Comments Maywa Montenegro has made

On missing the boat...

Thanks, everyone for your comments. I anticipated an outpouring of In Defense of Pollan (sorry, too good to pass up), and all your points are well taken. What I was trying--and obviously failing--to get across is that I DO AGREE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE of what Pollan is saying. Lasting change will require revolution in BOTH policy and in mindset (which will or should come first is debatable, since they are obviously intertwined). To borrow from a fantastic new book by James Gustave Speth, the potential drivers of transformative change will be twofold: It will require reframing the dominant values that contribute to today's social and environmental alienation. It will require nothing less than a "new consciousness" that gives priority to "nonmaterialistic lives and to our relationships with one another and the natural world."

Just as importantly, however, it will take a new politics---"a new and vital democratic politics premised on addressing America's growing political inequality and capable of embracing neglected environmental and social needs and sustaining the difficult actions needed."

My rather long-winded point is that I see the "grand solutions" and the "small solutions" as equal players in driving environmental progress. The reason I critiqued Pollan is that I'm afraid his arguments will be mis-used by those in the establishment to drag their feet on legislation. It's very similar, in fact, to why Joseph Romm gets so indignant about technophilic solutions to climate change. The intentions of Pielke et. al are solid---they care about reducing GHG emissions more, indeed, than most people---but their arguments are in danger of being co-opted by those who would use them as rationale for doing nothing.  On Growing your own food is fine, but governmental action is needed, and soon posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

A Manhattan Project for the Demand Side

You will appreciate Paul Hawken's comment to Revkin's recent coverage of this topic over at Dot Earth:

"I just read the piece, "A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming," which focused on technological innovation with respect to climate change. Many people are talking about a Manhattan project on the supply side, but I have been saying, for some time, that we cannot get there from here unless we also have a Manhattan project on the demand side. A lot of capital and focus is on the supply side for myriad and obvious reasons. But demand is the fastest way to create "new" energy. In the US, for every 100 units of energy that we put into our economic system, more than 98 units are wasted accordng to the National Academy of Engineering. Detroit is sitting on more oil than Iraq if it converted to hyperlight, hypersafe, carbon-fiber cars. It would be so much less expensive to invest in America than desert oil. Demand reduction makes new renewable sources of energy, which may be more expensive in relation to carbon-based energy, more affordable because overall energy costs would be going down, not up. Demand is not as sexy as giant wind turbine platforms being towed out to sea or strung up on steel kites into the upper atmosphere, but demand side effciences are faster, less costly, and more effective."On Three non-tech essentials for combating climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

The hidden costs of food

I thought your column last week was excellent--and not overly critical of either Pollan or Waters, although I'm sure they appreciate your attempt this week to emphasize their huge contributions to the sustainable foods movement.

One point I'd add to your original piece: The answer to our current food conundrum you said, "is to make sustainable food more broadly accessible and affordable," with initiatives like Washington state's vegetable snack program.

Another "answer" might be to underscore that industrial food--no matter how cheap--comes loaded with a number of hidden costs. Not only is this in the difficult-to-quantify form of damage to the environment: the phosphate mining, agrichemical pollution, and dead zones you mention. It is also the explicit health costs associated with industrial-style eating: The dollars we may save at the drive-thru window we end up paying (often many times over) at the doctor, when obesity, diabetes, and various other ailments of the overfed set in. On Food prices and 'level playing fields' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Re: I feel so proud

Me too. Several months ago, I interviewed several experts in Australia to write a story about it's crippling. What the piece turned into was one about cultural climate change more than anything else. Awesome.On Australia national government transforms; conservative party falls apart posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

Feast or Famine?

More threatening than famine, it seems to me, is the epidemic of obesity. According to a report released last week, the rate of obesity rose in 31 states last year. Although a number of variables are undoubtedly to blame---including lack of exercise and overeating--my gut tells me that the industrialized chain has something to do with this. A market flooded with highly refined corn-based products, such as the 800-calorie Double Big Gulp is a greater risk to public health a this point than the specter of hunger. On 'Extreme localism' in the New Yorker posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

I'll keep you posted

Hi JMG,
 If I can, I'll find out tomorrow who's responsible for this at New York Sports Club and try to get some contact information for you.

--MaywaOn New York Sports Club kicks in to conserve posted 2 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Frozen Zoos...

The Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species is just one of about a dozen centers worldwise (that I know of) to stockpile animal DNA.On A not-so-subtle call for climate change attention posted 2 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Pet GW Disaster

Hi Tico89,
  You're right, it is interesting what potential disasters manage to snag our attention. I think the flooded coastlines stuck with me because so many of the world's largest cities---Bombay, New York, Shanghai, Singapore, just to name a few---border oceans. (Loss of ski country crossed my mind as more of a "too bad" than a "disaster"...(though I'm sure there are many die-hard downhillers  out there who would heartily disagree.)  On Arctic sea ice and global thawing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Good Points, But Just One Thing...

Hi Jessica,
  You make some very valid points. As my family is from Peru, and I've also seen firsthand the plight of "your average South American citizen," I agree---transplanting a film catered to a US audience to South America is on some levels slightly ridiculous ("Sure, I'll get a screw-in CFL; can you get me some electricity?")
  But when you say that the average SA citizen can most effectively help stop climate change "through political pressure -- by pushing their governments to tighten their country's regulations, by trying to ensure that these regulations are enforced upon international corporations, and by pushing Western countries to take responsibility for global environmental damages,"....isn't that true of North Americans as well? I guess here I would argue that the Inconvenient Truth's message is pretty universal: small-scale, individual change is good; political, systemic change is even better.On A South American take on Gore's film posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Tundric Timebombs

Right on, Joseph. This point was hammered home to me by Harvard geochemist, Dan Schrag, when I interviewed him late last year for a piece on methane escaping from Siberian permafrost. Not known for being a catastrophist, Shrag had this to say:

"The Earth hasn't been this warm for millions of years. All that carbon that's stored in Siberia is going to get released, we just don't know whether it will be in a thousand years or a hundred years. And if it's the shorter time scale, then it's real trouble. There's enough carbon there to essentially lose control of the system."On Be afraid posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

Cradle to Cradle II

I second the nomination of Cradle to Cradle. While some books raise awareness through sheer poecy (Walden), and others alert the public of impending doom (Gaia), this one provides a comprehensive framework for action. From ideas for repackaging toothpastes (why the box around the tube?) to upcycled products, the book centers on creating internal feedback cycles---a.k.a. cradle to cradle production. For me, at least, the result was a feeling of empowerment and excitement. We will always need the clarion calls of Silent Spring and the whistle-blows of Crimes Against Nature, but the optimistic "how to" of Cradle to Cradle lands it in my personal top ten.On A top ten list from the U.K. posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses

Pimentel Parsed

I would just like to re-refer folks to an excellent ethanol analysis performed by Robert McElroy, an environmental studies professor at Harvard University (it's a chapter in an upcoming book but is available online at his faculty homepage). In this chapter, McElroy compares the assumptions of Pimentel & Patzek to those of Shapouri & McAloon (with props to an earlier study this year published by Farrell et al. at Berkeley). He disagrees with Pimentel/Patzek's high inputs for farm labor. Farmers must eat, for instance whether they are cultivating crops for corn ethanol or for cornbread, and yet P&P insist on counting farmers' caloric intake as an energy input.
   On the other hand, he sides with P&P on their criticism of the high credits many research teams assign to the co-products. Instead, he adopts the more modest "displacement method," which only gives co-products an energy savings equivalent to the most efficient conventional method of feed production.
   All told, McElroy's analysis still finds corn ethanol to be energy positive by "about 20 to 30 percent."On Toward a community-owned, decentralized biofuel future posted 2 years, 11 months ago 18 Responses

Pimentel Parsed

I would just like to re-refer folks to an excellent ethanol analysis performed by Robert McElroy, an environmental studies professor at Harvard University (it's a chapter in an upcoming book but is available online at his faculty homepage). In this chapter, McElroy compares the assumptions of Pimentel & Patzek to those of Shapouri & McAloon (with props to an earlier study this year published by Farrell et al. at Berkeley). He disagrees with Pimentel/Patzek's high inputs for farm labor. Farmers must eat, for instance whether they are cultivating crops for corn ethanol or for cornbread, and yet P&P insist on counting farmers' caloric intake as an energy input.
   On the other hand, he sides with P&P on their criticism of the high credits many research teams assign to the co-products. Instead, he adopts the more modest "displacement method," which only gives co-products an energy savings equivalent to the most efficient conventional method of feed production.
   All told, McElroy's analysis still finds corn ethanol to be energy positive by "about 20 to 30 percent."On To fulfill its environmental promises, biofuel policy needs a kick in the pants posted 2 years, 11 months ago 18 Responses

Re: Nice Piece, Maywa

  Thanks for your feedback, Bio  (your biofeedback!). You are right, the line should read "When Tier 2 emisions standards bring DIESEL up to par..." Even with that change, however, what follows is a nonsequitor. At the time, I was under the impression that the Tier 2 change would target ALL diesels (bio and non), in effect ridding biodiesel of the soot and particulates that are now its achilles heel (am I right in assuming that this change will only affect the petroleum derivation process?).

   Also, about the discrepancy in CO2 emissions...I have gone back and reread all the statistics I cited for the article. I also read a good chunk of the Delucchi articles another reader with  your same concerns kindly referred me to. The latter are outstanding and very detailed---unfortunately it is difficult to compare his life cycle analysis to those used in other studies without a complex analytical review of our own.

  The main factor which Delucchi seems to include---and which earlier studies have omitted---are the N2O emissions from soy fields and the carbon emissions due to changes in land  use (chopping down carbon sequestering trees to plant soybeans). Combined, these factors send the greenhouse gas savings other studies report into the red in Delucchi's analysis. He reports a net increase in GHG emissions with the use of biodiesel.

  As for the inconsistency in my own biodiesel piece, I have two thoughts. The 78% figure came from the National Biodiesel Board website which states "A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel."  This is in rough agreement with information on the Union of Concerned Scientists website, which says, "Plant-based B100 resulted in over 75% less carbon dioxide emissions that conventional diesel in a full life cycle assessement." Their reference, oddly enough, appears to the same study reference by the Biodiesel board: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles, May 1998 (Since NREL is affiliated with the DOE, I'm almost sure this is the same study...which of course, raises the question why the Biodiesel Board quotes 78% instead of 75%. The number on the NREL website is 75%, so I think that this is a safer statistic).

The 41% figure arrived at by the Minnesota researchers was a complete life cycle analysis, although it did not take into account (as Delucchi, I'm sure, would dispute) land use changes that would occur with large-scale implementation.

Still, this does not answer the question of the broad discrepancy between the 1998 and 2006 figures. I don't have access to the full text of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper (only the abstract is free online), where the Minnesota researcher may address deficiencies in the earlier studies. It must be that the earlier DOE study used different assumptions for inputs/outputs somewhere along the life cycle chain, but exactly where, I don't know.

Another possibility is that we are talking apples and oranges. The 78/75% number is a comparison between biodiesel and regular diesel, while the 41% number is a more nebulous comparison to "fossil fuels"---which could be regular diesel, but might also be gasoline (if they assume that biodiesel-powered vehicles would replace gas-powered ones).

With access to the assumptions used in both studies I'm  sure we could track down the culprit. Meanwhile, I think it is probably safe to assume that if science progressed rather regressed, the 2006 numbers are closer to the mark. More current research tends to find and fill in gaps in earlier methodologies. That is my hope, at least.On How the world got addicted to oil, and where biofuels will take us posted 2 years, 11 months ago 28 Responses

Re: Nice Piece, Maywa

  Thanks for your feedback, Bio  (your biofeedback!). You are right, the line should read "When Tier 2 emisions standards bring DIESEL up to par..." Even with that change, however, what follows is a nonsequitor. At the time, I was under the impression that the Tier 2 change would target ALL diesels (bio and non), in effect ridding biodiesel of the soot and particulates that are now its achilles heel (am I right in assuming that this change will only affect the petroleum derivation process?).

   Also, about the discrepancy in CO2 emissions...I have gone back and reread all the statistics I cited for the article. I also read a good chunk of the Delucchi articles another reader with  your same concerns kindly referred me to. The latter are outstanding and very detailed---unfortunately it is difficult to compare his life cycle analysis to those used in other studies without a complex analytical review of our own.

  The main factor which Delucchi seems to include---and which earlier studies have omitted---are the N2O emissions from soy fields and the carbon emissions due to changes in land  use (chopping down carbon sequestering trees to plant soybeans). Combined, these factors send the greenhouse gas savings other studies report into the red in Delucchi's analysis. He reports a net increase in GHG emissions with the use of biodiesel.

  As for the inconsistency in my own biodiesel piece, I have two thoughts. The 78% figure came from the National Biodiesel Board website which states "A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel."  This is in rough agreement with information on the Union of Concerned Scientists website, which says, "Plant-based B100 resulted in over 75% less carbon dioxide emissions that conventional diesel in a full life cycle assessement." Their reference, oddly enough, appears to the same study reference by the Biodiesel board: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles, May 1998 (Since NREL is affiliated with the DOE, I'm almost sure this is the same study...which of course, raises the question why the Biodiesel Board quotes 78% instead of 75%. The number on the NREL website is 75%, so I think that this is a safer statistic).

The 41% figure arrived at by the Minnesota researchers was a complete life cycle analysis, although it did not take into account (as Delucchi, I'm sure, would dispute) land use changes that would occur with large-scale implementation.

Still, this does not answer the question of the broad discrepancy between the 1998 and 2006 figures. I don't have access to the full text of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper (only the abstract is free online), where the Minnesota researcher may address deficiencies in the earlier studies. It must be that the earlier DOE study used different assumptions for inputs/outputs somewhere along the life cycle chain, but exactly where, I don't know.

Another possibility is that we are talking apples and oranges. The 78/75% number is a comparison between biodiesel and regular diesel, while the 41% number is a more nebulous comparison to "fossil fuels"---which could be regular diesel, but might also be gasoline (if they assume that biodiesel-powered vehicles would replace gas-powered ones).

With access to the assumptions used in both studies I'm  sure we could track down the culprit. Meanwhile, I think it is probably safe to assume that if science progressed rather regressed, the 2006 numbers are closer to the mark. More current research tends to find and fill in gaps in earlier methodologies. That is my hope, at least.On A lighthearted look at biofuels through time posted 2 years, 11 months ago 28 Responses

drilling in the Arctic...

Thanks for your comments, Henryjoe.
  I would like to know, however, where you got the information to back the following statement: "Also it takes at best 75% of that amount of fuel to produce the end resule meaning there is at best 1.3 net barrels of biofuel produced..." According to my own research (cited in the article), cellulosic ethanol provides roughly 80% more energy than is required for its production. Your 75% figure is closer to true for corn-based ethanol---which is generally reported at  66-75% production efficiency (in other words, corn based ethanol provides 26% more energy than is required for its production).
   In the next statement, your estimates are actually more generous than the sources I found. You say, "at a 70% energy production of oil," while all the reports I came across said two-thirds or 66%.
   So, .80 X .66 X 4.9 = 2.6 million barrels of oil replaced per day. The estimated acreage of land then comes to 114 million acres, which is high, but still "reasonable" since contrary to your statements, cellulosic ethanol does NOT require intensive fertilization or watering. Switchgrass is a perennial dry grass---very little maintenance required (of course, fertilization does increase the switchgrass yields, but a recent study shows equal gains can be had with by planting diverse mixtures of native prairie grasses.)On How the world got addicted to oil, and where biofuels will take us posted 2 years, 11 months ago 28 Responses

drilling in the Arctic...

Thanks for your comments, Henryjoe.
  I would like to know, however, where you got the information to back the following statement: "Also it takes at best 75% of that amount of fuel to produce the end resule meaning there is at best 1.3 net barrels of biofuel produced..." According to my own research (cited in the article), cellulosic ethanol provides roughly 80% more energy than is required for its production. Your 75% figure is closer to true for corn-based ethanol---which is generally reported at  66-75% production efficiency (in other words, corn based ethanol provides 26% more energy than is required for its production).
   In the next statement, your estimates are actually more generous than the sources I found. You say, "at a 70% energy production of oil," while all the reports I came across said two-thirds or 66%.
   So, .80 X .66 X 4.9 = 2.6 million barrels of oil replaced per day. The estimated acreage of land then comes to 114 million acres, which is high, but still "reasonable" since contrary to your statements, cellulosic ethanol does NOT require intensive fertilization or watering. Switchgrass is a perennial dry grass---very little maintenance required (of course, fertilization does increase the switchgrass yields, but a recent study shows equal gains can be had with by planting diverse mixtures of native prairie grasses.)On A lighthearted look at biofuels through time posted 2 years, 11 months ago 28 Responses

We Feel Your Pain

In the aftermath of Santorum's defeat, his family expressed what the perennially positive Senator would not. Counterclockwise from center: anguish, shock, remorse, and uncertainty.On Leave your caption ideas in comments posted 3 years ago 18 Responses

Stabilization Wedge...

Hi Kif---don't know if you will read this anymore, but I don't see an email address available for you. I am wondering where you found the data to suppport
"A switch to CFLs could represent a stabilization wedge of its own"----how many CFLs are being counted  here? Over what time period of usage?
  Thanks....I am not meaning to attack, I'm just tryint to put together an article of my own and a comparison with Socolow's wedges but be useful...On Are there downsides to the retail giant's efforts to up sales of CFLs? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

Did I miss something?

Although I'm no expert, I tend to agree with you. Engineering corn and soybeans to be better fuel crops is a losing battle given our land and resource constraints. I have hope, however, for the dedicated cellulosic plants such as switchgrass, willow, and miscanthus. These species grow perennially and use only a fraction of the water and nutrients demanded by corn and soy.

If I'm not mistaken, though, I'm preaching to the choir when it comes to the benefits of cellulosic ethanol.

What I remain uncertain about is what to make of these recent attempts to genetically engineer switchgrass et al. to be even better than they are already. I believe that the goal here is indeed to make these GM varieties less resource-intensive, which will be a bonus for the environment. On the other hand, the nature of perennial trees and grasses makes GM cross-contamination a likely scenario...
On Agribiz giants compete to create new plants for biofuels posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Numbers Correction

Thanks Patrick.
  Yes, the sentence should read "between 3 and 15 billion." I'll edit the text as soon as I get back to my laptop.On Vast untapped oil reserve discovered in the Gulf of Mexico posted 3 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

Already on the bandwagon

I've been convinced for some time now that plug-in hybrids are the way to go. Last Saturday,in fact, I wrote about it in an Op-Ed for my local newspaper. Nothing new in it for Grist readers, perhaps, but I felt it was important to try and spread the word.On Jump on the plug-in hybrid bandwagon posted 3 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

For What It's Worth

Perhaps no one is going to go back 4 days and read this post, but I thought I'd chime in. Though not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, I have been steadily reading up on biodiesel from various resources, and my understanding comes down to essentially this: biodiesel is superior to gasoline (by about 80%, according to a July 2006 study published by researchers at the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf in Minn in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) when it comes to greenhouse gases, i.e. CO2. When it comes to the other stuff---the particulate matter, the soot, the smog-causing gases, diesel (bio or non) is still far dirtier than gasoline. So it boils down to a question of what you are replacing. If you have a diesel car, then it makes great sense to fill it with biodiesel instead of the petro-variety. If, on the other hand, you are lucky enough to be shopping for a new set of wheels, then a hybrid or better yet, a plug-in hybrid, is the cleanest way to go. Not only do plug-in hybrids already reduce greenhouse gas emissions somewhere between 41 and 61 percent, but they will be able to run on biofuels too, thus further reducing the CO2 output. As the power grid de-carbonizes over time, a plug-in hybrid becomes virtually CO2 neutral. And no soot, smog, or other "toxic sludge" either. On Good idea posted 3 years, 3 months ago 10 Responses

The Wal-Mart Community Center

Although I hadn't thought of it that way, before, I think David has a point, the  progressives' traditional derision for Wal-Mart actually reveals an elitist bent in the green movement that we will have to move beyond real progress is to be made. Also, it reveals a very simple but compelling truth. Human beings need goods and services (and Wal-Mart offers plenty of them for a dirt cheap prices). But more importantly, they need community, and odd as it may seem, Wal-Mart offers that too. My own childhood town in Tennessee got its Super Wal-Mart about 10 years ago, and rapidly it became a mecca for the locals to gather, shop and simply hang out. A strip-mall variety substitute for the "stoop sitting" of decades past.
  Don't get me wrong, I think Wal-Mart has a lot to answer for regarding wages, outsourcing, and all the other evils inherent in giant big box stores. The irony is that the increasingly isolated, gated community lifestyles we've come to associate with these mega chains is that they leave an emptiness we come to fill---for a bargain, of cours---at Wal-Mart.On More Wal-Mart posted 3 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Futile Cycles

Righteo, Tom. And the story gets even loopier. Not only is China charging ahead with ununstainable growth, the U.S. is perfecting the art. To borrow from Al Gore's words in a July interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, "Right now we are borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the most unstable region of the world, and to bring it here and burn it in ways that destroy the habitability of the planet. That is nuts! We have to change every aspect of that."On As China's exports boom, its farmland shrinks and food imports rise. Coincidence? posted 3 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Re: Rolling Stone Interview

In the interview with Rolling Stone, Gore mentions he will be recruiting somd 1,000 volunteers in September to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" slideshow nationwide. Any idea how someone might nab one of those volunteer positions? I'd love to give it a shot...On Gore interview in Rolling Stone posted 3 years, 4 months ago 1 Response