Comments Wolverine has made

Anyone Could See This Coming

When Elliot Spitzer was replaced by Patterson, I commented here that this was a disaster for progressive politics in New York and the country generally, including the environment.  Spitzer would never have caved in to these pigs, but Patterson is neither progressive nor strong enough, so we get this result.

I don't agree at all, Canis, that Patterson is cool.  Spitzer was cool, Patterson is just a typical liberal politician with a few progressive leanings.  Losing Spitzer was a disaster, and this is just one of many issues that will suffer because of it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of what Spitzer did, removing a politician from office because of personal behavior, regardless of how egregious that behavior that is, is just a way of removing those from office who people in power don't like.  Spitzer's use of prostitutes, which like drugs and gambling should be legal in the first place, was a ludicrous pretext for removing by far the most progressive and brave governor in the country.On New York governor goes in the tank for industry, backs away from climate plan posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 12 Responses

Priorities, Priorities

Absolutely nothing has been done to reverse human-caused climate change, despite the hand wringing and outright lies of certain politicians.  The facts are that 1) every country's greenhouse gas emissions are rising, not falling or even remaining the same and 2) the latest report showed that even if humans totally stopped all unnatural greenhouse gas emissions immediately, the Earth is going to suffer devastating effects of human-caused global climate change over the next 1,000 years because, 3) people are far too fixated on money and business and not anywhere near concerned enough about the environment, and 4) people are not willing to make the so-called sacrifices needed in order to stop unnaturally emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

It's all well and good to sit around pontificating about what needs to be done, in fact doing so is necessary in order to know what to do and/or not do.  But we've known this for decades and human behavior has not changed one iota.  For example, it was reported in this week's news that states are going to use the money they'll be getting for transportation in the stimulus package to build more road, widen roads, and repair roads.  If these jerks really cared about global warming, the money would instead go to public transit and other projects that would get people out of cars.

People who demand solutions to global warming but are not willing to change their behavior in order to stop or greatly reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions are like spoiled children who want to have their cake and eat it, too.  This is the type of crap we've been getting in Grist for years, led by people like Dave Roberts, and I'm sick to death of it.  Why not report on some environmental problems that people are actually willing to do something about?On 50 green and civic groups roll out tough climate principles posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses

The Rest Of The Story

Gary Locke is also a strong supporter of global trade, which is highly destructive to oceans, among other things.  The massive number of ships that transport all the crap that's traded globally pollute the oceans, make so much noise that the whales can no longer hear each other over long distances, and consume massive amounts of oil, which is constantly spilled into the oceans.  So please don't pretend that this guy is some kind of environmentalist, because he's far from it.  He prioritizes business and money over the natural environment, which is very bad for the oceans.On Former Washington Gov. Locke would bring a strong voice for oceans to Commerce posted 9 months ago 3 Responses

Split In Progressive Politics

The Icelandic government is a perfect example of anti-environmental leftists.  This is why priorities are so important.  It's not just whether people support or oppose certain ideas or actions, it's just as important what priority people give to a certain issue.  Those who don't prioritize the environment are not environmentalists, even if they support good environmental goals.On U.S. denounces Iceland whaling move posted 9 months ago 7 Responses

Sam

I totally agree with your post.  If I remember correctly, the first species to become extinct due to global climate change did so because of having to move to ever higher elevations.

However, my problem is with the framing of the original post.  As has been shown, framing is all-important.  If people are ever going to get the idea that they're not the center of the universe, it's important for environmental writers to focus on human-caused harms to non-humans.  Focusing on fisheries just continues the self-centered paradigm, which is one of the ultimate roots of all environmental problems.On Climate change to cause dark night of the shoal posted 9 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

More Fundamental Problems With Overpopulation

Lester Brown is an environmental guru, but this piece is totally anthropocentric and only mentions one problem caused by human overpopulation.  The extraction of resources analysis is the same flawed one put forth by leftist anti-environmentalists who worship humans to the detriment of all other life.  This analysis is correct as far as it goes -- if resources were properly shared, there would be enough to go around for humans -- but it totally fails to consider the consequences of human overpopulation on the rest of life on Earth.  Human overpopulation means there are not enough resources to go around for other species, regardless of how well humans share the resources among themselves.

The biggest problem is that with so many humans covering virtually every inch of the Earth, the rest of the species have nowhere to adequately live, and species that did not evolve to interact with humans are now forced to do so.  Humans have caused the sixth great extinction, in large part due to there being far too many of us.  There is no other large animal that lives in every ecosystem and on every continent.

It's way past time for humans to move out of some areas and leave them for others.  The best place to start is where humans could not even get to before engines were put on ships, namely Antarctica.  Humans should be restricted to the lower latitudes and areas with Mediterranean climates sot that they don't do so much destruction by consuming massive amounts of artificial energy just to stay warm.  And of course, this goes along with major population reduction, which should be accomplished by mandatory one-child-family policies everywhere except for nations whose human populations are already declining and therefore do not need this incentive (Japan, Russian, much of western Europe, etc.).On Many political conflicts stem from undue population pressure on water and grasslands posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 12 Responses

The Missing Piece

Excellent discussion, but advocacy of the most fundamental and important change is missing: greatly reducing demand for energy, both individually and by lowering human population.  Pangolin comes closest and is spot on that the first and foremost change needs to be a requirement that all buildings have solar collectors on their roofs and wind generators in their yards or also on their roofs.

And Pompey Road recognizes that homo sapien "evolution" is destroying the planet, though it's really de-evolution into a race of robots as the band Devo pointed out.  Real evolution of homo sapiens would be mental and spiritual, not technological.

But rich humans like Americans use far too much electricity for trivial things.  Unless a great need is shown such as providing food, people should be limited to the amount of power they're allowed to consume.  And that gets back to Dave's point about changing consciousness, though it's a fundamentally different change than Dave advocates.  We need to rid ourselves of the selfish suburban soccer mom mentality, not be beholden to it.  If humans insist on continuing to be the lemmings that Pompey so accurately describes, there is no hope for averting destruction of the natural world to the point where it will not even support human life, as artificial and removed from the natural world as it's become.On Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responses

Meaningless Hand Wringing

Alberta is the most anti-environmental Canadian province.  Its government is completely bought and paid for by industry.  Tar sands oil extraction should not be undertaken in the first place; fines for killing animals are useless unless they are high enough to effect future behavior, which they almost certainly are not.  The government of Alberta couldn't care less about wildlife or the natural environment.  That government has been enabling the destructive oil and cattle industries for decades.  It was well known that operations like this would have devastating environmental consequences.  The government was told this and allowed these operations to take place, anywayOn Syncrude faces fines for duck deaths posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

Censorship

Censorship is prevalent everywhere, even in the hypocritical U.S.  The only issue is who is doing the censoring.  Americans like to brag because the government can't censor some things -- try saying you support Al-Qaeda in public and see what happens to you -- but censorship here is accomplished by the fact that the ruling class owns all of the major media and doesn't allow stories they don't like to be published.

That all said, some self restraint is in order here.  If these guys really want people to stop emitting so much greenhouse gas, they shouldn't publish conclusions like this.On NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

Getting Back To Water

About 85% of the water consumed in California, the most populous state in the U.S., is consumed by agribusiness.  Low flush toilets are mandatory here when putting in new toilets or replacing old ones, but that does very little considering who's using the water.  Cotton and other heavy water dependent crops should simply not be grown in arid ecosystems like that of California, but unfortunately the business run society called the U.S. cares far more about business and money than about the natural environment, so there are no adequate restrictions on what can be grown where.  Of course, the only restriction needed is a water limit, which would force farmers to either grow crops appropriate for their ecosystems or go out of business.

And what estark said is also correct: overpopulation is the most fundamental problem with every environmental issue.  It's not the only problem, but if we don't solve it, we won't solve any environmental problems.  After all, the farmers stealing all the water -- yes, unnaturally taking large amounts of water from an ecosystem causing harm to that ecosystem and/or the plants and/or animals who live there is stealing! -- aren't growing crops to sell to Wall Street, they're going to feed the overpopulated masses.On World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 10 months ago 31 Responses

Big Is Bad

Sorry Gar, but SGP is completely right and you're dead wrong.  Big anything is bad, and that goes for solar, too.  There's no reason every roof is not covered with solar panels with a couple of small wind generators, too.  That's where the effort should go, not into creating more ecologically harmful projects like big wind or big solar, which also need big energy transmission lines that are further environmental destruction.On World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 10 months ago 31 Responses

Monitoring Pollution By Creating Pollution

Will this satellite monitor its own greenhouse gas emissions?  Launching rockets and satellites creates an enormous amount of greenhouse gases and other pollution!

This type of stuff is ridiculous and does nothing to fight human-caused global climate change.  We already know what needs to be done: cessation, or at least great reduction, of driving and otherwise burning of anything for transportation; cessation of creating electricity from fossil fuels; and just a general simplifying of lifestyles of modern industrial humans.  The problem is that people are not willing to give up luxuries that they now consider necessities, not that we don't know where greenhouse gases are being emitted or how much is being emitted in each location.  As is clear from this article, this is nothing but a ploy to expand Japan's space industry, which itself is harmful to the cause of global warming and to other environmental concerns.On Satellite will track greenhouse gases posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

Because ...

As I said, there are no ice ages in the tropics.  Therefore, the rainforests have evolved over a period of approximately 200 million years.  I guess they might grow back in that amount of time, but that's a long time even in geological terms and humans certainly won't be around by then even if we weren't destroying life as we know it, which we are.

There's also another factor is old growth tropical rainforests: because they've been there so long without interruption, the soils are almost completely depleted of nutrients.  Plants grow out of other plants, not out of the ground.  So in order to grow back, the nutrients that were depleted will have to be replaced.  I've never studied this, so I have no idea how long that would take, but I think we could reasonably presume that it would be a very long time.On Experts plead to save tropical forests in peril posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

Dems & Repubs

Mainstream Democrats seem intent on proving that there's no difference between them and Republicans.  Meanwhile, Republicans seem intent on proving that there is a difference.  Downward into the spiral we go.On Alaska Dem. kicks off Congress with call for ANWR drilling posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Bamboo Is Superior To Other Materials

Bamboo is abundant and using it is far less ecologically destructive than using materials made from killing trees, for example.

But the short line in Grist's post raises the real problem: people think that money is more important than the environment.  Nothing will get fixed until that disgusting attitude changes.On How to make an industry irrelevant in one easy step posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

Framing, Dave

It's not that real environmentalists don't care about money or working people -- well some may not but they're a minority -- it's that we care less about those issues than the environment.  That's precisely what makes us environmentalists, by definition.

The reason that this is important is that if it were proven to the right people's satisfaction that trashing the environment were better economically than protecting it, you lose your argument.  Much better, and much higher moral ground, to fight for the environment for its own sake, not because it's a better economic choice.On Browner included on Obama economic team discussions posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 4 Responses

It's The Funding

Or, to be more precise, the lack of funding.  Amtrak is grossly underfunded, while driving is heavily subsidized.  That's the problem, distractions about arresting photographers aside.On Amtrak arrests its own contest participant posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 2 Responses

Maturity Of Americans

About 15 years ago when working there, I asked Longshoremen in an Oakland port whether they'd be willing to pay a little more gasoline tax so that people could ride public transit for free.  The Longshoremen's union is one of the most progressive and selfless ones in the country, and I fully expected a positive response, especially considering that these people are very well paid.  Instead, not one response was positive.  If this is how supposedly progressive, selfless Americans think, imagine how the rest do.On McKibben wonders if U.S. is mature enough to confront climate change. posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 7 Responses

Moron II

The higher the price of harmful things like oil, the better for the natural environment.  Quit crying like a spoiled American; gas prices in this country are far too low anyway.On Eco-activist bids up oil and gas leases at auction posted 11 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

Well Written Propaganda Maybe

When was the last time you saw an article on the many severe harms always
 caused by using the combination of coal, natural gas, dams, and nuclear power and their powerlines?  Giving the benefit of the doubt, let's just say that this was an ignorant piece written by an air-head reporter who didn't even consider its propaganda value against alternative energy.On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses

Empty Promise

Global trade accomplished by industrial transportation is environmentally destructive per se.  The problem is that none of these people prioritize the environment.  They either just give it lip service or, at best, add it to a laundry list of issues as if it were just another issue.On Obama says trade agreements must protect environment posted 11 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses

Bikes Belong On Roads ...

not trails.  Bikes are just another industrial machine, are not at all natural, diminish the nature experience for those of us disturbed by them and, most important, disturb the animals who live there and cause erosion.

Biking instead of driving is great and everyone should at least be strongly encouraged to do so.  But if you want to spend time in nature, spend it naturally, not on a bike.  Learn to use your own feet!On Rule change would allow more mountain biking in national parks posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

Another Right Wing Jerk?

Welcome to Illinois politics.  But Obama is showing right off the bat, before he's even in office, why progressives should abandon the Democratic Party.  Once the party is no longer able to win any elections, it will dry up and blow away, just as it deserves.  Then maybe it will be replaced by several other parties and the U.S. can get proportional representation, a far superior electoral system used by every other democracy but England.  The U.S. is a really right wing, conservative country, but it's not as conservative as its government.On Enviros and urban planners puzzled by Obama's transportation pick posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

Not Just This Administration

Though this one is by far the worst.  But even Democratic administrations put business and property rights interests before the natural environment, including endangered species.  We need a society-wide major paradigm shift from where this society is to one that prioritizes life instead of money, business, and material things.  Otherwise, it will just be more of the same and we can look forward to most species now around becoming extinct within the next 100-1,000 years, likely including our own.On Report finds widespread meddling with species decisions posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

Hey, Hypocritical American

Instead of complaining about what happens in other countries over which we have no control, how about cleaning up your own?  In my lifetime alone, the U.S. has been responsible for three million killings in Vietnam, at least one million each in Angola and Mozambique, and probably one million in Iraq, but at least hundreds of thousands.  That's not to mention smaller numbers of killings in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, and now Afghanistan.  All of these killings were immoral and illegitimate, and, those responsible should have been imprisoned for life or executed.  And none of this includes the genocide committed against Native Americans or enslavement of Africans.  The only people who can legitimately complain about Stalin are Russians.On Bush appointee reportedly holding up transition efforts at NASA posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

Sellouts

I'm really disappointed in Public Citizen.  Sierra Club I'm not surprised, especially lately.On Utility strikes deal with green groups allowing new coal plants to proceed posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

I'll Believe It When I See It

Brazil's leaders, mainly Lula, have shown no commitment to significantly reducing or eliminating rainforest logging.  And even if they did, enforcement is a severe problem.  The indigenous people who live in the rainforests who should be prioritized over environmentally destructive people who claim they need to make a living by destroying the Earth, but I don't see Lula or any other leader committing enough military forces to actually change anything.On Brazil sets plan to cut deforestation by 70 percent over 10 years posted 12 months ago 4 Responses

Poplulation Growth

Bob has it right.  I was going to write just that before I read his comment.  As I've said ad nauseam, overpopulation and overconsumption are the biggest problems, and without greatly reducing both of them no real problems will be solved.

And California is not just experiencing population growth from other states, it's mostly experiencing it from Latin America, mostly Mexico.  The fanatic Catholic culture there that disrespects women discourages birth control and abortion, and generally is the underlying reason that people from that culture have ecologically immorally large families.On Unplugging posted 1 year ago 16 Responses

Now It's Up To Us

Contrary to what people like Dave Roberts think, a boycott of Atlantic bluefin tuna would stop the industry in its tracks and save the fish.On New annual quota for bluefin tuna does the fish no favors, say greens posted 1 year ago 1 Response

Just Take The Land

The government can always condemn the land and take it by eminent domain.  So long as the government can show a public purpose, which restoration of the Everglades clearly is, this type of action cannot be stopped.  The only issue in court would be the amount of money the government would have to pay.On Competing offer for U.S. Sugar complicates Everglades restoration plan posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

People Whose Houses ARE On Fire ...

are living where they don't belong.  If our society knew and cared anything about ecology and the natural environment, it wouldn't allow building of anything in these areas.  Areas susceptible to wildfire should be precluded from human habitation.  If this were done, we wouldn't have the crying about the poor people whose houses are on fire or threatened with it.On Concerns raised about wildfire-fighting chemicals posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Good Riddance To Bad Garbage

Unfortunately, Mark Begich is just another typical Alaskan anti-environmentalist who whores for the oil industry and wants to drill in ANWR.  I can't imagine replacing Stevens not being at least some improvement, but I wouldn't count on much.On Sen. Ted Stevens officially loses reelection bid posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

He's Right, But ...

This from the government that nukes the land with pesticides in order to pander to the U.S.?  Don't be fooled, these people are not environmentalists.On Colombian vice prez chides cocaine users for rainforest destruction posted 1 year ago 1 Response

Letting The Auto Industry Die

Bob,

You obviously don't get the enormity of the lack of public transit in this country.  The plan I suggested would provide far more jobs than the auto industry ever could, and it would be good for the environment instead of bad for it.  As to whether we can afford to let the industry die, that's not an environmental issue.  From an environmental perspective, we can't afford to let it continue.On Bush: all the bailout, none of the social benefits posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

Change? No, Status Quo

Randy,

We have argued many times on this site about whether to support Democrats because they're not as bad as Republicans or to support only progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Greens and other progressive candidates.  Instead of wondering whether they should have just worked for Clinton instead, which is an idiotic concept for a progressive, they should be wondering why they worked for Obama instead of a progressive candidate.  The only substantially good things I can see about Obama is that he mostly supports abortion rights and he's only half white.On Obama's enviro and energy teams heavy on vets of 42nd prez's administration posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

Good Riddance

GM is one of the most destructive, disgusting companies on the planet.  The sooner it gets off, the better.On Call it 'green mobility' posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

At Last!

Something good about genetic engineering.  Almost makes me want to stop opposing it.On Long-term study: GMOs lower fertility in mice posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

Hey Destroy Wilderness Terry

Why don't you change your moniker to Worker, Working Class, or something else more appropriate to your comments.  You obviously prioritize social concerns over the environment, and your moniker is an insult to those of us who actually advocate for wilderness and wildlife protection.On Tolls reduce congestion, but they price people off the roadway posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Election Promises

Let's hope Obama keeps this promise and breaks the ones about attacking Pakistan, making a surge in Afganistan, and increasing the size of the U.S. military.  Unfortunately, I expect it to be the other way around.On Obama's pledge on the border wall posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

Why Bailo Is Wrong

The problem with this attitude toward anything that needs serious change is that it does not produce significant change.  Mining coal, in the first place, is reason alone to ban new coal plants.  Building more of them will simply result in more environmental and ecological destruction by mining, including some of the worst environmental destruction on Earth called mountain top mining.  The only way to stop this hideous practice is to stop building coal plants, not to focus on which ones emit how much pollution or use how much coal.  Those are minor details in comparison.On EPA board freezes construction of new coal-fired power plants in U.S. posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

Addition To Canis Comment

"Cf. the Dick Cheney Hypothesis: Even as little as a 5% risk justifies trashing the Constitution."  And trashing the planet and killing everything.On Navy can use sonar despite risk of whale harm, says Supreme Court posted 1 year ago 16 Responses

We Need More Of This!

Too bad there isn't a severe cloud of smog over every city where people emit air pollution by activities like driving or creating artificial electricity, and too bad the pollution doesn't just stay there instead of moving to and polluting natural areas.  Maybe if people were hit in the face with the consequences of their destructive actions, they'd change.  Maybe.On Concerns grow about giant pollute-y cloud over Asia posted 1 year ago 1 Response

Why Bailout?

These disgusting crapitalists, who constantly parrot the divine values of the free market when it suits their selfish interests, come crying to the government for welfare when they want/need it.  And from an environmental perspective, which is what this website is supposed to be about, the best thing that could happen for the planet re this situation would be for all of these companies to go out of business, the sooner the better.

If there's going to be a bailout, it should be spent on retraining workers in the industry to building, maintaining, and running public transit.  U.S. cities, aside from a few in the east, are sorely lacking in subways, which would be where to start.On Nix fuel-efficiency requirement from Big Auto loan, says White House posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

By 2020?

There probably won't be any salmon left by then.On Nonbinding agreement reached to breach Klamath River dams by 2020 posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Not "Intellecutally Bankrupt"

Underestimating the enemy is often a cause of defeat.  Right wingers are not stupid, they are morally bankrupt and spiritually vacuous.  Intellectually they can be as smart as anyone.  Nixon was brilliant, so is Cheney.  The problem is that they're evil.On The intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism: Heritage even opposes energy efficiency posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

Propaganda

Problem is, propaganda works very well.  Most Americans now believe that ethanol is environmentally superior to gasoline.  Because only the oil industry has enough money and would profit enough by running its own propaganda to counter that of the ethanol industry, and since the oil industry is doing very well, a campaign to educate people is highly unlikely.On When in doubt, propagandize posted 1 year ago 12 Responses

Bipartisanship

This is a problem per se.  It's fine to be bipartisan on an issue where both sides can agree, but what's basically going on here is business interests insisting that Democrats who've been elected to office nevertheless yield some power to the business class in the form of Republicans.

Politics are about people with differing interests advocating for those interests.  Only where those interests converge or can at least be reconciled are calls for bipartisanship legitimate.  Mostly this is just a right attempt to maintain the status quo in favor of business.On Should Hagel and Lugar be considered for Secretary of State given their climate views? posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Scientific Evidence?

Canis,

How does one acquire scientific evidence for such a subjective conclusion?  That's like asking if there is any scientific evidence that the Beatles made better music than the Rolling Stones.                                        

My comment is based on the difference in taste between eggs in restaurants, which are the commercial kind, and the eggs we buy for home.  It's similar to wild meat, such as salmon, tasting better and being more nutritious than domesticated meat.On After landslide victory for Prop. 2, national farm industry squawks posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

We Need A Strong Advocate

That's what the EPA is supposed to do: protect the environment.  Ed Abbey is right about some of the opposition to Kennedy drinking the compromise Kool-aid, and even more so after so many years of criminals running this agency who have done immeasurable and permanent damage to the environment.  Kenndey's problem is that he's too conservative, not that he's too strong of an environmental advocate.

However, on a realpolitik level, his baggage is far too great for the jerks in Congress to confirm him.  On the other hand, he's the best we could possibly hope for from an ideological perspective.  Krazedkeeshond has the best ideas for who would be ideal choices, but people like that are too radical for the people in power to ever accept.On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

Powering The White House

Jimmy Carter, the last president who tried to do something substantial for the environment, put solar panels on the White House.  Ronald Reagan had them removed.  If Obama is to be taken seriously on his talk about renewable energy, the first thing he should do is replace them and get legislation passed that prevents removing them.  Unfortunately, it looks like Obama is just following the corporate "green" line, promoting harmful big projects instead of user-based ones, like solar panels and wind generators on roofs.On A video story of post-election hopes for the planet posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

Industry Lies Are Laughable

There's no chance that this measure will be the end of the egg industry where we get our eggs.  We buy from local farmers who let their chickens run around outside, feed them organic grains, don't cut off their beaks, and don't give them antibiotics.  Not only do we feel good that our eggs don't cause suffering to the chickens, they taste much better and are more nutritious than eggs from tortured hens.On After landslide victory for Prop. 2, national farm industry squawks posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

The Northeast Coast

Republicans from the northeast are nowhere near as bad as the rest of the party.  Defeating them should be the least of our priorities.On Mixed results for green-leaning Republicans in Northeast posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Three Boos For USDA

This is actually very bad for the environment.  You're conflating animal rights with the environment by praising this.  Cattle are non-native, unnatural animals that do great harm when they graze natural areas, especially in the western U.S.  The natural environment would be far better off if they were never let out of their barns.On USDA aims to tighten grazing standards for organic cows posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

What Government?

This is a perfect example of a government that's a wholly owned subsidiary of industry.  Obviously, the tailing ponds should never have been allowed to be built to begin with, probably along with the mines.  Now, when it is absolutely useless to do so, the government gives people this meaningless "warning"?  Great.On When it rains, tailing ponds above Lima to contaminate drinking water posted 1 year ago 1 Response

Right JMG

We should have a $10-15/gallon tax on gasoline that should be fully implemented within two years.  That would give everyone a chance to adjust their lifestyles so there could be no excuses.  The rich would still drive, evil pigs that they are, but the tax would, among other things, provide for free public transit.On As gas prices go down, bad driving habits go up posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

Good One Dr. X

I'd go one step further:  Would you be comfortable mining uranium and having your children and grandchildren doing so?  And would you be comfortable having your ecosystem destroyed by mining?On Nevadans miffed by McCain's glib comment about nuclear safety posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

The Way To Deal With This

Environmental groups should sue to stop the proposed rules.  Then, when Obama gets into office and if he's is worth a crap, he'll settle the suit by retracting the rules.  End of story.On White House begins review of controversial EPA rule posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

The Nerve Of Assholes

This from the same criminals who stole the last two presidential elections and are trying their best to steal this one?  These complaints should be taken with a fraction of a grain of salt.On GOP senators say green group is 'abusing' tax-exempt status posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Back To The Point

OK, let's discuss the real issue.  I said I'm pissed at Grist for propagandizing for the Israeli army, as I would be for any army.  I understand that it's less bad for an army to do things in a less environmentally destructive manner, but these are evil forces that are, among other things, destroying the Earth.  If Grist wants to point out some good things a military does, that's fine, but all the harm it does should also be pointed out, and that harm would dwarf any good.On The Israeli Army goes green posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Get Real, Green Mom

The Israeli army is second only to the U.S. in being evil.  These people are invaders who threw the natives off their land and still make miserable for many of them.On The Israeli Army goes green posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Anthropocentric BS

OK Racc, since you're so willing to sacrifice life in order to build high speed rail, let's try this:  Would you support this project if building it would destroy your home and kill you and your family?  Or destroy other humans' homes and kill their families?On KQED takes a look at California's high-speed rail ballot measure posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Green Military?

Oxymoron.  Tolkien pointed out the ecological destruction that even pre-industrial war causes.  Shame on Grist for promoting this propaganda.On The Israeli Army goes green posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Name The Show, Dave

And the reporter.  If you don't you become part of the propaganda machine by your failure to act.  I know you probably want to be on the show at some point and are afraid of risking alienating them, but that's what they count on for their coercion to work.  Have some huevos and do the right thing here.  These practices of censoring opinions outside of what certain people are willing to allow are totally illegitimate.On More on the media's quest to manufacture a clean-energy backlash posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Correct Moniker

McConnell is the Godfather of Green, it's just that the "green" is money, not the environment.  McConnell supports what amounts to bribes and what should be criminal political and campaign contributions.  He is the worst federal legislator on the issue of trying to get special interest money out of politics.  I'm surprised Grist didn't make a joke out of that.  Come on people, it was easy pickings.On Kentucky Republican McConnell calls himself the 'Godfather of Green' in reelection bid posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Total Conflict Of Interests

Corporate media, which is funded in large part by advertising by the auto and oil industries, has no interest in running stories that are contrary to the interests of those advertisers.  People who get their misinformation from propaganda machines like TV will never know what's really going on.

This is a great example of how the right to free speech needs to be curtailed; lies and half truths should not be allowed to be propagated through media that reaches large numbers of people.  Other countries have much better control over this, but the U.S., with its worship of free speech, allows lying under the pretext that it's free speech.On NBC news ignores climate change, blows the bark beetle story posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

It's Not About Remaining Personally Pure

Come on Randy, why do you always psychoanalyze those of us who vote for candidates that at least come close to our values instead of voting for the lesser of evils?  We don't do this to feel better personally, but to advocate for what we believe in and try to change things for the better in a significant way.

On the other hand, those of you who think that Obama is going to do significant positive things once in office are deluding yourselves.  I realize that things are really awful and have been getting worse for a long time so that we all badly want some positive change and are looking for it wherever possible, but get real!  Show me one place where Obama will do something good that will make a significant change on the big issues: he supports imperialist war -- he just wants to move U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and attack Pakistan -- he promotes propaganda about "terrorists" and "terrorism," which are complete lies concocted to get the public to support more imperialistic military actions in support of U.S. businesses -- mainly the oil industry -- and to create even more of a police state, he supports the coal, nuclear, and oil industries, opposes certain abortions and uses the dishonest term "partial birth abortion" (there's no such thing, it's a "late term abortion"), and has virtually the identical position as McCain on the current economic situation (read some real economists and ignore the corporate propaganda to know what's really needed and what won't work).  (Aside from his disgusting position opposing late term abortions, Obama does have a better position on abortion than McCain, which is the only issue he's discussed where I see a significant difference.)

Obama is clearly a better human being than McCain and I too hope that when he's in office things will get significantly better.  But protests fall on deaf ears nowadays; it takes a major rebellion to get the attention of politicians, and they usually respond to it with military or police force, not by considering a change to policies that are repugnant to the public.  Counting on protests, letters, or other pressure to make Obama do what we want is just not realistic, sorry.On Obama cannot politically afford to take the kind of bold green stances enviros are hungry for posted 1 year, 1 month ago 19 Responses

Don't Understand These Results

How in hell can anyone say that McCain has ignored his base on environmental issues more than Obama?  McCain's base is Republicans, the vast majority of whom don't even pretend to care about the environment.  While making lip service on global warming, McCain takes the very anti-environmental positions of supporting coal and nuclear power, more oil drilling, and supported the gas tax holiday.  But with the exception of the gas tax holiday, Obama has the same positions.  Obama's base is Democrats and unrealistically optimistic progressives, who at least pretend to care about the environment.  So, who's betrayed his base more on this issue?  Clearly Obama.On Grist poll: Which candidate has bucked his base more on the environment? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Radical Change

Yes, a radical change is needed, but it goes way beyond what is suggested here.  The largest source of non-point source pollution in urban areas is the oil leaking from motor vehicles, mainly private autos.  Here in the SF Bay Area, a lot more oil leaks from cars into the Bay annually than was spilled by the COSCO Busan!  Building a good public transit system and eliminating private autos in urban areas is the only solution that would completely fix this problem.  Cities might be able to build some sort of containment to stop the oil from getting into waterways, but there's no way to prevent it from getting into groundwater.

So, the real issue here is where do you stand?  With the Earth, or with humans and their selfish desire to drive regardless of how much harm it causes?On EPA not great at regulating stormwater pollution, says report posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Right On!

The rights of nature should supersede all other rights.  And whether humans like it or not, nature bats last, as the saying goes.On Ecuador approves new constitution granting inalienable rights to nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Runoff

Here in San Francisco Bay, urban runoff emits far more oil into the Bay than even the Cosco Busan oil spill that made national news.  It is vital to prevent runoff of pollutants considering how substantial that runoff is.  Too bad that agribusiness got an exception, but that's the kind of result you get when you have the best government money can buy.  But oil and other unnatural human pollutants are also very harmful and should be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced.On Appeals court rules EPA must protect waterways from construction pollution posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Not A Surprise

The type of people attracted to militaries are aggressive, such as bullies.  And the U.S. military has long been the biggest polluter in the U.S., including the biggest toxic polluter.On States say Pentagon bullies them into not enforcing toxic cleanups posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

John's Correct About Americans

An environmentalist from Europe told me about 25 years ago that parks in the U.S. more closely resembled Disneyland than parks in his part of the world.  I was arrested, along with others, protesting development in Yellowstone and uranium mining in the Grand Canyon just outside the park (great example of why nuclear power must be eliminated).  The fact that we had to protest activities that should not have existed in the first place speaks volumes about the people in this country.On Judge tosses federal plan to allow more snowmobiles into Yellowstone posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Well Duh!

the GMO giants got the science wrong: the relationship between organisms and individual genes is much more complex and mysterious than researchers originally thought.

Gee, some of us have been saying this for decades, as in humans will never know enough to be messing with the basic building blocks of life without incurring serious, unforeseen consequences.

The science hawkers and their sheep, the science worshipers, are destroying life as we know it.  Humans need to get rid of their self-worshiping hubris and get some humility, fast.  All technology is ecologically and environmentally harmful, and the less of it we use and the more simple it is, the better.On The GMO industry has been scraping by on bad science posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

More Directly On Point

I have personally been involved in political negotiations and know exactly how they work.  The point is that coming from an anti-drilling position, the Democrats should never have agreed to drilling without getting anything significant in return.  And the Democrats should be playing hardball on the extension of the renewable tax credits.  Some ideas are attaching it to must pass legislation or refusing to fund certain things that the administration deems necessary until the renewal is law.

The weak positions of the Democrats are disgusting, and have nothing to do with what's feasible.  Those weak positions are caused by a lack of caring about the environment and pro-corporate, pro-cosumerist ideologies.On House Republicans push their drilling agenda and Dems don't counter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Gasoline Must Be Taxed

Reducing or eliminating driving is by far the biggest thing individuals can do to have a positive environmental impact.  Higher gas prices will cause less driving, so saying something like, gasoline is "already taxed" is nothing but disingenuous pandering.  But what do you expect from liberals like these guys and Democrats?On Environment and energy hot topics in Canadian election posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

Personal Vision?

Consumption and burning of oil greatly harms or destroys ecosystems, emits toxic pollution, poisons the water and kills animals with oil spills, and poisons the air with pollution that causes, among other things, global climate change.  Therefore, mass transit powered by solar collectors and wind generators that do not consume oil is much better for the Earth.  This is not my "personal vision," it's a pure fact.  If you were an environmentalist you'd know that.On House Republicans push their drilling agenda and Dems don't counter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

I Agree, Pay As You Go

While I'd love to see a very high gasoline tax, I'm also OK with charging for miles driven.  Making the cost high enough would certainly change behaviors toward less car travel, which is better for the Earth.On Bike-hatin' DOT head Mary Peters warns of decline in gas-tax revenues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

No Compromise In Defense Of Mother Earth!

I'm just going to keep saying it.  This is what Democrats get for compromising where they shouldn't have in the first place.  No more oil drilling, period!  And start taxing oil and gasoline, build public transit that runs off solar and wind power, and begin shutting down the evil oil rigs that now exist.  THAT would have been a Democratic proposal I could've gotten on board with.On House Republicans push their drilling agenda and Dems don't counter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Saluki's Attitudes Are Common, Unfortunately

Jon's milquetoast response to Saluki is totally insufficient.  This isn't about making nice for people who drive, it's about getting people out of cars because doing so is better for the Earth.

But back to my point:  Many, if not most, Americans are selfish enough to hold Saluki's and Paleocon's points of view.  They care far more about their own comfort and/or convenience than about the Earth or society as a whole.  It is this attitude that must change if we are ever going to solve the immense ecological and environmental problems humans have caused and are still causing since the beginning of agriculture.  Humans have a basic choice: either evolve mentally and spiritually into far less selfish, materialistic beings, or destroy life as we know it, including the human race.  Half measures won't do the trick.On Expanded transit can lead to energy independence posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 Responses

Democrats Are No Answer

Human Power and SGP are quite correct.  We will never get anything adequate from Democrats, because they just represent the liberal faction of corporate America.  This is why I've been voting Green for a long time and refuse to vote lesser-of-evil Democratic, regardless of how bad a Republican candidate is.

Nancy Pelosi is nothing but a political hack and I'm working for her opponent, Cindy Sheehan, in the upcoming election.  I'm embarrassed that Pelosi, who opposes impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney and continues to fund the immoral and illegal war in Iraq, supposedly represents me in Congress and this time I'm actively working to defeat her.On House Democrats unveil their energy package posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Criminal Disaster

[I]t would be a criminal disaster to implement organic food projects in countries where people still have to farm and work to make a living.

No, what's a criminal disaster is to produce and use artificial chemicals that poison the Earth and everything that lives here.  Feeding some members of an already grossly overpopulated species is no excuse for poisoning the Earth.  Your anthropocentric fanaticism is thoroughly disgusting.On New data show that 2008 organic food sales will reach $32.9 billion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Three American Elephants

Fonzie,

You couldn't be more wrong.  The U.S. is the right wing capital of the world.  Even business leaders in Europe around WWI were commenting how the U.S. is such a business run society.  The Hamiltonian right wingers won the war as soon as Thomas Jefferson died, and the only respite we've had was between the 1929 stock market crash and the end of WWII, when average Americans were really hurting financially.  Once average people became prosperous -- owning houses and cars just like rich people -- they started voting Republican, as Michael Moore pointed out years ago.  And even the ones who remained Democrats became much more right wing, leading to a Democratic Party that's also a right wing party, just not as right wing as the Republican Party.  As was explained to me after questioning how Americans could have reelected Richard Nixon, there are far too many Archie Bunkers in the U.S. to ever elect a progressive like George McGovern.

Fonzie & Wildfire,

The reason for the right wing politics/apathy among average Americans is their prosperity.  As most people become rich, as average Americans have, they become far less interested in politics and far more interested in just their personal lives.  What drives political interest for most people is the perceived need for it.  Where people think everything is fine because they've got theirs, they simply don't care anymore.  I know from friends who live in Europe and who have live there that the U.S. is significantly more racist, but that doesn't explain anything except opposition to Obama.  John Kerry is white and wasn't running on anti-racist platforms, so how do you explain his not trouncing George Bush?On New Scientist assesses McCain and Obama on science issues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Anything That Reduces Industrial Shipping ...

is a good thing.  Higher prices for shipping containers, which is how most global freight is shipped, would cause a rise in prices and hopefully less consumption, resulting in less environmentally harmful shipping.

Things like this are baby steps, but they're at least moving in the right direction.On Palin asks Schwarzenegger to veto bill that would reduce port pollution posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Right On, Great Verdict!

This supports what I've said on Grist, that property damage alone is NOT violence.  BTW, for all those who disagreed with me, I want to relate a story from here in San Francisco.  I was at a forum at a college here a few years ago that posed the question of whether property damage is violence.  There was a panel discussion, after which the audience of about 200 was asked to vote.  We unanimously agreed that property damage per se is not violence, but that driving is.  My point is that my view is not as isolated as many of you may think; there are many who agree with this notion.

Ed,

First, you don't even know what "anarchy" is.  It is taking greater personal responsibility in order to have greater personal freedoms, to the point where government is no longer needed.  At this point in human evolution it is merely an unattainable goal to be striven for, not a system that has ever existed anywhere in human civilization.

Second, I see that you place artificial human constructs, like "the law," above nature, natural systems, and all other life.  Aside from the pure immorality of that position, let's see how well that serves you when you have to live on your law after you've ruined the natural systems on which life depends.On Greenpeace protesters acquitted in coal-activism case posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Root Of The Problem

I don't know that I'd call Obama's response "pandering."  I agree that legitimate U.S. action would have consisted of identifying the culprits and taking action against them AND ONLY THEM, but that alone totally fails to address the cause of the attack.

What Obama should have said is that the attack was due to U.S. foreign policy, specifically doing great harm to other people and cultures for oil (actually, if you read bin Laden's demands, they're very reasonable), and that Americans need to simplify their lifestyles so that they consume less, thereby reducing harm to others around the world so that they won't hate us and this won't happen again.  I don't condone extrajudicial killing of unarmed civilians for any reason, but if you want to seriously deal with any problem, you have to address its roots, and some of the work done in the WTC buildings was the cause of the harms mentioned above.On Obama mentions green programs in 9/11 public-service forum posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Well, 2/3 Hippies

I didn't see anything about rock & roll.On Interior Department employees under investigation for sex, drugs, and bribe scandal posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Mass Transit Balance Sheets

Greentiger,

What's needed is a comparison of how much environmental and ecological damage each form of transportation causes (walking = zero, driving & flying the most, others in between), and which less harmful forms of transit are more efficient (does it make more sense to build subways or have physically dedicated bus lanes where approaching buses trigger stoplights so that they don't have to stop for them or be held up by other traffic?).  Obsessing on economic concerns just supports the status quo of everyone destroying the Earth by driving private motor vehicles.On Transportation stuff posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

If You Worship Humans ...

you don't see and/or don't care about the immense harms they're doing.

To compare my advocacy for everything non-human with Aztec sacrifices is not only idiotic, it's a completely false analogy.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, period.  I don't support the Aztecs in any way.  They were overpopulated, violent agriculturalists who unfortunately got their comeuppance from people who were far worse in those regards.  Too bad both groups didn't just starve out like agricultural societies eventually do.

As to your "Buddhist" ideas:  The beginning of what you wrote is from Hinduism, not Buddhism.  What the hell does a Upanishad have to do with Buddhism, other than that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism?

The basic ideas of Buddhism are 1) living in the present and being aware of yourself and your actions at all times, 2) shedding your desires, beginning with your material ones, and 3) realizing we are all one with everything in the universe and that any feelings of separation are just illusions.

The ideas of enlightenment and enlightened people are Utopian goals that are to be striven for, but cannot be reached.  Thinking that there are certain people who are capable of reaching some godlike state while everyone else is doomed to a lower level of existence is a gross misunderstanding of Buddhist teachings.  Anyone can raise his or her level of consciousness; the issue is whether one is willing to make the effort and give it priority, which is what separates more enlightened people from everyone else.  Like everything else in life, some people can attain higher levels than others, but everyone can reach a higher level than the common person who is stuck in the wheel of desires and the illusion of separation, and whose mind is constantly wandering instead of focusing on the here and now.

On the subject of anthropocentrism v. biocentrism, traditional indigenous people -- who understand that humans are no better or more important than any other form of life and that everything in the natural world is alive -- are far more spiritually evolved than whoever wrote or believes what you summarized from Hinduism.  There is absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that people are better or more important than any other form of life.  Each species has capabilities that others lack, but choosing one set of capabilities, anointing it the most important one, then claiming that because humans are the only species that can perform it they are superior, is just totally subjective human worshiping garbage.  By my personal standards, my first horse was far more intelligent than the vast majority of people I've met!

Ecologically speaking, humans are almost certainly the least important species on the planet.  I can't think of one ecological function that humans fulfill.  Because of that, if you want to prioritize species, humans should be given the least priority, not the most.

Finally, your assertion that if humans acted, well, more human, all would be fine is not subject to analysis, because the standards are far too subjective and amorphous.  For example, of course if everyone acted with compassion instead of greed things would be much better, but would humans also act with compassion toward the natural world?  If not, things would not be any better for it, just for humans.  And lack of appreciation of art and sciences is not at all an environmental problem.  Lack of appreciation of biology, especially wildlife biology and marine biology, and ecology are serious environmental problems, but appreciation of traditional indigenous teachings would serve as well or better.On Only GMOs and agrichemicals can 'feed the world,' don't you know? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 53 Responses

What's The Purpose?

What exactly is the point of debating this?  To provide PR for some companies that make money by either causing or allowing non-native plants and animals to invade ecosystems?  Like any company that uses global or otherwise long distance trade?

This is a perfect example of where the precautionary principle needs to be used.  Because humans can never know all they need to know in order to prevent serious ecological harms from non-natives, the prudent course of action is to prevent non-natives from being propagated and moved around by humans as much as possible.  (As Wisc said above, we also need to remove them and replace them with natives as much as possible, but that is a more advanced step in the process.)On Could invasive species be a good thing? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

This Is Pure Idiocy

There are many more important reasons to not kill old growth trees or destroy old growth forests than their value as carbon sinks and storehouses.  This is another of the many examples of environmentally harmful obsession with global warming.  What if the study had found that old growth forests emit CO2?  Would the GW obsessed then advocate destroying them, killing entire ecosystems and everything that lives there?On Old-growth forests absorb more CO2 than they release, study finds posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Don't Let The Anti-Enviros Frame The Debate

I realize this sounds too radical for all you anthropocentric types, but what's being debated here is basically whether humans can feed their grossly overpopulated numbers with organic farming, or whether they need to kill countless more non-humans and create even more environmental and ecological destruction to do so.  The assumption that feeding all these people should be done at all costs in the first place is the real question.

You people are all myopically and anthropocentrically focusing only on humans.  Your chemical agriculture has killed and is killing millions of others, destroying ecosystems, and severely polluting the planet.  This is more immoral than allowing members of an overpopulated species to starve, which is what would happen in nature anyway.  Which humans would starve would of course not be fair -- it would be the poorest and least powerful -- but it would still be far better than further dousing the Earth with more chemical poisons.On Only GMOs and agrichemicals can 'feed the world,' don't you know? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 53 Responses

Indigenous People

A word of caution when discussing what indigenous people do or refrain from doing.  This is not a monolithic group; there are traditional indigenous people, who you've seen me invoke here, who almost universally do not do things like killing trees, with rare exceptions, and there are indigenous people who want to be just like white people.  So saying that there are indigenous groups involved in forestry is pretty meaningless, because there are people of all colors and ethnicities that will do great ecological and environmental harm for money and/or convenience.  It's the traditional people I respect, not merely indigenous ones.  After all, white people are indigenous to Europe and look at how they devastated that continent.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

Artificial Biodiversity

I don't understand why Grist publishes anti-environmental crap like this.  Non-native species are a huge environmental problem, especially in that they are a major cause of loss of biodiversity.  The fact that humans can create artificial biodiversity by planting non-natives is irrelevant: we don't know what harm they'll cause, which could be severe and which could take place over a very long time so that it will be too late once the non-natives take hold.

This post sounds like PR propaganda for global trade, as in don't worry, non-native plants are actually good for you.  Yeah right, so is sodium di-poisonate.On Could invasive species be a good thing? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

More Needless Garbage Destroying The Earth

There's absolutely no excuse for consuming bottled water with the exception of a very few rare instances where you need multiple bottles and have no access to water.  Between the consumption of plastic and the pollution of empty bottles to the ecological destruction caused by removing large amounts of water from aquifers to consumption and burning of oil for transportation, this industry causes a lot of environmental harm.

Instead of destroying the planet by consuming this crap, buy a filter for your home and a permanent bottle for traveling.  The water will be just as good or better than bottled, and you won't be consuming plastic, oil, or depleting an aquifer.On U.S. bottled-water guzzling is slowing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Response

Clearcuts Are Always Bad

The timber industry and its shills like the Forest Disservice like to claim that clearcutting is good, but that's pure B.S. with nothing to back it up.  No real forest ecologist or wildlife biologist would ever say this.

They clearcut their forests in the Middle East and now, thousands of years later, they've still got desert.  All ecosystems are different, but unless humans learn from mistakes of the past, the results could easily be repeated in other places.

Not to mention the pure immorality of killing trees, which humans don't need and which causes great harm and/or death to species dependent on them.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

Stop Worshipping Science

Even if science can't produce evidence of the harms of placing human contraptions in natural areas, your intuition and wisdom should alert you to them.  But as George Mobious has written here many times, humans are woefully short in these areas, and this is the root cause of ecological environmental harms.  Science is far too anthropocentric and reductionist in its outlook to be the ultimate decider of policies.  We need a strong love and respect for the natural environment, guided by intuition and wisdom.  Otherwise, the entire planet would eventually be covered with crap like this, if humans don't destroy life-as-we-know-it first.On Offshore wind power in U.S. poised to take off posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Boyscientist Typifies Human Attitudes

Especially American ones.  Even though most people don't use things like powerboats or snowmobiles, Boyscientist exemplifies the anti-Earth attitude that it's OK to do those things.  Personal choice, you know.  Americans are the worst, thinking that they have the right to do whatever they want, the rest of the planet be damned.  Too bad they don't have to experience the other end of this crap, like that of a marine mammal being attacked by the massive noise from boat and ship engines, or the ecosystems and their inhabitants that suffer and die due to consumption of oil.  Oh yeah, Boyscientist says we should just cause these harms in a cleaner way.  Yeah, that'll fix everything.On EPA requires emissions cuts by lawn mowers and speedboats posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

BetterThan Nothing

But that's about it.  Needless environmentally destructive garbage like motorized recreation and lawn mowers should be eliminated, not merely regulated.  The emissions from these things are minor details compared to some of their other effects, like unnatural loud noise, killing and disturbing wildlife, and consumption of oil.

So long as humans are willing to consume and burn oil just for fun or convenience, how exactly are we supposed to convince them to solve problems like global warming?On EPA requires emissions cuts by lawn mowers and speedboats posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Oil Is Killing The Planet

Only a few members of one species are being harmed by high oil prices, and that's assuming your assertion is true.  Consumption and burning of oil, on the other hand, have killed and are killing millions.  Just because they're not human doesn't make that any less disgusting.On One farmer says 'peak oil' prompted energy-saving steps posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Don't Forget, Dr. X

It was the U.S., in the person of Zbigniew Brzezinski, that goaded the Soviet Union to start a war in Afghanistan.  The U.S. is as far from being innocent in world politics as it gets.  It and the Soviet Union were twin scourges on the planet, and now the U.S. is the absolute power that's absolutely corrupt.

One thing wrong with this analysis is that Michael Klare minimizes the fact that this stuff is taking place on Russia's southern border.  Imagine if Russia were doing in Mexico the type of stuff the U.S. did and is still doing in Georgia.On The Bush administration falters in a geopolitical chess match posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Reality v. Fantasy

there is a way to live in harmony with the Earth and with people, while accommodating a far larger population and potentially higher (selective) resource demands from our world.

And what is your evidence that this utopia is possible?  Have you ever studied any ecology or wildlife biology, even informally?  It is a fact that we would need several planets to accommodate the level of consumption you're describing for even our current overpopulation.  And what about leaving enough land free of post hunter-gatherer humans in order to allow healthy ecosystems and species?  Again, it is a fact that humans and their infrastructures, agriculture, and contraptions have occupied virtually the entire land mass of our planet.  It is another fact that ecosystems and many of their species need a minimum of 50,000 acres of wilderness in order to be just viable, let alone healthy, and that they also need wilderness corridors between those ecosystems in order to prevent inbreeding and just to allow some species to migrate where they wish.

So, if you can answer all those concerns, I'm willing to entertain how humans can live in harmony with the rest of the planet without greatly lowering consumption and population.  However, even if that were possible, which it's not, lust for material things is aspiritual and contrary to everything that is good about life, not to mention that it will always result in unhappiness.  Same with overbreeding.
On Bearded freak hippie discusses biofuels with Bill Scher posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

Howcome?

i remember i had a second hand 1979 chevy monza 4 cylinder,4-speed that gave me 43 mpg highway.no special gimmacks on it,just maintained.how come it seems so hard for them auto makers to copy that with all that computer crap they install?

Because they have no interest in doing it.  For some reason that I don't really understand even though I've read a couple of long explanations, the auto manufacturers see themselves as allied with the oil companies.  Higher gas mileage means less gasoline used, so they think it's against their interests to make cars that get good mileage.  I had a 1972 Datsun 1200 that got around 40 mpg, and if they could do that over 35 years ago, imagine what they could do now if they really wanted to.On U.S. EPA criticizes DOT over fuel-economy standards posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Good Start

The packaging industry causes much environmental harm, from the consumption of trees and oil to the creation of trash, and should be eliminated.  This is a good start, just like taking canvass shopping bags to the store instead of consuming paper or plastic ones.On New HP laptop packaged in messenger bag instead of box posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Tough Issue

The West is in the middle of a furious conflict between the city and the country, in part a class war, in part a generational one, which has significant political consequences ... The ESA [Endangered Species Act] was an easy way to stop Federal logging, but at a great cost. It made all the rural voters hate endangered species, because besides losing their logging and mill jobs, their schools and county services are starving without federal timber receipt money; the Forest Service staffs are a fraction of what they were a decade ago, the logging simply shifted to private timber lands, and the situation is primed for Bush to sell off National Forest land.

This raises some tough issues.  If we oppose logging, we're being hypocritical unless we also refrain from using wood products.  And shifting logging to private lands is almost always worse than allowing it on federal lands, because private lands have even fewer regulations.  There is also the issue that the timber companies, through their lackeys in government, made schools and county services dependent on logging revenues, creating a situation where few if any rural residents would be brave and self-sacrificing enough to oppose logging.

But the bigger issue here is that European-Americans invaded the Americas with the same attitudes with which they destroyed the natural environments in Europe.  The Native Americans of the northwest did not kill trees in any noticeable numbers, nor did they mine or graze non-native animals like cattle.  Unfortunately, white people don't seem to know how to live without destroying everything natural (thus the question from a 19th century Native American, "Why do white people hate everything in nature?"), so now we have a situation where when environmentalists try to protect the natural world, rural people are up in arms.  And to make matters worse, it's not just rural people, but everyone who consumes the products that are a result of environmental destruction, and most of those live in cities.

This shows just how screwed up things are.  It's not that these problems can't be solved, but doing so will take major changes in our societies and how we all live.  We must stop consuming things like large numbers of dead trees, and learn to live a lot more simply.  Otherwise, we will continue to be the cause of the sixth great extinction, with humans almost certainly being one of the extinct species.On Disappearing owls, threatened forests, and the city-country conflict posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

"Top Environmental Leader"?

I'd say whoever wrote the email is more like a top panderer.  You should expose this person for all to see, so we can know which group would put such a milquetoast person at the top.  I have my suspicions, but it would be far better to know.

This is not to say that we shouldn't stick to facts, at least as far as we can know them, as Sam suggests.  But uncertainty of facts was not the reason for the email, so this is a non-issue here.On Some enviros self-censor, but should progressives? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 29 Responses

Fundamental Issues

None of what I say below is meant as a critique of Bart's advocated strategy, but is instead aimed at the fundamental issue of overpopulation that is being totally ignored, as usual, that Palin raises by her own choice of having five children.

Bart said, "[t]he fact that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant makes her seem more human to me, and it may make her more tolerant."  No, that fact means that she has probably been a failure as a parent, and in more ways than one.  I couldn't care less whether kids have sex, but they should be taught in all circumstances to take precautions against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, just as we were.  But what do you expect when her daughter has, as an example, a mother who thought nothing of adding five more humans to the grossly overpopulated number.

And things like the right to abortion and overbreeding are not "symbolic cultural issues," but are instead fundamental environmental issues and in the case of the right to abortion, a fundamental human right.

McCain's choice is loathsome in every way.  Perhaps Bart has the best strategy for dealing with it, but we should never lose sight of what a hardcore anti-environmentalist Sarah Palin is.On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 3 months ago 74 Responses

Anthropocentrism Defines Our Differences

Jonas and Mac analyze benefits and harms to only humans, which explains their ideologies and desires.

Mac says that Russ and I "want civilization to crumble."  I can't speak for Russ, but I want civilization to end, "civilization" being agricultural societies.

While the end of civilization sounds harsh to most humans, the reason is that they don't consider the massive harms that civilization has done to the rest of the planet.  EVERY OTHER FORM OF LIFE would be very happy for civilization to collapse due to the immense harm it has caused to them.

Jonas thinks that it's OK to have a grossly overpopulated number of humans consume like Americans, which is as unrealistic as it is immoral.  It is unrealistic because we'd need several planets in order to provide the resources.  It's immoral because overconsumption is very harmful to other forms of life; take what you need and leave the rest for others, and don't kill except to eat.

Bottom line: be a real environmentalist and have some empathy with other forms of life.  Humans are only one of millions of species on Earth, yet they are destroying life as we know it.  All life, including the air, land, and water deserve equal consideration.  After all, we're all equal parts of the web of life, entitled to live out our lives without being killed or unnecessarily harmed by humans for selfish desires or mere convenience.  You want advancement and happiness for humans?  Study Buddhism and Taoism and promote spiritual evolution, not massive consumption of needless crap and overbreeding.On Slow foodies unveil declaration of sustainability posted 1 year, 3 months ago 45 Responses

Frontiersmen

Alaskans probably are frontiersmen, but the issue is whether being one is a good thing.  Let's see, the frontiersmen in what's now the mainland U.S. murdered the natives, stole their land, and destroyed it for profits and personal conveniences.  So Alaskans certainly fit the definition, but it's nothing anyone with any sense of morality would brag about.On A look at Palin's preferred method of killing wolves posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses

Left v. Environment

Lula is a perfect example of what my Native American friends mean when they say they dislike the left as much as the right.  Lula is directly responsible for much rainforest destruction due to his agricultural polices.  It is the people who live in the rainforests who should be given the priority here, not the overpopulated masses who invade rainforests and destroy them in order to grow crops.

Jonas's comments are a perfect example of the anthropocentric attitude: forget the entire planet except humans and just do what's desirable for them in the short term.  While my main problem with that attitude is its lack of morality, it is also not ecologically viable and will eventually cause a collapse of these immoral human systems.On Wendell Berry's statement of facts posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

And Another Thing

I forgot another great quote from the book:

Humanity must stop indulging the desire for material possessions and personal gain and move instead toward spiritual awareness.

This is the way toward evolution of the human race.  Increased technology and complicated lifestyles, which only serve to further destroy the natural world and all who live there, are actually de-evolution; as the band Devo said, we are devolving into a race of robots.  Humans are past the point of physical evolution.  Mental and spiritual evolution are the only evolutionary paths still available.

Not to mention that killing for any reason other than to eat is totally immoral, and killing is what technology does.On Long live 'do-nothing farming' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

Delay & Harm

Jonas,

You've got to be kidding.  Industrial agriculture has done so much harm to the Earth in so many ways that I won't even bother listing them.  Removing artificial chemicals and producing food for local consumption instead of shipping it long distances can only provide positive results.  What will cause great harm is to continue the so-called green revolution.On Slow foodies unveil declaration of sustainability posted 1 year, 3 months ago 45 Responses

No Sean, Pangolin Is Right

Because you are stuck in the capitalist, for-profit mindset, you waste all sorts of time and energy trying to figure out a good way to regulate utilities.  Publicly owned utilities are generally much better both environmentally and to their customers.  People who pay public power companies almost universally pay lower rates, and the one (SMUD) in Sacramento, California, actually shut down a nuke plant in favor of a solar one.

Privately owned utilities have absolutely no incentive to provide cleaner energy.  Their overriding concern is to turn a profit for their shareholders, which is almost always contrary to environmental concerns.On Kansas conversations on utilities and efficiency posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

A Lot Of Fish Is Obvious

Those of us who eat fish, even seldom as we do, can tell what kind of fish we're eating.  There's no way, for example, someone could serve me mackerel and convince me that it was tuna.  This is especially true in sushi cuisine, because most of it is raw and all of it is unprocessed.On New York teenagers identify weak link in seafood chain posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Agreed Canis

Vandana Shiva is a hero.  People like her and Helen Caldicott should be running the planet instead of the egocentric, anthropocentric, myopic, selfish, greedy, power-hungry jerks who run it now.  I'm sure that she and people like those in the slow food movement, along with advocates of "do-nothing" farming, could come up with a much less ecologically harmful way to grow food.  Hey!  I can dream if I want!On Sandwiched between the two political conventions, a slice of food politics from San Francisco posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Great Post

As a Japanese reviewer said, the point of the book, well beyond farming, is that "instead of struggling to control and command nature, we must learn to work with and learn from nature."

Masanobu Fukuoka explains that industrial agriculture works to control nature with the false assumption that humans can adequately understand nature and improve on it.  This speaks even more to genetic engineering, which has the capability to cause problems that are even more fundamental and long-lasting than those caused by chemical farming.

Human Beings with their tampering do something wrong, leave the damage unrepaired, and when the adverse results accumulate, work with all their might to correct them. When the corrective actions appear to be successful, they come to view these measures as splendid accomplishments.

Biod's comment speaks perfectly to my objection to agriculture: it is totally unnatural, destroying what grows naturally in favor of what one species wants.  Very ecologically destructive and arrogant toward nature and the natural world.  As Biod said, farming should be done with as little harm as possible.  Of course, the ultimate goal should be getting back to hunting and gathering, not harming nature and natural processes by farming.

Finally, Fukuoka's comment about specialization speaks perfectly to one of my objections to western science, which is its reductionist view of life.  Only by taking a holistic view can one have an idea of what's really going on.  The reductionist view of western science is very myopic.On Long live 'do-nothing farming' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

Criticisms Of Slow Food

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but attacks on the slow food movement and people like Alice Waters, Michael Pollan, or Calro Petrini are extremely repugnant to environmental goals.  The problem is that all food is not local and organic.  If it were, everyone could afford it.  The disgusting subsidies that allow chemical and long distance food are the problem, not the movement or people advocating for them.On Sandwiched between the two political conventions, a slice of food politics from San Francisco posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Polar Bears In Open Oceans

LaRojaja,

It's not that polar bears were spotted in the open ocean that's the problem.  It's that due to melting ice they're forced to swim distances significantly longer than those for which they have evolved.On Polar bears in open water prompt more worries about climate change posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Western Science & Wisdom

Vakibs,

What's wrong with western science is what I said in the post to which you responded.  Because you're anthropocentric, you find nothing wrong with science's anthropocentrism.  Because you apparently have some relation to formal science, you don't see anything wrong with its reductionist approach to looking at the world.  Whether something is "bad" is subjective, but I define it, for the purpose of this discussion, as anything that harms the natural environment.  Western science and its thinking has certainly done a great deal of that harm.  That is obviously not your definition of "bad," so there's no basis on which to agree.

You are also dead wrong about wisdom, because it's the only thing that can properly guide behavior away from being destructive.  It can't come later, it must be out front.  And you don't seem to understand what wisdom is.  It is not intuition, though that can certainly be a significant part of it.  Wisdom is the sense of knowing whether to behave or refrain from behaving in a certain manner when you have the ability to do so.  As George has been so brilliantly pointing out, the root of our problems is that human intellect has run amok while human wisdom has been absent from important decisions.  Part of the reason for this could be overdeveloped egos, but I think it goes beyond that.

And BTW, if humans are not the cause of the evils on our planet, what is?  I suppose this depends on what your definition of "evil" is, but who or what else could possibly cause it?  Consider these facts: 1) the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth, and 2) the human species interacts with the natural environment more like a virus species than a mammalian one.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

Traditional Indigenous People

Perhaps I should have said traditional "hunter-gatherers" instead of "indigenous people."  Hunter-gatherers use no agriculture, slash & burn or otherwise.  The natives on Easter Island destroyed their environment with agriculture, which I've said many times here was the root of all of our environmental and ecological problems.  Hunter-gatherer societies do not rise and fall like agricultural ones do.  They endure because they live in harmony with nature instead of trying to manipulate it.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

Courage & Wisdom

George and David are both right, because the people running this country and the world lack both wisdom and courage.  They are unwise because they don't have a holistic view of life, are self-centered, egotistic, materialistic, and power-hungry.  The are cowardly because they won't say things in public that they perceive might cause them to lose their power or positions.  But lack of wisdom is a bigger and more fundamental problem than lack of courage, because very few are wise enough to see what needs to be done, which cannot be found in intellectual facts alone.

Take David's example of the changing behaviors due to rising gasoline prices.  A wise choice would be to forgo driving because driving is bad for the Earth, regardless of the personal convenience it provides.  But even people who know driving is bad for the Earth will not stop driving for that reason.  This is not for a lack of courage, but because they foolishly place their individual desires above the interests of the rest of the planet.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

A Basic Evil Of GMOs

"Perhaps Federoff is pushing an open-source approach to GMOs"?

Tom, I realize, or at least hope, that you were being facetious, but considering the massive amount of PR lies the genetic engineering industry has put forth, it's a bad idea to even make a statement like this in jest in a forum where it could easily be taken seriously.

But more importantly and fundamentally, you should explain to readers why genetic engineering does not in any way mimic nature, as a lot of people seem to have fallen for this outright lie.  Nothing in nature blasts a cell of one organism into the being of another.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

Ed Abbey Is Right

And we should begin by sending white people back to Europe.On Border-fence design exacerbated flooding along U.S.-Mexico border posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

And An Example Of Our Destructive Society

The fact that there is a garbage patch that is 700,000 km to more than 15 million km in size shows that the entire basis of humans' consumptive/throw away manner of living is dead wrong and must be changed.  Plastic is one of the most evil things ever invented and should be abolished.On Homemade garbage barge about to make landfall in Hawaii posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Dr. X's Compromise

Sorry Tom, I can't go along with this at all, and would urge all who are anti-nuclear to oppose it.  As usual, the supposed environmental analysis totally ignores and minimizes the two most environmentally harmful aspects of nuclear power, mining and nuclear waste.  Unless nuclear power can be created without mining uranium or anything else, we should unequivocally oppose it, no compromise.  Same goes unless the industry can find a way to get rid of the waste or make it non-radioactive, and by getting rid of it I don't mean putting it in someone else's backyard.On A choice of primary energies: nuclear power takes the silver posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

The "Science" Of Environmentalism

Vakibs,

There is no scientific discipline called "environmentalism."  You might be thinking of the discipline of "ecology."  Environmentalism means advocating for the environment.  That advocacy can be based on science, but it need not be.  The best environmentalists are traditional indigenous people, who are not scientists and whose views are not based on what you would call science.

And the most basic definition of being an environmentalist is advocating for the environment.  If you don't at least do that, you're not an environmentalist by definition.

As to getting good results, you don't get good environmental results if you allow people to fashion policy who have motives other than the best environmental results.  That was the point of my post.  I never advocated that those making policy should not be properly informed about how ecological systems or other natural systems operate.  But worship of western science blinds you to the fact that traditional indigenous people have known these things for at least centuries.  Western science is too anthropocentric and reductionist to provide the best environmental results.  Traditional wisdom should guide policies.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

Right About Phoenix And Las Vegas

Don,

When I was a 48-state trucker, Phoenix and Vegas were my most hated cities (still are).  They are beyond unsustainable, they have already caused massive ecological destruction just by their existence.  Add to that the fact that people in Phoenix have lawns and swimming pools, which waste massive amounts of water and should be prohibited in the West due to its arid nature, and the massive waste of electricity that is Las Vegas, which requires the hideous Hoover Dam(n), and you have the two cities that I'd like to remove the most.On McCain stirs up tizzy in West with Colorado River comment posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

Vakibs

1. I never claimed to be a liberal.  I'm not even a progressive, nor am I a leftist.  My ideology re environmentalism can best be described as Earth First!, which means 1) protection and restoration of natural areas and native species is my first and foremost priority, 2) every species has an equal right to live or, to look at it ecologically, an equal part to play in the web of life, and 3) no compromise in defense of Mother Earth.

2. Because the Earth itself, its ecosystems, and its species are my priorities, the environment is my first priority.  All else is secondary.  That doesn't mean I don't care about other issues; in fact, I care about almost all of them.  But the Earth comes first.

3. What is not objective about saying that Obama's  energy advisors should be people who would provide the best environmental results?  What do you mean by "objective," that people who advocate that selfish human desires should be given equal priority with the environment should have equal say?  This has nothing to do with being objective or subjective, it has to do with advocating for the environment.

Voting As Constituents Want

Bob,

Here in California, Senator Dianne Feinstein's mail, email, and phone calls were running something like 10-1 against the war.  She said that if she voted as her constituents wanted, she'd have to vote against it.  But she voted for it anyway.  So Biden has no excuse, especially on an issue that big.

That said, this seems to be a decent choice.  Not as good as the Kansas governor for someone who can stand up to power, but probably better politically.On Enviros generally pleased with Biden's record on environmental issues posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

What?

Can't you envision the average Joe & Jane in Iowa relating to this?On OMFG posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Right On, Mizfahey

You are a true environmentalist.  We need a lot more like you here and elsewhere.On No schadenfreude over the death of SUVs posted 1 year, 3 months ago 59 Responses

What We Should Be Discussing

Grist should print this essay by Robert Jensen, which I read on the Alternet website.  It deals with the basic unsustainability of our current lifestyles and technologies, beginning with the use of agriculture.  I didn't know how to write to Grist to suggest this, so I put it here, which seems to be as good of a place as any.

BTW, the link provided includes reader comments, which can of course be eliminated when posting it here.On Pull the trigger, Barack! posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

The Real Culprit Here

First a basic question:  Organic certification does not allow ionizing radiation like this, and I thought that chemical agriculture already did, so what does this change?

Now, on to the real issue.  While it was briefly mentioned, it should have been stressed that the problem is cattle, specifically their waste re this specific problem.  It's not the produce that needs to be regulated, it's the cattle operations.  Reason number 337(a) to boycott beef if you're an environmentalist!On Starting today the FDA will allow producers to use irradiation on lettuce and spinach posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Come On Gar

No one has ever said that a big wind project is as bad as mountaintop removal, or even anything close to that.  What we've said is that placing human contraptions, including wind generators, solar panels, and transmission lines,  in natural areas ruins those areas, ecologically, spiritually, and aesthetically.  Clearly wind generators and power lines are not as bad as blasting the top of a mountain off and depositing the remains in a creek or river, but that doesn't make the former good things.  It's like Obama/McCain; Obama's not as bad, but electing him almost certainly won't provide anything good.

Ad nauseam, the root of the problem is overconsumption, and if we don't stop that all else is just rearranging deck chair.  The windmills and power lines will still ruin the area, thought without blasting the top of the mountain off, they could always be removed at some point, whereas blasting away the mountaintop causes permanent destruction that can never be fixed.  And remember, they still want to allow coal mining, which is also hideously destructive.  You don't need mountaintop removal to cause massive ecological harm from mining, it's just the most harmful way to mine.On West Virginian advocates push to build a wind farm on a proposed mountaintop removal site posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Doing Political Work

As a practical matter, to be a player you need three things:  a phone, a computer, and a popular website.  It is very low tech.

You have to make telephone calls, and keep lists.  Very tedious.  Vitally important.  

No one is doing it.

Few want to.  No glamour.  Not what attracts people to politics.  Someone like Wolverine would do it, but few others.  And those few don't live in DC.

Actually, I have done it for elections.  Rather boring and hard work.  The problem is, except for volunteers to work the phones and walk precincts, and who are at least somewhat unreliable, you have to pay someone to do what you're describing.  Who's going to pay for this?

This is a perfect example of why the U.S. political system is a plutocracy, not a democracy.  The rich can hire people to do this work, the rest of us cannot.  I once ran an election campaign for Sierra Club (opposing a bad ballot measure) and even though I was paid, it was very low pay and long hours.  The reason I was willing to work long hours for low pay was that I was awaiting the results from the bar exam and had a lot of free time on my hands and I was strongly opposed to the ballot measure.  But generally you have to pay a decent wage for this, and it takes someone who is both intelligent and has some knowledge so that the pay can't be low or you wont' get anyone worth hiring.  So, again considering all this, who's going to pay?On In either an Obama or McCain adminstration, climate legislation will be back-burnered posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Use Of Tilapia

Taser,

Tilapia is quite popular in restaurants here in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Can't speak for the rest of the country, but it's very common on menus here.On Putting cow hormones into fish food makes them balloon posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

The Truth About What Can Be Done

On another thread, Mitchell wrote:

This place is in Baraboo, Wisconsin. It snows all the time and is cold for half the year there. Yet here's a place that's 100% carbon-neutral and produces all the energy it needs on site. Don't tell me this can't be done practically everywhere. This place isn't in Germany, or Spain, or somewhere none of us have ever been.

And as I've said many times here, solar panels on a house in Berkeley, California, which gets almost as much fog as San Francisco, will provide all the energy that the house needs on a yearly basis.  Add a wind generator in the yard and you probably don't even need backup.  If backup energy is needed, it could be stored in batteries in the garage or basement, or could be provided by a small local power station powered by wind generators.  And of course, everyone should be lowering their electrical use, which again probably negates the need for backup energy.

As to what to do about human overpopulation, I'll leave that for a thread on which it's the topic.  If you're really interested in my ideas, search Grist and you'll find them.

My point is that many people, including posters on Grist like David above, argue that less harmful and locally based energy sources will not provide the energy we need.  While I fundamentally disagree with that idea's basic assumption that electricity is a necessity, even ignoring that disagreement there is very strong evidence, if not outright proof, that we don't need to further destroy the Earth by mining coal or uranium, or drilling for gas, in order to provide the energy needed to power society in the manner to which it has, unfortunately, become accustomed.On IPCC needs to update projections to include deforestation feedbacks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Things Can Always Be Worse

I agree Guade, but in order to reverse sprawl we first need to stop it, and in order to do that we need to first slow it.  This is typical milquetoast crap, but it's far better than the status quo.On California bill aims to curb sprawl posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

I'm With Eddy

Life should be prioritized, not selfish human desires or economics.  SUVs are one of many, many things that should be banned, but it would be a good start.

And John, I have to disagree about size.  While you're correct that size is not necessarily a problem re fuel mileage, the larger a personal vehicle is, the more of a hideous monstrosity it is.  Do you want a world where everyone has a huge monstrosity just because it gets better gas mileage or because it runs off electricity?  I know I sure don't.  What we need to be promoting is walking, biking, and public transit.  Screw all private motor vehicles, especially the bigger ones.On No schadenfreude over the death of SUVs posted 1 year, 3 months ago 59 Responses

Not Just Republicans

If the Democrats really wanted to extend the tax credits, they would have put them into a must-pass bill, like funding for the murdering in Iraq.  As I've said before, it's all about priorities.  Everyone but an extreme psychopath wants clean air & water, and nice natural views, likes animals and pretty plants, etc.  The issue is what priority do you give those things.  The Democrats obviously don't think that extending the tax credits is of any priority, so they pretend to try to pass this legislation while knowing it has no chance.  This is nothing but political grandstanding, not an honest effort to get these credits extended.On That which cannot be named posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response

An Important Minor Point

The fact that the public is ignorant allows the utility and fossil fuel industries to hoodwink it.  But the hoodwinking is still coming from those industries and their lackeys in government.  The average person has no vested interest in getting her electricity from coal, gas, nor nukes, and would just as soon get it from a solar collector on her roof.  What changes this dynamic is when the industries and their lackeys propagandize against clean, locally generated power sources.On In either an Obama or McCain adminstration, climate legislation will be back-burnered posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

"Hold Everything!"

I thought the drilling advocates were claiming that the need to expand further planetary destruction, er, I mean drilling, is an emergency, or at least very urgent.  Now they're saying that they won't support a bill that gets to the floor far more quickly?  There's the fatal flaw in their claim right there.On 'Gang of 10,' part 2.5 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Consider The Source, Tom

Bud Dingler is clearly opposed to organic agriculture.  He has called organic beekeepers "granola munching dope heads."  'Nuff said, he has no credibility with me.On EPA knuckleheads hide info on pesticide implicated in colony collapse disorder posted 1 year, 3 months ago 14 Responses

Sharing Concerns

Whether we actually share the same concerns is the fundamental issue.  Leftists do not share many of the same issues as environmentalists.  As an environmentalist, my priority is protecting and restoring the natural environment.  A leftist priority would be lifting people out of poverty.  While we can agree with the others' goal, I would not in any way support lifting people out of poverty by causing further environmental or ecological harm.

Supporting a program that relies on massive industrial transportation is a bad idea environmentally and I would never do so.

First, the environment is my priority, which is one of the main things that identifies a real environmentalist.  For whatever environmental harm a program like this might prevent, it still causes massive environmental problems.  Second, there are much more environmentally friendly ways to lift people out of poverty.  For example, my wife and I donate money to a group that lends our donation to women in India.  The women use the money to buy sewing machines and start small businesses.  No massive industrial transportation or other harms needed.  These are the types of programs environmentalists can get behind, not something that contributes to major environmental harms.On Dean's Beans founder on the good effects of trade posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Mixing Good & Bad Ideas

The idea for wind farms atop bridges and skyscrapers is a good idea and should be done.  However, despoiling the oceans with that crap is just more destruction of the natural world and should be avoided.

And BTW, for all of you who support offshore wind, just how is the electricity supposed to get back to users?  Do you propose massive underwater cables?  Powerlines in the ocean that will further degrade it?On Mayor has big clean-energy goals for NYC posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Don't Create False Choices

We should strive to limit our purchases to produce that is farmed organically or by even more Earth friendly methods band that is locally grown.  There's absolutely no reason that it has to be one or the other, and I'm getting quite sick of these anti-local jerks who are trying to convince people to forgo buying locally, for whatever hidden reasons they might have.On Dean's Beans founder on the good effects of trade posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Best Fuel Mileage Is At 40 M.P.H.

The reason that fuel mileage decreases as speed increases beyond 40 m.p.h. is due to wind resistance.  (This is also the reason the vast majority of animals can't run faster than 40 m.p.h.)  Unless you can show me an independent lab test proving that your car gets better gas mileage at 70 than at slower speeds, I simply don't believe it.  I suppose there could be some quirky aspect to your car's fuel or engine system that might cause this, but it's so unlikely that I require proof.On Advocates push for return to 55-mph speed limit posted 1 year, 3 months ago 20 Responses

What Is Sustainably Produced Palm Oil?

And if we only buy palm oil from Columbia, the Indonesian workers will still be impacted.  Sorry, but if you make your living destroying the Earth, you're not entitled to consideration from those of us trying to protect ecosystems and species.  The priority is to protect what little is left of the rainforests, which are more valuable than the entire human race.  Impacts to workers are a secondary consideration.On Indonesian province puts moratorium on rainforest destruction posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

American Hypocrisy

How can anyone in the U.S., with a straight face, say things like "I think nuclear nonproliferation matters. I bet you do too."?  The U.S. has more nuclear weapons than any other country and is the only country that has actually used them.  If there's anyone to be scared of, it's the U.S.  If nuclear nonproliferation is an important issue for you, you should be working for the U.S. to dismantle its nukes while getting others to do the same.  But if you hysterically obsess about other countries' nukes from a country that has more of them than anyone, no one outside the U.S. will take you seriously, except for the fact that you might use them again.On Time to choose between a new cold war with Russia and a new cold war with Iran posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Come On Erik

First, you refused to directly answer my question and instead directed me to a long audio.  That would be legitimate if the answer contained a long, complex explanation that you didn't want to reiterate here, but that was not at all the case.  Instead, the audio just makes my point: you claim that a certain business model provides certain economic benefits to certain people.  While this could be a good thing, it's not if it comes at the expense of the environment and ecosystems, which it does if it relies on long distance trade.  So my original point stands: you're arguing from a leftist point of view without any consideration for the environment.  This is a perfect example of where leftism and environmentalism part ways.

Long distance trade needs to be greatly reduced and eventually virtually abolished.  The harms it causes are large and numerous.  If you want to drink coffee, go live where it's grown.On Dean's Beans founder on the good effects of trade posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Selling Their Souls

Yes, people are easily bought off.On N.Y. wind rush brings corruption complaints, divides rural communities posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

"Incompetent" Planet

"Nature is clearly completely incompetent to give us the food we need."

This comment is so ecologically retarded and generally ignorant that it doesn't warrant a response, but I'll provide a brief one anyway.

People discovered agriculture 10-12,000 years ago.  For tens of thousands to millions of years before that, depending on how you wish to define "humans," humans lived quite well as hunter-gatherers.  So nature clearly did provide humans all the food we need.  It's true that nature can't provide food for a grossly overpopulated human race, but that's OK because overpopulated species need to be reduced in number.

The real problem with comments like this is the attitude of the commenter toward nature and the natural world.  I'd say if you don't like it here, please leave and find another planet where you do.  You and your attitude are doing great harm just by being here.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Wrong Question, Change Framing

Shareholder activism is not meant to increase stock prices.  It's meant to get attention and eventually action on whatever issue is being protested.  Don't let the enemy frame the issue by debating an illegitimate question such as this one.  Instead, just point out the illegitimacy of the question.On Study claims shareholder and climate activism are bad for stock prices posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Can't Restore Tropical Rainforests

Glenn,

As the Greenpeace media director, it's important that you know this fact.  Tropical rainforests evolved over the past 200 million years and the nutrients were sucked up by the vegetation long ago.  (The tropics were not subject to the ice ages, so the plants have been growing constantly, giving the land no respite from their sucking of nutrients from it.)  Plants in tropical rainforests grow out of other plants, not out of the soil poor ground.  Once the rainforest is cut, it won't grow back.On Indonesian province puts moratorium on rainforest destruction posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Projects On Natural Land Or Water

Taser,

I can't answer your question, I'm not a wildlife biologist.  However, the problem is the question itself.  If someone were killing people, would you require a showing that "unique" people were being killed in order to oppose the killing?  Not to mention that placing human contraptions of any kind in natural areas is an affront to nature and ruins the areas by definition.On Ginormous solar plants to be built in California posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

Who's On Which Side Here

Even though I'm dubious that Range41's goal here is to advocate for listed species, I'll take his/her word for it.  However, judging by the moniker, it's a good bet that (s)he works for BLM, a totally evil agency whose priority is support of the mining and ranching industries to the detriment of the natural environment.  That all said, let's look at the ESA and what it does and doesn't do.

First and foremost, the ESA and NEPA have stopped environmentally destructive projects.  So saying that the ESA doesn't stop projects is just false.  You don't need to necessarily show that the species will become extinct if the project proceeds, just that the project would somehow violate the ESA by causing a "taking" of a listed species, which is anything from harassment to killing and includes harming the species' habitat.  When we've won some of these cases, the losing parties sometimes abandon the project, which creates an outright victory for the species and the land.  At the very least, the project is amended so that it won't be as harmful.

Second, anything that slows down projects is generally good.  While restoration projects like the one Range41 describes are an unfortunate casualty of this, they're a small minority of the projects affected by the ESA.  The vast majority are projects that would be ecologically harmful, so slowing down projects has a net positive effect.

Third, the foremost environmental group involved in advocating for listed species is the Center for Biological Diversity, which strongly opposes the proposed reforms.  Now why do you think that is?  And please, no lies about wanting to preserve incomes, the people working for this group could make far more in the for-profit sector.  The Center's press release on the issue can be found here.

Fourth, it's an outright lie to say the ESA has not been successful.  In fact, it's been very successful, which is why developers are trying to get rid of it or greatly weaken it.  Consider from where the push is coming to amend the ESA: it's from right wing property rights advocates and developers, not from environmental advocates.

Fifth, the agencies that would be allowed to make decisions in lieu of Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries are advocates for destructive industries: the Deforest Service, which advocates for the timber industry and to a lesser extent the grazing industry, the Bureau of Livestock and Mining, er, I mean the Bureau of Land Management, which advocates for the ranching and mining industries, etc.  Sorry, but I sure don't want these agencies making decisions about species, as bad as Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries have sometimes been.

Finally, the Habitat Conservation Plan was a loophole placed in the ESA in order to allow developers to destroy habitat of listed species if they agree to protect other habitat.  It still results in a net loss of habitat, and is worse than the previous situation before the HCP was enacted, which would not have allowed any destruction of habitat containing listed species.  Developers often try to convice lay people that the HCP is a positive environmental law, but those of us who advocate for species and their habitats know otherwise.On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Victory In Seattle

I was a first year law student when the WTO and demonstration came to Seattle.  As I said at the time, if there were one demonstration I could have gone to in my life, it would have been that one.  Unfortunately, I couldn't leave school around final exams.On Brings back memories posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

JTime959 Makes The Point

Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks.  That's because no refutation is possible.  The posters who take anti-environmental positions on the issues of genetic engineering and/or organic farming can't get past these fundamental reasons for opposing these technologies, so I say we just declare moral victory and move on.

GreenGranny,

I disagree with your assertion that technology is not bad per se.  Name one technology that does not kill plants or animals, harm ecosystems, or pollute air, land, or water.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

JustLou, I Agree

Jimmy Carter, for all of his conservative and pro-military crap, was probably the best president during my lifetime.  LBJ would have been great if he wasn't a war monger, but his foreign policy killed any claim to greatness.On On energy, survey results show public favors supply, increasingly favors Republicans posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Ranchland Redux

Taser,

You must know that on one here is a bigger critic of ranching in the west than me.  However, grazed land, as bad of shape as it's in, is not a dead zone that should be covered with solar panels and power lines.  There is still life there, which will be destroyed by projects like these.  Again, we need locally generated power, beginning with covering all roofs with solar panels, and placing wind generators in all yards and parking lots.  Then place limits on power use, eliminate needless crap like electric signs for advertising, most street lights, etc.  Destroying natural land with solar or wind projects is a net negative for the natural environment.On Ginormous solar plants to be built in California posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

Don't Eat Bugger King!

Canis,

I'm shocked!  I was a long distance trucker for five years when I was a vegetarian.  It was rough, but if you make some effort, you can eat without patronizing evil companies like Bugger King, which is still buying imported beef that was grazed on former tropical rainforest land cut down for the grazing.  I realize you're not buying beef, but any money you spend there supports whatever Bugger King does.

When you travel, keep these ideas in mind:

1. The best places to eat are big cities, with a few very rare exceptions.  They have the most choices, and not only have strictly veggie restaurants, but also Asian food and pizza that you can eat without eating domesticated meat or unsustainable fish/seafood.  In small towns, you're far more likely to be forced into eating things you don't want from big corporate chains.

2. There were, and I assume still are, books that tell you where the veggie restaurants around the country are and give brief descriptions of them.  Buy a new one, because the info changes quickly.  Even with a new one, you'll find that some of the restaurants have been closed, so call ahead if you're counting on one.

3. You can always order eggs if you can't get veggie protein, which is what I used to do.  Don't know whether eggs are veggie for you, they were for me.

4. Carry some protein with you, like nuts and legumes (peanuts, cashews, etc.).  That way, if you can't get veggie protein from a restaurant because you're stuck in, say, the middle of nowhere in Wyoming and there's no city within 200 miles at which to eat, you don't have to eat meat.

5. Don't eat at McDeathalds or Bugger King under any circumstances.  These evil corporate giants create much ecological destruction and use virtual slave labor.

Population & Economics

If population decline is considered an economic problem, then we need to say screw economics.On Oil wealth contains the 'seeds of its own destruction' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Real Leadership

Wow, now that's a real leader talking!  He's not even elected and he's far better than anyone in power here in the U.S.  He makes Obama look like a pandering fool.  This shows that democracy alone does not produce good leaders.  Without an informed and at least slightly wise electorate, democracy will produce the kind of crap we currently have.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Good One Randy

Your post raises the issue of where Americans' hearts are, which Justlou seems to have answered in the post after yours.  In the culture wars, those who advocate consumerism and worship technology have beaten back those who advocate living in at least some degree of harmony with nature and the rest of the Earth.  There are a few of us left, the largest pockets being in tropical rainforests where hunter-gatherers still exist, but we are a minuscule minority and we're highly endangered.  Even here on Grist, the large majority of posters are opposed to significantly reducing human consumption and population, which is the only way that the ecological and environmental problems caused by humans will ever be solved.

Buddhism seems to have provided the answer to this, with its admonition to shed our desires, beginning with desires for needless material things.  Siddartha advocated this 2,500 years ago, but unfortunately, with the exception of a few monks, no one listened. The average Buddhist is just as materialistic as anyone else.  The New Testament reiterated this idea, but again no one listened with a few rare exceptions, so that even though Jesus* said things like it would be harder for a rich person to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, we now have rich Christians, which includes the majorities of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and western Europe.

As one of those in the endangered tiny minority, I don't understand why people don't get that both they and the planet would be much happier and better off if they lived a lot more simply and naturally.  I fully get the lure of material goods, we're all subject to those temptations, and I get the natural animal desire to work as little as possible (i.e., drive instead of walk, for example), but it seems obvious and clear to me that the rewards of the simple, natural lifestyle easily trump those of our destructive, materialistic one.

And for those who would say that I'm just ignoring the desires of others so that I don't understand what makes them happy or unhappy:  As Siddhartha taught, desires are an endless cycle; the only way to happiness is to shed them, not to try to realize them, because the more you get, the more you want.  My dad taught me that about rich people when I was about seven, and I learned Siddhartha's lesson by the time I was 20, so what's the big deal?  This seems as elementary as 2+2=4.

* It seems far more likely, considering the evidence and from studying the full context of the New Testament, that "Jesus" was not a person but instead was a symbol.  My invocation of Jesus was not meant to imply that I believe that Jesus was actually a person.On On energy, survey results show public favors supply, increasingly favors Republicans posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Fall Of The Soviet Union

"[T]he fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster."  Yes it was, but not in the way George Friedman claims, and I think Putin meant something different, too, in addition to the increased lack of security for Russia.

While I, along with almost everyone else in the West, applauded the breakup of the Soviet Union at the time, the results have been probably the worst geopolitical disaster in my lifetime.  Before the decline and breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. created a balance of madness, AKA balance of power.  Once the Soviet Union began significantly weakening and eventually broke up, the U.S. has been able to maraud around the world doing whatever it wants to acquire more oil and other resources.  Both wars in Iraq were a result of this, because the U.S.S.R. was allied with Iraq and would not have permitted the U.S. to invade the first time if it had not been so weakened that it could not do anything, nor would it have allowed the second U.S. invasion.  The U.S. is also fighting a proxy war in Somalia and Ethiopia as it did when the Soviet Union existed, but now the U.S. is having its way there because there is no counter to its power, whereas before each side took turns arming Somalia and Ethiopia, which switched sides at one point.

The point of all this is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the U.S. has been a perfect example of that corruption once the Soviet Union broke up.  What seemed like a great event, bringing the hope of an end to the cold war and greatly reduced U.S. military spending has become a nightmare for the rest of the planet, as the U.S. has greatly increased its military spending and forced the rest of the world to buckle under to the U.S.

So it's good to see the Russians assert some military power, even though the best thing for the rest of the planet would be for Russia and the U.S. to withdraw to their own countries and leave the rest of the world alone.  But if the U.S. is going to practice imperialism, it's better that Russia does, too.On Oil geopolitics of the Georgia pipeline posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Promises Of Shamans

The difference between the Paiute shaman and the drilling advocates is that the Paiute shaman was trying to bring back something good and get rid of something evil.  The drilling advocates are doing exactly the opposite.On Nearly two-thirds of Americans support offshore drilling, says poll posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

More Women Enviros?

Do more women tell pollsters that they're environmentalists?  If so, that answers the question.On Why do more men than women support nuclear power? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 Responses

Russia Action NOT Preemptive

We shouldn't let neocon and imperialist warmongers frame this debate.  Georgia started this by trying to take over territories that are far more friendly with Russia than with Georgia, and Russia hit back.  And the only reason the U.S. cares at all about this is the oil, specifically the pipeline.  The U.S. is certainly being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean we should just accept the lies that it propounds.On Oil geopolitics of the Georgia pipeline posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Don't Pick On Quayle

Dan Quayle was extremely valuable for the entertainment he provided.  He was also impeachment and assassination insurance.On Quayle's brain posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Sustainable Shrimp?

When we visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium several years ago, it had an exhibit solely on why you should not eat any shrimp.  The gist was that for every pound of shrimp caught, there was ten pounds of bycatch, which was killed and thrown back into the water.  Since seeing this, my wife and I have boycotted shrimp.  The problem with avoiding shrimp when eating out is that it dominates the fish & seafood portions of menus at Asian restaurants, which makes it hard or impossible to eat fish in these places.  Canis will be happy to know that this almost always causes us to eat vegan when eating Thai or Chinese.On Amid collapsing fisheries and factory-farmed salmon, how to choose sustainable seafood posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Re Deliberate Misgovernment

The current federal movement to reduce government as much as possible began under the Reagan presidency.  If I remember correctly, it was not even a secret policy.  They said they wanted to starve the agencies they didn't like, then claim that government can't do the job so it needs to be deregulated and privatized.  Amtrak is a favorite target for this, as publicly owned urban transportation has long been on a local level.

So, this is an old idea that began even before Reagan was in the White House.  Unfortunately, as has sometimes been pointed out on Grist, the corporate media has every reason to censor this information, and that's exactly what it's done.On The media will not tell the public the real story on the energy clash in Congress posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Forcing People To Do Things

1Eco,

All governments force people to do all sorts of things.  From being forced to obey traffic laws to being forced to pay taxes, there are a multitude of things we are forced to do.  Forcing people to do things that protect the environment would be the best reason for forcing people to do things.

I think we all agree that educating people in order to convince people to act in a more spiritually evolved manner is far superior to forcing them to do so, but when the dike is leaking, you need to plug it while you also deal with the root of the problem.  Additionally, people should not have freedoms for which they don't take full responsibility, and the vast majority of people, especially Americans, have proven themselves to be totally irresponsible when it comes to oil.On New data point shows that OPEC's production hit highest level ever last month posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 Responses

Is This A Good Agreement?

I don't trust NRDC to adequately protect whales and other marine mammals.  That group is far too conservative and thus amenable to hysterical "national security" claims.  What do Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and Center for Biological Diversity have to say about this?On Greens and Navy reach compromise over low-frequency sonar posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Filibuster Is Undemocratic

The filibuster rule allows a minority to block the will of the majority.  It should be eliminated, as the Republicans threatened to do when they were in the majority and were afraid that the Democrats would filibuster some of Bush's more fascist Supreme Court nominations.On House Speaker says she's open to compromise on offshore drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Hey, What About Me?

Here's what The Center for Biological Diversity had to say.On Green groups and Dems outraged by Bush admin's plan to loosen species protections posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Not True, Jason

Whales are still all at very low numbers compared to before industrial whaling began, so there are still good arguments against whaling based on just the health of the species.  That said, it's true that we should also use humane arguments, such as not killing large animals for food.  If you can't catch it from shore or with a small boat, leave it alone.On Some big whales no longer in trouble posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Don't Believe The Hype

Let's not repeat cold war type rhetoric coming out of D.C.  It's just lies and propaganda.  The fact is that Georgia started this conflict by attacking autonomous areas that were allied with Russia.  I have no doubt that Georgia was emboldened by its alliance with the U.S.  The reason the U.S. supports Georgia is the latter's pipeline.  This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy or anything else the White House claims.

Also, keep in mind that Russia decided after the first Gulf War that it could not compete with the U.S. by using conventional weapons, so its policy since then has been that if the U.S. attacks Russia or its troops with conventional weapons, it will retaliate with nuclear ones.  Considering this, one would have to be Dr. Strangelove psycho to attack Russia or even risk provoking a war with it.  We're basically back to the cold war, but I think it's even worse now.On Re: the Russia-Georgia unpleasantness posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

The Russia Thing Is Scary

John,

I'm very concerned with what's going on in Georgia.  I don't want to get into the details here, but the threat of nuclear weapons being used is, or at least was, quite real, as Russia actually trotted out a couple of them on mid range missiles.  And this is almost all about energy.On We campaign continues to shoot itself, and climate movement, in the foot posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses

Food & Population

Steve,

This subject is totally off point for this post, so I'll make this short.  The knowledge that human population is limited by food and expands as food does is not new.  The human overpopulation problem began as soon as people discovered agriculture, which brought them more food.  This happened 10-12,000 years ago.  Unfortunately, both agriculture and overpopulation come at the expense of the rest of the planet, so therein lies the problem.On The New York Times' absurd energy editorial posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Democrats Bear Some Responsibility, Too

While Dave is correct to point out that it was the Republicans who defeated the renewable energy tax credits, the Democrats are not completely blameless for this.

First, the Democrats could have attached the tax credits to "must pass" legislation.  Or they could have repealed the filibuster rule in the Senate as the Republicans threatened to do when they were in power if the Democrats opposed judicial nominations.

So, while the Democrats made tepid moves in the right direction, they refused to do what was necessary in order to continue the tax credits.  They need to be called on this and held accountable, just as they should be for continuing to fund the illegal and immoral war in Iraq.On We campaign continues to shoot itself, and climate movement, in the foot posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses

No Matter How You Cut It

Public opinion is not on the side of the Earth.  It's not as bad as the oil company shilling polls tried to spin it, but there's still a lot of public support for more environmental destruction through more drilling.On Polling on drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response

Lesser Of Evils v. Good

Randy,

You're quite correct that the Democrats aren't as bad as the Republicans re environmentalism.  However, those of us who don't support the Democratic Party are not trying "to remain aloof and unsullied from normal politics."  We are trying to get significantly better results than the Democrats will ever provide.

Your posts on this issue make sense until you start making personal attacks on those of us for whom the Democratic Party is just the liberal wing of corporate America.  While the rest of what you say is usually true and correct, your slurs against us are not and will not convince anyone to sell out his or her values.

Jason,

If you don't understand the difference between executives and workers, let's start a company.  I'll be the executive and you can work for me.  OK?On Obama favored by Exxon employees, but McCain has gotten more oil money overall posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Natural Balance

Cacaoatl,

Since we agree that animal husbandry should be eliminated, why not put back the native predators instead of slaughtering the native prey?  Or, if the native predators are extinct, which they are not in the U.S., then, replace them with something as similar as possible?

Hunting/gathering is not at all sustainable with anywhere near the current human population.  We need to first greatly reduce that population before everyone can become hunter-gatherers.  (While Australia is nowhere near as overpopulated as China, India, or the U.S., it's still way above the population that existed before the Europeans invaded.)  A much better solution would be a vegan diet with occasional kangaroo or fish for vitamin B-12.On Aussies should fight climate change by eating kangaroo, says study posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Traditional Enemies & Bikes

Canis,

The current (1980s onward) Hopi-Dine "hostilities" have been manufactured by Peabody Coal and are largely nonexistent.  The real hostilities for the past few decades have been between traditionals and progressives, the latter meaning those who want to modernize, not the political meaning that we normally give that word.  I discussed this once in a previous post about the Pine Ridge area, and it's also true in the Big Mountain area of Arizona.  The traditional Hopi and Dine have been allied for decades.  You have to ignore the tribal councils, they don't represent the traditionals, only the sellouts.

Re poverty, yes the poverty on the Crow and Cheyenne reservations was heart rendering.  The worst I've seen was on an Apache reservation in southern Arizona.

Howell,

The manner in which people live in the area at issue here does not lend itself to bicycle use.  You either live traditionally with very seldom, if ever, auto use or you drive everywhere.  It's not an urban area as I assume you're imagining it to be.  The best way I can describe it is basically rural with villages.On Crow Tribe strikes $7 billion deal for coal-to-liquids plant on reservation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Solving Roots v. Symptoms

SGP,

All the facts you stated re current conditions and what's possible by moving people around are correct, but as I've said ad nauseam, the root of the problem here is overpopulation, which can't be fixed by anything except lowering the population.  And when it becomes low enough, it's time to plow up the suburbs and exurbs and restore the native plants and animals as much as physically possible.

If your goal is merely to tinker with the massive ecological destruction that already exists, you'll merely make it so that things aren't quite as bad, but you'll never come close to solving anything.On Brownstein on land use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Alien Invasion Of Earth

The Golgafrinchans took over tens of millennia ago, unfortunately.  That's the reason that modern humans and those who aspire to be like them don't care about the Earth; they're not from here originally.On Another reason to fear the factory farm posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

"Giant"

Read what Sierra Club says; this monstrosity will kill millions of fish.

This is further proof that you cannot solve problems by fixing symptoms.  The problems of lack of water are due to overpopulation, diversion, and pollution.  Unless people lower population and stop diverting and polluting natural waterways, there will always be a problem with lack of water.On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

I Too Am Shocked

Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers, SGP?  Have you been taken over by a space alien?

Suburbs are completely ecologically and environmentally destructive, period.  People who don't want to live in dense urban environments should live in the country naturally, without roads and private motor vehicles.  Remember, global warming is only one of many serious environmental and ecological harms caused by roads and driving.

The root of the problem is, as usual, overpopulation.  I actually dislike living like a rat crammed into a small cage with a bunch of other rats and only live is cramped San Francisco because my wife likes it here (I far prefer Berkeley, or at least Oakland where most of my friends are and which, while cities, are much less densely populated).  The level of industrial noise is intolerable, when I ride my bike on side streets I am still bothered by far too much auto traffic, and there are always people everywhere.

But the positive side is that you don't need a car to live here, we walk to excellent Thai, Chinese, Sushi, and Indian restaurants, we take public transit to movies, walk or take public transit to live music, and I take public transit with a backpack to farmers markets and ride my bike to do other grocery shopping.  None of this is possible in the suburbs, which require massive driving and cause direct destruction of natural areas just by their existence.  So if you support protection of natural land, support of suburbs is completely inconsistent with that protection.On Brownstein on land use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

This Figures

When I used to travel through that area, I learned that the Cheyenne never went along with assimilation or other sellouts and therefore got a very small reservation.  The Crow, whose reservation borders the Cheyenne's, sold out and helped the U.S. kill and capture Cheyenne and steal their land, and got a huge reservation.  This totally figures, the Crow are as bad as the whites.On Crow Tribe strikes $7 billion deal for coal-to-liquids plant on reservation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Good Post

While I don't agree that obsessing on feeding every member of a grossly overpopulated species is a good thing, I agree with the post's main point about bigness and have been saying it for a long time, and Jim Goodman also correctly identifies who the main culprits are.

Fritjof Capra long ago claimed that the reason bigness is worshiped in western culture is the logical mistake of thinking that just because something is good, more of it is automatically better.  I don't agree that that's the reason for everyone, but it certainly is for some people.  For others, it's just about ego, greed, and materialism.

As to Jonas's claim that "[o]n the environmental front, there is no evidence whatsoever that local food - on a complete diet basis - is better (qua emissions) than food that travelled large distances":

You don't need extraneous evidence, it's self evident.  The consumption and burning of oil caused by shipping food ridiculously long distances is hugely environmentally destructive.  Add to that the massive ecological damage caused by invasive species and there's all the evidence you need.On Globalization failed, cheap oil is gone, local production is the only way forward posted 1 year, 3 months ago 58 Responses

Wisconsin Agreement Good, Texas One Bad

The Wisconsin agreement, assuming that its terms will be performed, should reduce air pollution and consumption of coal.  However, the Texas agreement might add to air pollution and will definitely increase consumption of coal, and should not be supported at all.  But as was discussed on another thread recently, groups like EDF often sell out and are on the wrong side of some issues.On Two coal plants given go-ahead by green groups after concessions negotiated posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

If You Think Gas Is Expensive Now ...

just wait till the U.S. attacks Iran.On The 'psychological effects' of threatening war with Iran posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Rebecca

1. Where in the West are you?

2. What native animals do you claim that your cattle are replacing?  (Hint: There were no native grazers west of the Rocky Mountains to speak of, only browsers.)

U.S. Much To Blame For China

MTVfan,

Keep in mind that 1) China was and is only following the example of the U.S. in its industrialization and modernization and 2) the U.S. has outsourced industries to China and imports megatons of needless crap from there made by those industries.  So when you bash China, remember that Americans are at the root of what its been doing for the past 20 or so years.On High fuel prices causing globalization to lose momentum posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

I Personally Dislike Nuclear Power

And so does anyone who wants to protect the natural environment from the hideous effects of uranium mining and additional radioactivity.On McCain tours nuke plant, renews call for nuclear power expansion in U.S. posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Bad Sierra Club

A Sierra Club press release on Monday ignored the offshore-drilling issue entirely and simply heaped praise on Obama's energy platform (and scorn on John McCain's).

"The short-term problem is that Americans are really hurting on gas prices," said David Willett, press secretary for the Sierra Club. "It would just be really foolish of us to be completely ignorant of that fact. [Releasing oil from the reserve] would hopefully take some of the pressure off the folks who are feeling pressure, who don't want to be for drilling but they're not sure that they have a choice at this point because of public demand."

This is a great example of what's wrong with the mainstream enviro groups.  High gas prices are not at all an environmental problem, they've been a boon to the environment in that they've resulted in less driving and more public transit use.  While it would be "foolish of us to be completely ignorant of" the fact that people are paying a lot more for gas and don't like that reality, concluding that we must therefore promote further environmental destruction by more drilling of any kind is beyond foolish, it's completely idiotic.  Just as people in the San Francisco Bay Area who lived and worked on opposite sides of the Bay  rearranged their lives to live and work on the same side when the Bay Bridge was closed for six weeks after the 1989 earthquake, people should be encouraged to change their lifestyles to drive a lot less.  This would not only be good for the Earth, it would secondarily reduce their expenses.On Enviros unhappy with Obama's offshore-drilling shift, but pleased with his energy plan posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 Responses

What LADWP Really Is

LADWP is not an environmental ally.  See a movie called Chinatown to get an idea of the ecological and environmental harms that this agency will do in order to serve developers and other such interests.On Los Angeles utility starts to squawk as it stares down a $700 million carbon bill posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Price Of Gasoline

If gas costs only $2.25/gallon in 2015, that's the end of life as we know it.On Big Auto backs off support for tighter fuel-economy standards posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

That Was The Problem, Spaceshaper

Native Americans had bad immigration policy, and we see where that got them.  Or as I joked with couple of Native American friends, this is what they got for feeding wild animals.On More drilling in exchange for comprehensive energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 Responses

Good Post

One of the values of Earth First! was that it made groups like Sierra Club seem totally reasonable when the latter was negotiating, whereas previously SC was often considered radical.  (Actually, that tells much more about the attitudes of those with whom SC was negotiating, but I digress.)

I have also commented many times that being an environmentalist is not the same as being a leftist, and that leftists are not necessarily environmentalists; some are, some aren't, it comes down to priorities.  And I strongly object to the environment being categorized as just another issue on the left.

As to how planning to solve a problem should be done, I couldn't agree more.  Doing it this way would also prevent myopically obsessing on one issue like global warming to the exclusion of all others, which will have the same negative consequences eventually as failing to deal with global warming.On Three models for environmental analysis and planning posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 Responses

Nixon's Other Enviro Laws

I don't doubt for a second James's depiction of what Nixon did and why he did it, but Nixon also signed other environmental legislation into law, such as the Clean Air & Water Acts, National Environmental Policy Act (which he opposed by probably signed because a veto would have been overridden), Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act.  He also made the statement about how strange the human species is for fouling its own nest.

As someone who was in the streets protesting the Vietnam war and hated Nixon, my perspective is that he was a deeply disturbed man whose true intentions cannot be known.  He seemed somewhere between neurotic and psychotic, so whether he actually cared about the natural environment or just wanted to make political points is more of an issue for the psychiatric community than for the environmental one.On Nixon: Not a closet enviro posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

The Problem Is His Goal

Obama's goal of lowering gasoline prices is wrong per se.  Higher gas prices have produced less driving and more public transit use.  Those who want to stop the destruction caused by consumption of oil should be pushing for higher gas prices, not lower ones.On More drilling in exchange for comprehensive energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 Responses

Returning To Hunting-Gathering

Spaceshaper,

As I asked Vakibs, do you not want to return to the far less ecologically harmful hunter-gatherer way of living, or do you not think it's possible?  If the former, we have no basis for discussion on this issue, because refusing to consider going back to a clearly less harmful way of living means that you prioritize humans over all else, while I believe that they're just one of millions of species.

However, if your scenario of eventually returning to hunting and gathering and then back to agriculture no matter what is meant to say that it's not possible to go back to hunting and gathering and stay there, you forgot a very important factor: what if people evolve mentally and spiritually so that they refuse to live as agriculturalists because they now properly respect other forms of life and the natural world?  Or what if they just realize that agriculture is so ecologically harmful and eventually unsustainable that they won't go back to it?On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses

Name-Calling, Apologies, & POV

Apparently, people are just not getting that my posts on this site are almost all intended to speak for everything not human, and my moniker symbolizes that and my attitude.  Just about everyone here, like everywhere else, is expressing concerns for humans while ignoring the natural world or at the very least placing its concerns below those of humans, with a small handful of exceptions (Canis, Dr. X, SGP, Russ, etc.).  On a personal level, I feel I have more in common with, for example, the spider I just made friends with in my bathroom than with most humans,  most Grist posters included.  'Nuff said about this, just consider all the implications when you read my posts.

For those I've upset by supposed name-calling, though I see it more as being legitimate descriptions and/or analogies, I'm sorry.  I'll try to be more true to my spiritual, especially Buddhist, teachings and articulate exactly what my problem is with positions and actions of people and groups while controlling my revulsion and fury toward them.

But it is infuriating that on what should be an environmental blog, I have to contend with supporters of things like the World Bank, WTO, genetic engineering, and nuclear power, all of which are antithetical to environmentalism from my point of view.  Suffice to say that if it ever came down to a war for the natural environment, these people and I would be on opposite sides.On World Bank finally releases 'secret' report on biofuels and the food crisis posted 1 year, 3 months ago 65 Responses

Another Sellout

And another reason to ignore Obama and vote Green.On Obama softens opposition to offshore drilling, and more political news posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Right, Canis

I too oppose insulting others when those insults will be counterproductive.  But there are far more effective methods of opposing China's massive environmental destruction, such as cessation of consumption of needless crap, almost all of which is now made in China.  This would, of course, have the added benefit of addressing one of the physical roots of all environmental problems.  But I guess hoping for significant mental and spiritual evolution by humans is asking too much.  Sigh.On Gray skies loom over Beijing as Chinese officials announce emergency air-pollution measures posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

No Nukes!!!

This really boils down to whether you support or reject living as naturally as possible.  Those who support living naturally hate nukes regardless of any arguments in support of them.  Meaningless details are to be disregarded.  And BTW, Helen Caldicott is one of the wisest people on the planet.On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 4 months ago 67 Responses

Mandates

While we all bristle at the idea of someone telling us where and how to live, humans are causing massive ecological and environmental damage by living suburban lifestyles.  I agree with Jon about offering carrots, but there should also be prohibitions on certain things like massive driving or overconsumption of fuels.

Prioritizing selfish human desires over the Earth and the natural environment, and/or over the needs and rights of others and society as a whole, is one of the things that got us into this mess to begin with.  While people should be given as much freedom as possible, that freedom must come with attendant responsibilities.  People who act irresponsibly by, say, living in suburbs or exurbs need to have their freedoms restricted because their exercise of those freedoms is harming the Earth and all who live here.On Five Gore steps to carbon-free electricity and electrified transportation posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Eichmann Was A Nazi, Too

Adolf Eichmann did not kill anyone.  He was a bureaucrat and tehcnocrat who made things run properly.  He was described as neither a "monster" nor as a hardcore anti-semitic, but as someone who wanted to advance his career.  Nevertheless, he was convicted and executed for what he did.  Ward Churchill explains this concept perfectly in his essay about 911, "Some People Push Back; on the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The World Bank, acting on behalf of rich countries, commits plenty of evils.  From an environmental standpoint, the problem is that it lends money for highly ecologically and environmentally destructive projects, like big dam(n)s and rainforest logging.  As the Eichmann judges ruled, saying that one is just a researcher for the World Bank does not excuse for participating the massive evils perpetrated by this institution.  And environmental crimes are only one of the list of evils.  The World Bank is also part of the U.S.'s global economic empire, which was formed by first bribes and then, if those were not successful, threats, and if those were not successful, violence.  Again, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, which was written by someone who participated in this process at a very high level, for details.On World Bank finally releases 'secret' report on biofuels and the food crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

Opinions v. Articles

I said their opinions are only respected by fascists.  While I don't agree with Chomsky's opinion that it's the best newspaper in the country, it's not bad for a corporate paper.  And BTW, Chomsky and I agree about the Wall Street Journal's opinions, the difference is he probably wouldn't use the term "fascist."  But as Frank Zappa said, I think we should call a spade a spade, and fascist is exactly what the Wall Street Journal is.On The WSJ alleges that our use of hybrids increases oil prices posted 1 year, 4 months ago 23 Responses

A Pox On Both Their Houses

Maybe the Republicans will stay there long enough to starve?  And maybe the Democrats will all get fatally infected from the bodies when they return?  Then the Greens take over!  Well, I can dream.

The gang of 10 bill looks awful and should be strongly opposed.  Absolutely no offshore drilling!  And replace oil with what, even more ecologically harmful biofuels?  No thanks.  And not a word about extending the credits for solar and wind?  This is exactly what I'd expect from Republicans and right wing Democrats like these.On Congress goes on recess without passing energy legislation posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Can't Agree, Canis

While Americans can't lecture anyone else without being at least somewhat hypocritical, the massive ecological destruction that has been taking place in China over the past two or three decades is huge and should not be ignored or suffered in silence.

But from an athlete's perspective, China was a horrible choice for the Olympics.  It would be an incredibly difficult decision, but if I qualified to participate, I'm almost positive I'd have to decline because of the disgustingly filthy air.  Unfortunately, big decisions like this are not made for logical reasons, but for money, advertising, and in this case PR.  While the Olympics themselves cause plenty of pollution and environmental destruction just by their taking place, holding them in a city where one can barely breathe because of pollution is ludicrous.On Gray skies loom over Beijing as Chinese officials announce emergency air-pollution measures posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

What's Wrong With Government Choosing?

Saying that the government should eliminate all subsidies and preferences is just a disgusting argument in support of the status quo.  If we as a society decide that we want to ban harmful sources of energy such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear, the government should subsidize replacements like solar and wind.  And if we decide that we don't want to ruin natural areas with wind and solar farms, and transmission lines, those subsidies should be limited to local solar and wind generation.

My European friends are always negatively amazed at the idiotic individualist attitudes in the U.S.  Humans are social animals and societies cannot function adequately if everyone just does what (s)he wants.  There's nothing illegitimate or bad about subsidies per se, it's what's being subsidized that's the problem.On Marketplace commentary gives a misleading picture of government's role in energy use posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Thanks John

It's too bad that on a supposed environmental website you have to waste time and effort arguing with these pro nuke jerks.  I've gotten to the point that I won't even bother anymore, because opposing nuclear anything is a no brainer for anyone who loves the natural world.On French independent nuclear commission reports four malfunctions in four plants in 15 days posted 1 year, 4 months ago 43 Responses

Illegitimate

I said illegitimate because it's not legitimate to allow someone to run an agency for the purpose of preventing that agency from doing its job, which was mandated by Congress.  While I agree that people as a whole get the government they deserve, that doesn't mean that everything that government does is legitimate.

The problem here is the system itself.  As I've said before, it would be far more representative if Congress were to appoint the heads of agencies instead of the president.  The president is the least representative of all elected officials in the U.S., and should thus have the least amount of power, not the most.  If heads of agencies like EPA were appointed by Congress, people like Stephen Johnson would not be in charge of it.On States, green groups to sue EPA for not regulating plane or ship emissions posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Who's To Blame

Perk is totally right on that we need to look in the mirror when assessing blame for what the oil companies do.  We are all responsible for our actions.

However, those with more money and power are more responsible, because they're making the big decisions.  When oil company executives conspire to, for example, dismantle electric public transportation in order to get people into private autos and buses, they are far more responsible than the general public that was duped into allowing this to take place.On Oil companies' continued record profits tick off Democrats, consumers posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Infinite Argument

This argument boils down to lesser of evils v. fighting for what you believe in, though there are some or many in the conservative groups like EDF and NRDC who believe in the lesser evils themselves.  Some of us will never support Democrats and some of you will never support the Greens; I see no end to this debate.On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

More White Man Killing Of Natives

The Dine get screwed again by the U.S. and their own lackeys in their tribal government.On EPA OKs giant coal plant on Navajo land in New Mexico posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Small Harms Add Up

Leroy,

While it might be true that the amount of artificial turf is small compared to the total green space on Earth, it's nothing but a copout to claim that just because the harm you're supporting is small, it doesn't matter and should be ignored.  There are over 6.5 billion people on Earth, so you have to multiply your actions by that number to see their true effects.

As to comparisons with natural grass play fields, your argument is a lesser of evils one, which I never support.  As I said in my previous post, I don't support either method of causing environmental harms.  Regardless of the harms caused by wasting water and polluting lawn mowers,  there's no getting around the fact that replacing natural grass with plastic is ecologically harmful.On Artificial turf found not harmful to children posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Sheesh

Dude, stop over intellectualizing and use common sense.  The more something costs, the less of it people will use.  Any ten-year-old can tell you that.On The cheaper the power, the more we use posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 Responses

Industry Puff Piece

Who wrote this "article," the synthetic turf industry?  Grass does not "require" pesticides either; using them is just a poor choice.  And replacing natural grass with artificial turf is almost as bad as paving over the earth, except that turf does not have the destructive compacting effects of concrete.On Artificial turf found not harmful to children posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Administration Of Criminals

Many, if not most, of the members of the Bush administrations belong in prison.  Environmentally, Julie McDonald was probably the most egregious offender, but the list is long.  From killing around a million innocent civilians in Iraq to killing thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan to illegally spying on its own citizens to illegally usurping power and changing laws to its own liking, these people are beyond just being politically objectionable.  They are war criminals, environmental criminals, and human and civil rights criminals.

Isn't it funny how three of the four last Republican administrations have been filled with criminals?  Beginning with Richard Nixon, the only one that was not guilty of this was the administration of Bush I.On Four senators call for perjury investigation of EPA chief's testimony posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Nazi Science & The Root Of The Problem

David,

Genetic engineering is Nazi science because its roots can be traced to that science.  The Nazi scientists were trying to engineer a "better" human race, whatever that is, and genetic engineers are trying to engineer "better" plants, whatever those are.  Both attempts are rooted in the idea that humans can and should fix nature's mistakes, which is a fatal mistake itself.  One cannot support genetic engineering or anything like it if one has proper love and respect for nature, which is infinitely wiser than all humans put together.

Jason,

The root of the problem is not "misplaced prices" as you claim, unless the problem you're talking about is some economic problem.  The root of the problem is people transporting produce over long distances when it should be produced and sold locally.  Your post was supposed to be about creating a sustainable agricultural system regarding international trade.  While I believe that's an oxymoron for reasons I won't go into here unless you want me to, there's absolutely nothing sustainable about transporting food over long distances.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

Hunting/Gathering

Just to make this clear, I do not advocate that all of the currently grossly overpopulated humans immediately abandon agriculture and switch to being hunter/gatherers.  Doing that would probably be more immediately destructive than the current agricultural system, which is saying quite a bit.

However, no one can seriously claim that with a human population that is low enough to be ecologically harmonious, agriculture is exponentially more harmful than hunting and gathering.  Returning to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle should therefore be our ultimate goal, but just as humans created this mess when they began agriculture 10-12,000 years ago, it will take a very long time to be able to get back to it.On Can locavores embrace a truly place-based agriculture? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Bad Subheadline

Wildlife is not "largely safe."  At last report, 60 animals were seen coated with oil, and those animals will all almost certainly die soon.  If it were 60 people who were eventually killed due to something like this, would Grist's subheadline read, "People largely safe from oil spill"?On Wildlife so far largely safe from Mississippi River oil spill posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

What Can You Do?

Vote Green!On If we just trust Monsanto and ADM, we can eat and drive to our heart's content posted 1 year, 4 months ago 20 Responses

Moving In The Right Direction

While I have long been an advocate of humans returning to hunting/gathering and abandoning agriculture as ecologically destructive and promoting gross overpopulation, the ideas expressed in this post are excellent.  Finally, a farmer who goes way beyond organic and recognizes the immense ecological harms that manipulation of the Earth causes!

And Stephanie is correct, the farmers can't do it alone.  People need to change their expectations and diets to accommodate the ecosystems in which they live.  As I said a short while ago in another thread, if you want to eat bananas, go live in South America.  We should all be willing to live off what grows in our own ecosystems without totally destroying them by growing things that require massive amounts of irrigation or severe changes of the land.On Can locavores embrace a truly place-based agriculture? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Which Choice

Well Spaceshaper, first I strongly disagree with your assertion that popular support would not be found for ending, or at least greatly reducing, global trade.  Just ask anyone who's lost a job to outsourcing or farmers who are committing suicide because of food being dumped into their countries at artificially low prices.  Most Americans might not support this, but there are plenty who would and I think the average human would.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume that most people would not support ending or greatly reducing international trade.  The reason you think there's a discrepancy between my two posts is that on this thread I'm discussion what I would do if I had the power to do it.  On the other one, I was asserting how to create a more representative government, and the problems that its lack has caused.

The issue you raised invokes the conundrum of how to organize a governing system that will provide the best results considering the facts that 1) most people are just worker bees who have neither the interest needed in order to make the effort properly study issues nor the wisdom to make good decisions, and 2) if you try to set up a dictatorial governing system run by those who will make the best decisions, say Buddhist monks, what you'll get is decision makers who are the most aggressive and egotistical members of a society, because people like Buddhist monks have neither the desire to govern nor the ability to defend themselves from the attacks of the more aggressive people who would take over.

For now, the only answer is to make societies as representative as possible and try to educate the population as much as possible.  Of course, neither of those things is being done, because doing so does not serve the interests of those in power, including those whose power derives from their material wealth.On Farmers markets and local agriculture: age-old systems for the future posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

If you don't have the time to do it yourself...

plant native plants and just let them grow.  And screw any anti-environmental neighbors who don't like natural plants.  Anyone with this attitude should be sent to the moon with eight hours of oxygen.  If you don't like this planet, please leave!On The WSJ reports on lavish second-home gardens posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Right/Left Etc.

Ken,

Yes, you may use my post.  Many presidential candidates have gotten elected using my endorsements.

As to your right/left comments, when I say an enviro group is conservative, I'm talking strictly about environmental issues.  Some groups, like NRDC, are so conservative that they've been on the anti-environmental side of issues.  I've experienced this personally while working on lawsuits in which they've been opposing parties.  (NRDC is only one of many, unfortunately, and I just used it as an example.)  And Nature Conservancy was caught supporting logging in order to get money for something.  This is what I mean by conservative in this context.

You're quite correct that hardcore wilderness/wildlife advocates like me are actually conservatives, because we just want natural areas left alone.  Dave Foreman of Earth First! pointed this out decades ago.  In general, I actually get along far better with the rednecks in the enviro movement than I do with hippies or leftists and have absolutely no problem with them.

As to mass support v. deep support, there's no doubt that even when 80-85% of Americans said they were environmentalists that support was extremely shallow.  And I've never sold out my original Earth First! beliefs, among them "no compromise in defense of Mother Earth!," so I also agree that holding onto one's core beliefs and remaining true to the core of the movement and/or group is more important than whether the majority is offended, though it's obviously important to avoid the latter if possible.

I also agree that we've lost the faction of the Green Party that participates in electoral politics.  There's another faction that does not run candidates for office but is still true to the core beliefs, which are that peace and the environment are the fundamental and foremost issues of the Green Party.  Whether the party can be won back I have no idea, but even as is it's still substantially better than the Democratic Party.

Randy,

While I agree that it's best to keep internal disputes private, these issues must be dealt with.  There are major and substantial differences between say, EDF and the Center for Biological Diversity that affect policy decisions.  There's no way to resolve these difference other than to discuss them, which will necessarily require speaking ill of other enviros, though of course personal attacks should be avoided.On Has EDF spun out of environmentalism? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses

I Actually Agree With Mac On This One

The second paragraph of Mac's post is the one of the main reasons to either avoid economic arguments altogether or at least make them minor arguments when making arguments for reducing or eliminating environmental problems.  Economic arguments from environmentalists not only raise suspicions about honesty, they also don't get the message across about how harmful the activity is that we're trying to stop or reduce.  If your main argument and concern is economics, you're not an environmentalist.On Memo calling for increased offshore drilling and shale development posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Rigged Political System

Let's get to the root of the problem.  Results like these are the only logical outcome in a political system where the executive branch has too much power.  The Hamiltonians insisted that the executive branch be powerful in order to maintain power in the hands of those with the most money and power already.  A much more representative system would have Congress appoint department heads and have those departments be under the legislative branch, not the executive one.  Presidents are the least representative of all politicians elected to federal office, and should thus have the least amount of power.  Instead, they have had the most.On EPA administrator Stephen Johnson neglects his federal oath posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Ethanol Has Become A Juggernaut

Agribusiness is making a fortune off ethanol.  This crap now has large momentum and will be difficult to stop.  Congressional representatives, most of whom are in the pockets of agribusiness or just support it ideologically, or both, support ethanol.  It's too bad some of us were fooled early on and that this project ever got going, but it now has inertia on its side.On Adjustable rate mileage posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Proper Subsidies

I see nothing wrong with farm subsidies for small organic farms that sell raw produce locally.  (I don't think these subsidies actually exist currently, but I don't know.)  There would be two purposes served by those subsidies.  First, it would keep the price of produce down to a reasonable level.  Second, it would ensure that these farmers, who are the only ones we should be supporting, make a reasonable profit.

The problem is not subsidies per se, it's that farm subsides have been hijacked by agribusiness, which neither needs nor deserves them.On Beware of U.S. trade officials bearing gifts posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

What's The Point?

Do you so favor humans over all else that you're offended by the idea of saving the planet?  Or do you just think it's not an effective call to action?

Those of you who claim that the Earth will be fine or better off without humans are only half correct.  While that's true on its surface, we are trying to save other species and ecosystems, and the land, air, and water from human-caused harms.  That's what I mean when I talk about saving the Earth or protecting it from human harms.

Furthermore, no one really knows whether humans could make the Earth into a lifeless hunk like Mars or the moon.  Tropical rainforests destroyed by humans will likely never return, as they took 200 million years to evolve.  Forests in the middle east that were turned into deserts by humans have not recovered and show no signs of doing so.  Species made extinct, by humans or otherwise, are gone forever.

The whole argument that humans can't destroy the Earth and that it can only destroy us, is an anti-environmental one.  Its ultimate conclusion is that it's OK to do whatever you want, because hey, we can't harm the Earth anyway.  This is not to say that it might be a better tactic to talk about saving humans because they're basically selfish, but we should also talk about the natural environment and the massive harms humans have done and are still doing to it.On Dem presidential candidate calls on world to unite to fight climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Bigness

The western idea that bigger is better is completely wrong.  Bigger is almost always worse.  Specifically, big wind is ecologically destructive of whatever former natural area the wind generators and power lines now occupy.  There is no way to do big wind "right."On The media's central arguments for and against Gore's challenge to the nation posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses

One Of Many

When I first heard that a very harmful pesticide was going to be banned, I thought it was going to be methyl bromide, which in addition to poisoning the planet is also a major ozone depleter.  Most other countries have banned it, but the U.S. continues to use it.

There are tens of thousands of pesticides currently in use, unfortunately.  While banning carbofuran is a nice first step, the problem is not individual pesticides, but is instead their existence and use in the first instance.  Again, humans need to totally change their attitude toward how we interact with the rest of the planet.On EPA to ban pesticide carbofuran from food in U.S. posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Nothing Wrong With Windmills

The problem is big wind, big solar, and big anything else.  Wind generators in people's yards, on roofs, in parking lots = good, windfarms = bad.

And BTW, there will probably be litigation on this, as the companies that own some of the windmills refuse to take the necessary steps to adequately reduce these killings.On The media's central arguments for and against Gore's challenge to the nation posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses

Jobs Are Not My Priority, But ...

this is a great argument to be able to retort with.

However, be careful about the "job" argument in general.  Our argument should be that right livelihood is more important than jobs.  If you just want to create jobs, you could open a baby burning factory.  Prioritizing the job issue gets you Nazi Germany if you're not very careful.On It's the fossil fuel crowd that's against American jobs posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Earlysnows

I fully agree!  Most people know longer know that football is supposed to be a fall sport, not a winter one.  The season should be over by the end of December.  But hey, gotta get all those teams so we can make more money!  And too many teams means too long of a season.

I played a lot of baseball and football as a kid and love to watch as an adult.  While pro sports have always been commercial, the level of commercialism has gotten so bad that I'm now constantly considering totally giving up watching.  And make no mistake, increased night games and lengthened seasons are just more commercialization, done to make more money.

Everything is so commercial and plastic now: night games, indoor stadiums, artificial turf, changed rules to increase scoring that thereby dumb down the games, and the constant hawking of things -- announcers can barely open their mouths without whoring for some corporation or corporate sponsored event.  It's bad enough that the stadiums almost all have corporate names, but even certain terms now have them, such as the Heil red zone in football (sorry, I won't advertise for the evil pigs responsible for this by writing the correct corporate name).

As Mac said, albeit not intentionally, it's all about making more money.  Until humans as a whole stop prioritizing that and prioritize life instead, including all of the natural world and all other species, we're just going to get more of the same.  Baseball and other sports can mitigate their harms by taking some of the actions described on this thread, but the harms they do far outweigh the mitigations.On Major League Baseball going, going, green! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Revival Of The Teamsters & Turtles Alliance?

I hate to be unduly optimistic, but maybe this signals a real chance to ally with unions that have been very anti-environmental.  The Teamsters and Turtles alliance fell apart as soon as the Teamsters advocated for drilling in ANWR.  Now that they've seen the light, we should ally with them, at least on this issue.  I'm sure they won't be too thrilled about reducing consumption such as driving, but we can save that issue for later.On Blockbuster Teamsters announcement rejects oil drilling as an energy solution posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Language

Learsfool,

First, being a reporter you should be precise about language.  I never used the word "easy," I said I was told that "certification costs far less than the organic farming methods."  And to answer your question, I was told this by a friend who works at a small, family owned and run organic winery and participates in the some aspects of grape growing.  (Actually, the grapes are grown organically, but the wine contains sulfites, as almost all wines do, even ones that use organic grapes.)

Second, there are other organic certifications aside from the federal one.  If a farmer doesn't want to deal with federal bureaucracy, (s)he can try for other, local certification.  In California we have California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) certification, and there are others.

Third, do you actually expect shoppers to visits all the farms from which they want to buy produce but that claim organic growing methods without organic certification?  You got paid for going to farms; we would have to do it on our own time.  Avoiding this is the whole idea of certification.

Fourth, of course getting certified is harder than not doing so; so is growing organic.  But organic farmers are now getting premium prices for their produce, so it's just an investment.

Sorry, but I don't buy produce from people who merely claim that they grow it that way but that certification is too expensive.  Unless they're certified, I have no way to know that they're not using the worst pesticides and chemical fertilizers.On How to ask hard questions of the people who grow your food posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Sunblock & Coral

Carol,

See the study linked to below the article.  Realize two things: when people who are not tan go into the water, they often go where there are coral.  I've snorkeled on a number of reefs in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and there were many people snorkeling with me.  So there's more than a "little bit" of sunblock that the reefs are exposed to.  And remember, because the vast majority of these reefs are in the tropics, that exposure is 365 days a year.

Eiger,

My focus and priority is protecting and restoring the natural environment from harms caused by humans.  You're correct that people should limit their time in the sun regardless of whether they have tans, but it is not OK to poison the Earth with chemicals just because you want to vacation somewhere that you're not suited for.  I'm beyond sick of the selfish attitude that you can do whatever you want, the Earth and everyone else be damned.  Chemical sunscreens should be banned because they're poisoning the Earth.  If you're a fair skinned redhead, you obviously don't belong in the tropics.

And yes, I'm aware of the hysterical crap that says that tans are bad, but I don't buy it.  Too much sun exposure is bad, but you don't need much exposure to get a tan.  I practically grew up on the beach in the summers when I was a kid, lived on the beach for a year in Florida renting Hobie Cats, and sailed from San Francisco to Tahiti and back via Hawaii, living on boats for months the entire time.  I have no skin cancer, and the vast majority of sailors don't get it, either, even though they get a lot more sun exposure than average people.  All you have to do is be sensible and stay out of the sun when you can, especially during mid day.On Most sunscreens ineffective or pose a health risk, says group posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Organic Certification

I was told that farmers who claim they grow organically but can't afford the certification are lying, because the certification costs far less than the organic farming methods.  Anyone know about this?

That issue aside, it's very important that farmers who grow organically get certified.  The public has no way to know who's lying and who's telling the truth, nor should the burden be on people to hold an inquisition at every stand at a market.  Certification is the only way to be sure the produce you're buying was actually grown organically.On How to ask hard questions of the people who grow your food posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

re: Hooray For Whiskerfish!

Well RD, you still have not addressed one of the concerns raised by Whiskerfish that I mentioned.  While I would like the average person to evolve to a level of proper respect for the natural environment, I have no idea how to accomplish or even facilitate that, and it's not my purpose here.  I realize that people who live in different worlds, such as you and me, will often see the other one as misinformed about certain issues.  However, I fully understand your point of view, it's the dominant one.  You clearly do not at all understand ours, because it's an unfortunately dying one.  Problem is, a good part of the Earth will die with it.

As to being a hypocrite, you make all sorts of false assumptions about people without knowing anything about them (you also did this with Whiskerfish).  The only thing I consume on a regular basis is food, and I can't think of one thing that I bought new within the past 15 years made of wood, nor I can find anything like that around our apartment at all.  I also have no children, so you can't complain that my kids will need dead tree products.

If you read my posts, you will see that an ongoing theme is that the root physical causes of all significant environmental and ecological harms are overpopulation and overconsumption, and that without solving both of those, no significant problems will be solved.  One of my close friends describes me as a minimalist, though I don't see myself that way.  Either way, I'm not a hypocrite because I don't consume what I don't need, try to buy used things instead of new, and don't have kids.  The point is that we must simplify our lives and live more naturally, or we will continue destroying ecosystems and causing species extinctions until life as we know it is gone.

Traditional societies all over the world lived without killing trees (or killed so few that you couldn't tell), and Europe is certainly not the place to look for them.  Good examples of how to live as humans are in traditional hunter-gatherer societies that still exist in small numbers in tropical rainforests, and even semi-traditional societies right here in the U.S., such as the Dine (Navajo) in northern Arizona.  Gathering dead wood once in awhile is one thing, but killing trees is immoral, period.

Jon,

Backcut has said that he's either a logger or part of the Deforest Service, I can't remember which.  Either way, his perspective is that of the timber industry/Forest Service.  If you think his positions are reasonable, you either don't support protecting and restoring natural forests, or you know nothing about this issue.  I fought many people like Backcut when I worked in Earth First! a long time ago, and I didn't make any assumptions about him; I know exactly where he's coming from.  It's those of you from mainstream society that don't understand people like Whiskerfish and me, because we're not like most people in that society.  (However, when I hang out with my traditional Native American friends, my views are just mainstream.)On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

Forget Sunscreen & Get A Tan

If you're going on a vacation where you'll be exposed to the sun and you don't have a tan, go to a tanning salon the week before you leave and get one.  It's much better for both you and the environment than using chemical sunblock, which not only is bad for you, but has been identified as one of the reasons for coral decline due to the chemicals.  It also avoids the oily mess of sunscreens, which except for sticks I would not allow on my boat if I owned one.On Most sunscreens ineffective or pose a health risk, says group posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Screw Cape Wind

Look, I live thousands of miles from there, and I don't want this project, either.  My opposition to Cape Wind has nothing to do with NIMBYism.  Instead, it's because of my strong objection to destroying yet another natural area with unnatural garbage.

Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with supporting natural aesthetic values and opposing projects that harm them.  Other animals beside humans have eyes, and these things ruin their views, too.  It's not just about the people who live there.

I find this ignoring of aesthetic harms to be a gross lack of sensitivity and caring toward the natural world.  If you don't know or understand why placing wind generators, solar panels, oil rigs, mines, or any other unnatural objects in a natural area is wrong, you are out of touch with nature.On A failure of leadership in the wind posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

What The Government Can Do

Diana,

You make valid points, especially the one that buying credits would be the same as a fine.  However, a strong government cap could also mandate best available technology.  And while plants are almost never shut down, that would be an option for especially egregious violators.

As to harming those who make their living by polluting the environment:  Sorry but that's just not a reasonable concern.  We're talking about trying to preserve an atmosphere that's livable, and whether some members of a grossly overpopulated species, who are participating in causing the problems that we're trying to solve, might be harmed must be given a lower priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.On Forget a carbon cap; try guilt instead! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Gene's Post Says It All

It's basically what I've been saying for a long time, with details added.  One thing I'd point out: there's no point in trying to make a list, it's almost infinite.  It's the entire idea of industrial society and the anti-environmental attitudes that come with it, including materialism and putting human comfort and convenience above the rest of the Earth.  Even most of the posters on Grist fall into this category.  The people we should be learning from and emulating are the very few hunter-gatherers left, and maybe pre-industrial agricultural communities (if there are any left) for more immediate solutions, not yuppie types who are more interested in maintaining ecologically and environmentally destructive lifestyles than they are fixing ecological and environmental problems.  The latter group tries to convince us that technology will save us and/or the Earth, which is laughable considering that technology is the problem.  (Yes, some technologies are more harmful than others, but they're all harmful.)

And this perfectly explains the reactions that Lorna got when she tried to get climate groups to organize climate groups and get effective climate legislation drafted and proposed.  Again, in most environmental groups, people fall far more into the yuppie category than into the one concerned primarily about the natural world on which all life, including humans, depends.On Progressives discover there is no coherent energy movement to take advantage of this moment posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

Backlash

If the only things that can be done for the environment are minimal ones to which no one will object, no significant environmental problems will ever be solved.  This is a defeatist attitude.  What needs to change is public attitudes toward the environment so that the public begins giving it the priority it deserves.  We could begin by telling people how much electricity is wasted by using the lights for night games.

Re night games, gimme a break!  When I was a kid in the '60s, very few games were played at night.  There were no playoffs, but all World Series games were day games, and the teams played daytime doubleheaders every Sunday.  Most people only go to a game or two per year, so this is really a non-issue; playing hooky from work or school is part of the fun of going to a game!  Massive numbers of night games are relatively new, and all reasonable people would agree that it's more important to switch back to day games if doing so would help reduce global warming and other environmental harms.On Major League Baseball going, going, green! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Obama Is A Politician In Every Sense

There are two things going on here.

One is the corporate media, whose goals are to 1) make as much money as possible and 2) promote corporate propaganda.  One of the propaganda tools is fake "objectivity," in which a media outlet pretends to give equal coverage to "both" sides of an issue, even when one side has no credibility (for example, global warming deniers) or there are more than two sides.  In this case, the corporate media are fabricating Obama flip flops to "balance" the McCain ones.

The other thing is that Obama actually does flip flop.  He used to be a strong supporter of the Palestinians, but quickly changed his tune when he though about running for president, because he realized that he would not stand a chance if he angered the evil but powerful AIPAC.

So, the truth is somewhere in between.  Obama has not flip flopped anywhere near as much as the corporate media is leading people to believe, but he certainly has done so when he's seen it as politically necessary.  This guy is a politician first in every sense of the word.  Any progressive who thinks he's going to save us is going to be badly disappointed if he's elected.  At least if McCain's elected progressives realize it will be the end of life as we know it.On Has the candidate's stance shifted? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Good Start

But if they really want to be green, they have to stop wasting massive amounts of electricity and causing more light pollution by playing night games.On Major League Baseball going, going, green! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Oh, Quit Whining!

We've got the best government money can buy!On In the EPA's Midwestern division, a pro-industry stalwart replaces a dioxin stickler posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Pizza

Wow, I'm glad I got people discussing an important issue for a change.

First, Canis, focaccia -- no cheese! -- is Italian, pizza is American.  But that said, I don't consider any European "cuisine" (that term seems too lofty for most European food) to be healthy.  East Asians seem to have the best diets, based on veggies and rice with small amounts of meat and no dairy.  Europeans eat far too much meat, dairy, and processed foods, the latter mainly from white flour.  Brown rice would be a major improvement in Asian cuisine though, and many Chinese and Thai restaurants in San Francisco now offer it.

Second, pizza is junk food because two of its three  basic ingredients, cheese and white flour, are junk food.  My standard of what constitutes junk food might seem a little high, but all dairy is junk food because it's completely unnatural (milk is for babies only and is unhealthy for anyone else, and milk from another animal even more so) and highly processed foods like white flour are junk food by definition.  The less food is processed, the healthier it is, and I draw the line at white flour and its manifestations, because unless one is starving, white flour provides more negative effects than positive ones.  Sure, you can substitute whole wheat flour or cornmeal -- the latter tastes really good, BTW -- and make pizza less of a junk food, but it still depends on cheese.

It's humorous to see all the people who've reacted to my comment about pizza being junk food, as if this hit a nerve or something.  I eat pizza too, though living in San Francisco it now consists solely of Indian pizza (if you eat pizza west of Chicago you're not likely to get anything good), and I also love cheese enchiladas with mole and ice cream.  But I eat these things very occasionally and don't lie to myself that they're healthy.  They're just fun foods that won't hurt you if you eat them sparingly and not regularly.On Al Gore on Meet the Press posted 1 year, 4 months ago 30 Responses

What?

RD,

First, I don't own a car, so I don't burn anything, though I realize that the buses and trains I use when I'm not walking or biking consume and burn fossil fuels in some form.

Second, I never said fossil fuels and plant-based fuels were the same.  Biofuels are actually WORSE ecologically, unless their source is waste material like kitchen grease.  You're claiming that killing trees in order to keep spoiled Americans in their cars is a good thing?  Sorry, but you should only kill what you eat, and people don't eat trees.  Moreover, there's no such thing as a sustainably managed forest; there are only sustainably managed tree farms, and even those are few and far between.  The vast majority of logging is highly ecologically destructive, and I have no doubt that logging for ethanol or any other resource would be no different.

Third, ethanol is a big scam.  Its emissions are little better than those of petroleum products, its production is causing far more harm than good, and its subsidies are nothing but tax payer ripoffs in order to benefit agribusiness.  And I'll say it one last time: every fuel burned emits carbon dioxide at best.  So, how would burning any type of biofuel reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions?On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responses

To Answer The Question Posed

In a word, no.  And why would environmentalists want to?  That's like asking whether Nazis and Jews can find common ground.  The coal industry destroys the Earth by mining and burning coal in order to make money, and environmentalists' jobs are to stop destruction of the Earth, regardless of economic concerns.On Can the coal industry and an environmental blog find common ground? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

Wrong Assumptions

You are all beginning with the false assumption that we "need" electricity 24 hours per day.  The fact is that the only "need" for electricity is created by our totally unnatural lifestyles in our totally unnatural society.  What we really need is to stop using so much electricity so that we can clean up the air, stop destroying ecosystems with mines, dam(n)s, drilling, and mountaintop removal, and reduce human-caused global warming.

If you ignore reduction of consumption, you'll never solve anything significant and will only succeed in creating other problems.On Can the coal industry and an environmental blog find common ground? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

I Wholeheartedly Agree

I would add materialistic and greedy.On Extreme exceptionalism posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Conservative v. Right Wing

There's a huge difference between "conservative" and "right wing."

The former describes an ideology that resists change.  Some of us enviros actually consider ourselves conservatives, as in "leave the natural landscape alone and don't change it."  But where this usually applies is to social norms, and usually to sexual and religious ones.

Being right wing, on the other hand, means supporting those with money and power, as opposed to the left which supports the poor and working class.  (Both wings have claims of support for the middle class.)  The right posits that people are poor only because of individual failings, which supports the status quo that attains and retains wealth for the wealthy.

The point is that it is perfectly logical and consistent when the right -- Bush, Cheney, etc. -- oppose conservation, which is a conservative concept, not a right wing one.  Conservation does not attain or retain any wealth for the wealthy; in fact, it would reduce their wealth, so the right will never support this.On A refresher course on economic principles for the right posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Big Victory!

Hooray for my cousin Wolf!  They suffer immensely at the hand of the trouble monkeys, AKA naked apes.

Now if the government would just have the morals and courage to stop the killing of the wolves in New Mexico.On Endangered-species protections reinstated for gray wolves posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

What To Do About Extreme Behavior, Etc.

OK, some of you have said that PETA is too extreme in their methods -- without saying anything about their goals, which is what's really important, but that's another issue -- but answer this:  When Nazis were killing people in concentration camps, should the opposition have merely advocated a "moral evolution" and that saying the killing must be stopped immediately made the opposition "totalitarians"?  Well, MILLIONS of animals are being killed and tortured in laboratories.  I see absolutely no moral difference.

As to Grist, this place has become much more conservative over the years.  "Credibility" is one possible reason, but another one that's likely to be an even stronger cause is that at least some people running Grist are on the conservative end of the environmental movement.  My experience is that people who advocate more conservative methods want more conservative results.  If you realize that things are dire, you're more willing to advocate any means necessary and are less concerned about methods, so long as they're effective.

Grist obsesses about global warming to the exclusion of other stories because global warming is a more conservative issue; it's somewhat nebulous and doesn't seem to require any changes or sacrifices in lifestyles or behaviors, but it allows people to bash the government and oil companies, which are favorite targets of almost everyone.  And Grist has way too many stories about technology and economics because again those are more conservative issues that don't require any sacrifices.  I totally agree with Canis: Grist spends way too much time on issues that are nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and nowhere near enough on really important environmental issues, such as the sixth great extinction, overpopulation, destruction of ecosystems, and unnatural human pollution of every inch of the planet, including its atmosphere.

Finally, the reason that a story like this doesn't belong in Grist is not that this issue shouldn't be discussed.  It is that Grist is supposed to be an environmental online something (magazine?), not a discussion of animal rights and feminism.  If you want to discuss those issues, I'm sure there are plenty of other places to do so without taking up space here and causing Grist to not post stories about environmental issues.On Animal rights group called out for repeatedly exploiting women posted 1 year, 4 months ago 38 Responses

Setting Standards

Government agencies that take so long to set standards are acting as nothing but lackeys for the industries that they're supposed to be regulating.  There's no excuse or reason for not setting a strict standard immediately when a problem becomes known.  Natural bodies of water should be given priority, not farmers and their chemicals.On Sick of algae-polluted water, Florida groups sue EPA posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Guilt By Association

Just because an evil pig says something doesn't make it false.  I fully agree that natural land should be preserved in its natural form, and placing windmills there is thoroughly disgusting.  While I'm sure that a coal executive's motivations for opposing wind power in these areas are the opposite of mine, I nevertheless support what you quoted him saying.On Minnesota utility plans wind farm over coal reserves posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Horrible Actor

Come on Ron, this guy single handedly almost ruined "Bladerunner," one of the all time great movies (from a great book, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?).  And the "Indiana Jones" movies?  Pure infantile crap that was also at least ethnocentric and possibly racist, with again horrible acting on Ford's part.On Harrison Ford on living green posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

No Study Needed

As Catman said, there is no need to study global warming.  The only need is to change our lifestyles to use much less energy while changing the sources of energy from environmentally destructive ones like oil, coal, and nuclear to ones like locally generated solar and wind power.  Consuming and burning oil while destroying an ice floe by building and airstrip on it actually increases global warming and does nothing to alleviate it.On Russian researchers abandon shrinking ice floe posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Phony Pragmatism

This column supports what I've been arguing against Dave Roberts: it doesn't matter whether people WANT to stop causing ecological destruction.  If they don't stop it, the web of life that we depend on will unravel, as it's already starting to do right before our eyes.  As an old sailing saying that I repeated once here goes, in nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences.  Nature couldn't care less about human social or economic issues, and those issues will be of absolutely no consequence regarding what happens to the Earth and life upon it.On Climate action requires leadership beyond political 'reasonableness' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

JustLou

You might also have a lawsuit if you were sickened or injured by the spray, or even for an injunction to force the pilots to remain within the legal limits.

John,

There's no such thing as a "benign" chemical.  Pesticides, which is almost certainly what this was, are chemicals meant to kill something.  Aerial spraying is the most ecologically damaging way to apply pesticides, because it's very difficult to impossible to control where the spray goes and doesn't go.  Aerial spraying should be banned without exception as the first step toward eliminating pesticides.On Transportation sector lies at the root of U.S. energy problem posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

Good Point Tasermon

The current human path of increased technology and decreased living naturally is an evolutionary dead end.  Not only is it destroying the Earth and all other life on it, it's not good for humans, either.On The link between obesity and the environment posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

Company?

Which company has cut its GHGs to zero?  Or were you confusing "company" with "country," which is easy to do nowadays since governments are now just lackeys and enforcers for corporations.

As to Greenpeace, not only do they have more credibility and integrity in their merde than you do in your entire existence, but there are a lot more environmental concerns than greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear problems being one of them.On Greenpeacers climb Eiffel Tower in anti-nuclear protest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Harassing Wildlife

Wildlife should not be touched except to eat it, unless it's mutually agreed to.  Catching snakes or other wildlife is harassment, both legally (as in the Endangered Species Act) and biologically.  If you don't believe this, just imagine how you'd feel if, say, a grizzly began "petting" you.

And having kids is no excuse for doing this.  Kids should be taught to properly respect other forms of life by carefully observing them, but otherwise leaving them alone.On Car camping with a Prius posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

Local Is The ONLY Way To Go

Long distance produce, like long distance anything, is just part of the problem.  But by today's U.S. standards, anything within the same county is certainly local, and some would say anything within 100 miles is local.  As long as we're using harmful industrial means to transport things, the definition of "local" needs to be narrowed, but this is a good start.On For some farmers, distant markets offer the best prices posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Oh Boy!

Wow, a nuclear power company is going to save us!On Nuke-power company Exelon announces big emissions cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Right On!

Apparently, Ontario is a lot cooler than Alberta.On Ontario protects gigantic forest area posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Fat Symbolism

Biod,

What Dan Engber, and anyone else who analyzes this movie the way he does, fails to get is that fictional movies generally use symbolism and metaphor.  "Fat" symbolizes overconsumption.  It doesn't necessarily have to be overconsumption of food, and overconsumption of other things is probably more responsible for ecological devastation.  That said, the attitude that being overweight is not caused by the eating and exercise habits of the affected individuals, however, is ludicrous.On The link between obesity and the environment posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

Trolls

The word "troll," as it relates to blogs, has a specific meaning.  A troll is "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."  Wikipedia.  Paleocon, you are called a troll, along with several others here, because this is a website for discussion among environmentalists about how to solve environmental problems.  While we have differences among ourselves, making comments like calling those who've correctly identified global warming as a big problem "AGW Fundamentalists" is being a troll, because you add nothing to the discussion here.  Same for any other anti-environmental comments.

This is a website for those of us whose priorities at least include protecting the environment.  If you are opposed to this or that's not your priority, and you make comments to the contrary on this type of website, you're a troll.On Alaska state legislature proposes fund to support alternative energy including coal posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Environmentally Responsible Destruction?

Hmm, interesting concept Bart.  Unfortunately, there is no environmentally responsible way to drill for oil, or to transport, refine, or burn it.  It's all destructive.  I suppose one could spend his or her time and energy advocating for the least destructive methods, but that's certainly not my priority.On Congressional Dems consider preventing oil drilled offshore from export posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

"Cost"

OK Sindark, let's look at it this way:  The true cost of climate change goes way beyond money and economics.  The costs will be devastated ecosystems, extinction of species, and deaths of many humans.  I stand by what I said: we need to change the evil dominant paradigm from one of looking at everything through economics to one of looking first through nature and natural systems.  Your pragmatism will only buy a little time, at best.  I'm not saying that environmentalists should totally ignore economics, but it's both sad and infuriating that Grist, of all places, has become infected and dominated by economic discussions.On The Freakonomists weigh in on the effects of warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Greenwashing

This is a load of do-nothing crap.  It does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the use of these awful chemicals.  Signs, buffer zones, and the other provisions will do absolutely nothing to mitigate or stop the poisoning of the Earth, including the atmosphere, with petrochemical pesticides.On EPA cracks down on the pesticides on your peppers posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Oy Vey!

Look, I know all you more conservative enviros are wetting your pants over global warming, but there are other, equally and more serious, environmental and ecological problems.  The main problem caused by getting oil from tar sands is the direct destruction of Alberta's boreal forest, including the Athabasca River that runs through it.  http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/  The extra greenhouse gas emissions that are being and will be caused by use of this source of oil are a distant second in the environmental and ecological harms they'll cause.

Second, DOING something about tar sands would be prohibiting it.  Merely spending some of its profits on public transit is better than, well, not doing so, but exponentially worse than just prohibiting oil production from tar sands.  I just can't take any enviro seriously who thinks that spending money is a solution to everything.  Money will only solve certain problems; a major change in human attitudes toward the natural world and human behaviors is what's needed, and spending money will not cause those changes.On Alberta sets aside nearly $4 billion for public transport and CCS posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Obamas Advisors

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but his foreign policy advisors are all from the military industrial complex.  That should tell you quite a bit, and none of it is good.On Bush hits the climate alarm snooze button at G8 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

What This Poll Means

While it's great to know that a large majority of Americans want to at least temporarily ban new coal plants, this reminds me of other environmental issues: broad support, but very shallow.  If Americans were asked whether they'd be willing to actually sacrifice something -- say a few hours of TV daily -- in order to clean up the air, reduce mercury pollution, lessen damage from mining, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, then we'd have a meaningful result.On Poll shows 86 percent of public wants a five-year halt on new coal plants posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses