Latest Articles

Money for Nothin’

Bush’s 2007 budget includes Arctic Refuge drilling, cuts EPA funding Unsurprisingly, greens will find little to love in President Bush’s proposed $2.77 trillion budget for fiscal year 2007. It calls for oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, estimating $7 billion in revenue by 2008 from leasing drilling rights — nearly triple the $2.4 […]

Singin’ in the Rainforest

Deal will protect vast Great Bear Rainforest in Canada We love the smell of vast tracts of protected rainforest in the morning. Smells like … victory. Today in British Columbia, Canada, a coalition including the provincial government, Native groups, forest advocates, and timber companies is expected to announce an unprecedented agreement to protect the 15 […]

WSJ says cutting subsidies would make ethanol more viable. Oh really?

The Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday on "How Brazil Broke Its Oil Habit."

The article attempts to draw lessons for the U.S. from the Brazilian experience, where sugarcane-based ethanol supplies 18 percent of the transportation market. The author, David Luhnow, seeks to apply "lessons from the sugar fields of Brazil to U.S. cornfields."

The first problem I see here -- and more scientifically sophisticated Gristmillers like biodiversivist and greenstork are invited to weigh in here -- is that sugarcane seems a much more efficient way to create ethanol than corn. Ethanol is just alcohol, right? The process of making it means converting sucrose to alcohol. And sugarcane has a lot more sucrose, on a per-weight basis, than corn. Right? Thus it would require more energy input to create a given amount of ethanol from corn than it would from sugarcane. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly, Luhnow states that ethanol didn't really take off in Brazil until the government stopped subsidizing sugar farmers. This moves him to write:

Umbra on flooring options

Dear Umbra, If I have to replace my old carpet, what are the environmental pros and cons of the different choices? (Ceramic tile, carpet, or the laminate flooring sold at Home Depot seem to be the most common.) And can I recycle my old carpet? Claudia Bloom Mesa, Ariz. Dearest Claudia, I’m going to lay […]

The return of SOTU: Oil ‘addiction’

A post on Andrew Sullivan's blog last week got me thinking: Is "addiction" the right word?

Bush's SOTU statement that "America is addicted to oil" was treated as the Big News of the speech, as though he'd admitted to some deep dark secret. Even groups hostile to his administration lauded him for it; many of them have used the metaphor themselves.

But it strikes me as an extraordinarily poor way of describing the problem. It's imprecise in a way that serves Bush's interests in subtle but important ways.

Super Bowl hybrid commercial, warm and fuzzy edition

This one just makes me feel icky:

Super Bowl very not hybrid commercial

This, on the other hand, was vomitous:

Super Bowl hybrid commercials

The Ford commercial with Kermit got all the blogospheric press, but I think this hybrid ad from Lexus was much cooler:

Saudis heart China

By the way, elsewhere in the world -- and yes, in case you didn't notice, there is an elsewhere -- King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia set off on his first trip outside the Middle East, perfectly timed to the President's desire to ditch the whole region. (And given what's happened to him there, you can't blame the guy, can you?) The Saudi king, in search of reliable allies, boarded his plane and promptly headed for... China.

This, along with much else to amaze and amuse, in today's TomDispatch.

Should bicycling drunk be illegal?

Some important bicycle-related debate has been going on in South Dakota for the last few weeks. That's right, South Dakota.

Should cyclists and horseback riders be able to ride while intoxicated -- since it's usually a much safer alternative than drunken driving? The state Supreme Court just ruled that the current law says No: Bicycling can be considered "driving" because it qualifies as operating a vehicle. So cyclists still can be, and sometimes are, cited for DUIs in South Dakota.

While this comes as bad news for imbibing anti-car velorutionaries (who needs a DD when you have your trusty cruiser? I mean, really?), from a legal standpoint it could provide a solid basis for enforcing cyclists' rights on the road. After all, as any Critical Mass rider will tell you, cyclists don't block traffic, we are traffic.

Meanwhile, South Dakota's legislature, concerned about drunk driving but much less so about drunken cycling and horseback riding (and rightfully so, as I see it) have introduced a bill that would effectively make the court ruling moot and allow drunken cycling once again. The bill has already passed the state House, with a Senate vote expected soon.