Latest Articles

Carbon confusion

Joel Makower has a must-read post on the intricacies of so-called climate neutrality.

Say Company X manufactures a material; one day, it figures out how to manufacture the material more efficiently, or make it lighter, or some such.

The material is used by Company Y to make a product. With X's more-efficient, lighter material, Y is able to make its product lighter and more efficient, and thus reduce the product's CO2 emissions.

Who gets credit for the carbon reduction? A or B?

Now that CO2 emissions credits are a tradable commodity -- that is, worth money -- this is not an academic question. Figuring out just how credits are allocated is going to become a more and more pressing matter in coming years.

And, as Joel's post illustrates, it's going to be anything but a simple undertaking.

Honda diesel bunny game

So, remember when we told you about that surreal ad Honda UK made for their new, lower-emission diesel engines?

Well, now they have a game to go with it, and it is, if possible, even more surreal.

Vertical farming

A reader sent me a link to the very intriguing idea of vertical farming:

The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world's urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.

It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Over 60% of the human population now lives vertically in cities. The time has arrived for us to learn how to grow our food that way, too. If we do not, then in just another 50 years, 3 billion people will surely go hungry, and the world will be a very unpleasant place in which to live.

Totally speculative and a long, long way from practicable, but: Awesome.

Of course, I meant to blog about it yesterday, and man, the blogosphere never sleeps, so BoingBoing and Alex beat me to it. Alex, as is his wont, includes beaucoup related links to ideas on urban sustainability. Check 'em out.

Klare on Simmons

We've mentioned Matthew Simmons' book Twilight in the Desert a couple of times (see, e.g., here). His thesis is that, despite what they say, the Saudis do not actually have any spare oil reserves. Their production is near its peak and will soon start declining.

If true, this is pretty bad news, because oil supply and oil demand are already closely matched, and if anything disrupts supply, the world will turn to Saudi Arabia to make up the slack. If they can't ... well, things could get ugly.

Today in the invaluable Tom's Dispatch, Michael Klare -- author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency -- takes a close look at Simmons' book. Give it a read.

The perfect storm is here, but politicians aren’t acting

The perfect storm is here, but the Senate isn't doing anything about it.

That's my one sentence paraphrase of this morning's Washington Post editorial.

Calling the energy bill "nothing to be proud of," they cite the big three:

• the skyrocketing market for crude and gasoline;
• instability in the nations that produce it; and
• an ever-growing consensus that global warming must be dealt with.

My question is, if the Senate doesn't take action to shift away from oil with this kind of impetus, what will it take?

This shift can be accomplished in two ways, as the editorial notes:

[The energy bill] still doesn't shift this country as far in the direction of alternative fuels as it should go, and of course it does not dare raise taxes on petroleum use in any way.

Any senator who wants to keep her job is going to pick promoting alternative fuels over taxing gasoline or ending the "de facto subsidies" it receives. Unfortunately, this course will inevitably take longer to have impacts.

On the other end, the skyrocketing market for gasoline is a mixed bag -- while it will make people look for long-term solutions to end their own dependence on petroleum, it will make politicians even less willing to hike gas taxes.

It’s gonna be ugly.

On Monday, the Supreme Court meets for the last time before its summer break. Several high-profile cases will be decided, but the real nail-biting anticipation is reserved for the possible retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which would create the first vacancy on the court in 11 years. (Bill Kristol has speculated that it might be O'Connor, not Rehnquist, who retires next week, but popular conservative blog Redstate says nope, it's Rehnquist. These things are hard to predict.)

Thus far the White House has been mum about possible replacements, but names are a'floatin'. There's a great analysis of some possible candidates in this TNR piece.

Scuttlebutt in the progressive blogosphere has it that Bush will nominate the most outrageous far-right candidate possible, just to pick a fight and fire up his base. That is, after all, what he does. The conservative blogosphere relishes such a fight.

Everything I've seen inclines me to believe it's going to get ugly. Stay tuned.

Fox, hen house, etc.

Over at (the newly redesigned) dKos, Plutonium Page brings word of a questionable appointment to the U.S. EPA:

President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.

Selecting a lawyer and an engineer with one of the nation's largest corporate law firms, whose clients have deep and occasionally controversial relations with the EPA, triggered concerns that Nakayama would not be able to aggressively enforce environmental laws.

Not able to aggressively enforce environmental laws? Why, there must be some mistake!

Brush pickers chew up our forests to make your flower bouquets.

I own a piece of second-growth forestland that abuts the Tahuya forest in Washington State. It is my contribution to the wildlife conservation effort. I think of it as a small, privately owned nature preserve. By choosing land adjacent to an existing forest I have effectively increased the size of that forest. Not being part of an ecological hotspot, its preservation means far less than that of, say, the Monteverde cloud forest of Costa Rica. Nonetheless, my efforts to protect it over the years have taught me a few things.

Getting through peak oil without disruption seems unlikely.

As I said last week, I'm not sanguine about our prospects in the face of peak oil.

It would be nice if the decline of oil supplies was slow and steady, markets adapted smoothly with the introduction of alternative fuels, and we came in for the much-touted "smooth landing." But those who envision such a scenario drastically underestimate just how delicate a situation we're in. We're trying to get from one side of a chasm (an oil-based economy) to the other (a healthy economy wherein oil is marginal) on a tightrope. While patting our head and rubbing our stomach. And reciting the alphabet backwards. Drunk. On one foot. Etc.

To get a sense of what I mean, consider "Oil Shockwave," a recent wargaming exercise cosponsored by the National Commission on Energy Policy and Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE).

Eminent domain was strong enough for good urban planning already.

As promised, I have been thinking further about the Kelo decision, and I have fallen pretty decidedly into the dissent camp. My ambivalence before fell into a few main categories:

• The government can already take property if it deems it necessary and hey, economic development does help a lot of people out.
• There's a market distortion that takes place because of the fact that often it's "all or nothing" for the developer.
• If a city planner wants to make her city more "green," this decision could help -- a private company could essentially be given this task and the city would allow them free reign over a certain chunk of land.

I will refute these below the fold but I want to put this up here: The ruling doesn't prevent states or cities from passing laws against this sort of thing. Check out the Castle Coalition if you are not in agreement with the ruling and want to do something.