Supreme Court CO2 case

Gack! I'm so far behind on blogging I don't know where to begin.

Here's something: A while back I was casting about for good commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court CO2 case. This piece on Seed isn't great, but it does have some insight, like so:

A victory for the environmentalists would give the federal government the power to regulate CO2 emissions -- and the power to decide how strictly or loosely to do so. On the other hand, an EPA victory hands this power back to the states, including the petitioners -- who would then have the authority to set their own standards. Paradoxically, a ruling against the petitioners might ultimately result in the major emissions restrictions they seek.

Can industrial agriculture withstand climate change?

If the fossil fuels don’t getcha, the genetics will. Photo: iStockphoto In the United States, the clearest signs of climate...

Engineers Gone Wild

Automakers combine forces to develop new hybrid transmission Tired of getting their rear ends handed to them by the Prius,...

A dispatch from a forward-looking climate conference in Germany

Michael Levitin is a freelance writer based in Germany. Last week, he attended KyotoPlus: Escaping the Climate Trap, an international...

How Mexico’s iconic flatbread went industrial and lost its flavor

In a spectacle similar to the one conjured up by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, a Mexican judiciary panel...

To Russia with love, again

Seems another Chinese chemical spill is on its way to the Russian Far East (RFE). ITAR-TASS out of Moscow reported today that "a five kilometre-long benzol slick resulting from another dumping of chemicals into the Sungari river from a plant in the Chinese province of Jilin is expected to reach Russia's city of Khabarovsk on September 7-8." The story goes on to say that the benzol may evaporate before it reaches the Amur River, the same one that was poisoned last winter by a chemical spill from a factory in the same Chinese province.

Not everyone has a China environment guru to consult on such stories, but luckily I do. She is my colleague, Dr. Jennifer Turner, who directs the China Environment Forum here at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Here is an email where she puts the spill in context:

Sustainability visionaries see room for hope in our worry-filled world

Who’s afraid of the big, bad future? Al Gore, clearly — and pretty much anyone who has seen An Inconvenient...

Democrats must move to attract conservation-minded evangelicals before the Republicans do

The vast majority of green voters are Christian. Apparently, there just are not enough of them. One must also keep in mind that environmental issues have not historically split along party lines. Before their assimilation by the religious right, the Republican Party used to be the environmental party.

Here is an article from the Associated Press that pretty much sums up the looming "creation care" dilemma:

Dewitt said evangelicals will not call themselves environmentalists. They are going to call themselves pro-life ... But pro-life means life in the Arctic, the life of the atmosphere, the life of all the people under the influence of climate change ... Robinson said he voted for Bush in 2004 because of his opposition to abortion, but it was a tough decision, making him feel he was voting against the environment. If the conservatives want the Christian vote, they are going to have to address this ... The pastor feels like Noah cutting his first tree to build the Ark.

How ironic, cutting trees to build an ark. And there is this:

Forsmark and Several Fears Ago

Sweden shuts down four nuke reactors after near-meltdown of one The near-meltdown of one of Sweden’s 10 nuclear reactors has...