Scott G’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Reefs, Bond villain cruise ships -- forgot about those. But do the fish that are the usual targets of commercial fishing tend to stay put? Or range around the ocean? Or both? And, either way, I wonder if MPA's could get strung together like wildlife corridors? Guess we'll never know if the Obama admin. stays business as usual. Nice title by the way. Very...creative (although not the best of those movies).On James Bond calls for more marine protected areas posted 1 month, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bad news. A little sad, but it seems that appealing to self interest is the compelling argument here -- and the maintenance of an available and large fish stock is probably it. MPA's are odd, though, in that the boundaries are more artificial than national parks and wildlife corridors. Fish swim through them, so it's not as easy to tie individual fish size/age to a particular MPA -- but, like Jennifer Jacquet points out, they can't hurt. Good ad spot though. For the majority of folks, not concerned directly with the fishing industry, cool underwater footage of flagship species might take public support a long way. By the way, where can I get one of those shirts? Obama is less than impressive on this one -- and in other areas of conservation, as listed on the PEER site. Didn't he positively reverse some endangered species act decisions, though?On James Bond calls for more marine protected areas posted 1 month, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I remember perusing my copy of Nat Geo and finding a "gift" from Shell Oil-- their aforementioned DVD tucked between the pages. It was called "Eureka"-- and kinda hilariously had killer production quality, an arching narrative storyline, and even a B story with love interests and a father/son "coming of age" theme, as I recall. If you feel like using 20 minutes of your day to watch Shell's thinly veiled pat on the back, you can see it online:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mfDEJRslY

  Seems like Shell's trying to cover all the bases both with their energy portfolio, and in their PR campaign-- but might just be spread too thinly in renewables to call themselves a company seriously concerned with sustainability. Their segment in the Earth and Sky podcast is misleading at best (a shame, cause it sounds like an otherwise cool resource), especially given Shell's involvement with the ecological kick in the balls that is the Canadian tar sands project.

  Shell's going to keep massaging the public with faux-podcasts, promotional DVDs and multi-page "green" ad spreads in national magazines. The policy wonks and visionaries are great, but it's up to the grassroots to keep the pressure on these guys to make good on their claims and rile up the public.

  Nice post.

  On A clear voice for science? posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Your point has been well-made by Amory Lovins' work for years. The guy doesn't even have a boiler, and he lives in the Rocky Mountains! Clearly there's a ton of room for improvement in resource efficiency, and markets haven't done what everybody says they'll do in that realm.

  To echo what's been said: there's almost a cultural blindness built around the idea that markets can't be improved upon, and never fail to capture the best practices and put them to work.

  If markets are influenced by cultural assumptions, maybe it's time to look beyond the market to influence culture. Would resource quotas-- cap and trade for a range of natural resources-- be a terrible idea? A cap would at least cut through the cultural blind spot, and let prices do the best they can with the rest.

  Even better if that cap is something we can democratically set and get behind.

  On Energy efficiency vs. neoliberal economics posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  David, I'm glad you wrote this. For all the credible science environmentalism has at its back, the rush to pin swine flu on CAFOs is nothing but damaging. I, like many other Gristers, could be described as an environmentalist. Seeing as industrial ag has been a long time target for environmentalists, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be really really interested to see the national media draw a firm connection between CAFO's and disease in humans. It would give alot of weight to our arguments.

  
  But that's not science. That's making the facts fit the theory, not the other way around. Good science usually means objectivity, and enviros are too close to this issue to start calling for causality. I'm glad the hypothesis is out there-- as it very well might be true-- but let's keep it at that. Let the science speak for itself first.

  On Jumping to conclusions in health matters may have adverse side effects posted 7 months ago 15 Responses