Latest Articles

Hillary Clinton joins the pack in calling for greener energy policy

Hillary Clinton has joined a growing claque of both Democrats and Republicans swigging from the cup of clean-energy Kool-Aid as they gear up for the 2006 congressional elections. In the past two months, the New York senator has popped up at a major Arctic Refuge rally, a high-profile global-warming conference, and a clean-technology investor symposium […]

The WSJ documents GM contamination

The Wall Street Journal came out with a terrific page-one article documenting "genetic pollution" -- the damage caused when genetically modified crops cross-pollinate with conventional crops.

The article leads with an organic farmer in Spain whose sells his red field corn at a premium to nearby chicken farmers, who prize the product because it "it gives their meat and eggs a rosy color." (I'd be willing to bet that rosy color also translates to higher nutrition content.)

Now the farmer is screwed -- his seeds, carefully bred over time, have become contaminated by GM corn from nearby farms. The rich red color of his corn, like his premium, has vanished into the ether.

A

So, I am totally not a fan of Wife Swap -- the TV show that takes two very different households and has the two wives change places for two weeks. And I definitely did not see last night's episode where Susan Heiss, who lives in an upscale neighborhood in Rhode Island in a house with nine (9!) televisions and her husband Big "Bada bada bing!" Ed, switched lives with Sienna Kestral, an eco-conscious, dreadlocked freegan from Virginia.

Therefore I cannot report on how upset I was at the first half-hour of the show, wherein Susan Heiss ridicules the environmental lifestyle (no dishwasher or other modern appliances, baking soda and water for cleaning supplies, the "if-it's-yellow-let-it-mellow-if-it's-brown-flush-it-down" toilet mantra, etc.) of the Kestrals. When reading the first sentence of the Kestral family manual: "We are a community-minded, left-activist, eco-oriented ... radical family"; Susan responds, "I have no idea what those words mean." Oh, we have a looong way to go, middle America.

The two families couldn't have been more different at the outset, as demonstrated in their post-switch analysis:

Roman Catholic church in the UK teaches that Bible can be factually inaccurate

Here's an interesting development, from the U.K. Times Online:

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church [in England, Scotland, and Wales] has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

This includes the first 11 chapters of Genesis, wherein the earth and humankind are created in six days. It's a rebuttal to strict creationism.

Sometimes I have a sneaking suspicion that this is still news to some people: There are lots of different Christians, and they believe lots of different things. So in a sense, the publication of this teaching document doesn't really mean anything -- I'm pretty sure we're all going to keep on believing what we're believing. But it seems significant to me, and potentially to the environmental community, since, as the article points out, the Church has historically condemned those who don't take the Bible as the literal word of God.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting (as did Matthew Wheeland at Alternet, who beat me to the punch.)

Is Kucinich politicizing science?

Last week, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced to the Congressional record a Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 515), cosigned by around 150 House Democrats, "demanding that the White House submit to Congress all documents in their possession relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States." (Press release; PDF of the resolution.)

The idea, according to InsideEPA.com (as quoted by Roger Pielke Jr. -- I don't have the required subscription), is to put pressure on moderate Republicans, who are increasingly coming around on the climate-change issue.

Observers say the ROI will present House Science Committee Chairman SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY), Rep. VERNON EHLERS (R-MI) and Rep. WAYNE GILCHREST (R-MD) with a critical choice between siding with their party in deflecting attention from the president's climate policies and their environmental records, which have won them praise and endorsements from environmental groups. Their decisions on the matter may prove crucial during their 2006 primaries, where at least one is expected to face a tough fight against a more conservative GOP candidate.

What to make of this?

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Deforestation

Take a few easy steps to stem the flood of holiday catalogs Judging by the fake-snow-and-forced-cheer displays popping up in stores, it’s almost that time of year again: Time for overcrowded travel, bad TV specials, a deluge of dead trees, and heaps of precious gift catalogs through your mail slot. Greenies hope you’ll celebrate the […]

Pros and Econs

An educator argues against green hostility toward economics After reading the umpteenth screed against evil economists and their dastardly attempts to commodify the environment, professor Jason Scorse got fed up. In a two-part essay in Gristmill, he argues that market mechanisms offer some of the most hopeful routes to environmental protection, and that greens should […]

Shanghai Hopes

China plans even bigger expansion of its clean-energy capacity China yesterday announced plans to more than double its clean-energy capacity — from 7 percent of electricity production today to about 15 percent by 2020, up from a previous goal of 10 percent. While this could make the country a leading global player in the hydropower, […]

You Taint Seen Nothing Yet

Fans and foes of gene-modified crops square off over biotech pollution Folks who want their vittles straight up with no freaky-gene twist may find it increasingly tough to get the good stuff. Genetically modified (GM) crops are gaining popularity worldwide, leading to more accidental biotech pollution, wherein ordinary crops are tainted by their GM cousins. […]

Placing monetary value on eco-resources helps more than it hurts

This is the second part of a two-part essay by Jason Scorse, Assistant Professor of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Go here to read an introduction and part one.

-----

Does this mean private property rights solve everything? Of course not; however, the worst forms of environmental abuse generally occur in areas where property rights and markets are non-existent, or where the market is distorted by perverse subsidies that encourage over-exploitation. Even with enforceable property rights and a solid system of environmental accounting, markets are not perfect and are subject to unintended consequences.

Global warming presents a particularly difficult challenge. The atmosphere is the world's preeminent open access resource, and exclusion is impossible. Some of the solutions currently being discussed for long-term climate management are enforceable limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a system of tradable atmospheric pollution permits. While some environmentalists oppose pollution permits on the grounds that they establish a "right to pollute," all industrial activities require some level of greenhouse-gas pollution and tradable permits may provide both the cheapest and most equitable way of achieving targeted reductions (big greenhouse polluters like the U.S. would likely end up buying credits from less-polluting nations).

One concern many people express regarding private property is that resources that typically were free or available at little cost to almost everyone are now being "commodified." Common examples include water and botanical genetic resources. While we can all agree that everyone should have access to clean drinking water, the fact is that billions of people, for a variety of reasons, do not. Sometimes the water has been contaminated, the aquifers have been depleted, regions have suffered droughts, or the public agency in charge is corrupt. In addition, water purification and delivery are extremely expensive and entail complex systems of infrastructure and maintenance. Privatization of water systems in many instances can bring much needed capital into areas that lack infrastructure and actually improve people's access to clean water, including the poor. There are other instances where privatization has led to large rate increases and lower levels of access. The appropriate response is to ask why privatization has worked well in some areas and not in others, not to condemn it across the board. (Consider: food is also necessary for life, but no one is waging a battle against farmers who happen to be in the private business of bringing food to your table.)