Latest Articles

Umbra on plastic water bottles, again

Dear Umbra, After slurping away from a Nalgene bottle all summer, you struck me with the fear of petrochemicals. So I did some quick research on my own. My conclusion is that your Aug. 2 column is misleading, even though I’m very sympathetic to your argument regarding plastics. Upon inspection, I learned that most of […]

2004 climate change and energy wrap-up

An interesting summary of climate change and energy news from 2004 over on EDIE. (See also their contaminated land news round-up.)

UPDATE: A similar round-up of clean energy news from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Happy Monday!

A Somalian mother has to choose which of her children to save. Meanwhile, Americans knowingly and deliberately poison their children.

How toxic is your breast milk?

A nice treatment of this topic in today's New York Times Magazine, from Florence Williams.

When we nurse our babies, we feed them not only the fats, sugars and proteins that fire their immune systems, metabolisms and cerebral synapses. We also feed them, albeit in minuscule amounts, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids, wood preservatives, toilet deodorizers, cosmetic additives, gasoline byproducts, rocket fuel, termite poisons, fungicides and flame retardants.

If, as Cicero said, your face tells the story of your mind, your breast milk tells the decades-old story of your diet, your neighborhood and, increasingly, your household decor. Your old shag-carpet padding? It's there. That cool blue paint in your pantry? There. The chemical cloud your landlord used to kill cockroaches? There. Ditto, the mercury in last week's sushi, the benzene from your gas station, the preservative parabens from your face cream, the chromium from your neighborhood smokestack.

Williams very effectively uses the personal angle of breastfeeding her daughter to approach the larger topic of toxic substances in our environment, brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) in particular. Yes, it's a highly approachable article on flame retardants -- imagine that.

The North knows best?

DDT is very effective at killing the mosquitoes that carry malaria.  Malaria kills 2 to 3 million people a year.  These people, the bulk of whom are children and the elderly, live in the global South, the tropics of the developing world.

DDT doesn't just hurt mosquitoes. The United States and most Northern countries have banned its usage because of its threat to animal and human health.  These bans are extended to the foreign assistance that flows North to South.

Is the ban the "best" thing for those facing the imminent threat of malaria in developing countries?

Re-Bay

eBay joins tech companies to launch electronics recycling program Wondering what to do with that old Commodore 64 or Macintosh II gathering dust in your basement? According to an eBay survey, you’re not alone — some 50 percent of American households have unwanted PCs in storage. That’s why the online auction giant has launched an […]

Rocky Road-Widening

Tragic accident pits Virginia town against strip mine The small town of Appalachia, Va., in the heart of coal country, seemed an unlikely spot for an outbreak of public opposition to strip mining. But that changed in the dark early-morning hours of Aug. 20, 2004, when a bulldozer widening a road to a strip mine […]

Father of the Bribe

Monsanto agrees to pay $1.5 million in penalties for Indonesian bribes When agrochemical giant Monsanto’s bid to introduce genetically modified cotton to Indonesia was met with widespread protests from farmers and activists, it bribed a government official in order to avoid having an environmental impact study conducted on its GM crop. Yesterday Monsanto agreed to […]

Sage Fright

Western sage grouse will not be protected under ESA The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that the sage grouse, a large game bird with the unlucky habit of residing on top of large natural-gas deposits, will not be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Never mind that the species’ numbers have […]

More shadowboxing

Oh lordy, here's another one. Writing in the Seattle Times today, Collin Levey lobs the by-now-familiar accusation that enviros are pinning the tsunamis on climate change.

Similar talk has been heard from other eco groups, though they always clarify that they don't mean the earthquake in the Indian Ocean was caused by global warming, er, exactly.

Note that all the rhetorical work here is done by the "er, exactly," which is packed with insinuation that Levey does not unpack, because she can't, because of course "eco groups" really don't mean that the earthquake was cause by global warming.

After the usual round of accusation by way of dark innuendo, Levey gets to her point: Environmentalists, she says, oppose economic development, especially for poor nations. Their message:

Poor countries are unwise to aspire to join the industrialized world, and their "natural" disasters are a comeuppance for buying into the desirability of economic progress.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit. While there are greenies who oppose development as such, they are on the fringe. (There are fewer of them than there are of, say, right wingers planning to visit the Museum of Creation.)

It is retrograde types like Levey who see environmental protection and development as opposing forces. Mainstream environmentalism -- and even moreso cutting edge green thinking -- supports ecologically responsible development. They support leapfrogging, whereby developing countries use emerging technologies to bypass the grinding, earth-screwing, wealth-concentrating stages of industrialization whereby the developed world reached its current state of prosperity.

Thinking greens recognize that economic development is crucial to protecting the earth, but they realize that there's development and then there's development. We like the kind that benefits the poor and the earth, not just elites and industry oligarchs.

That Levey can play on this outmoded opposition in a major newspaper is not only her failing -- it is a failure of environmentalists to be more consistent and vocal in their message of hope and progress.