Latest Articles

Mad in China

Chinese villagers riot to keep polluting pharmaceutical plant closed Thousands of Chinese protestors battled police for hours on Sunday night in an effort to stop a polluting plant from resuming operations. Villagers in Xinchang, China, 180 miles south of Shanghai, say corrupt local officials have refused to do anything about chemical wastes from the Jingxin […]

The latest on energy bill wrangling.

The real work of the Energy Conference gets underway today, and you can watch it live starting at 11 am EST (20 min. ago!). Behind the scenes, Senate and House staffs have been working to hammer out some compromises. That language will be the baseline that conferees work from today. The conference plans to cover the titles dealing with energy efficiency, coal, nuclear power, DOE management, vehicles and fuels, and hydrogen. These are the less controversial titles of the bills so fireworks may be kept to a minimum, although Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) promises to cause some explosions by offering an amendment to increase fuel economy standards by 1 mile per gallon per year. Since the bill currently does nothing to increase fuel economy, this would be an improvement. Unfortunately, the only question is how lopsided the vote will be that defeats it.

But for you lovers of summer, you aficionados of efficiency, the language expanding Daylight Saving Time to the first Sunday in March to the last Sunday in November continues to survive.

The pseudo tax

I've said before that if the government is going to tax or subsidize something, there had better be a really good reason.

However, the one tax that has the best reasons going for it is the gas tax. Five minutes in a room with James Howard Kunstler will convince most people of this, provided they don't walk out. I'm sure most readers of this blog don't need to be told in detail of the myriad benefits that come with less automobile use: more demand for walkable cities and suburbs, decreased carbon emissions, decreased dependence on foreign oil, less need for offshore and arctic drilling, and so on.

But the federal gas tax isn't really a tax at all. It's not a tax in the sense that a tax is usually thought of: a tactic employed by the government to influence behavior. The gas tax is not a "sin" tax, but a user fee. The majority of the federal, (18.4 cents/gallon) gas tax goes to pay for federal highways. More money to federal highways pays for smoother, less congested highways that in the end lead to more driving, offsetting the effects of the increased price of gasoline.

It's easy to say from the sidelines that there needs to be a "sin" style gas tax -- much harder for a politician whose job rides on the performance of the economy to muster the courage to actually enact one. Especially when public opinion polls come back looking like this, as Lisa tells us. I hope that people maybe looked at this as a choice between replacing a $1,600 computer or a $16,000 car; but for the record, I'm with Lisa on this one.

Will you scrutinize us?

Ever since I heard about Chevron's big "Will You Join Us?" shtick, I've been meaning to look into it more closely -- see if I can figure out whether it's a genuine attempt to open a dialogue on our post-oil future or ... a bushel of bullshit.

Joel Makower had the same idea. He says:

A rundown of the big issues facing the House-Senate energy bill conference committee

President Bush has challenged the congressional leadership to get energy legislation to his desk by the August recess. To do that, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) -- chair of both the House Energy and Commerce committee and the 109th Congress edition of the energy conference committee -- has set out an ambitious schedule, hoping to get a conference report to the House and Senate in time. Look out for politicos sporting slings as the arm-twisting starts this week. To help you keep track, here's the Cliff Notes version of the marquee (and not-so-marquee) issues confronting the conferees.

88 percent of Americans would rather give up email than car

Speaking of Americans never, ever, ever giving up their cars: 88 percent, if forced to ditch either their vehicle or their email/instant messaging, would forgo internet communications in favor of wheels, according to a recent survey. And 86 percent would rather abandon their cell phone than their car.

Yet more evidence of how out of touch I am with the masses of real red-blooded Americans. You can have my Honda, but keep your damn paws off the iBook.

Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife answers questions

Jamie Rappaport Clark. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I’m the executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. What does your organization do? We work to protect native plants and animals and their habitat. Our work takes us all across the U.S. — from the halls of Capitol Hill to the mountains and plains […]

‘Domestic’ seafood sent abroad for processing.

Globalization in action: Some locally-caught seafood is now being shipped to China for processing and then back to the Northwest for sale. This saves on labor costs -- labor is a fifth to a tenth as costly in China as it is here -- but massively increases the amount of energy consumed.

For the most part, I prefer to buy food that's grown or caught locally. But sending locally-caught seafood on an 8,000 mile journey in search of cheap labor definitely strains the definition of "local".

But as long as international markets remain open, transportation remains cheap, and disparities in international labor costs remain wide, we're likely to see more and more of this sort of thing. Which means, unfortunately, that green-minded consumers may have to remain vigilant not just about where their food is grown, but also where it's processed.

Rep. Barton got more than he bargained for when he started bullying climate scientists.

The big news today is the explosion of the Barton story into the major newspapers. The weekend brought several interesting developments

Most salaciously, and the reason the big papers perked up their ears: Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chair of the House Science Committee, sent a letter to Barton. It was not friendly. It begins this way ...

I am writing to express my strenuous objections to what I see as the misguided and illegitimate investigation you have launched concerning Dr. Michael Mann, his co-authors and sponsors.

... and continues in the same vein, ripping Barton a new one for trampling around outside his jurisdiction and attempting "to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute Congressional political review for scientific peer review."

"This," he adds in case the point was not clear, "would be pernicious."

It isn't pretty, but it is highly recommended reading. The squabbling among Republicans (over global warming! wtf?) was the main focus of coverage in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today.

But there are other letters. Boehlert's joins a similar letter (PDF) sent to Barton by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who said this:

Appeals court rules EPA doesn’t have to regulate CO2 emissions from cars

It’s a simple but powerful question: Does the U.S. EPA have the power — and the obligation — to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act? Strangely, it still remains partially unanswered, even though it was a central issue in a landmark court case decided on Friday. Spew away, appeals […]