Latest Articles

Nice Work

A look at green job prospects for 2006 Can’t face another year chained to the same old desk or stuck in the same old cube? Itching to start a new career in an environmental field? Fortunately for you, Kevin Doyle of the Environmental Careers Organization knows a thing or two about job searching. He assesses […]

The Royalty Wee

Taxpayers have been getting screwed on oil and gas royalties A three-month New York Times investigation has uncovered a complex tale of oil and gas royalties, price discrepancies, accounting chicanery, and lax enforcement. But at its heart, it’s the same old story: The Bush administration is essentially helping energy companies screw taxpayers. The American people […]

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.