Latest Articles

Why are mayors so much smarter than national pols?

On May 10-11, the U.S. Conference of Mayors held a National Summit on Energy and the Environment (press release). They put together a document of best practices (PDF) developed in their various cities. And they agreed to develop a Energy/Environment Conservation Action Agenda (they sure do love capital letters, those mayors) to be released at their annual meeting in June. Here are six steps to be included in the agenda:

1) Invest more money in transportation options including public and mass transit, bike paths, etc.

2) Encourage at the local, state, and federal level the building or rehabilitation of more energy efficient buildings in both the public and private sector.

3) Encourage automakers to make more energy efficient cars as well as encouraging individuals to buy vehicles that are more energy efficient including alternative fuels, hybrids, and plug- in hybrids.

4) Encourage more investment in renewable and alternative energy through additional incentives.

5) Encourage more mixed-use development to allow people to have more walkable communities.

6) Encourage the public and private sector, as well as citizens, to do their part in conserving energy.

Bizarrely sensible.

I suppose it's to be expected that city leaders are somewhat wiser and more judicious than national politicians -- there's more direct accountability and fewer opportunities for media posturing. But we're talking several orders of magnitude here. Why the massive disconnect?

(via EB)

Why skeptics are skeptics

A few months ago, on the Scientific American blog, George Musser lamented the malcommunication between global warming skeptics and proponents. He asked readers who were skeptical about the GW consensus to tell him why in comments. They did, to the tune of 170 comments.

In a follow-up post, Musser tried to summarize and taxonomize the objections (then, in response to tons of feedback, tried again).

I doubt we have many skeptics here, but if you're curious about what trips laypeople up -- rather a wider array of things than I would have thought -- it's worth checking out. And now I can finally close that tab on my browser.

Immigration

Back when all the immigrant protests were happening, I thought about posting something on the debate within the environmentalist community over immigration. (See this Christian Science Monitor story for a good rundown.)

But you know what? It's a stupid debate, and I think anti-immigration enviros are a tiny, tiny minority whose voice is amplified by media hungry for controversy.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of short-term, misanthropic thinking than trying to cut off immigration to the U.S. for environmental reasons. It's a political loser, a moral loser, an economic loser ... it's a loser of an argument.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Looking on the bright side

Oh good grief:

[Senior U.S. climate negotiator Harlan] Watson also said that evidence for global warming seemed to be getting stronger but that there was still great uncertainty about how a warming would affect the planet.

"In these settings there tends to be only an emphasis that 'everything is going to be worse everywhere'. There are undoubtedly going to be areas where things are going to get better," he said.

For instance, in the gated mountaintop redoubts of the super-rich, things are going to be positively Edenic!

We were NOT being reasonable!

This is hilarious. Apparently U.S. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson recently met with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimoas. A Dimoas spokesflack subsequently told Reuters that the U.S. is showing some small signs of interest in working with the EU on a post-2012 emissions-reduction regime. (Kyoto expires in 2012.)

Well, this is intolerable. We can't have the world thinking the U.S. might want to join the international community in efforts to address the signal challenge of our time! What are we, commies?

So naturally, Johnson sent his own spokesflack out to hurriedly deny the scurrilous accusation.

EU carbon-trading market hullabaloo

You may be vaguely aware that an enormous hullabaloo has broken out in Europe over the one-year-old carbon-trading market -- the primary mechanism by which the EU plans to meet Kyoto targets. Because you are not paid to read boring stories, and I am, let me summarize it for you.

The carbon-trading market covers some 9,000 industrial facilities across Europe. Each participating government allocates a certain amount of CO2 emissions to each of its facilities. If those facilities emit less, they can sell their emissions credits. If they emit more, they have to buy credits. (The initial allocations cover 2005-2007.)

So, two things recently happened that sparked the hubbub:

Can you work as an environmental consultant without losing your soul?

As director of program development at The Environmental Careers Organization, Kevin Doyle knows a thing or two about job searching. In this recurring column for Grist, he explores the green job market and offers advice to eco-job-seekers looking to jumpstart their careers.

I have been working in the environmental consulting field for several years now. I must admit, I'm quite disillusioned due to clients who simply don't care about the environment. I turn away projects when I realize the goal is to use me to produce an assessment that removes their responsibility. When I explain that the data cannot be altered, many attempt to offer more money, but end up choosing to find another consultant. I want to return to why I entered this field in the beginning. I'm 40 years old now, and I need to make a change. Where does this idealist go from here?    -- Jacqueline M.

Is there something in the water, Gristers? Recent calls and emails are bringing plaintive cries from 40-something environmental professionals all over the country.

It's not only people like Jacqueline in the so-called "environmental industry." I'm hearing from federal, state, and local government employees, environmental officers at corporations, academics, and even a few activist types. Just this week at a pollution-prevention conference in Atlanta, I listened to a state government environmental leader declare flatly that the permitting work her team spent "thousands of hours on" was producing little or no additional benefit for people or the natural world. No one seemed shocked and appalled. No one suggested she was being too negative. Most everyone nodded and shrugged as if to say "tell me something I don't already know."

The message I'm getting is that many of the people who have been toiling in the greener part of the vineyard for years have begun to suspect that they may be part of a game -- one that's better at keeping expensive professionals gainfully employed than it is at creating a sustainable world.

Let Him Without Synfuel Cast the First Stone

Air Force tests synfuel in jets The Air Force consumes more than half the fuel used by the entire U.S. government; in fiscal year 2005, it guzzled 3.2 billion gallons of jet fuel at a cost of $4.7 billion. Under a directive from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the military is conducting tests to determine whether […]

Consulting With the Devil

Can you work as an environmental consultant without losing your soul? Jacqueline is a 40-year-old environmental consultant who’s disillusioned by all the pollutocrats asking her to fudge data. She wants to make a career change — just one among many who are frustrated by their seemingly ineffectual eco-related jobs, says green-careers guru Kevin Doyle. In […]

Honorably Discharged

Supreme Court sides with enviros on licenses for hydroelectric dams Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the first environmental case considered under new Chief Justice John Roberts … and sided with enviros (supported, this time, by the Bush administration). At issue was a Maine case hinging on wording in the Clean Water […]