming I wasn't thinking [about the bigger issues], but by the time we were editing it's like, this is such a great microcosm.
It's more than a car story, you know. I mean, much more than a car story.
DR: How did you hear about the EV? I'm sure I'm not the only one who had no idea it even existed before the movie came out.
-
Where in the U.S. are they?
MapMuse can help you find the country's ethanol 85 and biodiesel filling stations.
650ish E85 stations, 350 biodiesel stations, and counting.
-
Pollster accepts thermodynamics; blogosphere swoons
All right, that's three blogs now (one, two, three) that have found it notable that GOP pollster Frank Luntz -- he of the infamous memo -- has accepted the science of global warming.
Why is this significant? He's a pollster, a political strategist. His opinion on global warming is no more significant than, say, the thousands of scientists who have actually, you know, done original research on the subject.
Unlike the right, the left has never gained a full appreciation for the power of disdain. Another dead-ender finally sensed the political winds shifting? Fine, he can move up to the long bus. But otherwise, so what.
-
All About EV
Grist talks with the makers of Who Killed the Electric Car? In the 1990s, California required automakers to introduce zero-emission cars. GM put out the electric EV-1, a sporty coupe that inspired head-over-heels devotion among the few people who got their hands on one. Then California backed down, the car leases ran out, and GM […]
-
Nice Package
UPS will test new hydraulic hybrid trucks If you thought the muscled deliveryfolk in tight brown shorts were hot, wait ’til you get a load of their trucks. UPS drivers in Detroit will be testing new hybrid delivery trucks developed by the U.S. EPA, which the agency claims will boost fuel efficiency up to 70 […]
-
Olive Twist
“Climate-change farmer” plants England’s first olive grove Britain’s first olive grove has been planted in Devon in southwestern England — made possible by global warming. Traditionally an iconic crop of Mediterranean regions, the olive may soon be able to flourish in more northerly climes, some specialists believe, thanks to rising temperatures. Olive entrepreneur Mark Diacono […]
