Mountaintop-removal mining devastates Appalachia, but residents fight back

Most folks know coal mining is a dirty and dangerous business, triggering everything from miner’s lung to deadly accidents. But...

Mercury

L.A. Weekly environment writer Judith Lewis has a good piece up regarding the recent Greenpeace-initiated mercury test. It begins like this:

When Greenpeace USA released the interim results of its National Mercury Testing Project last week, two ironies jumped out: One is that the same administration that conferred legal rights on the unborn fetus has so far refused to regulate emissions of a toxin known to damage fetal brains in the womb. The other is that while California's clean-air laws keep coal-fired power plants outside the state's borders, its residents have not escaped coal's toxic effects, which drift to us all the way from China. You might say the tuna have come home to roost.

Mountaintop-removal mining is devastating Appalachia, but residents are fighting back

This article was originally published in Orion Magazine. Not since the glaciers pushed toward these ridgelines a million years ago...

Forests may prevent more CO2 emissions than the equivalent acreage of biofuels

The latest proposal to include airlines in European emissions trading schemes will have predictable results:

"If the idea of emissions trading is to make energy intensive activities more expensive, then there will be some impact on ticket prices," said Andy Kershaw, Climate Change Manager at BA.

For obvious reasons, consumers will always end up footing the bill when businesses pay the true cost of protecting the environment. That reality is not hard for most of us environmentalists to understand. It costs to protect the environment.

More evidence that individual purchases mean less than changes in the system

Apparently I didn't do such a good job in this post explaining why I found this New York Times article on higher-mileage, gas-electric hybrid SUVs so troubling. So I'll try again.

To recap -- the Times article claims that, under the system governing vehicle fuel economy in the U.S., selling a hybrid Escape lets Ford sell an additional Lincoln Navigator without running afoul of federal CAFE standards. In other words, while buying an Escape may mean that you're driving a more efficient vehicle, it doesn't mean that the average fuel economy of all the Fords on the road will change one whit.

A couple commenters over on my blog mothership said this is bunk. But I think the article is on to something.

Gets national reforms on the basis of local violations

Can somebody with more knowledge and experience tell me if something extraordinary is going on in the office of Kevin J. O'Connor, the U.S. Attorney for the Connecticut district? It certainly seems extraordinary to me -- and deserving of wider notice and praise.

Readers talk back about ethanol, cell phones, home renovations, and more

  Re: Kernel Ganders Dear Editor: Thanks for covering the ethanol issue and our paper in Science. David Pimentel erroneously...

Two new photo books focus on food

In the valuable new book Fields of Plenty: A Farmer’s Journey in Search of Real Food and the People Who...

As snowy peaks get warmer, ski industry tries to stave off extinction

With the Olympics starting this week, all eyes are on the slopes of Turin. But skiing and snowboarding could disappear...