Latest Articles

Unjust Breathe

Blacks more likely than whites to be breathing polluted air Sadly, few will be shocked to hear that black Americans are more likely than whites to be breathing the nation’s most unhealthy air. An Associated Press analysis of year-2000 data from two federal sources — the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory and the Census Bureau’s population […]

Not Shafted Yet

Controversial mining-law revisions dropped from budget bill You might think we could take it for granted that millions of acres of national parks, forests, and other federal lands won’t be sold off to developers, but these days, it’s worthy of celebration: Late yesterday, struggling to pass a big budget bill before the holiday break, Republicans […]

Gas prices

It's an open question how much gasoline prices affect gasoline consumption. But apparently gas prices are pretty tightly correlated with something else. Click to find out what.

(Via Tapped)

Is buying up hunting rights a smart conservation move?

From the wilderness of British Columbia comes an innovative conservation tactic about which I am strongly ... ambivalent. Raincoast Conservation Foundation is acquiring the guide-outfitting hunting rights to five areas along the central BC coast, a remote area of vast wilderness home to the rare "spirit bear," among other species. The angle here is probably obvious: Raincoast bought the rights in order to put a stop to hunting.

Raincoast and other conservation groups have a strong interest -- one I share -- in protecting biodiversity and relatively pristine wild places. So what's my beef? It's a two-parter.

First, I'm not sure that hunting is bad for the species being hunted. Second, I'm not sure the price -- Can $1.35 million plus annual licensing fees -- is the best conservation use of the money.

This legislator brought to you by …

Ever wondered why there's so little effort at the federal level to pressure automakers to improve auto efficiency? Ever suspected that the auto industry might be calling the shots?

Well just to set your mind at ease, check out this story of a freshman House member whose "Dear Colleagues" letter to fellow legislators contains talking points from an auto-industry memo -- verbatim, in the same font.

One wonders whether we even need the middle men. Just get an industry rep up in there!

(via The Plank)

Umbra on ecological footprints, again

Dear Umbra, I have a couple of questions that relate to how I live and ask others to live. First, my guess is that many of your readers are above average in terms of income and education; who is the average American that we need ultimately to create a sustainable life for? Second, as we […]

Chemicals and cancer

There's a piece in the NYT about the connection -- or lack of connection -- between trace chemicals in the environment and cancer. The conclusion, broadly speaking, is that science doesn't yet know enough to make a firm link, but conventional wisdom has nonetheless settled on a rather unwarranted degree of paranoia.

One Brit doctor claims cancer rates -- if tobacco-related cancers are screened out -- have actually been falling for 50 years, and goes so far as to say firmly: "Pollution is not a major determinant of U.S. cancer rates."

A couple of folks have blogged about this. For my part, I'm a little leery to take it at face value, given the reporter's history. (See this old Nation piece on Gina Kolata's excessive deference to the big corporations she covers.)

Still, nothing is quite so screwed up and off-base as Americans' sense of the risks they face (car crashes, people. car crashes.), so anything that can take the edge off the latest overblown fear is a good thing in my book.

Gas fees: The good, the bad, and the curious

I'm not sure, exactly, whether this news is promising or disappointing: The San Jose Mercury News reported last week that environmental advisers to Governor Schwarzenegger are calling for a new fee on gasoline. Money raised by the measure would fund incentives for reducing climate-warming emissions.

The good news here is that they're considering fees on gasoline in the first place.

The bad news is that the proposed fees are tiny -- just 2.5 cents per gallon, which isn't enough to affect consumption more than a nominal amount.

The good news is that the fees will go to a good cause: There are a lot of inexpensive ways to reduce emissions, so the fees, as small as they are, could do a lot of good -- especially considering that California uses about 15 billion gallons of gasoline per year, so a 2.5 cent per gallon fee would raise $375 million annually.

The bad news is that opponents are already up in arms, blasting the idea as an unnecessary new tax on gas.

Bipartisan plan aims to revamp U.S. fisheries law

Congress is plotting its first revamp of fisheries law in nearly a decade — and it’s about time. Every boat counts. Photo: iStockphoto. Scores of fish stocks are dwindling in U.S. waters (as they are around the world), and only one of the eight federal fishing zones in the United States is widely considered to […]

Great minds, etc.

Yesterday I wrote about America's shame in Montreal. Today, the New York Times, which clearly knows a good idea when it sees one, is running an editorial called "America's Shame in Montreal."