Who Let the Catastrophe Out of the Bag?

Earth warming, ice melting, seas rising, umpteenth study says Cutting greenhouse-gas emissions could — maaaaybe — stave off a catastrophic...

New scheme for OPEC would make Venezuela’s oil reserves world’s largest

There's some big stuff happening in Venezuela these days. In an interview with the BBC, President Hugo Chavez announced a bid that could change the entire world oil situation. He wants OPEC to set its long-term oil target price at $50/barrel. Why? At $50, large portions of Venezuela's copious heavy crude in the Orinoco Tar Sands become economically viable, and Venezuela's official oil reserves automatically skyrocket to 312 billion barrels -- surpassing Saudi Arabia's 262 billion, currently the world's largest.

This would raise OPEC's production quotas, bring in a bucketload of new revenue to the Venezuelan government (which just renegotiated more favorable terms with several oil companies, and seized oil fields from two companies that refused to cooperate), and dramatically increase the country's influence and Chavez's stature.

The best summary I've seen is this one from Motley Fool:

Every day is Earth Day … or at least yesterday was

I spent Earth Day in a small cabin on a sand spit that juts from the coast of Bainbridge Island, enjoying the sun, the waves, my kids' delighted squeals, and most of all, the four -- yes, four -- hour nap I took mid-day. Ah ... love me some Earth Day!

So I missed my chance to write an inspiring message. Instead, I offer this small roundup of stuff to read:

Zoned Out

Over on Environmental Economics, there's an interesting review of what looks like an interesting book: Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use, by Jonathan Levine. It directly addresses some of the questions raised in this much-discussed post on new urbanism.

Here's how it starts:

Having it both ways

Unfortunately, "social justice" is too often used as a code word for pouring tax dollars down a rathole; "curing" poverty.

Replacing or refurbishing the boarded-up and dilapidated buildings of a long-blighted neighborhood costs major money; so does creating greenspace from rust-belt industrial land. When you do so, the value of that neighborhood or that land increases manyfold: people who have jobs and pay taxes to support the improvements want to benefit from them. They buy homes in the restored neighborhoods, and the valuation of housing increases, which in turn raises taxes and rents. Housing near the new parks will escalate in value, because they are now more desirable, and again taxes and rents will go up.

A new breeding program aims to revive the gray nurse shark

Ahoy once again, me faithful readers! 'Tis been too long since our last voyage, and some interesting goings-on have passed me harbor in the meantime. First, I share some grave news for me fellow pirates -- that happens to be good news for me fellow greens: Greenpeace has been a'pirate huntin' off West Africa! I'd suggest they walk the plank for that, had I not seen this bit here: "Pirate fishing is a global threat to the oceans and those who depend on them." Well, I do reckon I'm in that second camp, and thus I raise my rum noggin to their efforts. And while I've got that rum noggin raised, let me also make mention of these poor buckos, who are trying to count every last fish in the sea for the sake of science. Godspeed with that project, I say. Godspeed.

And speaking of counting fish, I share with ye this story about dwindling gray nurse shark (pictured above, copyright Richard Ling) numbers in Australia and what scientists are doing about it: They're using artificial wombs.

Tips on seafood consumption from a seafaring wench

Ahoy there, fellow poop-deckers! I hope the fair seas have treated ye well since me last arrrr-ticle. This one, dear mateys, will focus on grub -- that's food to you landlubbers -- specifically seafood. There's been much to-do lately on mercury advisories and the safety of sushi, so how's a seadog to know what's safe to eat, what's caught (or farmed) sustainably, and what's not?

But before I delve into the murky waters of seafood safety, I've a message for any bilge-suckers planning to comment on this post about how "un-environmental" I am for suggesting that seafood is an acceptable food source: I'll swab the deck with you, I will. Don't tempt me. That said, let's weigh anchor.

My problem with David Kamp’s NYT review of Michael Pollan’s new book

In his review of Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, published in Sunday's NYT Book Review, David Kamp expresses a bit of received wisdom that needs rethinking.

Kamp, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and GQ who himself is writing a book about food, generally approves of Pollan's well-documented indictment of the dominant U.S. food system and exploration of its alternatives (which I reviewed here).

But to the big-picture problems presented by Pollan, Kamp demands big-picture solutions. And here is where I think Kamp, like many commentators on the vast-scale environmental troubles plaguing our culture, goes astray.

Americans support a gas tax if revenues go toward energy independence

A new New York Times/CBS poll contains extremely interesting results with regard to a gas tax.

Unfortunately, the write-up in the NYT is rather garbled. Best to go look at the poll itself (PDF).

If you ask people straight out, "do you favor a gas tax," the answers is overwhelmingly (85%) No. Even if you promise to reduce other taxes --payroll and income -- by the same amount, the answer is still (63%) No.

But if the question is, "would you support a gas tax if it reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil" or "would you support a gas tax if it cut down on energy consumption and reduced global warming," the results reverse pretty dramatically. The "foreign oil" question gets 55% in favor and the "energy consumption and global warming" question gets 59% in favor.

(Even more intriguing: When the question is, "would you support a gas tax if the proceeds were used to fight the war on terror," 71% still oppose.)

Take-home message: U.S. citizens want to reduce oil use, energy consumption, and global warming. And they're willing to pay for it.

For chrissake, if we have any politicians left with a pair and the sense God gave a turkey, they would jump on this. Americans crave it. They want to be asked to sacrifice. They want to be involved. They just need an opportunity.