Latest Articles

A little Europhilia

I keep meaning to link to Jay Walljasper's E Magazine piece on hometown pride, European style. There's not a lot new there for people who follow urban planning and such, but it's both a nice travelogue and a heartfelt argument for making cities more livable. Through a series of examples, he illustrates one basic point: The fact that European cities are more livable, walkable, and generally enjoyable than big American cities is not some fluke of history or geography. It's the result of conscious community planning, and it could be done here.

My honeymoon took me through London, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Paris. I wish every U.S. citizen could take that same trip -- it's hard to imagine just what a livable city looks and feels like until you've been in one. Riding a bike around Amsterdam, in particular, is something everyone should do before they die. It's amazing to see a whole system of transit where cars are marginalized, just one relatively small and dismissively treated segment. Men in suits, fashionably attired women in heels, parents with babies -- everybody rides a bike. It's just phenomenal.

How about where you live? What's being done to make it more livable? What do you wish was being done?

I’ve got my eye on Yue

As longtime readers know, we here at Grist are fascinated/horrified/baffled/whatevered by the environmental implications of China's explosive economic growth. On that score, two reading recommendations.

First, Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute writes that China simply can't develop the same way the U.S. did. Not a moral can't, but a brute physical can't -- there just aren't enough resources. On oil, coal, steel, and paper, the story is the same: If China consumed at U.S. per capita levels, it would consume more than the world currently produces. That takes a while to sink in, but it's pretty incredible to contemplate. If, when China's median wage reaches U.S. levels (projected to happen between 2030-2040), China's per capita consumption of oil also reaches U.S. levels, China alone will be consuming more oil than the entire world produces today. With oil, that's probably just not possible -- oil production has either already peaked or will soon. With something like paper, it might be physically possible, but it would be ugly indeed. No more forests. Same with meat, or cars, or whatever. It's just brute math.

And this is just putting it in terms of raw resources. If China actually travels down that road, they'll hit an environmental wall before the resources themselves run out.

The good news is, apparently some folks in China realize this. Or at least one folk. Read this Spiegel interview with Pan Yue, Deputy Director of China's State Environmental Protection Agency. It is, as Jamais notes, remarkably candid for an official of any country, but particularly China. Yue makes no bones about the fact that something has got to change in China's development, and he's not afraid to go to bat against powerful people in business and government to make it happen. He's also startlingly frank about the fact that political reform is necessary to prevent eco-catastrophe. Seriously, it's pretty short, so just go read it. But here's one tasty excerpt:

This [economic] miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace. Acid rain is falling on one third of the Chinese territory, half of the water in our seven largest rivers is completely useless, while one fourth of our citizens does not have access to clean drinking water. One third of the urban population is breathing polluted air, and less than 20 percent of the trash in cities is treated and processed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Finally, five of the ten most polluted cities worldwide are in China.

As Jamais also says, it's worth tracking Yue's political fortunes. If he is successful in government, it's a good sign. If not, well ...

Finally, please see this disclaimer.

Disclaimer for all future China posts

When we write about China's massive growth and the apocalyptic environmental consequences thereof, we are:

1. not saying that China should refrain from developing, or that the Chinese should stay poor;
2. not excusing the extravagant per capita level of consumption and waste in the U.S.

Instead, we are advocating that China move quickly and decisively to develop sustainable technologies, industries, and sources of power, and that the U.S. green movement support China in that quest however it can.

Thanks for listening.

Joevangelism

Evangelical leaders rally to fight global warming Following its adoption of an environmental platform in October, the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 denominations, has scheduled two meetings in the Washington, D.C., area to focus on global warming. To be attended by influential religious leaders, scientists, politicians, and members of international aid […]

The Idiotarod

Republicans are after the Arctic Refuge again Undeterred by consistent public opposition and bipartisan objections, a number of Republicans are once again attempting to get oil drillers into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) slipped ANWR into a budget resolution yesterday, which unlike standard legislation cannot be defeated by […]

Better Off Deadlocked

Senate committee deadlock means Clear Skies unlikely to pass this year After a deadlocked 9-9 vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Bush administration’s long-sought Clear Skies legislation appears unlikely to pass — at least this year. The fourth time was not the charm for committee chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who had […]

Umbra on spending wisely to help the environment

Dear Umbra, I read your column on how best to spend six hours of time a week on environmental issues, but how about the best way to spend limited financial resources on environmental issues? Obviously, giving a gift to Grist would help, but what can I do with my limited pocketbook to make the most […]

The coast is unclear

Last week, an AP story reported that half the people in the U.S. live along the coast, even though that's just 17 percent of the country's land area. So what, you say? So, in light of concerns about increasingly severe coastal weather due to you-know-what (starts with a G, rhymes with noble forming), all that crowding makes evacuations a lot more complicated. One solution suggested by weather gods NOAA: vertical evacuations. That's right, shove everyone into a highrise and tell 'em to climb. (Hey, look how MSNBC calls the agency "Noah"! That's so cute.)

This week, as officials continued to gear up for the unknown, NOAA commended Lincoln City, Ore., for being the nation's first "TsunamiReady" community and listed 15 others in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington that have also qualified -- by establishing emergency operations centers, figuring out how to warn people, and mapping out hazard plans.

Far be it from me to panic. But the Farm Belt is looking mighty appealing. (I know, I know, tornados. That'll be my next post.)

EPA plan would spew under-treated sewage into U.S. waterways

Like clean water? Then you’ll love Rep. Bart Stupak. Swimming in sewage just isn’t this fun. For the last year, Stupak has been fighting a U.S. EPA proposal that would allow inadequately treated sewage to be “blended” with fully treated waste during rain and snow events. The messy mix would then be released into the […]

Conservatives and Clear Skies

Conservatives say that environmentalists only oppose Clear Skies because they hate Bush. My impression is that they only support Clear Skies because they hate environmentalists.

But of course I would think that.

If you want to hear what conservative bloggers have to say about Clear Skies -- much of which draws on a recent Washington Monthly article -- you can start here and then try here, here (good discussion in comments), and here. Feel free to leave additional links in comments, if you have them.

The fact is that Clear Skies is classic Bush. There's plenty of perfectly sensible stuff in it that is long overdue. It's also poisoned with several measures -- among them the loathsome mercury cap-and-trade program -- that no environmentalist or Democrat with a conscience could support. It's designed, like all Bush's initiatives, to gain just enough support to pass, while being as divisive as possible in the process. Rove doesn't want big majorities. He doesn't want bipartisan consensus. He wants open partisan warfare and narrow victories.