Latest Articles

Arctic Tock …

Arctic ice may be gone in one to three decades If you’ve been planning a trip to the Arctic, better buy your tickets now, because it’s a-meltin’ fast. (Perhaps you’ve heard?) A record low amount of ocean froze over this winter — a reduction of over 115,000 square miles of sea ice from last year. […]

Americans and Climate Change: Intro and executive summary

We've talked a great deal on this site about how best to "frame" global warming. How can we shrink the gap between what science tells us about the dangers of climate change and the relative disengagement of the American public? How can we get the public fired up and thus spur more aggressive policy responses?

That's the subject of "Americans and Climate Change," a new report from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, based on a conference held late last year. The 200-page report can be ordered in book form or downloaded for free as a PDF (uh, PDF). (It's written by Associate Dean Daniel Abbasi, based on notes from the conference.)

Now, normally, a post like this would end here. I would recommend the report and move on.

But let's face it. None of you are going to pay $20 to order a conference report. None of you are going to read a 200-page PDF.

And here's the thing: I actually read this one. The whole thing. And it's extraordinary: lucid, insightful, and practical. So I don't want to let it pass by. (Incidentally, thanks to the NYT's Andy Revkin for recommending it.)

I contacted the folks at Yale, and they've agreed to let me reprint some or all of the report (depending on how it goes), in small chunks that are easier to read than, say, a 200-page PDF.

I hope it starts some discussion. And I hope it isn't, as my wife tactlessly suggests, the dorkiest, wonkiest thing anyone's ever done, ever.

Below you'll find the beginning of the Executive Summary, which frames the rest of the report.

Attribution 101

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is responsible for a great deal of the FUD that still surrounds global warming. But their news operation is top notch.

Case in point: Here's an excellent, plain-language explanation for how climate scientists attribute warming to human activity, from Sharon Begley. Bookmark it and send the link to friends who've been reading too many WSJ editorials.

(via Deltoid)

As the windmill turns: A native perspective

Who would have thought my sleepy little home town of Corpus Christi and nearby Padre Island would be in the news so much this year. First dead-eye Dick Cheney shoots his friend in the face at a ranch nearby, and the victim is whisked to our local hospital. Now the largest wind farm in the U.S. is slated for waters a little ways down the coast. (This picture showing the location of the wind farm even includes the town of Armstrong, near the Armstrong Ranch where the hunting of quail and shooting of friends took place!)

So as you might guess, the news of the new wind farm caught my attention.

President Al Gore’s SOTU

Somewhere, in an alternate reality ...

Thanks SNL!

Update [2006-5-15 11:10:13 by David Roberts]: It appears the video was yanked off YouTube. For now, at least, it's still available on Crooks & Liars.

Update [2006-5-16 15:11:25 by David Roberts]: It's also available on iFilm.

Tug of war

I have tried to stay out of the ethanol debate because I always assumed it would die a natural death. However, it does not seem to be going away, so I thought I would look into the latest hoopla.

A tug of war is quietly taking place inside environmental groups as individuals sort out where they stand on a given biofuel issue. For example, Mongabay has an upbeat article on biofuels, surrounded by articles showing its destructive potential. I suspect the same thing is happening inside the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and everywhere else. The idea that environmentalists are now in bed with God-fearing patriots on the issue of oil independence might seem unsettling at first, but to be honest with you, neither side has a monopoly on rational thought. When our heads start to hurt from thinking too much, we tend to just go with what feels good.

Point, shoot, go to jail

Say you live in a neighborhood where there is a power or waste-treatment plant nearby. You notice some toxic nastiness spewing out, so you decide to document said spewage by recording it with photos or video. If lawmakers in New Jersey get their way, you've just committed a crime that could put you in jail for 18 months:

The state Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss a bill today which would make it a crime -- punishable by up to 18 months in jail -- to photograph, videotape or otherwise record for an extended period of time a power generation, waste treatment, public sewage, water treatment, public water, nuclear or flammable liquid storage facility, as well as any airport in the state.

At the very least, it will allow law enforcement officials across the state to detain the individual or confiscate any recorded materials to further their investigation, according to state Sen. Fred Madden, D-4 of Turnersville, who is the bill's sponsor.

Opponents of the bill said it "makes no sense" and is "awful."

Indeed.

(Via BB)

Rest in infamy

GM has killed the Hummer. The big one, anyway. Baby steps.

(via Environmental Action)

Carbon offsets and guilt

Brad Stone has a clever satirical take on carbon offsets over on Newsweek, riffing off the recent partnership of Ford and TerraPass.

I think this is a wonderful idea -- do good while doing bad -- and I urge other businesses to join Ford in this fledgling, guilt-credits marketplace. It just might help us cope with the unreasonable stigma now associated with the proud American tradition known as conspicuous consumption.

For example, the fast-food giants might roll out an initiative called Flatter Tummies. For every bacon double cheeseburger they sell, the restaurant chains could allow customers to make a small donation toward the gastric-bypass surgery center of their choice.

With "Smarter Stitches," clothing manufacturers could help us compensate for the exploitation of low-wage textile workers in Asia. Every time you buy a new pair of sneakers, the footwear company in question would allow you to send an appreciative gift to an overseas textile worker -- perhaps a stuffed animal or the book "Goodnight Moon," translated into the appropriate language.

Ha ha, right?

But here's the thing:

Feebird!

Continuing with the recent spate of attention to "feebates," Republican senator Gordon Smith from Oregon floated the feebate concept at a recent congressional hearing. Bully for him!

With gas prices as high as they are, and the security costs of ensuring North America's petroleum supplies (think, say, of the cost of America's military involvement in Iraq), feebates are an idea whose time has come. And Smith's support suggests that the idea may even have some bipartisan appeal.

The basic idea of feebates is to charge car buyers an extra fee when they buy a gas guzzler, and rebate that money to people who buy efficient vehicles. The amount of the fee or rebate depends on the miles-per-gallon rating of the vehicle, compared with the average for all new cars sold. (For more details, see here).

The beauty of feebates is that they create incentives for continuous improvements to vehicle efficiency. That is, no matter how efficient the average car or truck becomes, feebates will still help boost sales of the most efficient vehicles on the market.