Latest Articles

All decked out

An article in last Sunday's Seattle Times gives us some bleak news. The Amazon is being illegally cleared at unprecedented rates. Why? There is a demand for the wood. Where?

Brazil's main markets are the United States, which accounts for one-third of all timber shipments abroad, followed by China, at 14 percent and growing rapidly, and European countries, which collectively account for 40 percent.

Petrol sounds

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart on the recent Senate hearings featuring oil executives: funny. (Watch the video here.)

Among other things, he refers to Exxon CEO Lee Raymond as "Gassington Jowls," which I should have thought of.

Indigenous cultural ways are already dying out; let’s help them transition in an ecologically sound

Though native[s]... like me are gradually being outnumbered by newcomers, we remain tied to the land in a way outsiders will never understand... Without it, we lose our cultural identity and, ultimately, ourselves. This is not a new fight; it has raged in these mountains for generations as our land has been exploited again and again.

This is not a quote from Chief Sealth. It is from a letter in Newsweek lamenting the development of rural Appalachia.

I empathize with the author's plight, but not his myopic perspective. His great, great, great grandpappy took that land from Native Americans (who undoubtedly took it from someone else). We are all the same, we human beings. Our history is one long power struggle. I can't see how the future will look any different. He is on the losing end of the power struggle this time.

Don’t steal this book

This Slate book review (found via Brad Plumer) covering the history of sprawl is so infuriatingly silly, it's hard to know where to begin.

In a nutshell: Slate architecture critic Witold Rybczynski reviews a book by University of Illinois at Chicago professor Robert Bruegmann that argues -- quite correctly -- that suburbs have been part of urban life for millenia. In ancient Rome, wealthy patricians escaped to exurban villas. Just so, the walled cities of medieval Europe were surrounded by noxious industries such as slaughterhouses, as well as many of the people who worked there. Since cities have always had low-density outskirts, Bruegmann argues, it's simply inaccurate to characterize "suburban sprawl" as entirely an invention of 20th century American car culture.

All that's fair enough -- the suburbs have always been with us, in one form or another. And for good reasons: Some folks prefer not to live in the city, and some cities prefer to locate public nuisances outside of town.

But from this, the article (I'm not sure whether it's Rybczynski or Bruegmann who's responsible) draws conclusions about sprawl that are hard to fathom -- and even harder to square with reality.

Taxation without privation

This is days old now -- an eternity in blog years -- but the blogosphere was all a-twitter earlier in the week about this paper by economist Jayanta Sen, arguing that a stiff tax on crude oil, far from bankrupting the US economy, would actually transfer more than $100 billion a year from foreign governments to U.S. consumers.

Yes, consumers would pay steeper prices for gasoline. But since all of the oil-tax revenue stays within the U.S., that money continues to stimulate the economy. Meanwhile, we'd import less oil -- and, as a consequence, we'd export less money to pay for it. I'll let Sen explain things:

[T]he wealth transfer savings for the United States ... should be in the range of $108 to $152 billion a year. The new tax revenues ... can be returned to the U.S. consumers as a lump sum, thus providing the economic stimulus. The reduction in crude oil consumption ranges from 7.13% to 10.30% while providing a stimulus (defined as additional purchasing power to consumers) to the economy of $95 billion to $133 billion a year.

The title of Sen's paper: "A Tax to Save the US $100 Billion a Year and Solve Global Warming?" Now, cutting back U.S. gasoline consumption by 10 percent won't solve global warming by any means. Still, it sounds like a nifty plan to me. Any takers?

Dweeb between the lines

With today's news of re-rising SUV sales comes a related tidbit: an old co-worker just alerted me to a site he's started called Dweebs Drive Humvees. Though the commentary is somewhat uneven, it has some fine moments -- and if it takes off like FUH2, the site that invites people to submit pictures of themselves flipping Hummers the bird, it could be a hooooooot. His goals are lofty: "I'm trying to spread the word until 'dweeb' and 'Hummer' become synonymous."

Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act

This is pretty cool:

U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar today joined Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Barack Obama (D-IL) in introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act. This bill would require all U.S. marketed vehicles to be manufactured as Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) within ten years. FFVs can use both regular gasoline and E-85 renewable fuel (motor fuel with 85 percent ethanol content). This capability would ensure access to an important alternative to foreign petroleum in the future as the nation's renewable fuels industry continues to expand rapidly.

...

The bill would require 10 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S. be FFVs within 18 months of passage. The requirement would increase by 10 percent for each subsequent model year resulting in all new vehicles being FFVs within ten years.

The Queensbridge Wind Power Project

Have you heard the one about the group of people who wanted to put windmills on the Queensbridge in New York? No?

Neither did I, until I watched this video over at Current TV. The clip includes computer models of the proposal and an interview with climate scientist Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig on the effects of global warming on the New York region.

Crazy or a good idea?

China announces Renewable Portfolio Standard

Everyone needs a China strategy. Even China.

With a burgeoning population rapidly growing in number and affluence, and a manufacturing sector serving the world as well as driving infrastructure development at home, China's sheer mass demands that it be accounted for in every field. Of special concern are energy and the environment: What will be the impacts of all the new energy resources required?

That's why China's new commitment to a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard is such good news. Fifteen percent by 2020 may not offset the new carbon emissions produced by its spectacular growth, but it's sure better than the U.S. federal RPS (0% by never). And the investment -- estimated to be U.S. $184 billion -- will help build the economies of scale key to bringing down costs in renewable industries.

Here's hoping China's investment means the same for renewables as it has for t-shirts, tchotchkes, and damn near everything: What was once expensive now made dirt cheap and plentiful.

CBS fills Sunday-night hackery gap left by FOX

While Fox moves toward sanity, the rest of the news biz moves toward Fox.

Exhibit A: On Sunday, while Fox is educating its viewers on global warming, CBS's 60 Minutes will be producing a breathless piece of hype on "Eco-Terror's Growing Threat."

Growing according to who? Why, the FBI, of course, and far be it from a group of journalists to do anything but pass on the FBI's latest talking points.

Eco-terrorists have never killed or even hurt anybody, so it's a bit tricky to try to make them look like the nation's biggest threat. Here's one way to do it: Dig up some fruitloop who says they ought to kill people.

A spokesman for extreme animal rights groups believes killing humans is justified. "I think people who torture innocent beings should be stopped," says Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a California trauma surgeon. "If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary."

Eco-terrorists: The Nation's Biggest Hypothetical Threat!

Ask yourself this: If you put white-supremacy groups up against "eco-terror" groups and compared property damage done, lives lost or hurt, and willingness of spokespeople to say batshit crazy things on TV, who do you think would come out ahead? Why do you think the FBI is focused so intensely on one and not the other?

Could it have something to do with whose interests are threatened?