Comments Pathos has made

Yes, it is.

But to answer your question, Dr. X... Honestly, I wasn't very impressed with the whole thing. Seriously, I kept my money hidden under that hedge for almost a month, and as far as I can tell, the only change was when two 20's got stolen by a mouse and shredded for nest bedding.

Besides, dude. Trust me, these days, there's about a 90% chance that any woman you'd consider a candidate for that gift, already owns a vibrator. In fact, you might as well face it... Your old flame probably had one sitting in her beside drawer the entire time you were dating--and she may have even treated herself to an upgrade as a pick-me-up after the break-up.

We might as well accept it... Procedures like "washing that man right out of one's hair" went out with World War II and the Jitterbug. These days, the whole recuperation process is a little less, um, wholesome.On Magic exists: It's called 'cap-and-trade' posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 12 Responses

Bob:

Agreed!

And meanwhile, Obama and the new (and considerably greener than last term's, it seems) Congress can be working on that "tweak to automobile efficiency" that BioD mentioned.  That's a battle we have to hope they can win, and push them every step of the way to fight harder for.On On the challenge of cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Burning Bushes

Does Grist do this feature every year? If so, then Bush and Cheney probably weren't on the list basically because if they were, it would have been one of them in first place and one in second every year for the past eight. I promise you, whenever they were an option, they owned the vote.  So...  Good riddance to bad bull$%#!!

That said, without them on the ballot, my vote goes to Inhofe. Partially because he's a pollutocrat douchebag, but mostly because unlike a surprising number of other environmental villains, he won his election, which means this year counts as part of all the damage he's going to do in the future.  Oh, well.  If we woke up Virginia this year, maybe we can wake up Oklahoma in '14.On Vote for the top eco-villain of 2008 posted 11 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

Meredith, you may be onto something...

This is the sort of ballot initiative that really shouldn't fail.  No one thinks about factory farms, but when confronted with an obvious choice about animal cruelty, everyone wants to stop it. And the sort of asshole who doesn't care about animal suffering, for the most part, won't bother voting on it.

So, anyone know how you go about sticking an initiative on a ballot in any state other than California?

Canis, you must be ecstatic; you've been dwelling on this particular issue--and, in fact, one of those specific animals--in your signature for years.  :)

On a more serious subject, sorry to hear about yet another three states enshrining bigotry on their lawbooks--and I know California in particular comes as a crushing blow.  But for what it's worth, this does not represent a surge in homophobia; it's a reaction to the increasing openness and tolerance in our society.  History has shown it's the nature of our species to evolve from narrow-minded to open-minded, from selfish and cruel to compassionate.  Things will get better.  <hugs>On California OKs measure requiring more humane treatment of farm animals posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

Bailo,

This is really easy.  People who suggest anthropengic global warming might not exist, can be called questioners.

(We usually use the term "skeptics," but that's neither here nor there.)

People who claim it definitely doesn't exist, are deniers.

That's what denying is: Claiming something is false.

Even if you're right.

For example, I'm a BeeGees Talent denier.  I claim the BeeGees didn't have any talent.

I'm 100% right, but I'm still a denier.

You claim anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.  The fact that you're wrong aside, either way, you're a denier.On Michael Crichton dies of cancer posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

This has nothing to do with anything...

But has anyone else noticed how roughly 90% of the population doesn't seem to understand what the word "literally" means?On New EPA rules let factory farms police themselves on water pollution posted 1 year ago 1 Response

re: KenG

Excellent choice of screenname; the first person to make that name famous holds the world record for the single longest-held note on a saxophone.

That, and it's probably also your name, but that has nothing to do with anything, right? :)

The thing about "looking that far into the future" is, we don't know what's going to happen that far into the future. Six or seven years ago, everyone thought that in ten years, we'd be well on our way toward a hydrogen economy. Obviously, that's not happening. Four years ago, it was biofuels. Now, the overwhelming consensus is that they do more harm than good, and the kind that might not--cellulosic ethanol--still isn't viable, and may or may not become so. Sure, we'd all love to bank on a fully electric transportation system--preferably powered by the sun, the wind, and the heat of the earth. But we can't depend on that until it's very clear that it's happening.

That said, the real reason progressives decry nukes isn't ten years into the future. We're looking farther than that. Nuclear waste is lethal for thousands of years--possibly longer; there are no hard statistics. We have more piled up than we can store--and no matter what they tell you, there's no safe way to store it. And no way to guarantee anyone will know to stay away from it.

You bury thousands of tons of radioactive waste inside a mountain, how do you know that five thousand years from now, you're not condemning a team of archeologists to an excruciating death from radiation poisoning?

How do you know there won't be a city built on top of it?

And even if humans aren't around, or know to stay the hell away... Thousands or tens of thousands of years from now, whatever facilities we store the waste in are going to break down. And if there happens to be an ecosystem of whatever type sitting on top of any of those facilities... Well, shortly after the radiation starts leaking, there might not be.

Yeah. If all our vehicles go electric, we'll need a way to make more electricity, and nuclear power is technically an option. That doesn't make it a good option.On Safety is for extremists posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Thirded.

No one cares where the bags come from. I've bought groceries for my Mom in a hot pink tote with a logo from some place where she buys make-up, and no one blinked. Actually, the bagger flirted with me a little more than usual, but I'm pretty sure that's because she'd decided I was gay.

On getting people to actually reuse them... (And let's face it, we all forget them sometimes.)

The trick is to start phasing out the disposable ones, even in baby steps. When it gets to where there are stores that don't carry them at all--even if it's just indie bookstores and corner convenience stores--people will remember their reusables. So, if you find yourself in a store where you can't get a plastic bag... Compliment them on it!

If we could get a tax on the disposables, that'd be even better, but we're a ways off from that being possible, at least in this country.On Reusable shopping bags not so green if you don't use 'em posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

I'm not entirely sure what brioche is,

But mother#&#!!er, does that stuff look good.

Okay, Tom, you've got me off Gristmill for a while; I've gotta go find food.On Finding nirvana in the coffee capital of the United States posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

$300 billion?

Saluki, you actually seem to be sincerely making arguments (for which I commend you even if I disagree with most of them; most people, when they find themselves in the minority opinion on a blog, either rant nonsensically, or engage in blatant trollery for their own amusement--so kudos for cool debating practices), so I'm going to assume that number was a typo or an honestly misremembered figure on your part.

The fact is, ExxonMobile's profits last year were all on the order of $9 billion per quarter (which, it should be noted, smashed records for quarterly profit declared by any corporation, anywhere, ever--multiple times in the same year), so we're talking $36-40 billion in income, at most.

I don't know what the taxes on $36-40 billion would be--and I promise you, ExxonMobile found ways out of a good deal of them, not because they're evil and unprincipled (which they absolutely are), but simply because anyone with that kind of money can, and therefore will.

So, realistically, we're talking a few billion, tops. Compared to the money they made--and the increasingly large percentage of every American citizen and business's income that goes into their coffers (or those of one of the other oil giants)--you can't blame us lefties for not being very sympathetic when we talk about increasing their tax burden.On She knows 'more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 Responses

Hey, baby...

Wanna play with my "dangling modifier"?

(Yeah, I've totally used that joke before. Just you try thinking of never-before-seen "stylistic error" puns...)

Anyway, the sentence really should just read, "Vulnerable or worse". (I opted for capitalizing "vulnerable," but italicizing it or throwing quotes around it would work just as well.) If they just wanted to be excruciatingly clear, they could say "Vulnerable (to extinction) or worse".

"Vulnerable" in this case is a technical term. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)--usually considered the authority on what is and isn't about to be utterly eradicated with no chance of miraculous recovery ever--defines "Vulnerable" as the least-threatened subcategory of the list of species they deem Threatened. Before Vulnerable (so, on the "not Threatened" side of things) comes Near Threatened, which is itself preceded by Least Concern--meaning, not endangered, or at least, no more endangered than every other form of life on this planet. Within the Threatened group, after Vulnerable comes Endangered, then Critically Endangered.

Beyond the three Threatened designations, there is Exinct in the Wild, and finally, simply Extinct.

As to what these designations mean in terms of living or dead critters... You'll have to ask the IUCN. Or read Wikipedia.

So, in a nutshell, without reading the actual articles for specifics: We've got just under 280 endangered species of freshwater fish in North America--which almost certainly includes a few that are actually extinct--and also apparently a bit over 420 that aren't endangered... Yet.On Nearly 40 percent of North American freshwater fish species in jeopardy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Is it April 1st again already???

Seriously, this is awesome. If anyone at Xcel is reading this, THANK YOU!!!

And keep it up--we'd love to see you producing 25% clean energy by 2020!On Colorado utility voluntarily shuts down two coal plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

On a completely different subject...

I went to view the actual Rasmussen poll... And saw not one, but TWO ads for McCain.

One sported the words "Obama's energy plan" and a tire gauge.

No... There isn't an agenda behind this poll...On Nearly two-thirds of Americans support offshore drilling, says poll posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Wolverine,

Thanks for proving bkrell's point.

Bkrell,
What are the roads the forest service builds mostly used for? The stereotype is logging roads. Do they serve any other, more conservation-minded purpose--and if so, are they used more for that, or more for logging?

And while I don't think anyone is going to call you a liar, if you have any sources you could link us to (like, something not likely to have been watered down by the Bush administration, because it's very hard for enviro's to trust the government these days), that'd be appreciated.On Roadless rule shot down, again posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

We really, REALLY need to cut to the debates.

As full of sh*t as they all are, McCain's commercials are kicking the asses of Obama's.

We need to get to a venue where Obama can make McCain look bad.On Presidential candidates keep the energy ads a-comin' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Employment and Comments

Gustavion,

You work for simplestop.net. We get it. Shut up.

rpauli,

Not denying for a moment that it would be nice to rush this particular policy, but trust me, comment periods are a good thing. Quite a few of the federal policies that are subject to comment periods--and in the past seven years, more than not--are the kind that you want to delay... And hopefully force some semblance of change upon, and if possible, scrap entirely.

Comment periods have delayed hundreds of Bush admin policies, and if memory serves, they've actually created positive change in one or two.

Better to delay the occasional good policy than to open the doors to rushing dozens of bad ones.On EPA to ban pesticide carbofuran from food in U.S. posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

(Yeah, it's early.)

You all should call this section "In Briefs."

Just 'cause anything involving underwear in inherently funnier than just reading the news.

The "motor fuel from waste" article is excellent news; I hope it doesn't turn out to be overly optimistic.On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

"Not zero"

This is off-topic--which is to say, it's on the topic of the last sentence of the post, which was off-topic. That's okay.

On the millions of gallons spilled during Katrina and Rita:

I followed the "not zero" link, and followed the links in the link, checked the Minerals Management Service website, was grossly mislead as was their intention, followed some more links to an actual news source (such as it is), and... Yeah. Katrina and Rita spilled something like 9 million gallons of crude.

Now, when McCain uses the fact that Katrina and Rita didn't cause "significant spillage" as an argument for off-shore drilling, he's not as full of $#@!! as you think. (Which isn't to say he isn't full of $#@!!--getting there.) The fact is, off-shore drilling only contributed to about 700,000 gallons of spills, and it was all in the form of what they call "minor" spills (less than 10,000 gallons) and "moderate" spills (less than 100,000 gallons). All the "major" spills (you know, like the the 3.78-million-gallon one) were actually inland.

So, "No major spills in the Gulf from Katrina and Rita." It's true. If you're looking for a major spill from an offshore oil rig as argument against offshore drilling, you're out of luck. You know... As long as you don't consider spills of 99,999 gallons or less to be "major"... And really, what's a few tens of thousands of gallons of lethal black slime among friends?

It is, of course, a crock of $#@!! to say that there were no major spills at all... They just don't happen to be relevant to arguments about offshore drilling.

Therefore, the real moral of this story is... We shouldn't be drilling inland, either.On Oil spills into Mississippi River after tanker-barge collision posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

JMG,

You're right; cellulosic ethanol isn't going to stop global warming by itself. If this were a cornerstone of Obama's policy, it would be complete bullshit.

As one more petty detail, though, it's pretty damn good. A .5% reduction in oil consumption--or even .4%, or whatever it actually turns out to be--is well worth pursuing, as long as it doesn't take more .5% of the resources we've got for conservation as a whole.

Now, if you really want an ecological stick to bludgeon Obama with... He just handed you a pair of big ones. "Clean coal" and "policies to force oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land and offshore areas that are already available and increased investment in technology to extract more oil from existing fields"... Can we say, bad, bad politician? No biscuit?On Dem presidential candidate talks up energy plan in Ohio posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

For things that need interpreting...

The report also said that the climate-info tinkering appeared to be limited to the agency's press office and likely wasn't linked to the agency's top officials or the White House.

Translation:  The inspector general of EPA doesn't want to know what the Vice President who's already outed one FBI agent and shot a guy in the face will do to him if he goes too far.On NASA internal investigation finds press-office climate distortion posted 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Response

Even ignoring her work record...

If she resigned, obviously she wasn't "bought off." When you buy someone off, you pay them to stay in power, so they can keep doing what you want.

There was no official reason given, which means it could be anything from psychological breakdown to a mildly embarrassing health problem she doesn't want to see in headlines. But if it's anything shady, it's far more likely she was somehow quietly forced to leave office than that she was bribed into it.On Brazil's pro-rainforest environment minister resigns posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Sex in advertising, and the triple bottom line

One thing about with Dr. X is definitely right: Smarter is sexier. To add to that, more human--more likable rather than simply desirable--is also sexier. Personally, I spent a good minute being distracted by this girl's face (and her voice, which is quite beautiful) before I even started paying attention to what was happening on the right.

That said, despite all the visual distraction, I managed to catch every word of the message, and form opinions as I went all the way through--and I multitask about as well as I expect Dick Cheney does the lambada--so I think we can say this video will sell its message.

And here's a point where Dr. X and this lovely lass are both right: The best solution to both peak oil and global warming is to hawk renewables like they'll save us all by themselves, and alter our lifestyles like renewables won't do a damn thing.

LGT: Don't confuse expression with exploitation. This isn't mainstream porn--which I don't think anyone here is defending. This is a woman voluntarily using her beauty--both the very personable beauty of her face and voice, and the sex appeal of her body and movements--to further a cause in which she believes. And by the look of things, I'd guess she's rather enjoying it. Denying her that right is just as demeaning and just as harmful as objectifying her.

Take a look at how women are treated in countries where any expression of sexuality is repressed; you'll find a pretty frightening--and disturbingly consistent--trend there.

You might note, they're not very nice to L's, G's or T's in those places, either.

JMG: You make an excellent point about the Job Board ad banner (if you're referring to the image I think you are), with one small exception. The banner is not in fact three seperate people displaying their backsides, but one single, solitary backside, displayed three times.

I find myself thinking when I view the ad, it would be three times as powerful if it were three distinct pairs of buttocks--truly a "Triple Bottom Line" as it claims--rather than simply a single bottom (and a lovely bottom, it is, at that) presented in triplicate. There's no reason all three have to be female--but if they were really ambitious, why not devote one banner to each and achieve true equality?

What do people think? More nudity for more powerful advertising? The good people in Grist's advertising department need to know!

Why, yes, it is 8:30 in the morning here, and no, I haven't been to bed yet. Incidentally, why do you ask?On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

I can think of something else...

This victory may not be as solid as we'd like to believe.  The override vote passed in the Senate, and only failed by four votes in the House.  The vote went more along regional lines than party lines; overall, that seems like an optimistic omen, but it makes it much harder to guess what the next election will do.

More tellingly, when is Sebelius up for re-election, and how safe is her job likely to be?  Anyone out there have any insight?On Veto override fails in Kansas; embattled coal plants remain dead posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Overpopulation and geoengineering, in that order.

Okay, I don't think many people here would disagree that most of the major problems with the environment stem from human overpopulation. If anyone can come up with a way to address that issue that either the government or the public would even be willing to consider, please, speak up. (Personally, I'm in favor of universal health care covering birth control, sterilization operations, and even abortions, and also of making it as cheap and easy to adopt a child as it is to conceive one. I'd also be in favor of a two-child limit, but it's going to be a long time before anyone in the Western world will be ready to discuss that one. I'm also in favor of working to colonize Mars in the coming century so we'll have somewhere to stick some of the excess humans, but mentioning that seems to be an excellent way to ensure that no one ever takes you seriously again, so I'm going to leave that one out--oh, wait...)

Back to the original subject of this thread, the general sentiment among environmentalists that geoengineering is unnatural and likely to have unpleasant consequences is... Absolutely right.

That said, it's dangerous to dismiss it categorically. There are dozens of geoengineering options on the table. Not one of them has been proved effective. Every single one of them would be dangerous to dive into blindly. Every single one of them would almost certainly have some unintended consequences, no matter how carefully considered.

But every single one of them merits exploration.

We all know the climate is changing now. We all know there's a tipping point somewhere, past which no amount of emissions cuts will prevent a truely catastrophic change. We all want to do assume we haven't reached that point yet, and do everything we can to avoid it by tampering with our environment less rather than more--and we're right to feel that way.

But there's a very real possibility that we've already reached the tipping point, or that if we haven't, we won't do enough to avoid it in time.

We need to have a Plan B.

As Bryan Walsh pointed out through the mouth of our friend Mr. McCleod, there may come a time when we need that "Hail Mary." We may have to either forcibly remove CO2 from our atmosphere by whatever means is available, or find a way to partially block the sun. Sound dangerous? It is.

But the answer to that isn't to keep dismissing geoengineering and calling anyone who advocates it "anti-environmentalist." The answer is to keep researching all the options at the table, so if--and only if--circumstances force us to, we can use the method that will do the most good for the least harm, and have some idea of what the potential consequences will be.

Because as much I'd like to believe otherwise--and I spend considerable time and money working on the assumption that things will turn out otherwise--it's possible that none of our conventional approaches will ever be enough.On Are fixing the climate and the ozone layer mutually exclusive? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 15 Responses

re: Wolverine

You make a good point about society in general. As a passing thought, though, making personal attacks might not make the targets of those attacks feel as inclined to listen to you as you might think.

Money is as good or as evil as what you do with it.

I can't obviously can't speak for what Solar John does with his money; he sounds like he probably makes rather more than I do, so I hope he spends it more wisely than I generally do. That said, if the extra money he's making allows him to donate, say, $50 a month to environmental causes--be they "carbon offsets" if that's his thing, or political action funds, or even supporting some funny environmental Internet rag--the good he could do would far outweigh the harm of the longer commute.

What do you think, John? Is the good you could do with a little piece of that extra money worth the environmental impact of earning it?On All-electric car coming to the U.S. next year posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

These snippets are cool...

But they desperately need a joke or two.

Seriously, we keep coming back because you make us laugh while you're making us cry.

The "gets jiggy" line is a start. Props to whoever thought of that.

Mostly because while you're using expressions like "to get jiggy," it only makes sense to respond with an expression like "props."On A roundup of news snippets posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, Bailo...

(You know, for once.)

But that is awesome!  Here's hoping it passes.On Chinese bosses could see salary cuts for water pollution posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

re: Matt

Presumably, we're talking about personal protection weapons.  Where hunting is legal, it should obviously be legal to carry loaded weapons--and where hunting isn't legal, hunting weapons shouldn't be the issue.

You're not quite right about large predators. You can take down a black bear with a large handgun; bear in mind, Native Americans used to kill them with bows and arrows. That said, I'm told they almost never attack humans, and personal experience seems to corroborate that; we're too big and smell too much like predators to seem like an easy meal, and a black bear isn't usually interested in fighting for its food. That said, the "almost" in "they almost never attack" can be a doozy, so you can see why a person would want to be protected.

Grizzlies are a little more likely to attack; they've been the top of the food chain even in areas frequented by humans for tens of thousands of years, and they haven't had time to adapt to the relatively recent "people have guns" development yet. I honestly don't know how hard it is to kill a grizzly with a handgun, but I expect most people, if they had to choose, would rather bet their life on a gun's ability to kill a grizzly than their own ability to outrun one. (Also, I'm told grizzlies will chase you if you run, but might leave you alone if you freeze or play dead--but do not take that as expert advice. If you're going into grizzly country, do your homework first.)

In North America, that just leaves large cats; there are records of cougars attacking humans (caniscandida is thinking of a smart remark right now grin), but it's pretty rare. But a large cat, while far more than a match for a human, is not a match for a bear; it can be killed by anything that could kill a black bear.

As for the statistics about the less hairy, less pretty kind of predator... I'm kind of curious about that myself.

As things stand, unless it can be shown that allowing people to carry guns actually increases violent crime (or increases poaching enough to outweigh the safety factor), I'll risk alienating myself from all my fellow far-left liberals and say I'm in favor of allowing guns to be loaded. I've been in a confrontation with a black bear, and I have to say, in that moment, the pistol I was carrying was a considerable source of comfort.On Ban on loaded firearms in national parks may be lifted posted 1 year, 9 months ago 20 Responses

Um, a little less stereotyping, please?

Wolverine, I'm sorry about your camping trip. I really am. But why direct so much hostility toward such a large segment of the population, because you were a victim of a loud minority?

Let's try a couple of seemingly unrelated examples. How would you feel about someone who wanted to bring back segregaton because they got robbed by a black guy once? Or someone who supported the "protection of marriage" ammendment because some drunk gay guy once hit on them a little too much?

The fact is, just like most blacks aren't robbers and most gays aren't whatever-you-call-someone-who-compulsively-commits-sexual-harrassment, most hunters aren't like the ones you met. I have a great many friends and family members who hunt regularly, and while it's not a passion of mine, I occasionally join them. You know why I do it? Because it's necessary to protect the ecosystem, because human activity that we're all guilty of has killed or driven away all the predators in the area. I also do it because there is no less cruel or more environmentally friendly way to produce meat. And in my experience, most hunters obey relevant laws, respect seasons and bag limits, don't hunt where they don't have permission, and make damn sure to be as considerate and as safe as humanly possible. And they hate people like ones you met at least as much as you do--because not only do these people ruin other hunters' experience just as much they did yours, but they also soil the reputation of hunters everywhere.

Furthermore, many hunters would be very passionate conservationists--for example, Theodore Roosevelt, whom some call the father of the modern conservation movement, was a huge hunter--but all the hostility in the environmental community alienates them. Do you think we'd have any trouble passing legislation to ban lead bullets in condor territory if hunters felt they'd get a lick of appreciation for their trouble? Do you think there wouldn't be thousands of hunters screaming to end deforestation if we could make them see how bad it's gotten? Since many hunters also fish, do you think they wouldn't be up in arms about water pollution and overfishing if we could get through to them? But why should they listen to a word we say, when all we ever do is make them out to be the enemy?

I'm sorry your camping trip got ruined by a few assholes. And I'm sorry about aerial gunning of wolves, and host of other evils committed by a fairly small minority of the hunter population. But don't let those things make you alienate thousands of decent people who might otherwise be our allies.On Ban on loaded firearms in national parks may be lifted posted 1 year, 9 months ago 20 Responses

Remember the bunny suit from A Christmas Story?

Canis: Your esteem would make me blush, if I were more the blushing sort. And I am sorry to hear that you cannot express yourself without being subjected to the slings and arrows of bygone eras; for what it's worth, I expect you will seldom if ever receive such chiding on Grist--and most particularly not on a thread like this one--because, really, would anyone likely to chide anyone for "immorality" be reading this far?

As for the rest... Well, I'm afraid that will have to go the way of the man in the pink furry costume, which is to say, not to be expounded upon in this thread. Maybe next time.  :)

Dr. X: Do I detect a hint of bitterness in that post? Just maybe?

I hope you aren't speaking from too much personal experience, my friend. If so, I fear I can only once again recommend the philosophy I espoused above; bona fide sluts (of either sex and any orientation) experience half the drama of serial monogamists, and frequently twice the romance--and no one ever expects them to pay for anything more than a halfway-decent dinner.

Read your response in your blog, enjoyed it. I'll try to add another post to that after I sleep.On Why burning a vinyl album is a bad idea posted 1 year, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Didn't they just answer that?

It's cheaper.

What, you thought toy companies were different from every other company?On Mattel, Toys "R" Us to phase out cadmium batteries, citing toxicity posted 1 year, 9 months ago 2 Responses

Wow.

I am truly frightened now.

I think I'm going to go wash the imaginary coal dust and bullsh*t out of my eyes before it starts seeping into my brain.

Thanks, DR. I was having a nice, carefree afternoon...On Walker/Cat's coal-happy ads in rural West Virginia posted 1 year, 9 months ago 19 Responses

Build a better space suit, and the world will...

Sorry, got caught up in trying to maximize contact with my hypothetical smartfiber sheets...  I don't suppose it matters.  Hell, if you had a smartfiber bedspread and you kept it active enough, you could probably simultaneously charge the bedspread, the top sheet, and the bottom sheet on a neatly made bed.

Now, it really gets interesting when you get into the question of what exactly you're using those sheets to power...

On bagels: I'd say you nailed it on the head with Eilat. I was going to suggest Jeruselem, on about the same reasoning I expect you were using, but a quick check of a world map reveals that you're right, Eilat would be closer. I am forced to bow to your superior geographical knowledge.

On space exploration:  As many of us have been saying for years--and I feel I should give a nod to Wolverine here, as this point is a pet argument of his--the human population is already larger than the planet can comfortably sustain, and will only get larger. Honestly, I don't think our survival instincts will ever let it stabilize; there's very little evolutionary advantage in knowing when to take a species-wide cold shower.

And unfortunately, while many of us continue to blast away on the overpopulation horn, none of us can actually offer a viable solution for it. Yes, I'm pro-choice in large part because I'm anti-overpopulation (as well as the obvious personal freedom factor, of course). Yes, I think free birth control and should be provided to the economically disadvantaged. Yes, I think HMO's should be required to pay for sterilization operations, which many of them won't. No, I don't think any of this will actually solve an impending population crisis.

Now, I'm not saying the planet will actually become unlivable when there are too many humans. Humans have an astounding capacity for surviving even when it defies logic. They may end up synthesizing food from dirt and CO2 out of the air just to avoid wasting space on the middle man that is a crop plant, but the species will in all likelihood endure.

What truly worries me is that before it's over--and I'm talking many centuries from now--we'll wipe out everything else on this planet. First it will be in the name of farmland, and eventually, it could come down the simple geometry of fitting hundreds of billions of domeciles on this relatively small planet. And while every possible labor of environmental stewardship helps to delay this nightmare scenario, that won't by itself be enough to completely avert it.

What will? Space travel.

We need a place to expand to. If we're going to save all the flora and fauna that we all cherish so much, we're eventually going to need somewhere else to stick all the humans. So, a century or two from now, I'd like to see expeditions scouring the outer reaches of our solar system to mine for metals and water ice to hydrate and house the fast-growing subterranean Mars colony. In the background, I'd like to see a two-hundred year automated program working to modify the atmosphere of Venus until it ceases to be a gigantic terrestrial oven and becomes a world that could sustain life as we know it. I'd like to see hundreds of probes flying to the thousands of roughly Earth-like planets that will most likely be discovered between now and then, working to discover exactly which ones have the potential to house the coming generations. And if, wonder of wonders, one of these planets is discovered to have life of its own--imagine, an entire ecosystem completely different from everything we've ever known--I'd like to see that planet left in peace, trod only by explorers and scientists, guarded and observed as a hallmark of the fact that we aren't alone in the Universe. I'd like to see that, and I think it will only happen if by the time we make that discovery, we've already found two or three other planets we deem suitable for colonization.

But more than anything, I'd like to see all this happen while there's still rainforest in Brazil. I'd like to know that a thousand years from now, there will still be polar bears roaming the Arctic. I'd like to know that there will still be creatures that you and I haven't even imagined swimming in the deep ocean. But all that can only happen if we have someplace else to send future generations of humans.

And that starts with seeming trivialities like better space suits.On Researchers develop energy-generating clothing posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Yeah...

But then she'd want to put them right back on again--and off again, and on again, and off again, and on again... Very cool, but missing something, no? Now, if you could get smartfiber sheets on your bed, then you'd have something...

Hmm. As is, this stands to do quite a bit of good. It's looking like they're not expecting a full outfit to do much more than power an iPod, which means all it will do is save power on gadgets that everyone's using, anyway. Good thing.

Paradoxically, for the moment, I'd say we're rooting for this not to become much more efficient, at least for the everyday consumer. Once it does, it's likely to lead to the manufacture of millions of portable gadgets that no one would have cared enough to mess with otherwise. After all, even if the money and time savings are negligible, who isn't going to want a Blackberry when you have the coolness factor of keeping it charged just by typing on it? Or some lame wristwatch that measures your pulse, body temperature, location by GPS, and gives directions to the nearest bagel shop even when you're lost in the Congo?

From a non-environmental perspective, this does apparently have some very cool potential applications in medicine. And if the tech does get as efficient as I was just hoping it doesn't, I expect it could be damn useful for things like space suits--and space exploration, in the very long term, is one of the best things we can possibly do for the environment.

So...
Powering current gadgets: good.
Leading to creation of new gadgets: bad.
Other nifty applications: most likely good.
Bedsheets that make hot eco guy/chicks want to roll around under the covers: definitely good.

I give it a tentative thumbs up.On Researchers develop energy-generating clothing posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

re: javaearth

You're partly right and partly wrong. As easy as it is to see them as such, corporations are not monolithic. I promise you, there are people on Wal-Mart's board of directors who honestly care about the environment, and people who don't care, but believe this will make them money, and people who think the entire thing is stupid and wish the others would get off it. (And there are probably also people who are somewhere in between those, and people with perspectives I haven't considered. 'Cause they're people.)

Right now, the first two groups are winning. We need to give them as much encouragement as we can, to make sure they keep winning. Wal-Mart has the power to do a lot of good with this--and yes, by "good," I mean "reducing the harm that they do." Doesn't matter; reduced emissions are reduced emissions.

And for the ones who do just think helping the environment will increase their profits? For the sake of the world we live in, you'd damn well better hope they're right.On Wal-Mart CEO outlines lofty green goals posted 1 year, 10 months ago 6 Responses

And on a related subject...

The giant bold string in the middle there is soley the result of my using an asterisk as a punctuation mark in "bull$%_!!," and was not intended for emphasis of any kind.

I actually intended that section to be read with a tone of cynical resignation.

Oh, well.On Judge rules that natural-gas company can drill on billionaire's land posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Tiny Giant, Vertical Horizon, black light...

"Hopeless optimist."

Kind of funny when you think about it, isn't it?

My favorites have always been "legitimate bastard" and the phrasal verb "to butt heads."

Fun rhetorical figures aside, I'm afraid you may be being overly optimistic, Julia. You see, the people of India are already in the habit of carpooling--on motor scooters. It is not uncommon in an Indian city to see a family of four piled on a scooter, with a young child on the handlebars, the father driving, and the mother behind him with a baby in her arms. It sounds ridiculously unsafe (I have no idea what the actual stats on accidents and injuries are), and it's certainly uncomfortable, but it's done, because in many cases, there's no other option. If the Tata catches on--and it certainly will--the days of this phenomenon will quickly become numbered.

So, if you wish to remain hopelessly optimistic, you still can, and with good reason. Rejoice in the fact that for many Indian families, the standard of living is about to take a quantum leap. They won't have to worry about cold wind or rain in their faces as they drive to school and work each morning anymore. Their chances of surviving an accident will skyrocket. Those with older children will have the option of traveling as a family. But every silver lining has a cloud, and in this case, it's a cloud of greenhouse gas emissions.

If the Tata is going to do anything to the environment besides hurt it, they're going to have to market it in places where lots of people already drive cars--and find a way to catch the interest of the large sedan and SUV cultures. But those places and those cultures aren't likely to be found in India.On Tata Motors unveils world's cheapest car in India posted 1 year, 10 months ago 16 Responses

I never thought I'd say this...

But where the hell is Richard Pombo when you need him?

Seriously. Has anyone else noticed that you can just about always justify destroying the environment with "property rights," but it absolutely never holds up as an argument for protecting it?

What the hell's up with that?On Judge rules that natural-gas company can drill on billionaire's land posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

A hearty thank you.

Mr. Bailo, I just want to say, thank you for taking the initiative to do the work this publication was neglecting to do. I'll be honest, I wasn't ambitious enough to do it myself, but I was just thinking, "I wish someone at Grist would post about the TaTa car."

For more information about this exciting and incredibly environmentally benevolent piece of news, go here.On Automaker lawsuit against Rhode Island can go forward, and more vehicle news posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

And...

...From the East Bay Business Times (also linked in this article):

"The petitioners -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, the International Center for Technology Assessment, the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (sic) and the Sierra Club -- filed the suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco."

Enjoy.  :)On California, 15 other states, and five nonprofits sue EPA over waiver decision posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

So, RC...

You're saying you don't eat?  Or use any other products that involve the use of resources or energy, such as, you know, clothes?  I'm kind of curious as to how you typed that post, if you don't own a computer or use electricity.

Of course, if you can survive without food, I suppose psychokinetic use of the Internet isn't too much of a leap...

Just saying.On Consumers shopped less this holiday season, testing brand loyalty posted 1 year, 11 months ago 3 Responses

As a side note...

One of the scientists working on creating a synthetic life form is actually hoping to develop something that removes greenhouse gases from the air.

I read something about this in BBC News a couple of months ago; I can dig up the article if anyone is interested, although the thing about greenhouse gases was more or less a side note.

And yes, synthetic life may be used to generate biological weapons. Fire and the wheel have been instrumental in countless weapons over the millenia--in fact, the jet that dropped the nuke on Hiroshima could never have existed without both of them--but that doesn't mean their creation was a bad thing in and of itself.

And for all we know, synthetic life may prove less efficient for developing bioweapons than however they currently do it, and may cost the government hundreds of millions from their bioweapons budget while they figure that out. In the words of a great contemporary writer whose name escapes me, no one can predict the future.  :)On Synthetic DNA could soon yield entirely new life forms posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

"Money, money, money, money"

And the answer to that is, use your own money!

As soon as the candidate list for 2008 becomes solidfied, start giving money to the green ones. Give within your own state, or wherever you think it will do good. E.g., Inhofe's up for re-election; I don't know who's running against him, but whoever they are, they're getting money from me.

If you want to start now, give to the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund ( www.lcv.org ); they figure out who the most anti-environmental people in Congress are, and attack them. If you're interested in weakening the Republicans as much as possible, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ( www.dscc.org ) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( www.dccc.org ) are always taking donations. Or, if you're just interested in helping move people to action... I know this cool little environmental rag called Grist!

Dipconsultant, if you want to influence American politics, this is your answer. I'm not sure about the legalities of a candidate accepting money from outside the U.S., but there are all kinds of non-candidate organizations that will be working to elect a pro-environment U.S. government, who will be happy to use your money. Seriously, as an American who neglected to vote in 2000 and has spent the last seven years repenting, I'm asking you to help us out here!On U.S. blocking agreement on emissions goal at Bali conference posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

All that...

And more than anything... Remember that every dollar you donate could be a vote. Give money to green candidates in '08. In fact, give till it hurts.On Landmark energy bill stalls in the Senate posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

Don't locavore me, my friends!

Okay, that has a much cooler ring to it.

Canis,

I have to say, I love your posts. I can usually tell by the second paragraph that it's you without looking down; your style is that unique. I can't think of anyone else on Grist who's that readily identifiable (other than a few of our more noteworthy board trolls, but don't think I'm making comparisons there <grin>). And your posts are always so full of awesome trivia and tangent observations that no one else would think to make.

That said... Okay, if bacn tastes anything like spam, I don't think I'll ever use it, either. The carnivore in me considers turkey bacon to be sacreligious; using the leftover chicken parts that go into spam in a food as awesome as bacon would just be an abomination.

What's wrong with feeding on women who are crazy? (Um... You know, "feeding on" in a more metaphorical sense. See your note on "cougar," above.)

I disagree with you about the spelling of "tase." Etymology aside (you know, as much as a back-formation of a made-up word has "etymology"), I think "taze" looks better. Seeing an "s" where I'm expecting a "z" always makes me hear the word with a gentler, overly dignified pronunciation--possibly appropriate for "advertise," depending on what you're advertising, but for zapping some hapless sap with gods-know-how-many volts of malicious electricty and leaving them in a paralyzed, twitching heap on the ground...  You need the "z." The "z" looks like action.

Yeah, I thought "chicken hawk" when I saw "cougar," too. I suppose the desparity between the prowess and general coolness of the predators invoked just goes to show that hetero's respect their elders more than gays... Or maybe that a promiscuous older woman might be a MILF, but a dirty old man is just a dirty old man no matter which way he swings. (Nothing against any dirty old men who might be reading. If I'm lucky enough to live long enough, I plan to go into the field myself some day.) By the way, your description of the cougar in action was absolutely awesome.

And I'm pretty sure I agree with all the rest. But I'm not going to check now, because I'm too lazy to go back and read it again.On Locavore is New Oxford American Dictionary Word of the Year posted 2 years ago 5 Responses

Wendy,

I'm afraid your question reveals a very dark and haunting truth about you:  You live in America.

American news sucks.  It's not biased, so much as it is useless and full of irrelevant bull$#!!.

I know, because I live in America, too.  :)

Mspelto (M. Spelto? Ms. Pelto? Misspelt-o?) is right; go with BBC.  I won't say they'll tell you everything you need to know, but they do cover everything that's news.On IPCC synthesis report confirms global warming is a force to be reckoned with posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

Mmm... Semantics.

Technically, it doesn't. But it does kill their greenhouse gas emissions, which is the point of reducing energy use. So, yeah; the article would have been better named "Nipping GHG Emissions in the Spud." But word choice aside, it's still an awesome thing for Frito-Lay to do; here's hoping they make it a habit.On Frito-Lay hopes to manufacture eco-friendly potato chips posted 2 years ago 4 Responses

Jaffa

Yeah, that's great...

Except that meanwhile, the accompanying 25% increase in greenhouse gas emissions will be busy frying our planet.

So...  Break's over.  Back to harrassing our legislators for reform till we get it.

And remember...  Money generates votes.  Vote for pro-environment candidates with your wallet in 2008.On Energy demand, greenhouse-gas emissions expected to soar, says report posted 2 years ago 6 Responses

Putting White-Out on my screen

"Dying," not "denying."

Denying is what he was doing.

And what I was doing about what he was doing. :)On Study of fossil record predicts climate change could fuel mass extinction posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Dick-measuring and ethics-measuring

Dr. X - Not denying any of that. That said, you can't deny that people do it, however idiotic it looks from the outside. Do you think you don't do things just to measure your gentials? Do you think women don't? Yeah, there's not a convenient anatomic metaphor when they do it, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. All I'm saying is, geeks do things like buy "bick dick machines," too. They usually do it in the form of an unspeakably powerful computer or the latest gadget from Japan, but if they decide to take the more traditional route, and that helps the environment, how is that a problem?

GreyFlcn - I'm not denying that Toyota is an auto corporation. They're in it to make money, not to save the world. And I'm sure as %#$!! not defending their business practices. Just saying, buying a hybrid doesn't encourage them to make more gas guzzlers.

Toyota can afford to make every car it thinks will sell. If I understand it correctly, they could make all the hybrids they wanted, and those could rot on the lots if no one wanted them, and they could still make the appropriate number of gas guzzlers to sit on the CAFE minimum.

But they're not going to do that unless they think those gas guzzlers will sell. If the MARKET Average Fuel Economy is higher than the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, they're going to raise the bar to meet the market.

All buying hybrids does, from a business standpoint, is encourage them to make more hybrids. And if enough people do it, it might eventually even get them to make fewer gas guzzlers.On Reaper on the Prius posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

I think I've got this.

pats jabailo on the head

Good boy.

gives him a treat

Okay, now, back to the merits and flaws of geoengineering...On Is geoengineering worth a second look? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Whoa.

So, after the Empire was overthrown, Chewbacca became an ecologist at the University of York?  Who'd have guessed?On Study of fossil record predicts climate change could fuel mass extinction posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Panic is never justified. Strategy always is.

The big problem is, we don't actually know how bad things are.  Reports and predictions vary from "things are getting inconvenient" to, as one analyst whose name I'm forgetting put it, "OMFG we're all totally f*cked!!1!"  And even the most widely accepted predictions have often been shown to be wrong.

Yesterday, it was in the news that net CO2 emissions have increased 35% more than they were expected to in 2000.  (That's 35% more increase, not an actual increase of 35%.  That would be a cause for panic.)  Why?  Fuel efficiency hasn't improved like it was supposed to, and the oceans have stopped absorbing CO2 as fast as they were supposed to.  Does that mean we're f*cked?  Or, does it just mean we need to work a little harder?

It seems to me that the answer is to work for the best, but prepare for the worst.  Right now, the bulk of our effort needs to be in safe, feasible, sustainable changes we can make.  Shift from coal to solar and wind.  Build more fuel-efficient cars.  Stop cutting down the g*dd*mned rainforest.  All that stuff we all know about, and are all constantly harrassing our Congresspeople to make happen.  (We are all harrassing our Congresspeople, or the appropriate elected representatives...  Right?)

But while we're doing all that, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario.  We need to analyze every geoengineering option, every option for emergency screw-the-economy-and-our-nerves energy conservation, and every other harebrained scheme anyone comes up with.  We need to figure out what's likely to work, what isn't likely to work, and what will be necessary to safely and effectively implement whatever option seems the most viable.

Hopefully, none of it will be necessary.  Hopefully, we'll move to a sustainable culture in time to stave off the worst effects, and life will be good.  (I keep trying to start debate on things like geoengineering, but I'm really not trying to fill our atmosphere with sulfur in a blind panic, I promise.  I love this planet, too.)  But if it starts looking like Lovelock is right and seemingly cooler heads are wrong, won't it be useful to have a strategy other than "OMFG we're all totally f*cked!!1!"?On James Lovelock's terror masks the same old industrial-era thinking posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

3 out of 4...

Okay, most of those, I totally agree, suck.

(Yeah, no one at my office got laid last night, either.  We could start an interoffice support group, but in my experience, that sort of thing doesn't usually go well.  It mostly distracts from work and causes meaningless drama.  Also, I don't work in an office.)

But how, exactly, is peak oil a bad thing?  Call me an ignorant hippie, but if there's less oil, won't people, y'know...  Burn less oil?  And doesn't that lead to a drop in greenhouse gas emissions?  Someone fill me in on what I'm missing, but this is starting to sound suspiciously like a good thing.On Reports bring various doomy and gloomy predictions posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Geo-Engineering in General

It strikes me that categorically dismissing any option labled as "geo-enginnering" could be a phenomenally bad idea.

I'll take your word that aerosol geo-engineering is a bad idea.  I don't know anything about the science of it, so I'll assume you know what you're talking about and move on.

That said, we've already radically altered our environment.  We shouldn't dismiss all the various ideas floating around for re-altering it to mitigate the damage, just because at a glance, they all sound stark raving batsh*t insane.

Whatever the people at the Wall Street Journal say, in most cases, the actual scientists behind the proposals aren't trying to sell "their idea" as the perfect, painless global warming solution.  They're calling for extensive studies to make sure their schemes won't do more harm than good, or proposing using those schemes as a jumping-off point for a dialogue to the end of doing something.

Yes, we would be better off just stopping emitting so many greenhouse gases.  That's not happening.  And there's a tipping point somewhere beyond which changing our bad habits won't help.  And not to be defeatist--because I'm usually the one pissing people off on this forum with my undying optimism--but we don't know that we haven't already reached that point.  We need to study every option for forcibly cooling our atmosphere that comes up, and know the merits and flaws of each, because sooner or later, one of those batsh*t insane schemes may be our best hope.On Climate change mitigation strategy could actually damage the planet posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

re: caniscandida

Truth be told, most meat-eaters don't know about the issue of cloned meat; it's just not that high-profile a thing.

As for what's wrong with it, no one actually knows.  As far as any evidence suggests, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.  Personally, if it could be shown that it makes meat production less resource-intensive, or somehow more humane than conventional breeding, I'll be all for it.  (Not saying it does; just saying, if, then.)  But for the same reason genetically modified crops are held in such fear by environmentalists--and with slightly less basis, because GM crops do infect regular crops with their DNA, and simple breeding regulations could stop that from happening with cloned animals--some people really like to portray cloned meat as this decade's anti-Christ.

Several environmental groups seemed to be waging a campaign against it a couple of years ago when the technology first came to light; I was on two or three of their mailing lists, but I'm afraid I'm on enough lists and my attention span is short enough that I don't remember which particular groups they were.  Anyway, their arguments really smacked of bandwagonism.  They had no specific claims against it; they just seemed to be promoting a general assumption that it must somehow be bad.

That said, there's no evidence that it's not somehow less healthy than meat produced "the old-fashioned way"--but try proving a negative like that, and see how far it gets you.On California OKs bills to ban phthalates in kids' products, and lead bullets in condor country posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Um...

Is anyone else noticing that bathroom in the push-button house is not hidden from view?  At all?

Is this some new trend in modern architecture that I don't know about?On From Fashion to Faith posted 2 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

re: biodiversivist

I second that.  grin

And hey, since it's space-based, if the aliens attack, we can just flip it around, and we'll have our first line of defense.

More seriously, I do think more funding for space exploration is the best thing we can do for our environment in the long term.  It won't stop climate change in the short term.  I wouldn't mind hearing more about Hillary's "space-based climate change initiative," but I'm not denying Pangolin's point until I do.  But sooner or later, there are going to be more people than any amount of energy and land efficiency--or even population control--will allow this planet to support.  All signs seem to be pointing to sooner rather than later.  When it reaches the breaking point--when the question becomes not "do we cut down the rainforest?," but "do we cut it down for farmland or for more homes, because leveling all of it won't fill our need for either"--if the space program hasn't advanced several generations beyond its current level, where are all these people going to go?On Hillary lays out science proposals posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Mmm... Sashimi/sushi.

Thanks for the info, Sam.  That's actually pretty cool--and a good idea if it works; pretty much any carbon sink is a good carbon sink.

On a vaguely related subject, is anyone else having trouble working out exactly what Earth Shaman is trying to say?On A sound plan, or a load of manure? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

Yeah, you just wanted to link to that interview...

...Because it mentioned Grist.  :)

You know, I'm not denying that Dingell comes across as a monumental a-hole, but I really can't bring myself to have a problem with what he's proposing.  A giant tax increase on gas, a direct tax on carbon emissions (I'm guessing this'll be based on electricity usage, which will make everyone, including industry, want to conserve), and a tax-break-cut that makes large, sprawling homes less attractive.

None of this is going to be popular, as Dingell himself points out, but think how much it would cut greenhouse gas emissions if it actually happened.On Dingell gets off a zinger in a testy interview posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

It might be crazy enough to work.

There are quite a few "geo-engineering" options like this on the table, including shooting sulfur into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, sending steam up to create artificial clouds, and one I read about today that would involve using massive flotillas of pipes to pump deep, cold, microbe-filled water up to the surface of the ocean ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7014503.stm if you want to check it out).

And, as it was observed in the above-linked article, not one of these options is certain, or even understood well enough to put our faith in at this point, but every single one of them merits exploration.

I don't think I'd be the first to observe that the prospect of curbing our emissions in time to halt global warming is starting to look dubious; for all we know, it may be too late already.  But if we can come up with a way to directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale, or to block large portions of the sun's light from reaching the fastest-warming regions, that just might buy us the time we need to make the changes we need.

Remember, we can explore dozens of options like this; we only have to find one that works.  That gives geo-engineering a major advantage over our current approach; clean energy and efficiency require dozens of different tactics--better cars, better appliances, wind energy, solar, geothermal, better insulated homes, and so on--and virtually all of them have to work for the combination to be effective.

Now, I'm sure as f*ck not saying we should scrap all those other, more certain options in favor of finding some nifty way to tamper with our environment.  But if we can find a feasible, productive way to tamper with our environment--which, let's face it, we've already spent the last two centuries doing unfeasibly and counter-productively--it just might either save us where those other options can't, or at least buy them the time they need to do their job.

And I'm also not saying we need to leap blindly into any of the schemes.  No one's talking about that at this point; you'll note that for both iron fertilization and pipe flotillas, the groups behind them are taking the perspective of getting scientists, policy-makers, and industrial leaders talking and/or getting studies going to come up with something that can be done, and making as sure as possible that it will do more good than harm before making a move.

And if no one can find a geo-engineering option that actually seems like it will work, hey, a few national governments and a few corporations are out some money with no good result.  How often do we get a day where that doesn't happen?On A sound plan, or a load of manure? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

"Whom"

should be "who."  Just sayin'.On Indiana county has three times more parking spaces than residents posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

*laugh*

Like I said...  Things that actually locomote with four foot-structures get Latin, and the whole giant group of four-limbed things (arms and legs, legs and wings, arms and wings--don't know of any with that last combination, but that would be cool), along with some of their fewer-limbed relatives, get to share Greek.  Got it.

Also, alligator actually isn't bad if prepared properly.  Frog legs, on the other hand...  The phrase that came to my mind was "chicken-flavored chewing gum"--and I really didn't mean that in a good way.On Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 2 months ago 38 Responses

re: caniscandida

So, basically, things that actually locomote via four foot structures get Latin to themselves, while everything that essentially has four limbs (plus a few things that don't, like snakes and most whales, just 'cause there's a genetic connection) gets to share Greek.  Got it.

Eh, I suppose that's as good a way to use the same word twice without confusion as any other.On Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 2 months ago 38 Responses

Eh, no sweat.

In the 2000 presidential election, my position was whoever won, it would be a four-year presidency, and then we'd all forget about him in favor of someone more interesting.On Demand for oil remains strong despite price increases posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Whoa.

That is really cool.  I want a magnetic fridge.

I wonder if they'll eventually be able to adapt the technology to air conditioning.On Magnetic cooling tech hits a milestone posted 2 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

How ya doin', Miller?

So, here's a question.  When someone posts a fake product review on Gristmill, do we point it out in case someone naive is reading, or do we just quietly laugh at it and take comfort in the idea that just about everyone else is doing the same?  It's an ideological quandary, I tell you.On Sign me up posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Re: When It Hits Their Wallets

Okay, are my eyes deceiving me, or do jailbait's ideas here actually sound pretty good?

Essentially two carbon taxes, one for manufacturers based purely on carbon footprint, and one for individuals based on actual energy use and income.  Is anyone else digging this notion?On Poor guy posted 2 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Um...

Uh, guys?  I think, when they said Gore was talking about the Grist List, they were, uh... y'know...  Joking.

Just possibly.On From Coke to Cockpit posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

*sigh*

Mr. Corduff, if you happen to read this interview, don't listen to jailbait, or whatever his name is.  No one else on this site does.  We're pretty sure some poluting firm is paying him to go on environmental websites and spread anti-environmental lies, and just generally be annoying.  And it would make me kind of sad to think you'd taken the time to read this, and his was the only comment you saw.  So kindly ignore him.

On a happier note, the rest of us fully support you, and admire your courage and devotion to your cause.  We look forward to hearing more about your efforts, and seeing how it all turns out in the end.

Keep up the good work!On Willie Corduff has taken arms against a sea of Shell troubles posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

Damn, jailbait...

You're really running out of material, aren't you?

Better hope your bosses don't see this, or you might get demoted, and have to go troll the PlanetSave forums instead.

:)On Our prez nearly made a slip of the plug posted 2 years, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Mmm...

Okay, now I'm sitting here imagining hot environmentalist chicks modeling skimpy lingerie...

And Katharine Wroth and Sarah Van Schagen would SO be among them, if I had the first clue what they look like...On From Ferrell to Fuzz posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Three things.

First, I would like to submit that Al Gore has been pushing the climate issue since long before the carbon offset industry existed.  Just a passing thought.

Second, and more importantly...  And I want people to visualize with me on this one...

If you were suddenly to become the possessor of several million dollars, what would you do with it?  (After you finish spending like a maniac on pointless crap just because you can, I mean.)  Personally, I'd put a sizable chunk of it into a business that would help solve the climate problem.  Call me crazy, but I have a feeling I'm not the only person on this blog who'd do that.  What approach would we take?  Does it matter?  Personally, I'd probably choose renewable energy production.  And if someone ever told me I didn't have the right to advocate renewable energy, because I'd made it my bread and butter...  I have a very diplomatic, well-thought-out answer to that.  I'd tell them to shut the %#&!! up, and go on with my day.

I'm curious how many people agree with me on this.

Gore chose carbon offsets.  That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to advocate them.

Finally...  There's a reason the environmental community spends so much time worshipping Al Gore these days.  It's not because he actually is some kind of saint.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't; most of us will never know him well enough to judge.  The reason we stand behind him is, he's the best hope we have for success.  He's the highest-profile name we have speaking for our cause, and quite possibly the best public speaker, too.  If we're going to save this world we live in, we need him.  If it turns out he's also making money--or gaining power, or just racking up personal glory--off of this...  Frankly, I don't give a $#%@.On Gore gets a warm welcome on Capitol Hill, and a few heated exchanges posted 2 years, 8 months ago 20 Responses

Natural Patriot

It's actually not as hard a choice as it sounds.  (And don't be so pessimistic, BioD; it's bizarrely satisfying, but it gets nothing done. :)

I seem to remember Umbra saying at one point that 90% of a vehicle's environmental impact comes from operation.  Meaning, the environmental impact of purchasing a new car (i.e., causing one more car to be built and eventually disposed of) is nothing compared to the benefit of getting a substantially more fuel-efficient one.  (Someone else is going to have to find that column, and correct me if I got the statistic wrong, because let's face it, I'm lazy.)

As for the fact that someone is, of course, going to end up driving your old car...  The fact is, that person was going to be driving something, anyway, and probably not a hybrid.  But by empowering that person to buy your used vehicle, you're potentially stopping the sale of a new Camry.  (Probably not to that person, who was probably going to buy used, anyway, but somewhere along the line, it all adds up.)  Which means you're giving Toyota less incentive to build Camries--one car's worth of incentive less, anyway--and more incentive to build Priuses.  If people keep trading their Camries for Priuses, they will get the message.

In fact, they're getting it already.  Toyota is building far more Priuses this year than last year, and from what I've read, they're hardly the only auto company making that shift.  Which means supporting the movement can only help.

So, yeah.  Buy the Prius.  It'll do good, I promise.  :)On Duh! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

Yeah, yeah, Rob. You're old.

smile

It's okay.  I'm old, too.  (By which I mean, I'm twenty-seven and haven't illegally sat on a ledge in recent years.)

So, shall we get together and organize a protest?On Protesters head to court next week posted 2 years, 11 months ago 9 Responses

Continuing the debate

You make a good point, and I'm not saying the transition from corn to cellulosic will be easy.  However, it will be much easier than the transition from oil to ethanol, because the biggest obstacles--cars that run on ethanol, and fuel stations that sell it--will already have been surmounted.

I'm also rather less afraid of the evil of the corn industry than I am of the oil industry--and that's speaking as a borderline diabetic who became that way on a diet of high fructose corn syrup.  Yes, developing the technology and infrastructure for cellulosic ethanol is going to be a process, and yes, the corn industry is going to try to interfere every step of the way, but if we can beat the oil industry now, we can beat the corn industry later--or better yet, convince them that cellulosic ethanol from the entire corn plant is more profitable than just harvesting the corn itself.  Besides, the technology is already in development.  And once it is developed, what's to stop us from using both kinds of ethanol, until we have the infrastructure to go fully cellulosic?

(Unless corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are two different and incompatible compounds, and no one's told me that...)On The truth about ethanol posted 3 years ago 7 Responses

Other SUX stories

You know, this has happened before, not concerning Exxon.  Back in 1993, a guy in Virginia had a license plate reading "GOVT SUX."  The state tried to take it away from him, and he sued and won.

I'd like to post a link to the article, except that this was rather before the Internet was an archive for everything.  (Wow, I can remember that.  I must not be a teenager.)  However, if anyone in Virginia wants to take a look through their local library, it's probably still there on microfilm, or whatever they've replaced microfilm with.  I'm pretty sure I saw it in Daily Press, and it was 1993; shouldn't be too hard to find.

Now, if Virginia can put freedom of speech over a petty vulgarity issue...  Maybe Alaska can put it above potentially profitable corporate ties.On XONSUX posted 3 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses