Latest Articles

USA Today says the globe is warming!

Mark today in your calendars because USA Today's headline just made it official: "The debate's over: Globe is warming." My first reaction was astonishment. I kept scanning their website for other up-to-the-minute revelations. What's next? Are the Beatles really about to break-up? Is the Berlin Wall really going to come down?

But my second reaction was more optimistic -- and less sarcastic. I shouldn't scoff at USA Today's belated recognition as much as I should marvel that a tipping point is happening right before our eyes. The real news here is not that the debate is over -- it's been over, of course, for quite some time -- but that USA Today and other media like it have finally awarded a TKO to climate scientists and greens.

As it turns out, USA Today's conviction is because big corporations, utilities, Republican governors, and even religious groups are now demanding action on climate change. There really is increasingly broad-based recognition of the problem. Still, it's more than a little annoying that media evaluate critical issues based not on the overwhelming scientific evidence, but rather on the proclamations of Arnold and a few CEOs.

But on the other hand, if even USA Today says there's a consensus on climate change, then we're just about to arrive in a brave new world where we can actually begin to do something about it on a large and systemic level. Hold on to your hats: next week we'll find out that burning gasoline warms the atmosphere through something called the "greenhouse effect" ...

Heck, I’d cycle nude even if it wasn’t for a good cause

Speaking of naked protests: This weekend, hundreds of cyclists across the world rode in what is by far my favorite protest -- the World Naked Bike Ride. Riding against oil dependence, for cyclists' rights, or just to feel the breeze on all their parts while surrounded by a bunch of naked friends and/or strangers, protestors bared all in some 50 cities in 17 countries, including London, Chicago, Seattle, and Madrid. And what could be better? Naked cycling protests combine the energy and exhilaration of three already pretty exhilarating activities: public nudity, protesting in the streets, and cycling.

Seriously, if you've never ridden in one, pencil it in on your calendar for the same time next year -- they're a blast! Not surprisingly, I guess, shedding your clothes -- or at least, most of them -- really does seem to make a difference; people in cars are almost never as nice to cyclists as they are when they're in the middle of a rolling naked party. (There's a lesson in there somewhere.) The WNBR is like a titillating, slightly more focused Critical Mass, with once-a-year energy. So go on, cycle naked for a good cause when you have the chance.

And in case you're wondering, it looks much more painful than it is.

Umbra on finding the right green job

Dear Umbra, I am in the midst of getting my master’s in environmental science and policy. I am so sick of reading and researching — I just want to get out and do something. My thesis is on composting (of industrial and municipal wastes), but my true love is water. While I have a pretty […]

Matt Petersen, CEO of Global Green USA, answers questions

Matt Petersen. What’s your job title? President and CEO of Global Green USA, the U.S. affiliate of Green Cross International. What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute “mission accomplished”? When founding Green Cross International, Mikhail Gorbachev presented a challenge: We must foster a value shift that reconnects humankind to the […]

And Squad Said, Let There Be Blight

Judge orders dam spills in Northwest; critics may call on higher power Just two weeks after ruling that the Bush administration plan to protect Northwest salmon was inadequate, on Friday U.S. District Judge James Redden issued an order for large-scale spilling of water at a number of dams that are hindering the ability of juvenile […]

Who’s Minding the Shore?

Senate measures threaten to open U.S. coasts to drilling The battle to open up U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas drilling is escalating, with supporters in Congress pushing a number of pro-drilling bills and amendments. An energy-bill provision up for debate this week would mandate the first complete oil and gas inventory of all […]

If the Suit Fits, Wear It

BT and other multinationals call for action on climate change More and more prominent suits are issuing calls to action on global warming. The latest is Ben Verwaayen, chief exec of U.K. telecom company BT, who this week became the first Brit corporate bigwig to say publicly that climate change is hurting his business — […]

Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn’t be joined at the hip.

A couple of quick prefatory remarks -- several readers interpreted my earlier posting as an attack on liberalism. That was not my intent at all: While I am not a liberal, as the saying goes, "Some/most of my best friends are liberals." The only goal of the previous posting, and the one that follows, is to suggest the harm that comes from automatically coupling liberalism with environmentalism.

In my previous post, I discussed our movement's international problems. But back in America, we're not doing much better. When the American environmental movement began, Lake Erie was on fire, the bald eagle was on the verge of extinction, and L.A. was choking on its own smog. When environmental regulations seemed to reduce these problems, the public was all for them. But as regulations multiplied, environmentalism became associated in many minds with costly regulatory expenditures, failed Superfund clean-ups, and lots of bureaucratic red tape. Big government enviroliberalism took over a grassroots movement.

Why should liberalism be the Siamese twin of environmentalism? If I am pro-life, against affirmative action, or for private accounts in Social Security, does that mean I don't care about protecting forest ecosystems or saving blue whales?

Cities vs. those suburbs

Last week certainly was a "week to rejoice" if you love cities, although I think John Tierny missed the boat on exactly why. With the Accords signed, the sustainable (and not so sustainable) ranked, and the cul-de-sac revived and debunked, it was enough to give any aspiring urban planner a headache.

The statistics getting tossed around are staggering too. Just the first clause of the Urban Environmental Accords contains two rather impressive facts:

• The majority of the planet's population now (well, almost now) lives in cities;
• continued urbanization will result in one million people moving to cities each week.

And that got me thinkin': Whaddaya mean, "city?"

In search of the answer to this eloquent question, I headed to the webpages of the UN, since it is their Environment Program after all. Turns out that:

Because of national differences in the characteristics that distinguish urban from rural areas, the distinction between the urban and the rural population is not yet amenable to a single definition that would be applicable to all countries or, for the most part, even to the countries within a region.

Don't worry, our hero will not give up that easily; more below the fold.

Porous pavements potentially prevent problems

NPR's Living on Earth ran an interesting story this Saturday about porous pavements such as Ecocreto. In places where a good deal of the land surface area is made of impervious materials like regular concrete or pavement, rainwater can sometimes go unused, be discharged to the sea (think Los Angeles or Mexico City), and contribute to flash floods along the way. By absorbing the water and slowly releasing it, permeable concrete is designed to alleviate these issues.

Also available on their website is an interview [mp3] with Bruce K. Ferguson, director of the School of Enivironmental Design at the University of Georgia, on the same subject.