Latest Articles

Free the radicals

Dave's recent essay falsely equates being "radical" with being "violent." Violence and radicalism are not the same. Being a "radical" just means you want to see significant, fundamental changes to society -- say, a real, true shift to sustainability or an economy that actually values people and the environment over monetary profit. These are changes, I am willing to bet, that a large number of environmentalists would love to see. They are also radical. They would require a fundamental change to society. But does that shift have to include violence? Absolutely not.

Worldwatch kerfuffle

World Watch magazine's controversial article by Mac Chapin on how the Big Three conservation organizations are shafting indigenous peoples roiled the waters not just at those groups (World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International) but at Worldwatch itself. The upshot: The magazine's editor is fleeing the coop.  

Future funding fortunes

According to analysis by the National Committee on Science and the Environment, budgets for the EPA and most non-defense science agencies would be cut under the Omnibus Appropriations bill Congress passed over the weekend. NCSE says:

...the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would decline by approximately $345 million or 4.1 percent to $8.02 billion in FY 2005. EPA's Science and Technology account would decline by approximately 4.9 percent to $744 million.

You can access more of NCSE's budget analysis of the supposedly 1,689 page document.

NCSE puts on a good annul conference in Washington by the way -- next year's is entitled Forecasting Environmental Change and runs 3-4 February 2005. Register by December 3 for a cut rate registration fee.

There he goes again

What is it with Gregg Easterbrook? Hope really springs eternal in this guy's breast. And by "hope" I mean "delusion."

First he argues that a second-term Bush will aggressively act on global warming (no word on whether he's been reprimanded), which Michael Oppenheimer rightly mocked.

Now he's back, in The New Republic, saying now, really, surely, Bush will budge on his energy policy:

John Kerry ran on a platform that called for dramatic changes in United States energy policy, and George W. Bush ran on a platform that called for keeping the energy status quo. Bush won, yet my guess is that change will soon win on energy policy. Too many trends are worrisome.

Gregg. Dude. What evidence do you have that oncoming catastrophe has any effect on Bush's policy thinking? Will you share it please? Cause it might help me sleep at night.

The rest of the piece is pretty good, particularly as it draws attention to this report from Resources for the Future, a team of braniacs that do good work on market-oriented approaches to environmental problems, only not in that glassy-eyed way some other outfits are guilty of.

He concludes by saying that if this report doesn't budge Bush, well, another upcoming report from the National Commission on Energy Policy surely will. He conlcudes: "One can always hope."

Yes, Gregg, but hope, as they say, is not a plan.

In the annals of bad ideas …

... this has to be one of the worst I've ever seen.

California's new DMV director is considering a plan whereby drivers would be taxed based on the miles they traveled rather than by the amount of gas they bought (the state currently has an 18-cent-per-gallon gas tax).

Put aside for a moment the creepy fact that miles traveled would be measured by GPS tracking devices placed in cars, so that the government would know exactly where you are, where you'd been, and how far you'd gone at any given moment.

Instead, consider this piece of insanity:

The notion has not been endorsed by Schwarzenegger but is gaining acceptance among transportation and budget experts. As Californians drive increasingly more fuel-efficient cars, state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.

You catch that? California officials are alarmed that California drivers are using less gas. Far-sighted.

My Chemical Romance

Green chemistry gets rolling A change is gradually taking hold in the world of chemistry. Increasingly, chemists regard the toxicity and environmental effects of a chemical as fundamental to the process of creating it, rather than afterthoughts. “Green chemistry,” which puts this kind of holistic thinking into practice, is a growing industry. Its roots trace […]

Arabian Fights

Arabs and Latinos work together for environmental justice in Michigan The area that includes south Dearborn and southwest Detroit is densely populated, ethnically diverse, and highly industrialized — as such, it is a revealing test case for the environmental-justice movement. For at least five years now, particulate pollution in the area’s air has exceeded federal […]

Lockyer and Load

California says it will sue feds over Sierra Nevada forest plan If the Bush administration’s plan to increase logging in the Sierra Nevada national forest is approved, California will sue to block it, said state Attorney General Bill Lockyer (D). Last Thursday, the head of the U.S. Forest Service approved the plan; U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary […]

Good news!

Guess what!?  While 58 percent of all the world's coral reefs are endangered, a few of them are bouncing back, and "recovery should continue provided there are no major climate shifts in the next few decades"!

Wheee!

Starts with “e,” ends with “nment”?

Strangely, in this story about how the Dems are trying to learn lessons from their victories in Colorado, not a single environmental issue is mentioned -- not even the state's groundbreaking renewable energy initiative. For a slightly greener perspective, see this post.