Latest Articles

An innovative Alabama CSA shows the way forward.

When Wal-Mart announced plans to become the world's biggest purveyor of organically grown food last week, the polite applause from the enviro gallery grated on my ears. (Here's a spirited recent debate on Gristmill.) Even the New York Times editorial page could see through this move. While some greens cooed at at Wal-Mart's magnamity, the Grey Lady unleashed an appropriately cynical analysis:

There is no chance that Wal-Mart will be buying from small, local organic farmers. Instead, its market influence will speed up the rate at which organic farming comes to resemble conventional farming in scale, mechanization, processing and transportation. For many people, this is the very antithesis of what organic should be.... For "Wal-Mart" and "organic" to make sense in the same sentence, the company will have to commit itself to protecting the Agriculture Department standard that gives "organic" meaning.

I have no doubt that Wal-Mart's greenie admirers will hold the company's feet to the fire on that one. But the USDA's organic standards are already being drained of meaning. Rather than chide Goliath to behave nicely, enviros should consider helping David get his shit together. Check out what they're getting up to over in Birmingham, Ala.

Melinda Kramer, advocate for grassroots women activists, answers questions

Melinda Kramer. Photo: Caitlin Sislin. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I am cofounder and codirector of Women’s Global Green Action Network, an international organization that unites and empowers grassroots women advocates, entrepreneurs, and community leaders around the world who are working in the areas of environmental, economic, and social justice. How does your […]

He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tuna

California loses suit to make tuna companies issue mercury warnings California law requires products containing chemicals that could cause reproductive harm or cancer to have warning labels, but a state Superior Court judge has ruled that the law does not apply to mercury-licious canned tuna. Mercury has been shown to slow neurological development, thus the […]

Army Corps of Darkness

Army Corps of Engineers has screwed up more than NOLA levees The Army Corps of Engineers spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on ill-designed, ineffective, and environmentally disastrous projects — and that’s not the enviros talking. Harsh critiques of the Corps — whose work includes draining wetlands and mucking about with rivers — have […]

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.