Latest Articles

BP gives carbon cutting tips

Oil companies have started to hint in their advertising that easy oil will not last forever. Still, I was a little surprised to find that BP's site has a cheeky little Flash-based household carbon emissions calculator (complete with animated Fisher-Price men), advertised online with a tagline of "Small carbon footprints can make a big difference."

Despite a recent crackdown, Washington State’s raw-milk policy might point way forward.

In a nation riddled with diet-related maladies like obesity and diabetes, the official fear that greets raw milk is impressive.

You can waltz into any convenience store and snap up foods pumped liberally with government-subsidized high-fructose corn sweetener, deep-fried in government-subsidized partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Yet in many states, teams of bureaucrats devote themselves to "protecting" us from raw milk -- and imposing onerous fines on farmers who dare sell it.

Some states ban raw milk outright; others have erected elaborate barriers between farmer and consumer. Here in North Carolina, for example, I have to pretend I'm buying animal fodder when I visit a nearby dairy farm to pick up a gallon or two of raw milk.

Even so, consumers are increasingly demanding it, banding together with farmers to form Prohibition-like cells from New York City to Portland. To me, it tastes better, more alive, than even the best pasteurized milk; and I tend to believe the health claims made for it.

According to this AP article, Washington State is stepping up enforcement of its raw-milk restrictions, which are actually relatively enlightened.

Lewis on nuclear

I highly recommend everyone read the Judith Lewis story (cited by Biodiversivist below): "Green to the Core?"

It's as fair and comprehensive a look at the resurgent nuclear question as anything I've read.

Oddly, despite the subtitle -- "How I tried to stop worrying and love nuclear power" -- one reaches the end of the piece not at all sure that Lewis has stopped worrying. In fact she seems more worried than ever.

I have but one (rather large) quibble with the piece. Here's how it reads: It's a long examination of the very real dangers and pitfalls of nuclear power; and then, looming on the other side, you have Stewart Brand saying, "global warming would be worse."

Almost all green pro-nuclear arguments amount to this environmental Sophie's choice. Either you accept nuclear power or you get global warming. Pick your poison.

But Lewis doesn't really examine the very first and most important question: Must we accept that choice?

Is it really true that only nuclear power can ramp up fast enough to roll back CO2 emissions? Is coal the only other realistic alternative?

Lewis breezes past the question with a single quote from James Lovelock:

"We cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time ... we do not have 50 years."

Why should we simply accept what Lovelock says?

It's fashionable to say something along these lines: To get the power we now get out of coal from wind you'd have to "carpet the Midwest with wind turbines" or some such. But this is a rhetorical gambit, not an argument.

The real question is: Could we achieve the same power shift, with the proper investment of resources, with a combination of conservation, wind, solar, and hydrokinetic power?

I'd like to think so. And I've yet to see a convincing argument that we couldn't. Shouldn't it be incumbent on advocates of nuclear power to make that argument convincingly before we hand over the keys to the shop?

Peak oil: Not an environmental silver bullet

Something's been bugging me about peak oil, and today we got a letter to the editor that crystallized it. I put it below the fold -- give it a read.

It's this: Environmentalists seem to have a somewhat naive faith that once the concept of peak oil sinks in, people will move -- as though by the force of tides -- to support renewable, decentralized energy.

But why should that be true? A much more natural, predictable reaction would be to push like mad for more drilling and for more coal gasification. Both more drilling and more coal-to-liquid-fuel production would fit better with our existing infrastructure and practices, however environmentally malign they may be.

The economics of peak oil will scare and motivate people, but there's no particular reason the environmental aspects of it will grip them. You know?

Anyway, read the letter.

Terry Kellogg, director of 1% for the Planet, answers questions

Terry Kellogg. What work do you do? I’m the executive director of 1% for the Planet. What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute “mission accomplished”? 1% is a rapidly growing network of companies (more than 200 with a few more every week) that commit to giving at least 1 percent […]

I Wish They All Could Be California Copycats

New York, Massachusetts to adopt tougher auto-emissions standards The New York State Environmental Board voted unanimously this month to adopt California’s toughest-in-the-nation rules for cutting automotive greenhouse-gassiness. The new rules, which will be phased in with 2009 model-year cars, aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions about 30 percent by 2016 — effectively improving auto fuel […]

Consciousness of Streams

Sprawl is dirtying streams and posing threat to U.S. drinking water Storm-water runoff threatens nearly every urban and suburban stream in the U.S., with serious implications for the country’s drinking water. Used to be rain fell largely onto meadows, forests, and fields, where it was absorbed by plants or filtered into the underground water table, […]

Against Montreal Odds

Pro-Kyoto Canadian gov’t likely to fall as Montreal climate meet begins Some 10,000 officials, activists, and scientists from more than 180 countries are gathering in Montreal today for a U.N. climate-change summit. It was supposed to be Canada’s moment to shine: Its influential and persuasive environment minister Stephane Dion, a strong Kyoto advocate, is chairing […]

Torch Songhua

China chemical-spill crisis eases, but water’s still not safe to drink As Americans gorged on turkey and pumpkin pie, a 50-mile-long toxic chemical spill was flowing along the Songhua River through northern China — the worst environmental disaster in the nation’s recent history. The crisis began on Nov. 13, when two explosions at a state-owned […]

Blogging from COP MOP

As I'm sure you all know, COP MOP started today up in Montreal.

Several young bloggers are writing about their experiences at the non-official portions of the summit -- the rallies, the marches, the street-hockey games -- over on It's Getting Hot in Here. Check it out.

(But people? The proper spelling is "herre.")