Latest Articles

It’s Not Your Overall Coughing, It’s How Many Times You Cough Per Hour

Court hands coal-fired power plants huge victory on pollution regs The long-running legal battle launched by the Clinton administration against aging coal-fired power plants — the nation’s largest industrial source of smog-, asthma-, and global-warming-causing emissions — was dealt a decisive blow yesterday by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that […]

One Step Forward, Two Scoots Back

Updates from yesterday’s Senate energy-bill debate Highlights of yesterday’s energy-bill proceedings: The Senate voted to double the amount of ethanol to be added to the nation’s gasoline supply by 2012, from 4 billion to 8 billion gallons. Florida Sens. Mel Martinez (R) and Bill Nelson (D) successfully blocked attempts to end the congressional moratorium on […]

Between a Bush and a Warmed Place

G8 climate statement edited into submission to appease U.S. An action plan on climate change being prepared for July’s G8 summit has been substantially weakened in the lead-up to the meeting, the latest leaked draft anemic even by the not-terribly-strenuous standards of, uh, the last leaked draft. References to “setting ambitious targets and timetables” for […]

Cognitive dissonance

"Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream. And that tax is growing every year," Bush said. "My administration is doing all we can to help ease the problem."

Democrats say their proposal encouraging a 40 percent reduction in imports by 2025 - a figure they say represents more than 7.5 million barrels of oil a day - would send a strong signal about the nation's intent without instituting requirements about how to reach that goal. Republican leaders said the goal could not be attained without steep increases in automotive fuel efficiency.

"It's clearly nothing that anybody could achieve," said Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

News from the GM front.

From the genetically modified food front:

• The New York Times published an editorial yesterday, "Genes and a Hoe," detailing the use of GM corn in Kenya.
• Greenpeace has claimed that illegal GM rice has spread to southern China, via China Daily and The Guardian.

There is a laissez-faire part of me that feels that we should just allow this stuff to be produced, for two reasons.

If it's going to mean cheaper food, people who are having trouble just surviving are going to be able to do so more easily. To me this takes priority over a lot of things; like I've said before, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a person who's just surviving to care about the issues the developed world cares about. If you are concerned with these issues, you can individually choose to buy non-GM food, as many in Vermont, to name one example, have done.

Barriers to it will likely be jumped anyway, as in bullet #2 above.

On the other hand, there are some issues here (and one in particular) that may come close to trumping those arguments. The most significant is biodiversity, as GM crops tend to weaken the variety of species in the area they are produced. The reason that ecosystems (and cities) are so chaotic and complex and resilient and adaptable is that they contain so much diversity, which mass-produced GM foods reduce.

For me the jury's still out, although I'm leaning toward the pro-GM food camp.

Central planning didn’t work in economics; will it work in urban planning?

This morning I had the opportunity to hear presentations on some of the projects being pursued by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, which is part of the NSF's Long Term Ecological Research Network. It was a very interesting morning, with presentations from a wide (relatively speaking) variety of fields.

In the broadest sense, there were two major groups present, urban planners and ecologists. The hope is that much will come out of the intersection of the two fields, and I think that will be the case, since cities and civilization have a lot in common with living organisms and systems thereof.

To name just one of those commonalities, both cities and ecosystems are phenomenally complex. Some of the discussion this morning was about integrating the two systems -- thinking of a city and its surroundings as an ecological system. Urban planners, of course, would take on the planning of not one but two complex systems. There was even mention of planned ecosystems.

It's fun to think about this happening. But one of the thoughts that kept creeping into my mind was how hard it is to plan for the behavior of a non-linear system like an ecosystem or a city (or both together) and to get it to do what you want it to do or what you think it "should" do.

An explanation of the title of the post is below.

A roundup of the latest and greatest in nuke-bashing

I've flirted with the notion that nuclear power is an appropriate short-term bridge from our current dysfunctional energy portfolio to one that is clean and renewable. But the closer I look, the stinkier it gets.

There's this problem that Andy raised. There's also this argument from Patrick Doherty. And of course Gristmill readers have made great points in this thread, this thread, and elsewhere.

Now, some more fuel for the fire. Tim at The Future Is Green points out that world uranium production has already peaked:

Carl on Cooney

Carl Pope has one of the best and most comprehensive roundups I've read of L'affaire Cooney.

Carbon sequestration smells fishy.

In the midst of the recent climate pledging lovefest, it's easy to lose sight of the unhappy truth that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have already reached levels that effectively guarantee us at least several decades of global warming. While the Kyoto Protocol is worthwhile--to reduce global emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels--it is only a small first step toward putting brakes on climate change. To do that, scientists estimate that worldwide emissions must be reduced by at least 60 to 70 percent.   

Needless to say, achieving those levels of reductions will be a something of a challenge. We'll need to consume less, become more efficient, and develop alternative energy sources. We'll also need to figure out ways to capture greenhouse gas emissions--principally carbon--and prevent them from concentrating in the atmosphere and contributing to warming. The most talked-about way to do this is using carbon "sinks" such as forests and grasslands, which essentially soak up carbon by trapping it in living biological material.

Another possibility--one that is thick with possibility and contradiction--is sequestering carbon manually. The BBC reports on pioneering technology that the United Kingdom is exploring that will capture up to 85 percent of power-plant emissions and then trap them under the North Sea in geologic formations that were once occupied by petroleum or natural gas. Sounds good, right?

U.S. leaders, residents turn backs on impending coastal chaos

Don’t let Beantown become a has-been town. Buckle your seatbelts: it’s going to be a wet ‘n’ wild ride. That’s the prediction — or, rather, the certainty — that today’s global warming carries. Erratic and unpredictable weather is en route, and coastal areas are among the places destined to be hardest hit. So why are […]