Gristmill

Biden says U.S. is ready to reengage on climate change

Vice President Joe Biden is in Germany today for a meeting on international security issues. Climate change got a strong shout-out in his remarks. Here's the relevant section:

We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet. We are prepared to once again begin to lead by example. America will act aggressively against climate change and in pursuit of energy security with like-minded nations.

Our administration's economic stimulus package, for example, includes long-term investments in renewable energy. And we believe that's merely a down payment. The President has directed our Environmental Protection Agency to review how we regulate emissions, start a process to raise fuel efficiency, appoint a climate envoy -- and all in his first week in office, to demonstrate his commitment.

Source: Federal News Service

Why is it so hard for farmers to donate their crops?

Because there aren't enough roadblocks to getting hungry people healthy food, here's another one. And it's something that could be fixed with a small dollop of legalese (ideally right on top of the stimulus package). Someone at Bread for the City, which runs the biggest D.C. food pantry, pointed me to a post on their blog that sets up the problem thusly:

[L]iterally tons of fresh fruits and vegetables will be grown this year that will never make it to market for one reason or another. (For instance, major supermarkets turn away curvy cucumbers since they don't stack well ...) In a country where about half of all food grown is wasted, the gap between the field and the market is where a shockingly large amount of the loss occurs.

Their goal is to get this "wasted" food to the people who need it. Naturally, it's not easy (although nothing about helping the poor ever is). But it's not finding the produce that's the problem -- many farmers are more than happy to participate. It's getting it: the food pantries have to organize teams of volunteers to harvest, pack, and transport the produce themselves. Why not just have the farmers do it for them? Sometimes they do, of course. But for many farmers already on the edge financially, throwing in labor and fuel as part of the deal just isn't possible. The tax-savvy among you will no doubt object -- what about the write-off?

Fresh off fishery win, Oceana’s Jim Ayers talks with Grist about climate fight

Jim Ayers, the onetime top aide to former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles (D) and now the Pacific region leader for conservation group Oceana, draws on a deep well of both political and environmental experience. That’s a combo we like at Grist, especially in folks willing to talk shop with us. Ayers did that today, stopping […]

Friday music blogging: Dan Roberts

You know who's awesome? My little brother!

No, wait, maybe that's not the best way to start. Let's start here:

I am far, far from a jazz head. I do dabble, however, with the occasional group that has its roots in jazz but mixes in healthy doses of rock, funk, prog, or electronic dance music. Think, for example, Medeski Martin & Wood, Wayne Horvitz, The Bad Plus, Brad Mehldau, Jaga Jazzist, Marco Benevento ... that kind of stuff. (Yes, I'm aware those artists sound nothing like each other, but you know what I mean. Or maybe you don't.)

Anyway, it so happens that Washington D.C. is blessed with another hot up-and-coming jazz pianist who works in a similar genre. If you're in D.C. you may have seen him playing around in various trios, quartets, occasionally alone -- or if you happen to be active military, you may have seen him playing on USO tours in Kuwait and Iraq with Al Franken, via his job as pianist for the Army band, recently rechristened [wince] Downrange.

His name is Dan Roberts, and his new album is called Can't Not. It's rocking my world, and not just because it shares my DNA. Check it out.

Carbon pricing needs to supplement, not undermine, other means of cutting emissions

In solving the climate crisis we need to avoid creating the type of large secondary emissions trading market Kyoto did. Large secondary emission markets constitute a whole new sector with strong incentives that conflict with a really large drop in emissions. Maybe carbon traders are so noble and dedicated to saving the planet that financial self-interest won't influence them. But, if your view of human nature is that incentives matter, then a strong secondary market creates a group of people with the wrong ones. If incentives matter, then a secondary carbon market runs a real risk of becoming the new sub-prime.

For example, it has been noted that the European Emission Trading Scheme and other emission markets tend to be subject to high volatility, something that undercuts long term success. Large price variations for emissions permits discourage long term investment in savings, because it is hard to predict the value of the savings. Volatility can also lead to crashes, where emission prices temporarily drop near zero, which further reduces investment in reductions. The problem is traders tend to profit in the short term from volatility, because prices that vary encourage a larger number of transactions; more transactions produce more profit. While there are regulatory approaches that can discourage such volatility, such as high mandatory minimum emissions prices, financial industries in general tend to resist this type of regulation.

The pristine U.S. Arctic has been protected from industrial fishing

It's a watershed day for Arctic conservation.

Facing dramatic evidence of climate change in the Arctic, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council voted unanimously on Thursday to prevent the expansion of industrial fishing into all U.S. waters north of the Bering Strait. There are no large-scale commercial fisheries currently operating in the U.S. Arctic, and now there won't be.

Nearly 200,000 square miles of pristine Arctic waters -- an area bigger than California -- will remain untouched by the extensive fishing nets, miles of hooked longlines, and destructive bottom trawls of industrial fishing. This means that the unknown but crucial fish species such as Arctic cod will stay put as the heart of the ecosystem.

Obama talks tough on the need for investment

“We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face; that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an […]

Canadian athletes urge Olympic committee to fulfill eco-promises

Canadian Olympic skier Sara Renner depends on winter weather to do what she loves, but over the last 15 years, she's seen more unpredictable ski seasons and more races being canceled due to lack of snow. "I am concerned about the future of the sports we love," she says, "but also about the next generation of Canadians, who will be left to deal with even more serious climate change impacts if we don't act now."

Renner and more than 70 other Canadian athletes recently shared these concerns with the organizing committee in charge of the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, B.C. The snowboarders, speed skaters, kayakers, windsurfers, hockey players, and even a unicyclist signed their names to a letter urging the Vancouver Organizing Committee (Vanoc) to fulfill their promise to make the Games carbon neutral.

The letter was sent via the David Suzuki Foundation, a science-based organization Vanoc had previously consulted for an estimate of greenhouse-gas emissions that would be produced by the Games. The foundation came up with a figure equivalent to 65,000 cars on the road for one year -- and said that nearly 70 percent of that would be due to indirect emissions from athletes, sponsors, media, and spectators flying in for the event.

Although the Olympic bid organizers have said since the beginning that they wanted to fully offset the impact of the Games -- and in fact, make it the greenest ever -- Vanoc now says they do not plan to account for that air travel. And this is the point with which the 70-some athletes take offense. Below, a snip from their letter:

It's official: Nutrition will play a big role in reform at the USDA

After reading Tom Philpott's post on Tom Vilsack's recent comments to the WaPo, I think it's worth digging in a bit more.

To this point, we've all had to be content with reading tea leaves and parsing statements. But now we are finally getting a taste of the tea. Philpott highlighted Vilsack's line about his desire to represent the interests of those "who consume food" -- a long-awaited distinction to be sure.

Of course, claiming to represent eaters is no panacea. The USDA can easily describe its efforts to support a system that provides vast amounts of cheap calories as "helpful" to consumers -- and that kind of disingenuous wordplay would be par for the course at the old USDA. But it appears that Vilsack takes a broader, more progressive view as he pointed out the following:

His first official act was the reinstatement of $3.2 million in grant funding for fruit and vegetable farmers that had been rescinded in the final days of the Bush administration. Though the dollar amount was small, Vilsack said it sent a message of his emphasis on nutritious food.