Cities vs. those suburbs

Last week certainly was a "week to rejoice" if you love cities, although I think John Tierny missed the boat on exactly why. With the Accords signed, the sustainable (and not so sustainable) ranked, and the cul-de-sac revived and debunked, it was enough to give any aspiring urban planner a headache.

The statistics getting tossed around are staggering too. Just the first clause of the Urban Environmental Accords contains two rather impressive facts:

• The majority of the planet's population now (well, almost now) lives in cities;
• continued urbanization will result in one million people moving to cities each week.

And that got me thinkin': Whaddaya mean, "city?"

In search of the answer to this eloquent question, I headed to the webpages of the UN, since it is their Environment Program after all. Turns out that:

Because of national differences in the characteristics that distinguish urban from rural areas, the distinction between the urban and the rural population is not yet amenable to a single definition that would be applicable to all countries or, for the most part, even to the countries within a region.

Don't worry, our hero will not give up that easily; more below the fold.

Bush dodges question about whether climate change is caused by humans

After making kissy-face in front of the press corps at the White House today, Bush and Blair took a couple of questions. One reporter asked Bush whether he believes global warming is an anthropogenic problem (without using any big words, of course):

And, Mr. President, if I may, as well, on climate change -- you didn't talk about climate change -- do you believe that climate change is manmade and that you, personally, as the leader of the richest country in the world, have a responsibility to reverse that change?

Naturally, Bush dodged the causation issue:

In terms of climate change, I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. And my administration isn't waiting around to deal with the issue, we're acting. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it. And if you look at the statistics, you'll find the United States has taken the lead on this research.

[More blather ensued; check it out in the transcript, if you're the masochistic sort.]

As it turns out, even as Bush was bragging about the millions the feds are spending on climate-change research, The New York Times was posting an article by Andy Revkin alleging that the administration is doctoring that very same research to jive with the oil industry's preferred version of the "science":

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

Wouldn't want those millions of taxpayer dollars to result in any too firm conclusions, now would we?

At Loggerheads

Mexico pressured to protect eco-activists after two murders last week International human-rights groups yesterday urged the Mexican government to take...

The Secret of Nimrods

Monsanto’s confidential research finds that GM foods mess up rats Rats fed with genetically modified (GM) corn exhibited health problems...

Politicians protect the industry from ‘burdens’ at the expense of the public.

The news yesterday that the lawsuits by Clinton against coal-fired power plants hit a legal roadblock is bad. Very bad. Nothing as exciting as the Michael Jackson verdict, mind you, but bad. If you want an extremely vivid picture of just how bad, go read this post on Sprol. It contains this tidbit:

Pollution from coal-burning power plants causes an estimated 30,000 deaths a year in the United States - more than drunken driving, AIDS, or homicides, according to one analysis. That analysis was done by Abt Associates ... Abt has been used by the EPA to quantify the health effects of federal policies.

See also this edition of BushGreenwatch about maximum achievable control technologies (MACT). The Bush administration has been scrambling to weaken the regs on MACT in the Clean Air Act ever since it took office. Just in regard to its change in the rules on industrial boilers and plywood manufacturing plants:

John G. Roberts’ enviro record not so green, but also not provoking a lot of protest

John G. Roberts (left) and President Bush. Photo: The White House/Eric Draper. Not only are the far-right Family Research Council...

Brush pickers chew up our forests to make your flower bouquets.

I own a piece of second-growth forestland that abuts the Tahuya forest in Washington State. It is my contribution to the wildlife conservation effort. I think of it as a small, privately owned nature preserve. By choosing land adjacent to an existing forest I have effectively increased the size of that forest. Not being part of an ecological hotspot, its preservation means far less than that of, say, the Monteverde cloud forest of Costa Rica. Nonetheless, my efforts to protect it over the years have taught me a few things.

A Bank Slate

Big banks play growing role in curbing eco-destruction Increasingly, green groups are both protesting against and partnering with major financial...

Tar Wars

Canadian tar sands becoming top oil source, despite environmental harm With conventional oil reserves declining around the world, all eyes...