Comments GonzoDon has made

Thanks Ted

Fair enough.  We may be saying (kind of?) the same thing.  In truth, some of my favorite people are traditionally 'religious' people ... and I'm not accusing them of "standing in the way of desired solutions".  (Well, in a few cases, actually, they are ... but not as a rule).

I tell ya, though -- I could do with a lot less of the fundamentalist dogma that drives politics and public policy in the United States to a frankly embarassing extent.  Irrational religious thinking inserted into serious public discourse (e.g., teaching unscientific "Intelligent Design" in biology classes) is simply not tolerated in, say, France, or Denmark, or Finland, or Spain, or Canada, or even that very homeland of the Catholic Empire, Italy.  They think we are loco.

So why is such superstitious public behavior so tolerated in the United States?

'Nuff said.On A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 23 Responses

It ain't censorship if it ain't science

Let the Heartland Institute 'dissent' all it wants.

The real question is whether the Heartland Institute understands and respects what 'science' is?  And how 'science' works?

Given that fundamentalist religious forces in the United States have managed to completely confuse several generations of Americans about the difference between a well-established framework of scientific theory (i.e., the evolution of species via the process of natural selection) versus non-scientific wishful thinking (intelligent design), it's no wonder so many Americans can't grasp the difference between the two.On A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 23 Responses

The best parodies are the subtlest ones

Nicely played, indeed!

(Man, I am so pissed at those hotels that actually increase their profits by encouraging me to not waste resources.  How dare they!)  

Just for spite, I'm gonna display my American arrogance and flaunt my right to waste as many resources as possible by using twice as many towels as I need next time I stay at the Holiday Inn!  That'll show those tree-huggers who's boss!!

By the way, isn't one copy of USA Today delivered to your door equivalent, in paper content, to about 419 of those wasteful little 'save the Earth' cards that Pellettieri is so concerned about?

LOL.
On Slate tricked into publishing a parody of its own reflexive contrarianism posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

I wish I had the luxury

Man, I wish I had the luxury that so many posters on these boards seem to have of sitting back in an easy chair with a cold beer, speculating on whether 'global warming' is a figment of our imaginations.

As a scientist, I always remain open to the possibility that our interpretation of data is mistaken, and that long-term global warming is not happening.  Unfortunately, from my experience, it's very much happening, at least in our hemisphere.  Glaciers are melting.  Ice caps are shrinking.  Northern Alaska is visibly warming.  Species migrations are occurring earlier, and they are shifting northward.  Snowpacks are melting a little earlier every year.  Invasive species are thriving.

As a scientist involved in water management in the dry interior west, I don't have the luxury of kibbitzing with a cold beer while all this happens around me.  Almost all the water managers I work with -- many of whom, I'm certain, have never voted for a Democrat in their lives -- are in a mild panic over adapting to the changes we're all seeing in the West.  Not because they are becoming tree-huggers, but because they are responsible for keeping farmers and cities supplied with water, and for generating hydropower.  If they screw up, they get their asses handed to them on a platter.  Unlike George Will, who just gets to write another editorial.

When it comes down to actually managing real resources in the real world, global warming is not an abstract hypothetical concept.  Those of us on the ground can see it happening.  Or at least that appears to be the case, until someone more informed than George Will can present convincing evidence to the contrary.  I'm hoping that person comes along, I really do.  But it hasn't happened yet.  

Maybe George can take my job, figure out how to adapt to the climate changes I'm seeing, while I can sit in his cushy office chair, straightening my bow tie and congratulating myself on another snappy little editorial that I've written for syndication -- one that tells the George now doing my job that he doesn't need to worry his pretty little head about global warming, because people like me think it isn't happening.

This is becoming a ridiculous argument.On The Washington Post lets George Will reassert all his climate falsehoods plus some new ones posted 9 months ago 11 Responses

JoSullivan

It is well known that facts have a notoriously liberal bias -- which is why George Will would prefer to ignore them.

The WashPo though ... WTF is up with that?On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 Responses

Yeah, I read Will's article

in this morning's Denver Post, and all I could say is: "huh?"

Will's primary argument against global warming science seemed to be that (at least some) scientists have made some seriously wrong climate predictions in the past.  Therefore we should ignore all scientific predictions.

I kept reading ahead thinking he was gonna cite some compelling CURRENT evidence to counteract the overwhelming data showing our planet is warming.  (That trend is undeniable; just ask anybody who lives in northern Alaska.)  

Even here in Colorado, water managers are already altering the way they manage water and plan for future facilities, based on the reality that the snowmelt is occuring an average of 1/2 day earlier each year.  They are not making these changes because they are 'liberals' or 'tree-huggers' ... but because their asses will get handed to them on a platter if they ignore these trends, and their customer's spigots go dry as a result.

But Mr. Will can't be troubled with citing robust "data" or "evidence" to support his claims.  Instead he resorts to ridiculing scientists who've made mistakes in the past.  

On that basis I await George Will's tirade next week against Einstein's General Theory of Relativity -- based not on any counter-vailing science, but based on the fact that the young Einstein got C's and D's in his math classes in elementary school.  His theories are therefore crap!

Stick to adding to your growing bow-tie collection, Will.On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 Responses

Way to Go, Grist!

You find time for this frivolity -- but not a single word this week about the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin.  Only the most influential scientific and environmental thinker of the 19th Century.  The originator of the theory of evolution via natural selection, the only way biology makes any sense.

Indeed.  At some point being witty and goofy just becomes irrelevant and inconsequential.  Congratulations, Grist, I think you're almost there.On From Nukes to Nincompoops posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

I vote for corporate bias

In answer to your question immediately above, newsnerd.

There is plenty of excellent environmental journalism out there (e.g., High Country News). There is plenty of good science out there (e.g., IPCC).  The problem is big corporate dollars, which show no particular enthusiasm for supporting either.  (And, frankly, why should they, if it will hurt their bottom-line over the next few quarters or years?)

Which is why it is a major, major mistake to leave all cable 'news' delivery (newsertainment?) and health-care services and education and prescription-drug businesses to be solely in the unregulated hands of the private sector ...  

 ... that is, if we want to hold on to an informed and fully participatory democracy.  (Which I happen to want.)

All the above said, there is a tendency these days to ascribe every flood or drought or fire or hurricane to the effects of global warming.  Of course the frequencies/probabilities of those events change with global warming, but you can't ascribe any individual event to that specific cause.  When we do, we risk undermining public credibility.On CNN, ABC, WashPost, and AP blow Australian wildfire, drought, heat-wave story posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

I second that Bravo

As rycarson implies, it takes just a few seconds and very little thinking to spew out the standard Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Faux News talking points, a skill which jabailo seems to have mastered.

Conversely it takes some thinking, and some common sense, and a consideration of the big (i.e., global) picture, and a consideration of the long-term (i.e., generations, not weeks), and a willingness to confront facts to land upon sensible solutions.  

But that takes a little more work, and it doesn't lend itself well to the shrieking and bullying that work so well on talk radio and cable news-entertainment.

Also, it's often helpful to acknowledge that 96% of the world's population does NOT live in the United States, and that in many cases -- gasp! -- they already have successful working models of the things we've decided are impossible here in the United States: universal health care, cost-effective drug treatment as an alternative to expensive drug prosecution, schools that teach the universally-accepted scientific theory of evolution via natural selection rather than belief-based "intelligent design" in their biology classes, etc.

So thanks ejd for laying out some real facts for us to mull over.  

Unfortunately, as Stephen Colbert is fond of pointing out, facts tend to have "a notorious liberal bias".On Restructuring the U.S. transport system posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 22 Responses

Facts

As Steven Colbert has repeatedly pointed out, facts have a notoriously liberal bias.  Which is why Limbaugh, Hannity, et al prefer to ignore them.On Obama issues a flurry of environment-related orders posted 10 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

Hmm, think population has anything to do with it?

Um, I know this sounds simple-minded, but do you think that maybe food shortages in 2010 could also have, well, something to do with the fact that the global population continues to increase exponentially, and could well be in excess of 10 billion by then?

The population was well under 3 billion when I was born.  So that's roughly a 350% increase in mouths to feed by 2010.  

I know: silly me.  It's so much trendier and much more politically-correct to raise the alarm about global warming as the Original Sin that is The Source of All Our Troubles!  No need to mention population growth, which only upsets overertly religious people and hyper-culturally-sensitive folk.  

No sense, as a good New Ager might say, in making anybody feel "uncomfortable" -- the cardinal New Age sin!

Nevertheless, however politically incorrect, I insist, again, that global population growth is the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore.  Grist included.

Look!  Over there!  It's more global warming!!On Half of world's population could face climate-driven food crisis by 2100 posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response

The Economics of Conservation

One thing that drives me crazy is that when oil was $147/bbl, the right-wing mantra was "drill baby drill", because of course oil & gas exploration and development would (someday, to a limited extent, maybe, but only as long as we can outpace the depletion of existing oil fields) bring down the price of oil and gas.  Such that full exploitation of the oil under the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (for example), might bring down the price of gasoline.  By a few cents.  In ten or fifteen years.

Meanwhile, we have all seen what demand-destruction (read: global recession) did to reduce gasoline prices.  Drastically.  In a matter of weeks.

Am I missing something here, or should the lesson of 2008 be quite obvious, even to the most ignorant supply-sider: the quickest and most effective way to reduce gasoline prices is to reduce demand for the product.  Duh.  

A global recession is an unpleasant way to do that, but a short- and long-term energy policy that improves public transit & inter-city train service, promotes renewable energy development, and encourages more compact and efficient urban communities can clearly accomplish in less time what drilling ANWR may accomplish in 15 years.

And the benefits will permanent.  As opposed to the cheap-oil fiesta made possible by ANWR drilling, which will come to an abrupt end once ANWR is pumped dry.  I.e., we'll be right back where we started.  Only even farther in the hole.

Double duh.On Cheap oil: Be careful what you wish for posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

Georgia is correct

in stating that GCM's currently do a poor job of simulating clouds and precipitation (as opposed to temperature modeling, at which they are getting better and more cross-consistent all the time).

That said, the basic physics of an "accelerated hydrologic cycle" that results from increased heating of our planet is pretty basic, and now pretty widely-accepted in the hydrologic community.  

An accelerated hydrologic cycle means that evaporation and evapo-transpiration rates will generally increase (dry areas will get drier faster; droughts will tend to become more intense in drought-prone zones), more moisture will be retained in the atmosphere, and more intense convective storms can likely be expected in areas where they already occur (i.e., the 10-year, 2-hour event will produce more precipitation in the future than it does today).

It may be easy for the armchair critic to pooh-pooh these claims, but I work in the water resources community, and believe me, water professionals take these changes very seriously:
-in terms of the implications for long-term water-supply planning
-in terms of responding to changes in the timing of snowmelt -- now occurring about 1/2 day earlier each year in the Rocky Mountains
-in terms of the need to design dams and bridges to withstand more intense runoff & flooding than in the past.

Indeed, the professionals have to respond.  Otherwise they'll get sued by people like Georgia in 20 years for failing to react to changes evident today.On Global warming increasing rainfall and intense storms posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

A thoughtful article

... but I still beg to differ.  

Given the alternative of a broad carbon tax vs. a narrower gas tax, I agree: a tax on all carbon is better.

That said, I'm skeptical we'll see that enacted in the next four years.  Too many entrenched big-money interests in this country, and internationally.  I'll also point out a couple of other factoids for readers to consider:

• Consumers recently got used to paying north of $4/gallon for gas.  This week it is $1.42 in my neighborhood.  There's an issue of timing at play here -- an unprecedented public awareness of energy issues, a certain sympathy toward the incoming president, and a sense among 'regular people' that gas at this price is cheap.  The best opportunity to get Americans to support collective action since 9/12/01 (an opportunity that the Current Occupant of the White House, unfortunately and inexplicably, squandered).

• In addition to the NYT, Business Week magazine (that bastion of bleeding-heart liberal opinion) recently had a similar editorial opining that it is high time to raise gas taxes.

• European countries have had a high gasoline tax for years -- and methinks that has something to do with their far lower per-capita consumption.  Of course those benefits were not immediate -- over decades the economics of expensive gas helped maintain more compact communities and supported good public transit -- but the impacts are obvious, nevertheless.

• Maybe you don't think that sending billions of petro-dollars a year to repressive governments like Saudi Arabia (home to 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists) is a "priority" concern for us right now; I happen to disagree. That expands U.S. debt and enriches anti-democratic regimes.

We will need an array of tools in our toolbox to shift America in a more sustainable direction.  I think higher gasoline taxes should remain one of the tools we consider seriously.On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

The Pope, and Dubya, in that order

I don't know why neither of the above made your list.  

The current pope -- Pope John Paul Ringo III or whoever happens to hold that seat right now -- is a criminal for encouraging an already over-populated planet to keep on over-populating.  

Think about it: one hundred thousand new people to feed, clothe, and house EVERY DAY.  Which inevitably destroys habitat, accelerates the production of atmospheric GHG's, and contributes to the depletion of soils, freshwater, and ocean fisheries.  Among a hundred other problems.

So until the Pope encourages his followers to adopt BIRTH CONTROL and to maintain a sustainable global population, he remains Criminal #1, in my opinion.

Dubya's incomparable legacy of waste, corruption, incompetency and outright hostility to science and to the environment needs no further description.

But Newt Gingrich?  Please.  He's a piker by comparison.On Vote for the top eco-villain of 2008 posted 11 months ago 14 Responses

Um, excuse me?

Higher gas taxes in Europe have helped foster/sustain better public transit systems and more compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly towns and cities.

And your counter-argument is: U.S. cars may get the same gas mileage as European cars -- in 12 more years??

Please.  This article makes little sense to me.  I don't see gas taxes as a panacea, but I am struggling to understand why a gas tax that funnels revenue into projects like, oh, public transit improvements isn't one small but important piece of the big puzzle.  This article, by contrast, simply puzzles me. On Higher gasoline taxes to boost efficiency would be 'a mistake' posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses

Good news! -- right?

Only a publication with the mindset of the Wall Street Journal -- i.e., filtering all news through the perspective of a quarterly profit-and-loss statement -- could spin a story like this in a negative light.

Good grief.  Less energy consumption means less fossil fuel (mostly coal in my neck of the woods) is being burned to generate energy. Fewer greenhouse gases.  Less mining is scarring our planet.  Less habitat is being disrupted and fragmented.  This is all good, good, good.

But you'd never know it from the WSJ.  The poor utility companies have their shorts tied in knots over the horrifying spectre of Americans learning to live with less -- perhaps permanently, and not just temporarily.

Oh the horror of it all.  Next thing you know, humans will be stabilizing their population and consuming less paper, gasoline, and freshwater.  The end is near, my friends.On Big drop in U.S. electricity consumption confounds utilities posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

@ Backcut

You may be right.  However if you're gonna have any hope of sabotaging the Powers that Be, you start by getting your foot in the door and creating some kind of opening that hasn't existed for 8 years.  

Then, with some more work and pressure you get your knee in the door.  

Then your whole body.  

Then the bodies of a few hundred, a few thousand, a few million people who feel the same way and demand change.

Sorry, but if the alternative is simply handing over control of my country's land & water management agencies to a bunch of oil, gas, timber, and coal lobbyists for four more years, I say "thanks, but no thanks".  

I'll take my chances on getting my foot in the door.

VOTE on or before Tuesday.  Otherwise, in my mind, you give up your right to bitch for the next 4 years.On Where the presidential candidates stand on endangered-species issues posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Catch-22

When gas prices are cheap and gas-guzzlers are popular, who the hell wants to spend tax money on public transit that relatively few people will use ... certainly not the SUV drivers who have the most money.

When gas prices are not so low, and when our cheap-energy-dependent economy begins to implode, and when gas-guzzlers become an economic burden on their shortsighted owners, everybody suddenly wants better transit -- which of course we can't afford to invest in any more, because the economy is foundering.

There must be a better way.  I think that better way is commonly referred to as "visionary leadership" and "long-term planning".  

Unfortunately, Americans are unfamiliar with the concepts of "visionary leadership" and "long-term planning", as politicians who demonstrate skills in these areas are routinely swiftboated as effete intellectuals who probably studied French in school, for God's sake -- and thus they rarely rise into positions of influence.

With a little luck, that may be changing -- and we have the chance to give change a big boost on Nov 4th.

Don't wait any longer.  If you live in a state that offers early voting, VOTE TODAY.On Some mass-transit agencies hit hard by financial crisis posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Population!

Gasp! Grist is actually publishing an article that focuses on exponential population growth as a root environmental problem on our planet.  Many of us would say THE root.

Good job, Grist!  I just wish you did this more.  Adding 400,000 new people to our little planet EVERY DAY is not something that activists are going to offset by convincing a few hundred yuppies in Berkeley to trade in their old light bulbs for compact fluorescents.On Population growth and climate: The E.U.-15 vs. the U.S. posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Damien makes an excellent point

If one believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, then that drastically reduces the period of record that one can use as a reference.  It also drastically reduces the science that one can cite with regard to global warming assessments (one can't acknowledge the validity any ice cores older than 6,000 years, for example.  Or acknowledge the validity of carbon dating.  Or interpret fossils as windows into environments/temperatures existing millions of years ago.  Et cetera).

Which is always a dilemma for "people of faith":  Like the rest of us, most of them live most of their lives on the basis of a rational interpretation of facts (when one violates traffic signals, one gets into accidents, therefore avoid violating traffic signals) ... and moreover will eagerly cite the rational interpretation of facts when it seems to support their religious dogma (for example, archeological evidence that supports the existence of an historical Jesus)

... except of course when those facts collide with their dogma.

Which is what drives me crazy.  You can't have it both ways.  One either has to accept the scientific method as the best (albeit imperfect) method we have to make sense of our physical world, and then happily enjoy the benefits like quality medical advice and cool cellphone technology and heavier-than-air planes that can fly us to the other side of the globe .... OR one has to throw the scientific method out the window (dismiss it whenever it seems convenient amounts to the same thing) and live with the consequences of a life ruled by superstition and imaginary powers.

Such illogic is rampant in America, I know.  But that doesn't mean we have to vote that illogic into the White House.

Which reminds me: HAS EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE ALREADY EARLY-VOTED????  If not, please do so as soon as possible.  I don't want long lines and mass confusion on election day to serve as a convenient smokescreen for Repugs to steal the election in my state.  Nor yours.On Palin can't name a single man-made cause of climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

OK, but

Since when has the Republican Party ever been concerned about the relevance of "facts"???

They are all about emotion, fear, greed, bitterness, religious superstition, and persecution complexes.  But "facts"?  Give me a break.

As Stephen Colbert points out, "facts have a notoriously liberal bias."On Palin again mangles facts on energy posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

I'm confused

We have made major progress in addressing the hole-in-the-earth's-ozone issue, through unprecedented international action, in spite of Ingrid's comments to the contrary.

It's on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions where we've made almost zero progress -- while our time to dally around on this problem has largely been squandered.  

Does Ingrid understand the distinction?  I'm confused by the fourth-to-last paragraph in this article.On Ingrid Jackson's question about climate change put candidates on the spot posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

I was delighted Palin clarified

That her energy policy is "Drill, baby, drill!", not "Drill, drill, drill!", as Biden had so naively suggested.

That cleared up a lot of voter confusion, and also, darn tootin', it showed just how out-of-touch that gosh-darn Obama-Biden ticket is.

Yep, that was a real debate highlight for me.On Vice presidential candidates spar on energy and climate issues posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

No-win Wall Street Journal

Over at WSJ, Keith Johnson hints that the rising price of oil will squash all the eco-talk from politicians. Of course, he predicts the same thing when the price of oil is low, so ...

I love it.  It's so true.  When oil and gas prices are high, consumers are suffering, so for god's sake we've got to open up ANWR to drilling, cut gas taxes, release oil from the strategic reserve, set the drilling companies loose on our public lands will all due haste, yadda yadda yadda.

Conversely, when oil prices and gas prices are low, the consumer economy hums along on the happy-motoring model and by gar we can't afford to upset that applecart with environmental concerns like demanding increased fuel efficiencies (we don't need it!  gas is cheap!), investing in public transit (no one will use it! gas is cheap!), building more compact and pedestrian-friendly communities (it's pointless!  people want to drive everywhere including their remote suburban mcmansions!  gas is cheap!).  Yadda yadda yadda.

Good observation, David Robers.  So true!  On Ramblings on the financial crisis posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 Responses

Ethics training

I suggest a series of case-studies:

• Julie MacDonald
  
• Jack Abrahmoff
  
• Italia Federici
  
• Alberto Gonzales
  
• Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Harriet Meyers
  
• Stephen Griles

I hate to break this news to Republicans ...

... but "drill baby drill" does not constitute a viable, sustainable U.S. energy-independence policy.

Peak oil production in the United States occurred almost 40 years ago and no amount of drilling (or wishful thinking) will change that.On GOP VP candidate says she'd be in charge of McCain's energy policy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Only in America

Only in America does somebody who believes that the Earth is 10,000 years old, that creationism should be taught alongside science in our schools, and that gays can be "cured" of their gayness stand a chance of being elected into the White House.

.. well, in the United States and probably in that other fundamentatlist republic known as "Iran", too.

Is the U.S. a great country, or what?

(Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world laughs at us.  While they happily take our dollars in trade, and quietly zip past us in science and engineering training).On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 2 months ago 74 Responses

Thank God

Thank God that Gov Palin, with her incomparable experience governing a state that borders on Russia, is about to rush to our rescue!!!On The Bush administration falters in a geopolitical chess match posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Alternative hypotheses

Gov Palin wants "creationism" (non-science) taught alongside evolutionary theory (science) in our public schools.

Well, while we're at it, I insist that the concept that the sun revolves around the Earth, rather than the other way around, be taught in our schools.  

After all, the former has a Biblical basis, the latter does not.  And any fool can go outside and see for herself that the former is the truth.

'Nuff said.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

No creationist in the White House

I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the earth was created in the last 12,000 years and who asserts that "creationism" (non-science) should be taught alongside evolutionary theory (science) in our schools should be kept far, far away from the levers of power.

That's simply Dark-Ages thinking on par with some of the poorer muslim theocracies of the Middle East.  Nothing more, nothing less.

We're better than that.  Much better than that.  That kind of leadership turns us into the laughingstock of the rest of the world, which is starting to move past us in science and engineering.

I'm not sure whether Palin has detailed exactly whose concept of the creation story should be taught.  I assume she means the fundamentalist Christian version.  However, if we allow that to be taught we must logically also allow the Hindu version to be taught, the Pagan version to be taught, the Sioux Indian version to be taught, and my favorite the Flying Spaghetti Monster version to be taught.  Let the kids decide for themselves!On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 Responses

Spoiled Old Party

only supports solutions where no one has to alter their lifestyle

This is the root problem in our country.  We've all been taught to expect that we can get something for nothing.  Hence the popularity of Las Vegas, zero-down home loans, and running up $500 billion in debt for a war in Iraq because we'd just as soon our children pay for it, not us.

Politicians treat us like children who can't handle the harsh truth.  And we happily comply.

Until we get past the mentality that we can somehow maintain our happy-motoring lifestyle indefinitely with no interruptions, no changes in the status quo, and no consequences, our country is doomed to be victimized by every shameless two-bit politician who tells us what we want to hear -- not what we need to hear.  

Many environmental organizations are guilty of doing the same thing.  Heaven forbid we try to tell people the truth and end up thrown out on our ass like Jimmy Carter.

"No one has to alter their lifestyle"!  Yah-hoo!  Party like it's 1981!!  Cheap gasoline, gas-guzzling SUVs, and mindless corporate entertainment for everyone!!  Suburbs of 4500-square-foot homes sprawling from horizon to horizon!

Hell ya.  We can blame that $4 gas on environmentalists, or NIMBYs, or Hugo Chavez, or them A-rabs.  But don't put any blame on us, the consumers, cause we can't handle it.

Party on, McSame.On GOP platform acknowledges human-caused climate change, leaves out ANWR drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Dear Paleocon,

Um, apparently you haven't noticed that President Bush borrowed the money to fight the Iraq War.  You haven't paid any more dollars toward the cost of that war than I have.  Our children will be the ones to pay off that debt, one way or another.  It will start with scaled-back public services, schools, public health care, and social security, I suspect.  

That's why they call it a "federal deficit".

And that's a key reason why the federal deficit has reached a record size under the Bush Administration.

It was thoughtful our good friends in China and Saudi Arabia to loan us the money, though.On Polar bears in open water prompt more worries about climate change posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 Responses

May not be a problem

Pickens' assertion that he could never vote for a Democrat because he wouldn't be able to face his relatives in heaven.

I am not a Christian, but even I know that Jesus is quoted as saying that "it is as difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle".

If Pickens is a Christian, methinks he's in deep shit.  Meeting his relatives in heaven should be the least of his concerns.  On T. Boone Pickens airs his first television ad posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

Good for the goose?

Nothing wrong with poking fun at Whole-Foods-shopping, hybrid-driving, African-orphan-adopting, vegan-dog-having do-gooders.  Lord knows there's plenty to make fun of, and as Grist demonstrates it's healthy to have a sense of humor about these things.

However I am curious: if there were an animated program that poked fun at the ridiculous and irrational beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, or portrayed SUV drivers as self-centered environmental criminals, or featured foreigners mocking U.S. citizens for their obsession with guns and big cars, and for their general ignorance about what's going on in rest of the world (only 95% of which is non-U.S.), would Americans be so amused?

Consider: Mark Twain and H.L. Menken could never get published in any mainstream media today.  And T. Jefferson could never get elected president.  (Not since the news got out that he clipped his Holy Bible down to 26 pages that he felt provided "useful ethical precepts" rather than fanciful myths and unverifiable miracles).  Don't try that and run for president today, man!  

Jefferson would have to settle for getting a job as a greeter at his local Wal-Mart.  No union benefits, of course.On From Goode to Bad-ass posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Pope Benedict is an environmental criminal!

Anyone in his position of power who opposes all forms of birth control bears a heavy responsibility for contributing to the unsustainable overpopulation of our fragile planet.  

And over-population is the root cause of just about every environmental problem we have -- or, at a minimum, it exacerbates every one of those problems.

Grist's listing of Pope Benedict on this page is a travesty.  I can't believe he was included here!

You guys need to get your head out of the sand regarding the seriousness of exponential population growth.  Until we get that problem under control, all other "environmental action" is simply re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.On 15 Green Religious Leaders posted 1 year, 3 months ago 28 Responses

It would make sense ...

... to have fast, frequent, and reliable bus service between (for example) Fort Collins and Denver here in my home state of Colorado.  

It has always mystified me why the demand for such service hasn't been greater, given the abysmal traffic problems and the out-of-control drivers one must tolerate to travel that stretch of highway.

All gruesome stories aside, let's admit that just about every Greyhound Bus ride these days has at least a couple of odd birds on board that creep out ordinary people.  Alas, we have ghettoized inexpensive inter-city bus travel in the same way we have ghetto-ized our K-12 schools, our college system, our neighborhoods.  

As long as our social structure makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, it's gonna be hard to "normalize" a sensible system like inter-city buses in the United States.On Greyhound and other intercity buses gain popularity posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

"Job creation" is a bit of a canard

If you want to "create jobs", you can do thinkgs like force people to build new dams with wheelbarrows rather than dumptrucks, and you can outlaw Eli Whitney's cotton gin, which put a hell of a lot of cotton-seed pickers out of work.

For that reason, I'm always uncomfortable with strategies which "create jobs".  I'm more comfortable with strategies that use resources (including human labor) more efficiently, more humanely, and more sustainably.  Sometimes that will eliminate a number of less-desirable, low-skill jobs, in the name of efficiencies.  Which is OK (in my opinion), as long as the resulting societal benefits (e.g. profits) get widely shared.

The latter, of course, is the big problem.  More and more of society's profits are getting shared among a handful of obscenely wealthy owners of the means of production.  THAT is what has to be changed!On It's the fossil fuel crowd that's against American jobs posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic

A tip of the hat to Shabaz Khan, at theoildrum.com:

"Climate change is one of a number of stresses we're facing, but it's overshadowed by global population growth and the amount of water, land and energy needed to grow food to meet the projected increase in population. We are facing a world population crisis."On Forget a carbon cap; try guilt instead! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

A Story Grist Didn't Feature

Uh-oh alert.  From today's AOL News page:

"A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday ...

"Demographers have been monitoring gradual increases in recent years; data for 2006, which won't be made final until September, show a 3% increase over 2005. That's the largest single-year increase since 1989.

"I suspect this is the beginning of a new kind of baby boom" says demographer Arthur Nelson of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City."

Here's the other part of this news flash:  All 4,315,000 kids born in the US last year will eventually want their own air-conditioning, their own central heating, their own places to live, their own Chilean sea bass flown in from 5,000 miles away, and eventually, of course, their own automobiles.

So please explain to me again how we plan to offset all of that additional greenhouse gas production to support all of that additional consumption.  Sigh.  

Regardless of our most heroic efforts, we're doomed until we can bring the birth rate back into balance with the death rate.  Sad but true.

Grist, when will you add exponential population growth to your list of high-priority topics needing open discussion?On Report from EPA and U.S. Climate Change Science Program highlights risks of warming world posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Underlying causes, again

Hmmm.  Could this have anything to do with the fact we'll have 9 billion people on this planet by mid-century, 2.5 billion of which will have been added since the century began?  

All of whom need to eat food that grows somewhere (e.g., marginal lands, tropical forests?), to consume energy that is extracted somewhere (e.g., by burning coal, or devoting yet more land to corn and sugar production for ethanol?), live in houses built of materials that must be harvested or mined from somewhere (e.g., forest trees, petroleum fields, and hillside iron mines)?

Nah, let's just continue to ignore population growth as the ultimate underlying problem here.  Let's have a dozen more Grist articles on global warming instead.  (Which, inconveniently, is also being exacerbated by exponential population growth ... but let's not go there).

Tell me: how do we protect our vanishing biodiversity when there are a hundred thousand more of us on this planet every day?  

I submit that all we can do is valiantly try to delay and minimize the worst of the damage until such time as our global population peaks and then begins to decline.  (Which it will, sooner or later.  Simply a question of whether we want to control the circumstances of the decline, or let Mother Nature do that for us).On Demand for food, wood, biofuels driving tropical deforestation, report says posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Correction

I would argue that it's incorrect to say that "illegal logging and palm oil production are the main culprits".  Illegal logging and palm-oil production are more like the main symptoms.

The main culprit is overpopulation, and mankind's insatiable demand for more and more resources -- for example more logs and more palm oil.

Until there are fewer of us, there will inevitably have to be fewer of almost everything else in our biosphere, including orangatangs.  That's just the way things work on a finite planet with finite space and finite solar energy input.On Orangutans heading toward extinction posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Whoa!

300 square miles is a shitload of terrain!  That's close to 200,000 acres!  This is a major coup for Mother Earth!

Positive environmental news is so hard to find these days, this really made my day.  The whole idea that we have been using our tax dollars to subsidize sugar production in Florida when the commodity can probably be produced for 1/3 the cost in numerous other spots around the Caribbean (can you say "Cuba"?), and when we've ALSO been using tax dollars to try to restore the Everglades we've been destroying with irrational water use, has always struck me as ... well ... irrational.

The first step in Recovery is admitting you have a problem.  Florida has admitted it, and anted up the money to begin addressing it.

Good job.  Please keep the good news flowing, Grist.  I can use it.On Florida will buy out sugar company to restore Everglades posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Re: Nader

As much as I admire Ralph Nader for his tough stances and his fine work on behalf of consumers over the years ... I don't understand the point of view that Sierra Club should now endorse his coming-out-of-the-woodwork-once-every-four-years style of "changing the world".

His style doesn't work.  You don't build effective change by running for president once every four years.  You build effective change by rolling up your sleeves and doing the hard, unglamourous, day-to-day work it takes to strengthen the organizational base and the think-tanks and the infrastructure that will support meaningful environmental change, WHOEVER gets elected president.  

Nader, unfortunately, has done NONE of this for the last eight years.  At least nothing I'm aware of.  So he's lost any general-election support from me.  (And this coming from somebody who did vote for him in '00).

I think Nader should be out campaigning for Instant Runoff Voting, coast-to-coast, for example.  THAT will open doors to third parties and broaden the national discussion and generate more long-term change in this country than Nader's quixotic four-year-appearances ever will.

Look at what Gore has accomplished in terms of helping frame the national environmental debate since he got screwed out of being elected in '00.

Now look at what Nader has accomplished.  

I rest my case.On Groups make joint announcement in Cleveland posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

Deforestation, soil loss don't happen in a vacuum

Gee, do you think any of these problems could be exacerbated by exponential population growth?  Both in Africa and elsewhere on the globe?

Oh, I forgot: one is not supposed to mention "population growth" as a "problem" on this site, especially in the context of an underdeveloped country, as it raises uncomfortable issues and it doesn't pass the politically-correct test with some people.

All I know is, there are about 2.3 people on this planet today for every 1.0 that existed when I was born only a few decades ago.  Also the fact that everywhere I've gone on this small planet -- everywhere -- I've seen environmental degradation that is clearly aggravated by local population pressures.

Just as the impacts can be seen where every reader of this comment lives, I bet.  

So I'm just saying, until we address the root problem ...On Climate change, deforestation, erosion take toll on African landscape posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

... and yet more Agreed

I just returned from a visit to Paris, France.  As has already been well-documented on this and other sites, their 'Velib' program of reasonably-priced, well-maintained, and abundant public-rental bikes with dozens upon dozens of pick-up and dropoff sites all over the city has resulted -- and here I can cite my own observations -- in an amazing amount of bicycle use for a major metropolis filled with well-heeled professionals.

If Paris can do it, any big city in the U.S. should be able to do it.  Paris streets are narrow, and the drivers live up to their manic and seemingly reckless driving reputations.  Yet the 1500-year-old city has managed to gradually retrofit itself for bike lanes and, more importantly, has raised driver awareness of bicycles to the point where regular people are now emboldened to pick up a Velib and go.  Security in numbers.  Taking back the streets.

This is not exactly the same as promoting bike commuting, I know, but my point is:  we have barely begun to scratch the surface of tapping into the human potential to actually use bikes for practical urban purposes, rather than for weekend loops around the neoghborhood park for the sole purpose of trying to shed some of those pounds that were gained while sitting in traffic consuming a sugary latte grande.On How to green your commute posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Thank God

that Hillary can recognize and diss an "elite" when she sees one.  

I know that if I'd graduated from an Ivy-league college, accumulated a fortune worth tens of millions of dollars, enjoyed millions of dollars in donations from special-interest Wall Street firms, and loaned $5 million of my own money to keep alive my my own campaign for president, I'd probably have a finely-honed ability to recognize an "elite" when I saw one, too.On A gas tax holiday would be cynical and indefensible posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

I tend to agree with Alison,

... but these days, I'm happy to read ANY positive environmental news.  

Of course we're not gonna solve our oil-dependency problems by simply driving cars that go 30% farther on a gallon of gas.  But that is a trend that's nice to see, and to encourage.  

Let's build upon that trend by offering our motoring-happy public some real alternatives to driving anywhere and everywhere:

• Enlightened zoning laws that encourage transit-friendly, mixed-use development, and discourage expensive and unsustainable sprawl

• Better public transit alternatives, whether they be dedicated high-speed bus lanes, light rail, or some half-assed attempt at building a passenger-rail system that, um, actually works

• Reduced subsidies for Big Oil and Big Airports, with a transfer of the savings to alternative energy development and the activities described above.

Good for Obama!

Trains are no panacea, of course.  There's plenty of places where they are NOT a good idea, like between widely-spaced cities of the sparsely-populated west.  

But given how many dollars we throw at airports, airport parking, airport fees, Homeland Security, Chap 11 airline bankruptcies, and all the hours squandered getting to, through, around, and from airports, trains are one logical part of the solution in many areas.

It staggers reason that there is not fast, regular train service between Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs, to cite a local example, or any other densely-populated corridor that is already choking on traffic. If this were Europe, 5 trains a day between the aforementioned destinations would be a no-brainer.  

But this is the U.S., where if you don't own your own car then you are, well, SOL.  We've barely started TALKING about efficient train service along populated corridors, much less have it ready to roll.  Even if only 1% of today's drivers used the service, it would be a phenomenally popular alternative.On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

A Place Worth Living In

I agree, Ryan's is a well-written and thoughtful article.

For a wonderful analysis of how our auto-friendly zoning and land-use policies have helped aggravate our oil dependency -- not to mention created a lot of butt-ugly, spiritually-degrading, utilitarian architecture and sprawl that treats public space as if it's a disposable commodity we want to drive past as quickly as possible -- read J.H. Kunstler's excellent book "The Geography of Nowhere".

An interesting point raised by Kunstler (and others I have read) is that "affordable housing" in the United States used to be abundant.  It consisted of walk-up apartments on the second floor above hardware stores and five-and-dimes, and outbuildings located along alleyways behind the homes of relatively wealthy people.  While not the most desirable housing in the world, it allowed poorer folk to live in the same neighborhoods as middle- and upper-income people, to access the same transit options, to be hired by them without having to commute 45 minutes each way from distant poor neighborhoods, and to expose themselves and their kids to a lifestyle to which they might choose to aspire.

Contrast that to today's remotely-located, economically-segregated, cheap-looking "affordable houseing neighborhoods."

There are very few communities left in the U.S. where zoning codes would even allow for the old-style kind of "affordable housing".

The older I get, the more I am convinced that things as mundane as zoning and land-use planning can make a world of difference.    

It is not an accident that millions of Americans each year will spend thousands of dollars to flee their ugly exurban neighborhoods simply to enjoy a few days in DisneyWorld's cartoon representation of old-style walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods ("Main Street") and/or in living examples of such neighborhoods today (Provincetown, Mass; Portland, Oregon; Savannah, Georgia; just about any small town in France).

It never seems to occur to them they could work to build similar living communities at home.On America is ill equipped to handle expensive oil posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Misunderestimated

Bush?  Mislead us?  What makes you think he would ever mislead us?  

By the way, did he ever find those WMD's?

Hmmm.  The press hasn't bothered to address that question with any seriousness.  Too busy reporting on which candidates are wearing their flag lapel pins.  Which I guess explains why some 30% of Americans -- inexplicably -- believe that we actually did find WMD in Iraq.

We're all too busy watching American Idol.  Or Faux Nooze.  

Just wake up the masses when the War on Iran begins ... that should boost the cable-news ratings for a good three or four weeks, at least.On Nonsensical nuggets from the prez's press conference posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Thanks Jonas, but

when you say "land is not the problem, carrying capacity is not the problem":

• Does this include the massive tracts of tropical rainforests currently being converted to pasture (for cattle) and soybeans (to feed beef cattle)?

• Does this include the massive spread of desertification in areas of marginal agricultural productivity worldwide?

• Does this include the water consumption, soil erosion, lost conservation reserves, plowed-up native prairie in North America now going for corn production (to create bio-fuels, to feed confined animals)?

• Does this mean I don't need to worry about the fact that in every country I've visited or lived in on our small planet (around 25, at last count), I have observed unsustainable environmental degradation of some sort (decimated wild habitat, massive soil erosion, contaminated water supplies, etc)?

Granted, there are a lot of factors -- political, climatological, etc -- leading to the current high food prices in the short term.  But in the long term, it sure looks to me like we're headed for a train wreck.  Cure those other factors, and you've still got a growing population with growing lust for consumption -- all of which requires land, water, fertilizers, and energy.  

Especially energy.  Most of our ag production today in the developed world is basically an exercise of converting fossil fuels into calories.  Once those fossil fuels become four, eight, sixteen times as expensive as they are today, where does that leave us?

You may be ready to live on a planet with 40 billion of your closest friends, but for me to imagine all of the above problems being roughly 6 times worse doesn't give me much cheer.  
On What's causing the sudden run-up in food prices? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 39 Responses

Largely meaningless, indeed

I've gotta concur with Pangolin here.  The intent of this exercise is good, but there are countless factors that make most of this exercise meaningless.

Cheese produced from naturally-rainfed pastures in Vermont or Wisconsin makes a lot of water sense; cheese produced from confined cow-feeding operations near Phoenix, Arizona does not.

The vast majority of water diverted for primarily for non-consumptive uses (e.g. dishwashing, bathing) eventually returns to the source river or watershed and is much less environmentally consequential than water that is diverted and then permanently lost to evapotranspiration (e.g., raising irrigated rice or cotton in the middle of a desert).

There are profound differences between these situations.  Indeed, we all need to be more aware of our water uses and the impacts they have.  But not all water uses are created equal!On Calculate how much water your lifestyle requires posted 1 year, 7 months ago 4 Responses

What's the Point?

Who does Bush think he's fooling at this point, anyway?  The future history books?  

Who does he think is actually taking these kinds of speeches seriously and without well-earned cynicism any more?

The guy is an embarrassment to everything the U.S. used to stand for.On Bush's unambitious climate speech bashed by other major economies posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

US Fish & Wildlife, not EPA!

EPA does not list federal species.  The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service does.  (Or the National Marine Fisheries Service, in the case of marine species).On Polar bear listing decision delayed, again posted 1 year, 7 months ago 18 Responses

Teachable Moment

Dubya never bothered to ask loyal, god-fearing, patriotic Americans to make any kind of personal sacrifice for his moronic and ill-fated war on Iraq (except for those admirable kids who sign up to serve, and the families back home who worry sick about them).

The least he could have asked, and the least we could do (even those of us who never supported Bush's Iraq war!) is pay the costs of that war as we go.  A 'war tax' on gasoline at the pump would be the most sensible method -- a reminder each time we fill up that kids are dying halfway around the world to keep that pump supplied with petroleum, and a reward to the heroism and, yes, patriotism of those who have structured their lives to consume little or no gasoline.

But, of course, the Bush Administration has no desire to remind Americans of any such reality.  They would rather put the cost of the war on a credit card that our children, poor bastards, will have to spend their professional lives paying off.  

I don't hear many people bitching about that obvious injustice.  Most North Americans would rather live in a fantasy world in which they think we can get something for nothing.  Unfortunately $4-a-gallon gasoline, like dead American soldiers shipped back from Iraq, doesn't fit that tidy little worldview.  

So the logical next step?  Why, eliminate that inconvenient 18-cent federal tax on a gallon of gas!

Sigh.  Another "teachable moment" lost to political expediency.

Jesus H. freakin' Christ.  We are a country full of spoiled brats stepping on the accelerator as we approach the cliff.  I like to think that we can respond to the better angels of our nature, but the evidence to date is not very encouraging.  McCain may be our next president for the simple reason that he is the candidate most willing to play along with our self-absorbed fantasy.
On McCain reveals cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

racc, you b*stard!

you stole my snarky comment! ;-)

My immediate thought, also, was: Well of course there will be a 30% reduction in Ford GHG production by 2020 due to the unavoidable reality of rising energy prices, declining auto sales in general, and a particular growing distaste for big, gas-guzzling vehicles in particular.

In fact, Ford may count itself lucky if its vehicle fleet can produce even 70% of the GHG's it produces today.  The world is changing, and dirt-cheap energy is going the way of the dinosaur ... whether Ford is ready for those changes or not.On Ford lays out how it will reduce fleet emissions posted 1 year, 7 months ago 3 Responses

Um, with regard to "heavy taxes" ...

I can't resist a quick response to Manacker's following comment, which is staggering in its broad-brush breathlessness:

I have never heard of a case where a heavy tax has solved any problem.  Have you?

Um, well, Social Security taxes for one.  They have protected a boatload of elderly and handicapped people in our country from the unmitigated abject poverty that they otherwise would have suffered through.  Which was a very real problem for the elderly and handicapped in, oh, 1932 or so.

Or, if you prefer a response that's more friendly to the right-wing perspective: military taxes.  It doesn't seem to me a wild stretch of the imagination to argue that military taxes helped us "solve" the "problem" of Adolf Hitler in the 1940's.  For example.

(Of course, the current Imposter-in-Chief doesn't want to burden current taxpayers with the full cost of his war in Iraq by actually taxing us accordingly ... so we simply borrow the money from our children and grandchildren (thanks kids!) .... and neocons use the resulting bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury as an excuse to roll back funding of that very tiny percentage that goes, or used to go, to environmental and social causes).

I saw an article this week that the GAO has discovered that 95 Pentagon projects have collectively overrun their budgets by $295 billion dollars.  That's 295 BILLION.  As they say, $295 billion here, $295 billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money ...On Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

Is life unfair for religious folk in America?

Caniscadia, thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and arguments ... although they are arguments that I've heard many a time before, and, in my mind, often miss the point.

One could write a book addressing various points you have made -- and many indeed have: people like Wendy Kaminer (in "Sleeping With Extraterrestrials") and Michael Shermer ("The Science of Good and Evil") seem particular insightful and fair-minded to me.  (Richard Dawkins, while entertaining, can get a little shrill.)

So rather than spend time I don't have making a point-by-point response, allow me a couple of comments to defend the "silly things" I said:

• No doubt many people find inspiration and insight from reading the Bible, and I think that's great.  I find many parts to be inspiring to me.  But I think it's important to point out the fact that we do not execute people in the United States today for being gay or for worshipping Krishna or for cursing their parents BECAUSE of what the Bible says, but rather in SPITE of what the Bible says.  (This is an important point!)  So-called "secular values" such as tolerance and multi-culturalism and the value of scientific inquiry have tempered literalist Bible interpretations in our country.  And I think that's a good thing.  But we don't have the Bible itself to thank for that development.  We have secular thought and inquiry to thank for that.

• I don't intend to ridicule religious people in particular.  We are, all of us, prone to weakness, hypocrisy, self-doubt, mean-spiritness, error.  Our time on this planet is short, and often troubled, which is why I think the least we can do is try to be as patient and compassionate with each other as possible.  But I think it's also unfair to treat religious belief with any more deference than any other worldview.  If someone professed a belief in Zeus it would be considered fair game to skeptically probe the validity of their belief and even ridicule that person; yet Christian belief in seemingly bizarre dogmas like virgin birth is generally treated with kid gloves by the media.  (If you doubt that statement, then tell me: who is more likely to be elected president in the U.S.: someone who professes a belief in the virgin birth, or someone who admits to being an atheist?  If a news broadcaster were to call Mother Teresa's religious beliefs "silly" -- as you suggested my non-religious beliefs are -- how long do you think that broadcaster would stay on the air?). For all the supposed "persecution" of religious folk in America, their sheer numbers tend to protect them from even mild expressions of skepticism and criticism.  

• I'm amused by the comment that "atheist thinkers have their work cut out for them".  As if, for some reason, religious beliefs that are incapable of being verified due to the very fact that they are issues of faith, not demonstrable/measurable truth, must a priori be taken at face value and somehow "disproved" by those who don't share that faith.  I would argue that it is the other way around, if anything like rational argument (as opposed to gut feeling or hopeful thinking) is the issue at play here.  

Accountability

I'm sorry if I sound freakin' naive, but how come nobody in a real position of power in this country is never held accountable for screwing over the rest of us?

Scooter Libby gets pardoned.

Julie MacDonald and Gale Norton skate off to cushy jobs in industry.

Dick Cheney, who should have been impeached years ago, and who should now, by all rights, be rotting away in a jail somewhere for war crimes ... is still our vice president!!  And is busily trying to foment a new war against Iran!!

I really don't get it any more.  The Republican swine who railed against immorality and preached personal 'accountability' have given us a corrupt and inept cabal who seem to be beyond any  accountability whatsoever.

Wake me when the revolution begins.  I am eager to get Cheney and Norton busy cleaning my toilets.On Green group files lawsuit to protect 681 species posted 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Responses

News Flash: Wall Street still clueless

Here's a quote from a yahoo.com business article that appeared today:

Meanwhile, demand for gasoline is falling, and several forecasters have cut their oil demand growth predictions for this year.

"There are some very disturbing things in this report on the demand side," said Andrew Lebow, senior vice president at MF Global Inc. in New York.

Wow.  Did you catch that?  The fall in demand for oil this year is "very disturbing" to the Big Boyz on Wall Street.  

In the long run, of course, it's good for the rest of us.  The Wall Street powers that be just can't imagine a world with a reduction in consumption.  Which makes me want to call up Mr. Andrew Lebow and suggest he get a job in the real world ... maybe ferrying people around downtown in one of those bicycle-driven cab things that are fashionable these days in touristy neighborhoods.  

Mr. Lebow would probably look good in a red polyester vest.On Americans reduce gas consumption as prices continue to rise posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

Um ....

jabailo ... the story you cite is from, ahem, Fox 'News'???  

Dude, why even bother to read it?  That's like citing a press release from the Vatican regarding the merits of the birth control pill ...On A new climate science paper calls for dramatic action posted 1 year, 9 months ago 26 Responses

Well of course,

Nader has the "right" to run an independent campaign for prez of the United States.

So does Kucinich.  And Edwards.  And Al Sharpton.  And Lieberman.  And Al Gore.  And any of the 50 state governors.

But they are not all running their own independent campaigns.  Why?  Because (a) they know it would create chaos under our current electoral system -- that's why we have primaries, for God's sake, and (b) they all realize that politics in the real world requires compromises and incremental changes.  

Show me a politician or political party who always gets what he/she wants, and I'll show you a dictatorship.  Sorry, that sucks, but it's just the way the real world works.

As much as many of us -- me included -- would love to see the current corporately-controlled system torn down to it's roots and re-built, the reality is that such change will never happen overnight.  If we're lucky, it will happen within my lifetime.

That means making pragmatic progress, today, one step at a time.  Getting justices on the Supreme Court who value the Constitution above partisan politics.  Getting bureaucrats into government who are eager to see gov't programs work, rather than loot the system for themselves and their cronies.  Giving control of the public airwaves back to the public, rather than the pharmeceutical companies and SUV manufacturers.  

These are all incremental but achievable changes within the next presidential administration -- but not if the Republicans maintain control.

I respect Nader greatly for all he has done and achieved in his life.  At this particular juncture, though, we need to start pushing America back toward the center -- with the rule of law put back in place, and with government agencies actually doing the job they were created to do -- before we can even think about turning Joe Six-pack into a tree-hugging progressive eager to stick it to the Man.

Yeah, I'd enjoy seeing Nader as president.  But it's never gonna happen in my lifetime.  Therefore I'll settle for the next best thing, which is laying the groundwork that makes it possible for a Nader-like candidate to become president within my children's lifetimes.  It couldn't happen today, but it could happen tomorrow.On Ralph Nader jumps into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 31 Responses

Three years ago ...

... if one had proposed, say, a 50-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline, the media would have been apoplectic with rage.  It would ruin the economy!  It would drive us into recession!  It would place an unfair burden on the working class.

But with the reality that we have started paying, over the last 3 years, an additional $1.00-per-gallon -- with most of the profits being sent to fine, upstanding countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, UAE, and Russia -- the media seem pretty sanguine, and our economy (until now) seemed to muddle along just fine.

The irony continues to amuse me.  Namely: taxing ourselves in order to plow that money back into sensible, long-term improvements of our infrastructure is unacceptable, a non-starter.  But (effectively) taxing ourselves in order to plow our money into the economies of foreign despots -- that's OK.On Gas pricing, Big Oil, and carbon pricing posted 1 year, 9 months ago 13 Responses

Oh crap, not again

Nader should run when, and only when, we adopt instant-runoff voting in this country, or some similar mechanism that ensures that dilettantes like him don't become spoiler candidates.

I respect all that Ralph has done over the years, but -- oh God, please -- don't run in '08, Ralph.  Go agitate, go rake mud, go try to build up the Green Party, go try to get states to adopt instant-runoff voting, go ask hard questions of the Powers that Be ... but don't run.

Please. On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

Long way to go

The news out this week that appears to be troubling economists is that U.S. gasoline consumption grew at "only" 1% last year.

A one percent increase.  This after oil prices reached record highs, the economy slowed, Americans found themselves sliding deeper into debt, and we were all bludgeoned as never before with the realities of global warming and the impacts of our personal consumption on that problem.

The fact that the U.S. population probably grew by at least that amount (i.e., per-capita consumption  held steady or fell) does not re-assure me.  Because exponential population growth in the U.S. remains a reality for the foreseeable future, and further compounds our challenges.

The momentum behind our current economic 'model' in the United States (i.e., borrow and spend! tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear! tell citizens to go out and spend whenever things look grim --remember 9-11? continue to expand those sprawling suburbs and big-box stores to satiate consumers' hunger for Big and Cheap!).

"Only" a one percent increase.  We have barely started to think about maybe asking somebody below decks to consider scaling back the amount of coal they are throwing into the Titanic's boilers ... much less doing all we can to start turning the ship around.

I'm not optimistic about the general outlook for change, unless global Peak Oil hits sooner than later.  If it hits sooner, the reality of 'limits to exponential growth' will begin to sink into the minds of the American consumer.  If it doesn't hit for another decade or two, then the fantasy will be maintained for that much longer.  On The case for a sustainability emergency posted 1 year, 9 months ago 18 Responses

Oh, you idealists ...

... couldn't we just throw another $500 billion down that rathole known as 'Iraq' and pretend that we're fiscal conservatives because we don't want to "waste money" on long-term investments that have broad social benefits like, oh, I dunno, renewable energy and public-transportation improvements??

Man.  I just don't understand the priorities of you so-called 'progressive' types ...On Senators include clean-energy incentives in economic stimulus bill posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Valid parallels, indeed

Good post.  'Nuff said.On The parallels between accepting obesity and ignoring global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 71 Responses

Lost in Translation

jabailo, nobody will need global warming "as an excuse to take down the exurban lifestyle".  All they need is another 10-20 years when Peak Oil will become an undeniable reality, one barrel of crude will cost around $400, and the suburbs and exurbs will implode under the sheer mass of their oversized parking lots, 3500-square-foot homes, big box stores, and gas-guzzling SUVs.

I just don't want to see those ex-urbanites come crying to me about their $12/gallon gasoline.  Sure, they'll be mad as hell and looking for somebody to blame.  But heaven forbid that anyone should blame their dilemma on their own behavior.

I vote for tax breaks for those who consume less, drive less, and have fewer children.On Land-use policy is not a laughing matter posted 1 year, 10 months ago 24 Responses

Folks,

let's collectively take a deep breath.  Obama is not perfect on the environment.  Neither is Hillary, nor John Edwards.  No competitive presidential candidate is, nor will ever be in this country.

The important thing is to get the major obstacles out of the way.  Obstacles like Bush.  Cheney.  Julie MacDonald.  Gale Norton.  The increasingly reactionary members of the Supreme Court.  The increasingly corporate-controlled media.  

These are obstacles that need to be removed one brick at a time, deliberately and painstakingly.  This takes work, time, patience, persistence.

This won't happen overnight.  There is no single political savior out there.  There never will be.  The people have to lead.  The people have to vote in supportive Senate and House candidates that will encourage rather than discourage our commander-in-chief to make progress on environmental issues.  The people have to support think tanks and environmental organizations and media outlets that are eager to speak truth to power and wrestle with difficult environmental questions.  

At that point, even imperfect politicians will have to either get on board or get out of the way.  Similar to the United States' reluctant signing-on last month to the international agreement to address climate change.  

At some point, even self-serving swine like the Bush Administration, if unable to do anything progressive, will at least get out of the way and quit being obstructionists.On A look at Barack Obama's environmental platform and record posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Obama wins

... which means that the professional Swiftboaters, the FOX 'News' crowd, and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads will now shift the crosshairs of their irrational, fear-mongering, 'angry white man rage' from Hillary to Barack.

Ah, it is all so predictable, isn't it?  Wake me when November finally rolls around.  Obama is not a perfect candidate by any means ... but if he can piss off the Limbaugh right, the smug and entrenched corporate elite, the private health insurance industry, the ever-more-consolidated and irresponsible mainstream media, the Karl Roves of the Repug party, and all the flat-earthers who voted for Huckabee ... well that's good enough for me.

It's gonna get brutal and it's gonna get ugly, kids.  But we've gotta keep our eyes on the prize.  2008 may be the last chance to salvage a democracy which has absorbed seven years of brutal body blows, which is listing heavily to starboard, and which threatens to go under for good.  

The salvaging process begins by running out of D.C. all of the swine who have been shamelessly looting the gov't coffers and compromising our country's environmental future in order to make a few more bucks for themselves and their spoiled friends.

We don't get fooled again.On Huckabee and Obama win Iowa caucuses; what's the green angle? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 19 Responses

IRV

The 2000 election debacle in Florida is THE perfect example of why we need Instant Runoff Voting in this country.

There is no question that with IRV in place:
(1) Al Gore would have indisputably won Florida's electoral votes, and
(2) Anyone who wanted to vote for Nader as their first choice -- in Florida or anywhere else with IRV -- could have done so without torturing themselves over the dilemma that they might be 'wasting' their vote on a 'spoiler' candidate and thereby throwing the election to an asshole like GW Bush.

News flash: It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

Sound too good to be true?  It's not.  

To learn more about Instant Runoff Voting, check out the Wikipedia entry.On Darth Nader endorses Edwards instead of Green Party candidate posted 1 year, 11 months ago 38 Responses

Thanks Gristers

for all your helpful suggestions above!  I promise to check them out.

In the meantime, soldier on.  I'll sign off with these words from the late Ed Abbey:

"Do not burn yourself out.  Be as I am - a reluctant enthusiast... a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic.  Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure.  It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can.  While it is still there.  

"So get out there and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, encounter the grizz, climb the mountains.  Run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for a while and contemplate the precious stillness, that lovely, mysterious and awesome space.  Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to your body, the body active and alive, and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those deskbound people with their hearts in a safe deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards."On High drama leads to compromise at climate conference posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses

My Economic Thinking

Let's say the population of bacteria in a Petri dish doubles every minute.  The dish is big enough to contain 60 minutes worth of growth, at which point all available resources are consumed and the entire bacteria population dies.

So: When does maximum population growth and "economic" growth in the Petri dish occur? (that is, if we can imagine that the bacteria engage in some sort of 'economic trade' as they merrily multiply)?  At about 59-1/2 minutes.  

When does population and economic growth come to an utter and disasterous crash?  Exactly 30 seconds later.

Hmmm.  The human population on planet earth is 6.6 billion.  It continues to grow exponentially, as we speak.  In fact, there are twice as many on the planet today as when I was about 8 years old.  Not really that long a period of time, especially given an earth that is 4.5 billion years old.

Now: Guess what my 'Economic Theory' predicts will happen to human population (or the remaining wildlife populations who need to share the planet's primary productivity with us) once Peak Oil hits -- that is, in roughly 15 to 20 years ...

Mine is not a very sophisticated model, I admit.  But it makes a lot more sense to me than the weirdly disconnected-from-reality cornucopian economic models floating around out there, which come across to me like the rantings of madmen (and women).  

More economists should take a few ecology courses.  That's my suggestion.On Why ecology explains growth, and economists don't posted 1 year, 11 months ago 33 Responses

Times they are a-changing in Colo

Woo-hoo.  Proud to be from Colorado these days.  This is a state shifting from red to purple, if not actual blue.  Our governor recently managed to piss off the Republican Right by giving state workers the option (not the obligation, mind you, just the option) to collectively bargain ... and also by publicizing his aggressive greenhouse-gas reduction plan.

Man.  hat a difference a decade makes.  10 or 15 years ago, Repubs were trying to revoke civil rights for gays in Colorado.  5 years ago, they were attempting a midnight (literally) stealth re-districting of the state voting districts to ensure a Republican majority from now until Doomsday.

Now the Repubs have lost control of both houses of the state legislature.  And the governorship.  They also lost majority state representation in the U.S. Congress, and are about to lose their remaining Senate seat (Allard-R is retiring; Udall-D is primed to take that seat.  And Udall is a GREAT environmental candidate).  

The most popular politician in the state is John Hickenlooper -- the most down-to-earth and pragmatic and well-intentioned Democratic mayor (of Denver) that you could imagine.  The Denver metro area light-rail system is now the fastest-expanding system in the country.

The times, they are a changing.  I'm kind of sorry for the religious, right-wing Republicans in Colorado, though.  (Well, ok, not really.)

You progressive-thinking, environmentally-conscious types should consider living here.  The rest of you: please stay at home, far away from Colorado ... after all, you know it's always cold and snowy and miserable here in Denver.  Heh heh.

I'll happily let the Republicans share the growing renewable wind power with the rest of us ... although it would be nice if they'd leave their Yukons and Hummers in their oversized garages and try out our expanded new light-rail system ...On Wind power installations set to soar 63 percent this year posted 2 years ago 6 Responses

Hollywhat?

Inhofe "ranting against Hollywood"?

Well really now.  Whenever I hear a politican (inevitably a pandering right-winger, of course) conveniently ranting against 'Hollywood', I think to myself, what Hollywood, exactly?  The Hollywood that produced Ronald Reagan?  Fred Thompson?  Sonny Bono?

Like the term 'values voting', they are using 'Hollywood' as a shorthand to conjure up distressing images of fat moguls smoking cigars and greedily cranking out celluoid sex and violence for a teenage audience.  Or alluding to the Susan Sarandons and Sean Penns who try to lecture us about better social behavior.

However it's a weirdly misplaced Republican shorthand, as the laissez-faire, make-a-buck-at-any-price mentality that rules Hollywood is far more Republican in spirit than it is progressive.  The Sarandons and Penns are anomalies, while the back-room accountants and lawyers who are enjoying their millionaire tax breaks thanks to Bush are more representative.  

And don't even get me started about 'product placement', tie-in commercial products, and now a long series of celluloid advertisements before every film.

But unless they can cultivate fear, Republicans just put America to sleep.  Hence those dag-burned enemies of America like environmentalists, UN-supporters, and. of course, that smarmy 'Hollywood'.On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years, 1 month ago 34 Responses

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron

"While there are many optimists who, in the abstract, believe that population growth is a good thing, I have yet to meet an Angelino -- and very few people anywhere -- who, when pressed, admit that they would like to see more population growth in their specific area."  -- Jared Diamond [slightly paraphrased]

I live in a lovely state (Colorado) in which the population is forecast to double -- double!! -- within the next 30 years or so.  This on top of unprecedented growth over the last two decades.  The situation is utter madness, and supremely depressing.

While unsustainably high rates of immigration into the U.S. is not the sole cause of my region's exponential growth in population and sprawl (possibly not even the primary one), immigration is clearly a major factor in our steady loss of open space, of increased traffic on our highways and back-country roads, and of the loss of local agriculture (because ag water is sold to thirsty growing cities.)

The United States is a country of immigrants, and we should always be open to some level of immigration by those who are willing to work and to participate as informed citizens in our democracy.  (OK, what's left of it after 7 years of the Imposter-in-Chief).  But any rate of immigration must be modest and sustainable.  Otherwise we will always be fighting a losing battle in the protection of our environment.  

Suppose we log the remarkable acheivement of getting people to reduce their ecological footprint by 10%.  Those gains will be quickly negated by 10% population growth.

Sorry, but the United States can't afford to be the safety valve for every overpopulated and socially inequitable country in the world.  At least, not if we care about what is left of our wild and open spaces.  It's that simple.

Obviously fences like this one are a bad idea that I do not support.  But the actual enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S. -- beginning with the employers who reap the greatest benefits from cheap, underpaid labor -- will go a long way toward addressing the problem.

Unfortunately, I'm not counting on Democrats or Republicans to step up to that plate. Just shout the word "Racist!" and they'll scurry like cockroaches for cover.

"Growth for the sake of growth", to quote another one of my favorite authors [Ed Abbey], "is the ideology of the cancer cell."On Why environmental groups have been slow to fight the border wall posted 2 years, 1 month ago 38 Responses

I'm sure it's just a coincidence

This was in TODAY'S news (10/15/07):

NEW YORK - Oil prices surged as high as $86 a barrel Monday for the first time after OPEC said crude production by non-member countries is likely falling even as global demand for oil is rising.

Despite the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' decision last month to boost its production by 500,000 barrels per day beginning next month, the rest of the world will likely produce 110,000 fewer barrels of oil per day than expected in the fourth quarter, OPEC said in a report.
On A review of a new doomer cult classic posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

Tancredo: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I live in Colorado, Tancredo's home state.  
That said, I am pleased to report that I am not represented by this clown in Congress.  He's a jerk.

And I say that with all due respect.  

Tancredo is a one-trick pony.  His favorite three issues are, in this order: illegal immigration, illegal immigration, and illegal immigration.  

Did I mention that Tancredo has also shown himself to be very passionate about the issue of illegal immigration?

Not that our sadly dysfunctional immigration policies in this country don't need to be fixed.  They do.  But Tancredo's policies seem to be driven largely by his xenophobia rather than rational concepts of reform.  Believe me, this is not the guy you want trying to implement immigration reform.

But his environmental record is inspiring, eh?  I mean, the dude supported the Healthy Forests Initiative [sic], for God's sake.  This clearly marks him as one who is passionate about environmental protection.  (Um, right?)

Tancredo represents a district which, if I can grossly overgeneralize, is more interested in low taxes, large roomy houses, and large roomy cars for their family with 2.6 kids than anything else.  (Although, while Tancredo's constituents don't like to pay taxes, they don't seem to complain about all the taxpayer largesse that flows into their district via multi-million-dollar defense contracts with missle-builder Lockheed-Martin.  I guess "sucking off of the gommint teat" is all in the eye of the beholder, eh?).

As much as I dislike Tancredo, I will make the one concession: massive immigration into the United States is, to a large extent, an environmental issue that the U.S. needs to come to terms with.  

This statement may not conform to the politically-correct dogma of the left, but it is clear that population growth in the U.S. is a major cause -- if not the major cause -- of environmental degradation.  I don't care whether that growth results from native reproduction, from immigration from Scandanavia, or from immigration from Mexico.  As soon as possible, it's got to be slowed and, ultimately, reversed.  Otherwise there will be little 'wild' left to save in North America.

Current projections are that the population of Colorado will double (double!) within something like 30 years.  Yipes.  That means twice as many people building homes in rural and semi-wild forest areas, twice as many people mountain-biking the foothills near Denver and Grand Junction, twice as many hikers in the backcountry, twice as much traffic on our highways.  I see the wild areas of my state disappearing before my eyes, year by year.  In a single generation.  It's not a pretty sight.  Never mind what things will look like in 'seven generations' -- that concept is simply too depressing to contemplate.

So, I'm all for immigration reform.  But that reform needs to be sensitive to those who are already here and are ready to work hard.  And it needs to make the businesses that exploit cheap immigrant labor responsible for their self-serving actions, rather than focus only the immigrants who get caught in the crossfire.

Unfortunately, Tancredo's approach achieves neither.  To be true to his heart, maybe Tancredo should take his family back to the Old Country in Italy, and leave North America to the native North Americans ...On An interview with Tom Tancredo about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Thanks!

Karen, excellent links.  Thanks for adding these to the discussion.  This adds far more depth to the 'prairie ecosystems' topic than my brief postings in the string above.

Well, here's to restoring more 'buffalo commons' (or 'bison commons') on America's great plains!  Jarid and I agree on what is needed to heal that particular ecosystem; I guess my only 'beef' with Jarid (ouch) is that harvesting some portion of those semi-wild bison for human consumption seems, to me, to be natural and sustainable and sensible and consistent with maintenance of the prairie 'wilderness', as he chooses to call it.  

Jarid chooses to remain vegan, which is fine.  I'm just not sure that all of those rural ranchers and former corn farmers in Kansas and northern Texas and eastern Colorado and Wyoming would be ready to follow in his vegan footsteps ... nor should necessarily need to ...On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

Prairie options

I live on the edge of America's Great Plains.

Here, growing more crops means tearing up rich and ecologically diverse prairie grasslands that haven't been disturbed for millenia (destroying habitat for prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, antelope, and raptors that hunt them).  It means mining groundwater from aquifers at rates that will take millenia to replace ... or, it means dewatering our sorry little rivers -- destroying habitat for trout and amphibia, and ruining riparian habitat suitable for migratory birds.  

Sorry, but in this particular clime, the Native American tradition of harvesting free-range buffalo ... along with some antelope and elk ... makes eminently more long-term environmental sense than the alternatives described above.  (Except for the alternative of depopulating this entire region and moving everyone to California's central valley.  But I'm not sure if they're ready for us there...)

In some bioclimes veganism and vegetarianism may work well.  But I don't think this is one of them.  Just ask the Sioux, Cheyenne, or Kiowa Indians who survived in this area for centuries before Europeans came along.

In today's world of concentrated animal feedlots, it is an appropriate and noble goal to severely reduce or eliminate our consumption of corporate meat.  But if we could bring the 'buffalo commons' back -- actually not such an outrageous idea in this age of the rapidly-depopulating rural prairie communities -- I don't see the problem with sustainable management of the buffalo herds for human consumption. On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

Way to Go

Way to go, Gristers!!

U.S. citizens are merrily burning up gas in their SUVs while thousands of their soldiers die for oil in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die for, um, nothing.  The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is being eviscerated by a frat-boy President who displays little intellectual understanding and even less curiosity about the world.  The global warming issue demands immediate attention while all of Washington fiddles.

And what is that topic that, by far, appears to have most outraged the sensitive souls on this site?  Why, the nude PETA models that 'objectify' women!

Sigh.  Not exactly at the top of my list of topics meriting righteous outrage in 2007.  One would think we might better direct that outrage at, oh, say, impeaching the arrogant bastard who currently occupies the White House.  But heaven forbid that Alicia should allow herself to be objectified.  Barely makes it worth going on living, eh?On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

There are solutions, if we want them

Now, explain to me why the people in the United States "can't afford" to tax themselves for publically-financed elections?

It seems to me we can't afford not to.

If memory serves me, we could provide ample public (rather than corporate) financing for elections for something like $10-$20 a person.

Sounds like a bargain to me, if it buys us a true democracy rather than a plutocracy.

While we're at it, let's demand that all licensed owners of television stations -- i.e., the renters/users of our public airwaves -- provide 1/2 hour of free primetime access every day during the election season to candidates for public office.  Like they do in New Zealand.

Hmmm ... use the public airwaves for public purposes.  Outrageous!  It would never get through Congress!On And the 'Climate Balls of Steel' award goes to ... posted 2 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Historical Crossroads

Jon Rynn has aptly pointed out that:
"Presently,we have three, clearly interacting problems: global warming, peak oil, and ecosystem destruction."

Although I would personaly posit that 'peak oil' may not be so much of a 'problem' as possible beginning of our salvation from the other two problems.

To put a finer point on it, Peak Oil is a near-term 'problem' for a world whose paradigm seems to be Growth at All Costs.  However the Peak Oil 'crisis' also represents a long-term opportunity for a world seeking a better and more sustainable paradigm.

Or at least it should.  As the lead article notes, the unfortunate tendency is toward denial of reality and a desperate search for alternatives to keep the Old Paradigm rolling for at least a few more years.  This is what needs to be overcome.

I'm not convinced we have yet reached Peak Oil.  There is much data to suggest that could still be 10, 15 years away.  But in any case, for the sake of future generations and the survival of a diverse and healthy planet, I hope we are there.  This could be the beginning of forcing humanity's hand to come to terms of what it means to be human, to live full lives, and to care about something and somebody other than ourselves.

Planting more trees is good, but it won't save us.  Developing biofuels is OK -- sometimes -- but it won't save us.  Learning how to modify and simplify our lifestyles -- that will be priceless.On Substitution isn't the solution to peak oil posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Practical bike use = Hopelessly quaint?

It is a source of constant amazement and amusement to me that young adults in my neighborhood will drop many hundreds of dollars on the right bicycle and the trendiest bicycling clothing, and expend countless calories biking pointlessly up steep mountain roads or around and around in blindingly fast circles at our local park ... but never, and I mean never, will you catch one of them poor slobs actually pedaling (or walking) 3/4 of a mile to our nearest grocery store to pick up milk, eggs, or bread.  That would be, I guess, too ... practical.  

Most importantly, I guess, it is not a method for displaying their ability to conspicuously consume.  Maybe if they filled their panier bags to overflowing with olive oil, pesto sauce, and belgian endive ...
On Congress' dimmest bulb laughs at bikes posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Is it really that simple?

The success of congestion pricing is a sign that something is beginning to change in the way politicians and businesspeople think about the environment. They are beginning to see that pollution is waste, waste is an indicator of inefficiency, and inefficiency is the enemy of profit.

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but the above seems like an incredibly naive statement that only a social-think-tank academic could make.  

Where to begin?  As much as I'd like to believe that making the right environmental decisions will lead us to some kind of economic nirvana, I'm realistic enough to realize that our current humming economic engine is predicated, basically, on the abundance of cheap fossil fuels.  Moreover, changing that paradigm will likely entail at least some inconvenient changes to our happy-motoring lifestyles, and that can only happen if bold politicians make some unpalatable decisions that -- forgive me for raining on this parade -- won't  automatically be a win-win for every capitalist and his precious investment portfolio.

While industries and businesses and households do indeed have a vested economic interest in improving their efficiencies in burning those fossil fuels and lowering their cost of converting them into cheap crap for the masses to consume, what possible incentive do they have to reduce their production of that crap?

The subtext of the above quote is that we still worship at the Altar of the Almighty Profit.  That goes hand-in-hand with unbridled capitalism, and that will be our ultimate downfall.  

As long as it's more profitable to produce Wal-Mart crap from fossil fuels rather than not produce it; as long as it's more profitable to harvest the last fish from the ocean than not harvest it; as long as it's more profitable to drive to work rather than ride public transit because it saves the rider 30 minutes of precious time each direction, we're not gonna be saved by the efficiencies of capitalism alone.  Sorry, Steven.  Sorry, Victor.

We're just gonna become more efficient at producing the Wal-Mart crap, more efficient at driving our cars 10 miles to buy the crap, and more efficient at harvesting that last fish from the ocean.

Methinks a more fundamental change in our thinking and our livestyles is necessary here.  But then, I'm not the director of a high-falutin' think tank.  So what do I know?
On Bloomberg’s law: Environment equals economic growth posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Those nasty exponential functions

Energy demand will "double by 2050" only if energy supplies are available to meet that demand at reasonable prices, as they are today.

Small problem.  Global petroleum production will likely peak by the year 2025 (in my estimation).  If oil then begins to cost today's equivalent of $200, $300, or $400 a barrel, will energy demand really double?  

Let's see.  How many people in China, India, or even the U.S. will be able to afford those prices?  More to the point, will our planet be able to feed a population of 9 billion once fertilizer prices quadruple, and once 50% of the arable land now dedicated to food production is converted to the production of biofuels to support America's happy-motoring lifestyle?

Hmmm. Methinks efficiency and conservation will finally begin to take hold.  But not because of good will and progressive thinking.  Because it will be the only way our society will be able to survive.  The same reason far-flung suburbs are likely to shrivel and die.On An oil exec gets the diagnosis right posted 2 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Running to stay in place

A small reminder.  As long as the population in the United States (for example) continues to increase at a rate of 1.1% a year (also exponential) -- whether that increase is from procreation or immigration -- that equates to an additional 1.1% each year we collectively need to cut back national per-capita energy use and CO2 production just to stay in place.  

No sign of population stabilization as far as my eye can see.  With each new resident, each individual slice of the collective pie grows a little smaller ...On Your math teacher knew you'd need this stuff someday! posted 2 years, 5 months ago 27 Responses

The Real Tragedy

Whether or not you agree with the Bush Adminstration's agenda, what absolutely, positively drives me ape-shit insane these days is the fact that Bush and his cronies have so debased the level of debate in our country, and have been so shameless and consistent in telling lie after lie after lie about, well, just about anything they touch, that any time they say anything, the weary public has no choice but to ask itself: "Well, what did they really mean?  Why are they really addressing this topic, and for which of their privileged friend's benefit?  If they said A, then A is probably not true, so what is the B or the C that is their real agenda??

I mean, good God!  Things have gotten so bad that most Americans automatically assume we are being told lies, fed deceptions, and teased with diversions that have nothing to do with the Administration's real agenda.  And we now all accept that as the way things are in America.

This story on Bush's "climate change action plan" is a classic example.  The U.N. and the G8 already have a viable process underway for climate-change discussions.  Clearly this is simply Bush's attempt to undermine that.  So why can't he at least just come out and say so: "Even if climate change is a real threat, I ain't gonna impose any taxes or restrictions on fossil fuel use, 'cause I just don't give a damn.  So get used to it.  Heh heh.  Heh."

But no.  The privileged little pricks make a big show of how religious and righteous they are, and then lie shamelessly like a pack of mafia thugs.

Dude.  What a sorry-ass state the Bush Administration has brought us to.  This is what pisses me off more than the Bush Administration's political agenda.  It is the way they have cut the legs out from meaningful political debate in this country.  They've told so many lies for so long that even the dazed and confused press doesn't really know how to react.  So they react by, um, headlining Britney Spears stories.

Yeah, I know: all politicians develop a skill for spinning B.S.  But the difference is BushCo doesn't even exhibit any shame about being caught brazenly lying or openly shilling for their corporate pimps any more.  Just ask Rumsfeld.  Or Gonzales.  Or Condi. Or Colin Powell.  Or Julie McDonald.  Or Jeff Gannon. Or ...

Sigh.  How many more months of this crap is left to put up with?  If we're not gonna impeach this bastard, then for God's sake please don't bother to wake me til November 2008.  On Hey, At Least He Pronounced It Right posted 2 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

No pain, no gain

This is the dirty little secret that no politician dare utter, for fear of terminating their political career: If Americans, and the rest of the developed world, seriously want to do something to address CO2 emissions, it's gonna take major changes in our lifestyles, and it's gonna require (gasp!) some degree of personal sacrifice in terms of current expectations for nonstop climate-controlled environments, unimpeded highway travel, universal comfort and convenience at any cost, minimal taxes, and expectations of unrestricted personal freedom to consume to one's content without addressing the inevitable environmental consequences to third parties.

Yipes.  The last time one of our national leaders dared to float the concept of 'personal sacrifice' (President Carter), he got chased out of office by outraged free-marketers who found their salvation in another 'leader' whose primary attribute was delivering a feel-good message that, you know, we really had nothing to worry about.  Ahhh ... that feels so much better!

So here we are, 30 years later, with a poorer national fuel economy standards, 10%(?) more carbon in the earth's atmosphere, and twice the number of humans on our planet, each seeking their own fair share of food and energy (which, from a sustainable-energy perspective, are really the same thing ...)

Fortunately, the national mainstream news media is right on top of this issue, of course -- oh look!  over there!  It's John Edwards is getting a $400 haircut!On That ain't good posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Don't you dare make me accept the facts

Let me remind folks here that some 40% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.  Never mind how thoroughly that perspective has been discredited.  Never mind that no credible intelligence source supports that idea.  Never mind that even the Bush Administration grudgingly acknowledged (eventually) that there was no substantial link between the two.  

Lesson: if a lie is repeated often enough by people in 'authority' positions, and if that lie helps to confirm people's confortable and pre-conceived worldview, then you'll have one hell of a time ever dislodging that lie from a large part of the public consciousness.

The only real solution may be to wait for the older, stuck-in-their-old-mindset, don't-dare-do-anything-that-may-affect-the-cost-of-my-gasoline generation to gradually die off.  Unfortunately, with global warming already upon us, we can't afford to wait that long.  

So, I vote that you keep rebutting the most absurd of the skeptics -- somebody has to.  But don't obsess over trying to rebut everything.  Like the debate over evolution or Saddam and 9-11, we need to avoid giving the flat-earthers a forum that implies equal credibility for their arguments.  

I don't see our schools giving equal opportunity for those who oppose the 'theory' we live in a heliocentric solar system (i.e., that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.)  There's a good reason for that.  Science and common sense finally won out on that issue.  As it will on global warming, sooner or later.On Vote! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 96 Responses

Gotta love this Nation issue, but ...

I'm a long-time admirer of The Nation ... not because I agree with everything they have to say (I find Alexander Cockburn, for example, to be noxiously self-righteous), but because I admire the magazine's willingness to challenge the status quo and showcase truly excellent journalism.

Therefore I was pleased to receive The Nation issue this week on living green.  My only complaint: pages and pages of discussion, but not a single mention of the underlying cancer of exponential population growth on our planet.  Not once, as far as I can tell!

I guess that topic is too politically-incorrect for a leftist magazine to highlight.  

Too bad.  Until we look that problem in the eye and begin to address it, all of our other actions on this little planet of ours are simply  acts of re-arranging deck chairs on a ship that is sinking under the weight of 6.5 billion people, going on 9.  When peak oil arrives it's gonna be one ugly scramble for the table scraps ...On Lots o' goodies posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

The Revolution Will Not be Cable Televised

Don't worry your pretty little head, jabailo.  As long as the U.S. election system requires gazillions of dollars in fund-raising from corporate special interests before a candidate to have even a prayer of a chance of getting elected, something tells me that there will be lots of talk and very, very little action on this issue in my lifetime.

Now, I get to rail about my pet peeve: a heliocentric universe!  Why do scientists insist that the Earth revolves around the sun?!  They just try to squash any counter-viewpoints.  The "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun is in fact only a theory.  Therefore I am insisting that my local school district give equal time to the theory that the universe revolves around planet Earth in our local science classes.On Betting the heat posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

True Environmental Heroes

I'll be the first to agree that empowering women, improving economic opportunities, and establishing economic systems with valid social security systems leads the way to lower birth rates.

That said, I'd be happier if our society, in general, celebrated rather than condemned those who choose to have few or no children.  And celebrated rather than condemned countries (like Italy, France) which have succeeded in reducing birthrates to levels that actually will shrink their populations (if immigration is ignored).

Child-free couples should be given public acclaim for contributing to a sustainable human population on this shrinking planet of ours.  Instead, they tend to be looked on with suspicion, for being too self-absorbed and selfish.  It's time for an attitude change in America.  Kids are wonderful; let's have fewer of them and let's treat them better.On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

Running on water

RedClay, "the hydro engine that runs on water"?  C'mon now, get a grip on reality.  If you believe in that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Most Grist readers are savvy enough to understand that hydrogen, as in H2 molecules, as in the potential basis of a 'hydrogen economy', has promising potential as an energy storage and transport medium, but it is not some miraculous energy resource.  

Anyone who paid attention in high school chemistry knows it requires a large amount of energy to liberate hydrogen gas from water.  So where will your hydro engine get that energy to produce H2?  From hydrogen gas?  Congratulations, it sounds like you've just invented a perpetual motion machine.

I personally think hydrogen does have great potential down the line as a means of storing energy generated in one location (e.g. wind farms) and transporting it elsewhere where it can be used for other applications (e.g. hydrogen fuel cell vehicles).  Which, as your post suggests, would generate only water as a 'pollutant'.  However, ultimately, such a vehicle's energy would come from the wind.On John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry chat about their new environmental book posted 2 years, 7 months ago 20 Responses

The Haves and the Haves-not

Thanks jabailo.  Thank goodness, eh, that we have leaders like GW Bush pushing 'Intelligent Design' onto unwilling biology teachers, and pushing real (but inconvenient) scientific data out of reports issued by the CDC, the EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  

Dude.  Talk about 'preaching without having any knowledge or clues about science' ...

Science, technology, and industry can and no doubt will contribute much toward helping wean us off of dwindling fossil fuels.  But, unfortunately, with the global population skyrocketing past 6.5 billion on its way to 9 billion, and energy consumption habits globally showing a similar trend, man will not be saved by technology alone.  Call me crazy, but I'm not gonna hold my breath that Bob Lutz will save me through the wisdom and compassion of his capitalistic little heart.

Ultimately, we have no choice but to reduce our numbers and scale down our consumptive habits.  If we don't do it ourselves, believe me, nature will do it for us.  The difference being that, in the latter case, the forcing will come on nature's own timetable, and in whatever nasty, brutish, and unsympathetic manner she chooses.

On the bright side, due to GW's ill-conceived and poorly-executed war in Iraq, I heard today that Baghdad citizens are getting only about 2 hours of electricity per day.  Wow.  Think of all the energy savings!  Perhaps that is Bush's secret plan to slow global warming.  Always thinking ahead, that George!
On Read his cranky email to a consumer posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Eating smart, eating local

Thanks -- good article, good posts, good discussion here!

This all reinforces, for me, the importance of supporting local, modestly-scaled farms via our local farmers markets and/or other mechanisms.  Even those farms that aren't, technically, 'certified organic' typically are practicing (as noted above) more sustainable and environmentally-friendly land management than mega-farms halfway across the country.  

And even if they are using the occasional spray or chemical fertilizer on their crops, they are not transporting your lovely cantaloupe or strawberry by way of jumbo jet some 5,000 miles to your local Whole Foods Market.  (C'mon, how sustainable is that?)

There is a wonderful discussion of these kinds of food issues (industrial agriculture vs. industrial organic vs. local sustainable farming) in the recently-published book The Omnivore's Dilemma, for any of you who haven't already discovered that well-written and engaging book.  (However, given the level of discussion here, I suspect that many of you already have discovered it ...)On If organic food is so popular, why are so few farms transitioning their land? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses