Articles by Grist staff

Two gray eminences of the food movement lay down the law on farm policy

There's an idea out there that reforming U.S. food policy simply can not be a priority for the Obama administration. We're enmeshed in two wars (three, if you count what our dear Israeli friends are up to in the Gaza Strip), the economy is crumbling, and climate change is accelerating.

Under these conditions, how can Obama possibly busy himself with something as trivial as food? The president-elect himself seems to buy into this line of reasoning. By nominating a corn-belt pol with a history of playing footsie with agribiz as his USDA chief, Obama signaled that status quo, not reform, will mark his food agenda, at least early in his presidency.

I think the food-reform-can-wait logic is wrong on several counts. As I'll argue later this week in Victual Reality, investing in a new food system could make for an excellent piece of a stimulus package. And on practical grounds, food-system reform is urgent. Anyone who doubts that should read the powerful, concise op-ed in today's New York Times by Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson.

The sustainable food movement's most revered elders make the case with characteristic bluntness:

McKibben wonders if U.S. is mature enough to confront climate change.

Check out Bill McKibben’s essay in the latest Foreign Policy magazine. It’s full of straight talk about the reality of climate change, debunking plenty of the skeptics’ arguments along the way. For McKibben (a Grist board member, BTW), the real question is whether there’s sufficient will in the international community to take on the very […]

Scientists and other experts rattle off options for averting climate catastrophe

London’s Independent newspaper asked climate scientists to answer a simple question: should humanity “prepare a ‘Plan B’ to curb the worst effects of global warming?” Well, ask 40 eggheads a question, and you’ll get a very diverse set of responses. Geo-engineering is the answer! No, focus on carbon sequestration. Wrong again, it’s all about adapting […]

Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol

Wonky Gristians will want to read the entirety of Robert Rapier's "Top 10 Energy Stories of 2008" on the Oil Drum. I'll focus here on item No. 6: "Second-generation ethanol is delayed."

Rapier opens by linking to a "top energy stories to watch in 2008" story from the U.S. News and World Report published a year ago. "Next-generation ethanol production begins," the writer predicted, citing "Range Fuels' plan to begin commercial production of ethanol from timber-industry waste late in 2008."

Ah, plans. Rapier brings the update. "The over-promise, under-deliver meme that I have been critical of continues," he writes. "Range Fuels had initially intended to start producing in 2008, but that was delayed to 2009 and now production isn't forecast to begin until 2010."

None of this dims the pie-eyed optimism of cellulosic boosters, Rapier notes. He cites the case of Coskata, which makes this claim: "Using proprietary microorganisms and patented bioreactor designs, we will produce ethanol for under US $1.00 per gallon." Right. And they're not doing it already because ...? Rapier links to a previous post of his that slices through Coskata's hype.

Meanwhile, even as federal mandates for cellulosic ethanol under the 2007 Energy Act start to ramp up, construction of new plants has slowed to a trickle, despite an influx of federal cash. "[O]f the six cellulosic ethanol projects selected to receive $385 million in federal funding in February 2007, almost two years later only one plant is actually under construction (Range Fuels)," Rapier writes. Oh, right, Range Fuels -- the company that keeps overpromising and underdelivering.