Latest Articles

It’s funny ’cause it’s true

Ah, The Onion. How do they do it?

Interview with Mike Davis

There's some pretty shocking stuff in this Tom Engelhardt interview with Mike Davis, author of City of Quartz and, most recently, Planet of Slums. It's about the extraordinary growth of urban slums filled with people unconnected to the global economy, and with no prospect of connecting. He calls it "urbanization without urbanity."

It's part one of a two-parter. Here's a little taste:

The high cost of cheap gas.

The New York Times is running an interesting article called "The High Cost of Cheap Gas and Vice Versa." The author calculates the current average cost of driving at 15 cents a mile, up from 6.6 cents in 1998, and down from 20.1 cents in 1980 (in 2006 dollars). He also puts up a cost-per-mile calculator, in case your math skills have deteriorated since you last took the SAT.

My colleague JP Ross tells me that a Toyota Prius in electric-only mode uses .26 kWh to go a mile. If you are filling up with peak electricity rates, say 12 cents kWh, that's 3 cents a mile. Many utilities have nighttime off-peak rates way lower -- at 5 cents kWh, that's around a penny a mile.

In places where the wind blows at night, you could be filling up as you sleep.

And if you have solar covering your parking garage, like the City of Tucson, you could be charging while you work.

You can tell the smart utilities -- they are the ones putting their lobbying power behind plug-in hybrids. It just makes cents.

A speculation about why ADM’s HFCS business is booming.

In the first quarter of 2006, as I reported yesterday, Archer Daniels Midland somehow managed to boost the price of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) despite mounting concern over the sweetener's health effects.

The company booked a cool $113 million profit from HFCS over the quarter, more than three times more than it netted in the same period a year before ($33 million). This, despite a slowing domestic market for sweet soft drinks, as consumers increasingly switch to juice and bottled water. The company's official explanation -- "increased sweetener and starch selling prices" -- doesn't explain how it managed to make price hikes stick.

I think I've figured it out. And the explanation has everything to do with Brazil, sugarcane, and ethanol.

Kyoto is a bargain

Amusing column in the Washington Post today. (And I mean "amusing" in a bitterly ironic sort of way.)

The U.S. has spent roughly $300 billion on the Iraq war, with the final figure estimated to be in the ballpark of $500 billion to $1 trillion. Implementing the Kyoto Protocol, on the other hand, is estimated to cost the U.S. somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 - $350 billion (though those figures are speculative and, some would argue, inflated).

By the way, the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by U.S. lawmakers because it would harm the economy too much.

White tags

Hey, this is kind of cool. A company called Sterling Planet has created what they're calling "white tags." Just as green tags are based on the creation and use of clean energy, white tags are awarded based on targets for saving energy. In other words, they're energy-efficiency credits.

I hope this takes off. Energy efficiency is a huge source of free, clean energy, and some well-targeted incentives could kickstart a process that would eventually take on a life of its own.

Umbra on global warming and you

Dear Umbra, I love the scientific ins and outs, really I do, but what oh what can we do about global warming? And I mean us ordinary folks with a house and mortgage and some percentage point of kids and a few compact fluorescents and maybe even a hybrid in the driveway. We’re right there […]

Climate coverage in the NYT

Maximum Leader Chip flagged this defense of the New York Times' climate coverage by science editor Laura Chang. He thinks it's very lame; I tend to think it's just medium lame.

The NYT's climate coverage is actually quite good relative to other U.S. media, but, as a reader points out, a little tepid compared to, say, the BBC's.

The fact is that no media has figured out how to cover the climate crisis well. As the NYT's Andy Revkin is always quick to point out, it's "the antithesis of traditional news." But here's a suggestion, one Chang and Revkin both skip over: How about moving climate coverage off the science pages?

Even conservative estimates of average-global-temperature increase would mean substantial effects on all of society -- the economy, security, health, and so on. Project the issue past the science geeks, I say. Get it out into the real, day-to-day world.

Marine mammals face myriad dangers thanks to humans

Yo-ho-ho mateys! Today we celebrate the many ways man has pillaged marooned f**ked over plank-walked marine mammals everywhere.

Off Hawaii, boats have hit a record number of humpback whales (go team human! high score, baby!), including some of the 1,000-or-so calves born this year. Though some say the increase in "hits" is due to a growing population of the endangered whale [happy face here], I ask, what about the growing population of whale-watchers, which now totals some 300,000 every year in Hawaii alone? [Reality check here]

Then there's the story about the "dozens" of dolphins found dead on Bulgaria's Black Sea shore after being tangled in fishing nets. "Dozens" sounds like maybe 24 or 36 dead dolphins ... but we're actually talking 55 found within a span of 10 days near the town of Shabla (clearly the hometown of Bob Loblaw). And last month, the death of 11 dolphins on a nearby Romanian shore was blamed on poaching. Don't even get me started on the whaling happening off the coasts of Japan, Norway, and Iceland.

NYT/CBS poll results

Bush haters will find much to celebrate in the latest NYT/CBS poll (write-up here; full results in PDF form here). Bush's approval ranking is tanking, overall -- 31%, the third lowest of any president in 50 years, behind Nixon and Carter -- and on virtually every individual issue, including the war in Iraq and terrorism.

Enviros, however, have reason for glumness. Question three is: "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" 14% chose the cryptic "heating oil/gas crisis." The equally vague "environment" garnered an underwhelming 1%. And global warming? Wasn't even on the list. The big winner was "war," with 19%.

Even more glumly, a majority approves of plans to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by 48-45%.

On the subject of global warming, how much do I hate this question?