Gristmill

Future funding fortunes

According to analysis by the National Committee on Science and the Environment, budgets for the EPA and most non-defense science agencies would be cut under the Omnibus Appropriations bill Congress passed over the weekend. NCSE says:

...the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would decline by approximately $345 million or 4.1 percent to $8.02 billion in FY 2005. EPA's Science and Technology account would decline by approximately 4.9 percent to $744 million.

You can access more of NCSE's budget analysis of the supposedly 1,689 page document.

NCSE puts on a good annul conference in Washington by the way -- next year's is entitled Forecasting Environmental Change and runs 3-4 February 2005. Register by December 3 for a cut rate registration fee.

There he goes again

What is it with Gregg Easterbrook? Hope really springs eternal in this guy's breast. And by "hope" I mean "delusion."

First he argues that a second-term Bush will aggressively act on global warming (no word on whether he's been reprimanded), which Michael Oppenheimer rightly mocked.

Now he's back, in The New Republic, saying now, really, surely, Bush will budge on his energy policy:

John Kerry ran on a platform that called for dramatic changes in United States energy policy, and George W. Bush ran on a platform that called for keeping the energy status quo. Bush won, yet my guess is that change will soon win on energy policy. Too many trends are worrisome.

Gregg. Dude. What evidence do you have that oncoming catastrophe has any effect on Bush's policy thinking? Will you share it please? Cause it might help me sleep at night.

The rest of the piece is pretty good, particularly as it draws attention to this report from Resources for the Future, a team of braniacs that do good work on market-oriented approaches to environmental problems, only not in that glassy-eyed way some other outfits are guilty of.

He concludes by saying that if this report doesn't budge Bush, well, another upcoming report from the National Commission on Energy Policy surely will. He conlcudes: "One can always hope."

Yes, Gregg, but hope, as they say, is not a plan.

In the annals of bad ideas …

... this has to be one of the worst I've ever seen.

California's new DMV director is considering a plan whereby drivers would be taxed based on the miles they traveled rather than by the amount of gas they bought (the state currently has an 18-cent-per-gallon gas tax).

Put aside for a moment the creepy fact that miles traveled would be measured by GPS tracking devices placed in cars, so that the government would know exactly where you are, where you'd been, and how far you'd gone at any given moment.

Instead, consider this piece of insanity:

The notion has not been endorsed by Schwarzenegger but is gaining acceptance among transportation and budget experts. As Californians drive increasingly more fuel-efficient cars, state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.

You catch that? California officials are alarmed that California drivers are using less gas. Far-sighted.

Good news!

Guess what!?  While 58 percent of all the world's coral reefs are endangered, a few of them are bouncing back, and "recovery should continue provided there are no major climate shifts in the next few decades"!

Wheee!

Starts with “e,” ends with “nment”?

Strangely, in this story about how the Dems are trying to learn lessons from their victories in Colorado, not a single environmental issue is mentioned -- not even the state's groundbreaking renewable energy initiative. For a slightly greener perspective, see this post.

Green votes

Will Rogers has a hopeful editorial in the NYT today, pointing out that despite the relative silence of the mainstream media on the story, environmental initiatives won broad support on Nov. 2.

Across the country, in red states and blue states, Americans voted decisively to spend more money for natural areas, neighborhood parks and conservation in their communities. Of 161 conservation ballot measures, 120 -- or 75 percent -- were approved by voters. Three-and-a-quarter billion dollars were dedicated to land conservation.

Such measures won support in areas where Kerry won and areas where Bush won. Seems to show that there's a broad consensus about conservationist issues generally, a consensus that overlaps but is not tied to support for the Democratic party.

More on this subject soon.

He made his bed …

... and now he's sleeping in it.  And boy, it doesn't look comfortable.

Last week French President Jacques Chirac took a public swipe at Tony Blair, saying he'd gotten nothing in return for his unstinting support of George W. Bush.  "I am not sure," said the francophone dryly, "that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

Meanwhile, Blair has been under immense pressure at home -- from his party, the opposition party, even the Queen -- to prod the intransigent Bush on the subject of global warming. Surely, the reasoning goes, Blair should get something for tying his political fate to Bush's when other leaders wouldn't.

Well, no.  Today The Independent reports that Bush "reprimanded" Blair for making such a fuss over global warming, according to "senior Washington sources." Among other things, Blair has been planning to make global warming a central topic at the G-8 Summit in January. For this he is ... "reprimanded."  Ouch.

Blair has never wavered in his public support for W, but after such high-handed treatment, you gotta wonder if he's starting to have violent dreams.

The issue with issues

Freelance writer Christopher Hayes spent the last seven weeks of the campaign talking to undecided voters in Wisconsin. He recounts his experiences in The New Republic (requires registration), and it is simply fascinating. And a little depressing. Most conventional wisdom about undecided voters is wrong, he says.

Do you hate the word “enviros”?

Greg Artzner of Takoma Park, Md., does. He wrote in this week to reprimand us Gristers for frequent use of the abbreviated moniker:

Boy, I wish you and all environmentalists would STOP using the term "enviros." Don't you all realize that our avowed adversaries use that term as a pejorative to describe us?  It's their ad hominem dismissal of us as wackos. I have heard it used in personal conversation by Mark Rey, undersecretary for natural resources and environment (known as "Darth Vader" of the forests to those of us working to save the trees). He and many others who stand in direct opposition to what we believe routinely insult us by using that very term. Please stop using it.  

Sincerely,
Greg Artzner, environmentalist

I and my colleagues at various green-focused journalistic enterprises have used the word enviros with frequency over the past decade, with no intent to belittle or demean. Really, I just think it's kinda fun. And it's a damn sight shorter than the overly syllabic environmentalists. As for whether the greenies or the pollutocrats coined the term, I can't say -- anyone care to share their etymological theories? (Oh, wait -- is greenies demeaning too?)

Still, as enviro(nmentalist)s think about (re)framing their message and burnishing their image after this month's election, is it time to give this label a second thought, or even the heave-ho? I'm not yet convinced that it is, but not dead set against it either. A few other perspectives on the matter here.

Cast your vote on whether the word enviro sucks or rocks, in the upper right-hand corner of the Grist homepage, through Monday, Nov. 15.