Latest Articles

Satellite images reveal humankind’s impact on earth.

A new photo atlas released by the United Nations Environment Program illustrates, in no uncertain terms, humanity's impact on the planet. We're talking 300-some pages of salacious satellite images documenting rampant deforestation, retreating glaciers, and massive urban sprawl (a la the images of Las Vegas, Nev., at left, in 1973 and 2000 respectively) in before-and-after photo spreads that put even the most trashy of gossip rags to shame. Sadly, however, I fear more people will see the aforementioned mags than this atlas. Plus, everyone knows before-and-after pics are always doctored. Nice try, U.N.

Eric Britton, sustainable-development booster, answers questions

Eric Britton. What work do you do? I earn my living and pay the rent as an international adviser, consultant, and team builder for public- and private-sector organizations that have accepted that they need new thinking in the face of this uncomfortable concept that some call “sustainable development.” That takes about half my time. For […]

Why can’t we change our oil-sucking land-use preferences?

The other day I expressed disappointment at Kevin Drum's fifth peak oil post -- the one where he lays out his recommendations for oil policy. In my inimitably oblique and unfocused way, I was simply trying to say that I wish he'd been more imaginative.

If nothing else, peak oil is going to be a major inflection point in our collective history. It's a sharp turn in the road, and we can't see clearly around the bend. The stakes are huge, and call for a commensurate greatness of mind and expansiveness of thought.

What Drum did is basically gather the conventional wisdom in one place, without considering at all the myriad ways that the CW might be constricted and warped by the vested interests of society's current power brokers. Nor did he deign to consider things that might seem, in the current sociopolitical scene, impossible, or at least out on the fringe.

One example: U.S. suburbia, as Kunstler never tires of telling us, is built on cheap oil. It takes lots of oil to transport goods around the world to a Wal-Mart, and lots of oil for suburbanites to drive back and forth to it bazillions of times. The dominant land-use paradigm in this country is oil-sucking. If oil's running out, it's got to change, right?

Drum doesn't bother to mention the many innovative thinkers out there pondering how we can make cities greener and more attractive (the very subject of World Environment Day). He doesn't consider how we might refashion our remaining farm land and open spaces in more ecologically friendly fashion. He doesn't consider how we might encourage people to buy locally grown food and locally made goods.

Instead, we get this extraordinarily banal post on why people don't like mixed-use developments. (See also the Atrios post that preceded it and the Jim Henley post responding to it.)

It's late, so I'll just make two brief points:

Views on global warming from across the pond.

Despite some pretty outlandish views from some of the correspondents, among them the idea that global warming is a result of the sun getting hotter, the BBC program (programme?) Talking Point had a pretty good rundown yesterday of oft-discussed topics in the global warming dialogue. The host is Robin Lustig, and his guest was Professor Martin Parry of the IPCC. Among the topics discussed:

Will individual actions stop climate change?

Between the Urban Environment Accords signed by over 60 mayors at the World Environment Day conference, Arnold Schwarzenegger's pledge to reduce California's GHG emissions, 158 other mayors pledging to reduce their cities' emissions, and carbon-neutral driving, gift-giving, and rocking becoming popular (well, maybe not popular), could it be that sub-national groups of people or even individuals are going to take a leading role in combating soaring emissions?

The answer, of course, is still up in the (hot) air. Obviously if everyone in the world made all of their actions carbon neutral, we'd be all set. But is it reasonable to assume that everyone who has the means (or the disposable income) to afford a climate neutral lifestyle will do so? A shift in climate that's a long way off may never be enough to get anybody "fired up," and many people may be deterred by the fact that even if they eliminate all their own carbon emissions, it won't even put a dent in the several gigatons the world emits.

Hope below the fold ...

WED

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that today is World Environment Day. So, uh, Happy Environment, everyone!

A new think tank tries to link up justice, poverty, and green issues

There's been a lot of talk since ... well, forever, but especially since the paper that shall go unnamed, about greens forming strategic alliances with other progressive groups. One such proposed alliance is between big green groups and groups working to fight racism and poverty. Most of this, sad to say, is just talk, but Joel Makower brings word of Reclaim the Future, a new think tank from Van Jones' Ella Baker Center that's trying to make it happen.

Reclaim the Future's slogan is "Green Jobs, Not Jails," and as you might gather, the idea is "representing and empowering ecologically sound, urban entrepreneurs and the communities they provide opportunities for." Jones says the goal is to quickly find a kind of showcase project -- an urban green business that's profitably employing recently incarcerated or at-risk youth -- and leverage the hell out of it. "We want to create a demonstration project that gives us the opportunity to go out and build the political constituency that can multiply that by a thousand-fold," he says. To which I say: Godspeed.

I've often thought that all the talk about bridge-building between extant progressive groups isn't going to amount to much. Institutional cultures and habits are deeply ingrained. From Joel's post:

Clinton

I'm listening to an interview with Bill Clinton on public radio. He just claimed that his administration had the best environmental record since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration -- citing, in particular, the Roadless Rule. He also said that he wanted to raise CAFE standards, but "Congress wouldn't pass it," even when the Democrats were in the majority.

What do you think?

Update [2005-6-3 20:44:39 by Dave Roberts]: In answer to a question about managing China's transition to global powerhouse, Clinton said it's crucial to (among other things) create a new generation of high-tech, high-wage jobs. What jobs? "Clean energy."

Ira Flatow then responded that he had 8 years to advance smart energy policy, and he didn't (though less bluntly put). Clinton had three responses:

• Energy issues had low visibility back then, because other priorities were intruding and oil was cheap;
• the Republican congress enjoyed the oil and coal economy, and still does;
• and he did actually do some stuff, tax credits and such, not to mention Kyoto.

Update [2005-6-3 21:22:14 by Dave Roberts]: A caller just asked him about the hydrogen economy. His answer, paraphrased: Hydrogen is great, and eventually we'll end up there. But it's a ways out. It shouldn't take money from more short-term achievable things like hybrids, compressed natural gas, solar, wind, etc. In general, we should spend far more on the emerging clean-energy economy.

The problem is that the old energy economy -- oil and coal -- is highly centralized, with access to influence, and very well-financed. The new energy economy is decentralized, entrepreneurial, under-financed, and lacking clear markets. The feds should help it along.

Flatow then asked him about nuclear, mentioning that "a lot of green people" are saying it's the answer. His answer, paraphrased: We should "look seriously" at it, and it's clear "we can run safe nuclear power plants." However:

• Will we get enough benefits in the short run given the enormous capital requirements, or would it make more sense to use that money building up renewable energy?
• Should we build 40 new nuke plants before we know what to do with the waste (Yucca was chosen for political, not environmental reasons)?
• Is nuclear more more cost effective than "letting 1000 flowers bloom" with small-scale wind, solar, biomass, etc. projects?

My overall impression of Clinton is basically what it always was: He's a mesmerizing speaker. He talks about progressive issues in a way that seems almost calculated to piss off True Believers, but in the process sells progressive solutions to Middle America more effectively than anyone I've ever heard.

New Scientist article bleg

I too want to see the New Scientist article mentioned in this Sustainability Zone post, but I don't have a subscription either.

So I turn to my reader(s?): Do any of you have a subscription? And if so, could you send me a copy of the article? The abstract is here.

Kevin Drum concedes too much in his post on oil policy.

Part 5 of Kevin Drum's series on peak oil is out. In it, he turns from describing the phenomenon to considering what should be done about it. It's at once the most interesting and frustrating entry in what is, I should say, an excellent overall series. (If you know someone looking for an easily-digestible primer on the subject, you won't find better.)

Before I get into the weeds, let me say why I find this last entry frustrating.

As the era of cheap oil ends -- and it's already happening -- a great deal of power politics will be going on behind the scenes. There are lots of very large, entrenched financial and political interests involved in the oil game, to say the least. It is to their benefit that the transition to a post-oil world happen with as little disruption (for them, that is) as possible. If there's one iron law of socio-politics, it's that power's first imperative is to preserve power.

However, the path of least resistance for those powerful interests may not be the healthiest or safest path for the rest of us.

Greens rightly view the end of cheap oil not only as a threat but an opportunity (and no, the chinese character says no such thing). There will be some big changes. Ideally, some of those changes will meliorate things about how we live that are harmful, either materially or psychologically, and others will open up new ways of living and interacting.

Greens -- no, humanists -- should view it as their mission to advocate, early and consistently, for the kinds of changes that will do the most good for the most people, over the long term. Sometimes that will overlap with the changes advocated by the powers that be, sometimes it won't. But we should be the voice of the people; the post-oil transition is as much a populist, social-justice issue as it is environmental.

Getting back to Drum: