Latest Articles

Progress Report on energy and the environment

The Center for American Progress sends out a daily email, the Progress Report. Though obviously left-leaning, it's always fact-packed, and a great way to keep up on the day's news.

Progress Report is doing a series on the real state of the union, in advance of the President's speech.

Today's is on energy and the environment. Check it out -- lots of good stuff, familiar to Gristmill readers but nicely crammed into a few short paragraphs.

Enough is enough!

First melting polar ice caps. Then rising coastal waters. And then super storms. But enough is enough. Now, my Kentucky Bourbon is in jeopardy!

(Via TH)

Al at Sundance

As we all know, Al Gore is at the Sundance film festival as we speak, promoting his new movie.

"But Dave," you're wondering, "what's he wearing?"

I can help: Here are some photos -- set one, set two -- of Al at Sundance. Yeah, that's him ... two over from James Van Der Beek.

(via The Hotline)

Sunday’s West Wing was rather ham-handed with its nuclear critique

I just watched West Wing from this past Sunday. It was, to say the least, overtly anti-nuclear.

(Incidentally, WW is a strange case, TV-wise. It started out great under Sorkin, then declined precipitously once he left, hitting its nadir in last year's season, the sixth. But this season it's come roaring back, with a presidential campaign inserting new blood and pulling the action outside the White House. It's been absolutely top-notch television lately. Naturally, NBC, noting that quality was on the rise, cancelled it. Bastards. Now where was I?)

I have mixed feelings about nuclear myself -- mostly bad -- but I gotta say WW was pretty ham-handed with it. The Republican candidate, Vinnick, had a few lines to make the pro-nuclear case, but on the whole everyone on the show took it as accepted fact that nuclear is not safe to have in populated areas.

They were also pretty ham-handed with the critique of Bush's handling of Katrina. From the moment something goes wrong, President Bartlett is in total control, even micromanaging the personnel and technical details of trying to repair the nuke facility. He asks if enough buses are available to evacuate the area (cough) and prompted to appoint a czar to coordinate the government agencies, says, "You're looking at him" (cough). A little overboard.

Umbra on fireplaces

Dear Umbra, We pile on socks and sweaters, but there are just times you need more warmth. Should we use the fireplace or our central (gas-powered) heater? Also, can you let us know which is better, natural firewood or those chemically infused logs that claim lower particulate matter is released? Kas SutDavis, Calif. Dearest Kas, […]

It’s catching on in traditionally right-leaning exurbs

Bossman Chip forwarded me an interesting piece from the Michigan Land Use Institute: "Could Smart Growth Tip the Next Presidential Election?"

Having read through it, the headline seems rather, uh, optimistic. But there's some interesting stuff about the role smart-growth proposals played in the victory of Tim Kaine (D) in the Virginia governor's race, and the general lay of the political land in fast-growing exurbs:

What is terrorism exactly?

What is terrorism?

I've been skeptical about the talk of "eco-terrorism" because, to me, a crucial ingredient of anything worthy of the term is deliberate targeting of civilians for injury or death. Since the alleged "eco-terrorists" explicitly aim to avoid any harm to a human being, "terrorist" seems a misnomer.

But am I right about this? Is there a commonly accepted definition of "terrorism"?

I suspect the DOJ has one in mind, given Gonzalez's very specific language in his press conference: The perps "worked together with extensive planning to influence the conduct of government and private businesses through the use of coordinated force, violence, sabotage, intimidation, and coercion."

The Wikipedia page on the definition of terrorism is instructive:

EPA set to test toxics on humans.

This NRDC press release is vague but ominous:

More humans are about to become lab rats for the pesticide industry, according to a leaked copy of a rule due to be finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency later this week.

This even though the EPA recently released stricter regulations on testing toxics on humanfolk.

Said an NRDC attorney:

EPA is giving its official blessing for pesticide companies to use pregnant women, infants and children as lab rats in flagrant violation of a new federal law cracking down on this repugnant practice. There is simply no legal or moral justification for the agency to allow human testing of dangerous chemicals. None.

Word.

New studies say Cali will save money by cutting emissions — and they’re probably right

A couple of new studies have found that California can meet its ambitious 2010 goals for reducing climate-warming emissions at no net cost to consumers. And, even better, meeting the even more stringent 2020 goals could actually save consumers money:

"It's basically a very good news story," said Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, an environmental think tank based in Washington, D.C. "We found you could do this very cheaply."

Now, I haven't looked at the studies -- and I might not really be able to judge their quality even if I had. By their nature, studies like this tend to be speculative: They show what could happen, but not necessarily what will.

Still, this seems extremely plausible to me -- far, far more plausible, for example, than the notion that eliminating wasteful energy consumption will wreck the economy.

State-level energy policy

The Bush administration's intransigence on climate change and energy use has been widely lamented. But part of me thinks it may turn out to be a good thing in the long run.

Why? Because it's driving states to innovate energy policy.

"In a way, the left is controlling that agenda," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at Rice University in Houston. "They're just implementing it at the community and state level."

Saying "the left" is slightly misleading, since although most states passing their own energy policies are blue, many have Republican governors -- indeed, many of the policies are being driven by Republican governors, including Schwarzenegger in California and Pataki in New York.

In fact, I'd guess that citizens of almost any state would welcome these sorts of policies; they are not, strictly speaking, "partisan." Energy policy becomes partisan at the national level through the influence of industry lobbies.

But as the states go, so eventually goes the federal government. It just takes time.