Latest Articles

9/11 Forgotten Heroes

Just a reminder for you folks who have access to Link TV (DIRECTV channel 375 and DISH Network channel 9410) that 9/11 Forgotten Heroes, the first episode of the Sierra Club Chronicles, will be airing Thursday night (tomorrow!).

Here's a short summary:

The terrorist attack on 9/11 was one of our country's most horrific moments, and the damage continues. Told there were no health hazards in the aftermath, the truth shows there was and many first responders are now afflicted and ignored by our government.

For a full description and trailers, go here.

Update [2006-1-11 16:9:42 by Chris Schults]: If you don't get Link TV, you can download the entire episode from the Sierra Club's website. Go here and click on the "Full episode" link.

Umbra on amusing questions

Dear Umbra, When I was a kid we were allowed to lick our plates at the dinner table, except when guests were present. We were told that starving children in other countries would never leave a scrap on their plates, and my mother also took it as a compliment to her cooking. I still lick […]

Sicken-Me Elmo

California may restrict two chemicals used in plastic baby goods In its continuing quest to make the rest of the country look environmentally retrograde, the California legislature is considering a bill that would ban the use of two controversial chemicals in baby products. Specifically, it would prohibit phthalates, used to soften plastic items like chew […]

A Char, Char Better Thing That I Do

New study finds salvage logging bad for burned forests The timber industry and Bush administration officials contend that salvage logging post-wildfire is the quickest path to reforestation, but a new study refutes that claim. Published in Science, it found that logging of burned trees after the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon — the biggest wildfire […]

The Green Mileage

Mileage estimates likely to decline under EPA’s proposed new system The U.S. EPA has proposed new standards for calculating auto fuel-economy ratings, expected to reduce by 5 to 30 percent the mileage estimates in window stickers on new cars and trucks. Ouch. It’s the first ratings overhaul since 1985, intended to reflect changes in driving […]

So Fresh, So Clean

Whole Foods makes record-setting wind-power purchase Whole Foods Market, mega-purveyor of organic and free-range foodstuffs, plans to purchase a jaw-dropping 458 million kilowatt-hours of wind-energy credits. It will be the largest-ever such purchase in North America, enough to offset the entire company’s projected energy use through 2006. The move will keep about 700 million pounds […]

The shrinking-population scare is mostly hype

Demographers are projecting that population in some parts of the globe -- Russia, the Ukraine, Japan, much of Western Europe -- are set to decline over the next 50 years or so. Of course, talk of a shrinking population seems to send some people into a panic, which is why you occasionally see stories decrying the new "population crisis" -- not too many people, but too few.

The Economist has this to say about the doomsayers:

People love to worry -- maybe it's a symptom of ageing populations -- but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good -- as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. (Emphasis added.)

That seems just right to me. And the article makes some other worthwhile points too -- including that economic output per capita is a far better measure of the health of an economy than total output. Measured by total output, a place with a shrinking population might seem to be in economic decline, even if the average person is getting wealthier.

(Of course, even better than total output per capita would be a measure that looks at how the poor and middle class are faring. Still, policymakers should keep in mind that per-capita measures of economic health are more significant than total output.)

GM seed manufacturers create conditions that will force their acceptance

This post first appeared on Bitter Greens Journal.

Maverick Farms, where I work, lies on a dirt road halfway up a steep hollow in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Twenty years ago all the land around here was agricultural. Each family generally had a couple of milk cows, a pig or two, and a garden plot to feed themselves; for cash, they planted cabbage (to be sold to a nearby sauerkraut factory, long gone) and tobacco.

All of that has changed. The word "farm" has become a marketing tool to move real estate, and little else. The only other entity with "farm" attached to its name on our road is "Clark's Creek Farm" -- a suburban-style subdivision.

Our area is a magnet for SUV-driving second-home seekers and the real-estate flacks who serve them. Up the road from us, the dirt flies as machines rip into the mountainside to create new lots for fancy homes. Starting at about 7:00 a.m., the rooster's hoarse cry is drowned out by the steady roar of giant trucks careening up the mountain, carrying construction material and machinery.

Nearly everyone up there wants the road to be paved -- it would make construction so much easier, and you could comfortably drive your SUV faster than 20 mph to get up and down the mountain. We say: Hell, no. We're joined in our refusal by two neighbors, people with deep family roots in the area who don't want to see our holler turned into a suburb of Orlando or Charlotte. We refuse to sign the papers that would force the road's paving.

In the end, we will lose and the developers and second-homers will win. They will have forcibly created the logic that makes the road's paving "necessary." Carve enough mini-mansions into the mountainside, cram the road with enough construction trucks and "utility" vehicles, and of course it will have to be paved. It will become a safety issue. The road as it is will have to be condemned; a handsome strip of asphalt will rise up in its place. Progress! And goodbye to our chicken shed and springhouse.

I tell this bitter story to illustrate what's going on with genetically modified (GM) food in Europe. Bear with me.

Kia ads: ‘Save the greenbacks’

The problem with these Kia ads is not that they mock environmentalists -- the world needs more mockery, not less -- the problem is that they're not funny.

(via desmogblog)

Philosophical musings.

Since I am cut off from the news, I thought I'd discuss some philosophical issues.

Environmentalism is shot through with the same dualisms that have confused Western philosophy from the beginning, and the practical effect (philosophy does too have practical effects!) is to confuse environmental discourse and strategy.

It's probably too much to get into in a single blog post, but let's just think for a moment: What do we mean when we refer to "nature"?

Of course there's the colloquial meaning, i.e., trees and streams and stuff. But follow it up a little. What is nature? Or, phrasing it another way, what isn't nature? What separates nature from not-nature?

One common line of thinking contrasts the natural to the supernatural. Nature is the material world, and then there's the immaterial world inhabited by God, souls, angels, ghosts, and what have you.

A related and sometimes overlapping school of thought contrasts nature with humanity.

The contrast might be positive: Nature is violent, insensate, and irrational (red in tooth and claw), while human beings are unique in virtue of possessing rationality. This has been the default approach for most of Western history.

Or it might be negative: Nature as a kind of harmonious, balanced, holistic system ("Gaia"), while human beings are a cancer on the planet, either unaware or dismissive of any "natural" limits. This is a more recent way of thinking, bound up with the social upheavals of the 60s and 70s, frequently found among those who profess "deep ecology."

Now, if you believe in the supernatural -- i.e., God -- then there's no need to trouble your mind. Usually the picture is pretty clear: God "gave" nature to us, his most special creatures, to take care of (dominate or tend lovingly, depending on your predilections). Or, if you're of a certain persuasion, nature is basically disposable, since the Rapture's on the way.

The Enlightenment project has been to either bracket the supernatural or dismiss it entirely. For secularists, then, it's a little more complicated: How do we conceive of nature and humanity, environmentalism itself, without the supernatural?