Latest Articles

What can you do about peak oil?

Not much, really. Nonetheless, if these kinds of things make you feel better, here's a list from Oil Drum.

Nuclear and water

Jeff, who seems to be connected to the internet intravenously, keeps us abreast of two ongoing debates.

First, in the more-heat-than-light category: nuclear! Jeff points to an interesting IPS article making the case that the total costs of nuclear power have been far underestimated. A good read.

Second: water! Jeff points to this piece on Alternet by Juliette Beck, about water privatization. As you might expect from the venue and author (she works for Public Citizen), she's against it. Lots of juicy details, though.

Who is the new deputy director at EPA?

Anybody know who this Marcus Peacock guy is?

Update [2005-6-2 14:13:59 by Dave Roberts]: Hm, he appears to be an OMB guy involved in measuring the effectiveness of scientific programs, which probably means you'll be hearing the phrase "sound science" tossed around even more.

Also, this is not promising. Seems he was involved in the arsenic-in-drinking-water shenanigans back in 2001.

It has now come to our attention that in December of 2000 and January and February of 2001, various industries, persons, and organizations submitted information and documents to EPA transition team members setting forth their views on executive orders, rulemakings, including final rules, and lawsuits that should be reviewed by the new Administration.

...

We are also aware that two members of the core transition team for the EPA, Mr. John Howard and Mr. Marcus Peacock, now occupy senior positions at the White House and the Office of Management and Budget respectively. A third key transition team member, Mr. James Connaughton, represents in his private law practice one of the mining companies, ASARCO, Inc. that was advocating no change in the 1942 standard of 50 ppb for arsenic in drinking water.

Update [2005-6-2 14:21:17 by Dave Roberts]: Ah, looks like he was also involved in drafting the infamous study that justified Bush's backpedaling on his promise to limit CO2 emissions. From the NYT:

None of the authors was a scientist. The team consisted of Cesar Conda, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and now a political consultant; Andrew Lundquist, the White House energy policy director, who is now an energy lobbyist; Kyle E. McSlarrow, the chairman of Dan Quayle's 2000 presidential campaign and now deputy secretary of energy; Robert C. McNally Jr., an energy and economic analyst who is now an investment banker; Karen Knutson, a deputy on energy policy and a former Republican Senate aide; and Marcus Peacock, an analyst on science and energy issues from the Office of Management and Budget. They concluded that Mr. Bush could continue to say he believed that global warming was occurring but make a case that "any specific policy proposals or approaches aimed at addressing global warming must await further scientific inquiry."

Get a job

If there's one question we get a lot -- and I mean a lot -- it's how to get a job in a green field. Head over to Dave Pollard's joint for an informative rundown on just that subject.

(See also our Q&A with Kevin Doyle, national program director at The Environmental Careers Organization.)

Are there problems with the Prius?

Tucked into the business sections of newspapers today is this story: The feds are investigating claims that Toyoto Prius engines may unexpectedly stall out at highway speeds.

The development may be but a hiccup interruption for Toyota, as the automaker continues to press its green advantage on American consumers while American automakers stand pat (or worse) on fuel efficiency. After all, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received only 33 complaints about stalled engines -- a small number given the something like 75,000 Priuses on the road for the model years 2004 and 2005.

On the other hand, if there is any credence to the claims, one can envision the concerns spiralling into a whirl of negative publicity for Toyota -- something that opponents of California's clean-car standards (e.g., GM) would certainly take quick advantage of. Here's hoping that there's no opening for a "Hybrid Veterans for Truth" campaign to get off the ground.

Schwarzenegger’s new climate initiative isn’t all that.

To read today's headlines you'd think Schwarzenegger just saved the world from global warming catastrophe a la the "The Day After Tomorrow." But why?

In a speech to the United Nations World Environment Day gathering in San Francisco, the gubernator proclaimed that the scientific debate on climate change is over and that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose it's encouraging that another prominent Republican has made such a declaration, in contrast to the willful ignorance of the White House. But isn't this stuff common knowledge by now?

Schwarzenegger also unveiled a (non-binding) pledge to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, he aims to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Okay, that last bit is impressive. But 2050 is so far over the hazy edge of the political horizon that it doesn't seem particularly courageous to make radical pledges for 45 years from now, when the near-term goals are actually fairly insubstantial.

Plenty of other places in the US have made far more aggressive commitments to battling climate change.

Are corporations hog-tying conservation groups in CAFTA fight?

Macaws and effect in Central America. A year ago, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, the controversial plan has inspired protests across the U.S. and in Central America. And while past trade agreements have been ratified by Congress in less than two months, the Bush administration has delayed the vote […]

Is using trees for biomass a good idea?

I point this out not because I'm in favor of it, but because I think it's a trend worth watching: the Klamath Falls, Ore., newspaper, The Herald and News is reporting on a project to use biomass--namely, thinned trees--to generate electricity.

Here's what the article has to say about the greenhouse gas effects of the project:

A major wildfire would release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. But the controlled use of that same wood for lumber or electrical production would be positive in terms of "greenhouse gas" emissions. Future fires would not release the same amount of carbon dioxide, the wood that goes into building products stores carbon, and the biomass that goes into power production offsets the need to produce that energy from fossil fuels.

To be clear, I remain skeptical -- but since I don't really know anything about the specifics I'll keep my mouth shut, and let wiser or more informed people speak.

But over the long term -- and if future prices for natural gas are as high as they're expected to be (link goes to natural gas futures contract prices) -- I can't help but think that the pressure for this sort of project will intensify. And that seems to be a cause for concern. Deforestation rates over the past 30 years have been high enough just to deal with demand for timber and wood pulp; adding electricity to the mix is, well, troubling.

Hosted on the wind

Starting a green business with a website? Check out wind-powered web hosting. Neat.

Maybe She’s Born With It, Maybe It’s Labeling

USDA won’t certify personal-care products as organic Makers of “natural” cosmetics, lotions, and potions, and the consumers who love them, are vexed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent decision not to certify personal-care products as organic. The little green USDA organic seal, which now adorns many food products in the U.S., will not be […]