Comments PBrazelton has made

  • Seriously?

    The argument is that we should build new coal plants because they're marginally less filthy than older ones?  That's like preferring a sharp stick in the eye instead of being set on fire.  How about we chose neither?

    John, I'm sure you're really interested in the truth, so read Myth #3: http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/top-5-clean-coal-myths.  Newer, more efficient plants haven't helped curb CO2 emissions at all, nor should they - the Clean Air Act only impacted smog-creating compounds.  Granted, less coal would have to be burned to produce the same amount of electricity, but that's swamped by the tripling of coal use in that period of time.

    A legal moratorium is the only sane solution at this point, for reasons too numerous to detail (read Grist, you might get an idea).  But here's the best reason - say the utilities sink billions of dollars into new coal plants in the next decade.  How much harder will it be to get them to decommission those shiny new facilities when a true moratorium goes into effect?  On EPA board freezes construction of new coal-fired power plants in U.S. posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

  • Pollan (hearts) Philpott

    Tom - thought you should know, Pollan is sending people here via one of his email blasts.  Hell, you probably know.  Never mind.On Weighing Obama's and McCain's stances on food and farm policyMcCain: Food Maverick? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • Ditto

    We had a hawk gliding around our city run yesterday - it was a bit disconcerting seeing such a large raptor so close.  My very first instinct was 'kill it!', which I suppose is the first response any human has towards things threatening their family.  Of course I will do no such thing, but I found it interesting how built-in the instinct is.

    I understand that a decent sized hawk could take a bantam, but what about a standard?  We have bantams and full sized birds, and I'm wondering if a hawk would try to tackle on of my Dominiques.  They're BIG birds.On Urban hawk attacks posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

  • Takes one to know one

    Seems like this might be some sort of 'beauty queen' disease: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8DwwOn Asked about oil's fungibility, Palin says ... um, something posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • What is the solution, then?

    I know there are many GMO backers amongst the Gristmill commenting folk - what benefits do GM crops offer that outweigh sustainable farming practices?  I think knowing that would help frame the debate a bit more precisely.  Right now there's a lot of "is not/is so" talk scattered throughout the threads of this blog.

    As for his lordship, years ago I read a long and engrossing article on the land use practices he promotes in his territory (being a landed noble as well as heir apparent, he owns a LOT of UK turf); it became clear quickly that Charles is very keen on sustainability issues.  He can treat his land and its subjects like a huge laboratory, and I do wonder if he's in a unique position to bring agricultural sustainability solutions to scale.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • Alternate reality check

    John, do you base any of your predictions for an awesome climate change future in reality?  You're like the Savvy Traveler for some weird Bizarro Earth.

    Smog is created by heat, not ameliorated by it, and if you had ever been to LA in the middle of summer, you wouldn't say such patently homicidal nonsense about southern California thriving in higher temperatures.  If LA gets any hotter, the smog will be the least of people's worries.On EPA says climate change could worsen smog levels, extend smog season posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

  • Some Parallels

    Whiskerfish,

    I'm assuming you catch the human angle of your observation regarding elephants' growth rates being irrespective of surrounding resources.  The fact is, this behavior quite precisely mirrors human patterns.  I'm sure that conflict between two dominant species with 'insane' population growth rates is inevitable.  I disagree with your analysis of the solution, but cannot see how this conflict could not happen.

    That said, how can the slaughter of entire social groups be an acceptable solution?  You repeat that no one takes joy in this alternative, but I don't see how having a workmanlike attitude towards wiping out whole families of highly intelligent and sensitive creatures makes things 'better'.  We're not talking about a species where one has to grasp at straws to create anthropomorphic sympathies - surely you must see why the proposition of culling is distressing to discerning individuals.

    As for preferring elephants over humans or other such nonsense, turn your keen mathematical sense the other way.  Human populations continue to grow unchecked, creating conflicts over shrinking resources and all but guaranteeing long periods of starvation and war in the future.  Humans have always come in conflict with one another as well as other species, but humans have not always has the capacity for such broad scale slaughter.  Even if one does not care about elephants or rhinos or other charismatic megafauna, it's just a matter of time before the human question must be dealt with.  Once every other mammal on the planet larger than a rat has been eradicated, we will only have one another to turn upon.  Is the solution 'culling' human social groups to prevent this from happening?  Or is that too abhorrent to contemplate?

    As canis has said, killing cannot be the answer.  The conflict with ever-expanding elephant populations is hardly the first or the last of its kind.  If we intend on learning to share this planet with more than dogs and cats, we need to LEARN how to manage populations - our own as well as others - effectively.  Perhaps contraception is not a great option at this point, but eventually it must be.  Otherwise we will be forever locked in an infinite spiral of destruction, contemplating all living creatures - human or otherwise - as either tools or nuisances that must be dealt with accordingly.On South Africa to resume elephant culling despite criticism posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

  • Good GOD

    That woman could rule the world.On Majora Carter posted 1 year, 10 months ago 3 Responses

  • Carburbia

    JMG, there's another pressure on people in the suburbs to become more conservative, and that is the forced balkanization of the community.  Within a city it's relative easy to walk to a park, a lake, a walking trail, a restaurant, a bus stop, a community center and the like, which exposes people to the shared nature of these entities.  In a suburb you're flirting with death if you want to walk anywhere (most do not have sidewalks), which forces residents to create miniature versions of these resources.

    This spawns a generation of people who eye anything shared as communism, as they're essentially mandated to purchase their own amenities.  They CAN'T ride the bus or train, they CAN'T walk to the pool when it's hot out, their children don't have a park to play at unless they're driven there.  So they must build or buy individual serving sizes of these resources or go without.

    In the end, you get people who have forgotten or have never seen what a true, interconnected community with shared resources looks like.  And that breeds a strong suspicion of those who would force such things upon them.On There are limits to the positive environmental change we can expect from high gas prices posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • I think everyone's missing point

    Ethical and financial considerations should be set aside knowing that "ratstronaut" will be a household word soon.On NASA has bold plans to ... send rodents into orbit posted 1 year, 11 months ago 12 Responses

  • Even more vexing

    Prefab "communities" with idyllic names like "Maple Glen" or "Arbor Mists" that were kick started with a clearcut of the land and a year of mega-ton vehicles utterly destroying the soil.  I always wonder at the character of a person who buys a home in a development with such an Orwellian naming scheme.On What's up with that gated 'community' in Montana? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • Electric vs. Nat gas

    I'm looking at replacing my current heating system, and am torn between going with an electric microboiler vs. natural gas.  I get that natural gas is a more efficient way to generate heat, but it's also going to peak some day in the near future and contributes to my carbon footprint.  Electric, on the other hand, is a more future-proof fuel and some day may be mostly from renewables, but being in Minnesota most of it comes from coal (we participate in the 'green power' program, but still, it's mostly coal).

    Has anyone dealt with this issue?On On-demand water heaters rock posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

  • That's strange

    It's so weird that a snowmobile promoter would come to that conclusion.

    Seriously, WHY is it necessary to run f'ing snowmobiles in Yellowstone?  We have the same crap ever other year here in Minnesota, where all terrain vehicle advocates try to wedge their machines into the Boundary Waters.  These people run their machines everywhere - public land, private land, sensitive land, any place they like.  I know landowners who are threatened with violence if they attempt to keep snowmobiles off of their property.  But it's not enough that they have hundreds of square miles to tear up.  They need more.

    It's disheartening and probably indicative of the human condition that it's never really enough.  We always want more, and we always take more until we break it.  Then we discard it and move on.On National Park Service may ignore public opinion on snowmobiles in parks posted 2 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

  • Diego

    We are nowhere near rock bottom.  Trust me, it can - and will - get significantly worse.  You'll know rock bottom when people around you start dying in large numbers.

    Too harsh, too pessimistic?  You live in a country insulated from reality.  People all over the world hit rock bottom all of the time, in Sudan, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Peru, East Timor...  There's nothing magical about the United States; we are not immune to a future of devastation.  I think optimism is necessary, but keep your eyes on what is real in the meantime.On Against climate polluters posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • Nucbuddy, I'll pass that along

    A friend of mine who had a large portion of his scalp torn away down to the bone in a bike/car accident would be interested in that theory.  Last I talked to him he was under the impression that a bike helmet would have prevented or reduced the level of his near fatal injury.

    Oh, and I should inform the woman I know whose brother died in a bike/car accident.  Even his buddies at the scene thought he would have survived with a helmet on.

    A blanket statement that helmets are ineffective is irresponsible.

    FYI, very few bicyclists can reach 30 MPH unassisted.  Maybe you can, but the majority of people stay in the teens.On Dumb and not so dumb questions answered posted 2 years, 5 months ago 51 Responses

  • Whoa

    It had never occurred to me that my hysterical fears over our increasingly warm and uncomfortable summers could have been allayed by referring to tomorrow's weather prediction!  This whole time I've been concerned with the impacts of global warming both here and abroad, but I totally forgot to see if it was going to rain on Saturday - and it is.  Now only if someone - anyone! - could get the news to the IPCC that the June 2nd weather forecast for Minnesota shows a high in the low to mid 70's and a 59% chance of precipitation we can finally be done with this global warming nonsense.

    Touché, my good man, touché.  I bow to your brilliance.On Who knew the stoic people of Minnesota were so advanced? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Hybrid vs. GMO

    Wisc knows tons more than I do on this, but I spent a fair amount of time in forest genetics courses:

    A hybrid is the offspring of two different populations.  They can be of the same species (intraspecific) or different (interspecific).  

    In the first case, you're trying to take the traits of two different populations of the same species to make a single, desirable plant or animal through artificial selection.  This has been going on forever - think of dogs.  Widely divergent shapes and sizes, formed by human selection.

    In the second case, humans been doing this forever too - think of a mule, for instance.  Interspecific hybrids are a good deal because they contain more widely divergent genetic code (since the parents are so dissimilar) and therefore benefit from a phenomenon known as hybrid vitality.   More diverse genetics - in a successful hybrid, anyway - means the hybrid has a more diverse set of tools to work with.  This leads to greater disease resistance, faster growth, things like that.  On the downside, these hybrids are typically sterile, and as such are dead-ends.  

    GMOs are genetically modified directly.  This means that someone actually splices genes from an external source into the DNA of another organism to create a completely novel life form.  Typically these genetic recombinations could not happen naturally, no matter what pressures existed, and as such have their own classification.  You'll often hear from GMO advocates that this is no different than what happens in nature, but that is not quite true.  Genetic engineering is far more precise than natural or artificial hybridization, and in many cases more radical.  Note the much-maligned flounder tomato as an example.

    Wisc, does that sound right?On Pesticide efficacy is decreasing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

  • winners and losers

    I heard an argument framed on NPR yesterday as "But won't there be loser AND winners?  Won't some benefit from global warming?"  I suppose the subtext is that optimal means different things to different people.  While the people & animals closer to the equator (and poles) are hammered into extinction by a wildly slewing climate, those in more temperate zones will be drinking Mai Tai's by their new beach estates.  I'm willing to be there's always been some misanthropic bastard to make this argument; even the worst war, the most vicious massacre, the most devastating drought must have tipped the balances of power and put someone in a position of more wealth and power.  

    Of course, the fact that some smug bastard talks of 'optimal' as millions are threatened by inundation, drought and pestilence is hard to bear.  But given a historic perspective, there has always been the monsters who chuckle over their rising fortunes as babies are bayoneted outside.On On the NASA administrator's comments posted 2 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

  • Yeahbut

    Wisc -

    Sorry if I came off harsh, but your last paragraph in your original reply pissed me off.  It's that argument (no chemicals & no GMOS == ecological disaster & expensive Hot Pockets!!!) which has no merit.  People aren't starving in the world because there isn't enough food or the knowledge to grow it effectively.  People starve because of massive inequities in their local, regional and global markets.  A privatized GMO market does NOT help with these inequities.  Google "terminator gene" for illumination on how far a company will go to keep its market captured.

    So take my comments in context, because that's how I took yours.  You weren't talking about the miraculous open source Asian potato in your last comment, you were referring directly a challenge to the corporate structure that helps raze millions of acres of fertile land with nakedly aggressive and destructive practices.

    You're clearly way smarter than me so I'll not challenge whether people should be growing potatoes in Asia in the first place.  Nor will I question why this fungus is a problem.  More power to 'em, and I hope that the plant's new genetic structure does not provide problems for the farmers, their land or their customers.  You certainly seem to have a sense of integrity, so perhaps there's hope for the future of Frankenfood after all. <g>
    On Pesticide efficacy is decreasing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

  • "Tropical Paradise?"

    I know your primary skill is 'talking from ass', but man, you should at least VISIT MN before talking about tropical paradises.  As Grevangelical points out, it's already insanely hot here in the summer.  I've lived in the deep south (Texas) and the heat there simply can't compare to the sweltering mess that descends on us more agressively year after year.  Trust me, MN is already a freaking tropical paradise for several months of the year and we'd rather not have any more.  Unless "mass heat deaths" amongst the poor, children and elderly is your idea of a true paradise.  And hey, with your track record, it could be.On Who knew the stoic people of Minnesota were so advanced? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Frankentrees

    Wiscidea - watch PBS's "Strange Days on Planet Earth".  Even Ed Norton knows what's up.  I think people (and by people I mean "scientists and informed laymen") are tuned in to the fact that exotics present a threat to native species.  Certainly not enough people, but really, are there ever enough?  We're not exactly a race of long-sighted creatures, and money talks louder than wisdom.On Pesticide efficacy is decreasing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

  • Wisc, chill

    Dude, I know you're a GMO cheerleader, but check some of your facts.  Modern organic farms produce at levels equal to - or better than - conventional farms.  Just to make sure I wasn't talking crazy, I used the Google and found a bunch o' links attesting to this fact:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=organic+vs+conventional+yi ...

    Cool, eh?  I know it's scary to think that we can actually grow enough food for ourselves without hacking DNA code, but for the other 99.999999% of the planet that doesn't make money from genetic engineers it's a pretty sweet deal.  Best part?  Organic farming leaves behind rich soil where you can grown anything - and unlike conventional biocide farming, it doesn't slaughter everything withing bloom range.

    Again, to your point that we need to turn some our land into a moonscape so we can have forests, it's not either/or.  Everyone says it is, so it must be true, but it ain't.  We can feed ourselves, protect our resources and leave behind a planet that hasn't been sterilized with a one-two punch of terminator genes and poisons.

    As for cost?  Use the Google again and look up 'externality'.  A wonderful world of economic opportunity awaits societies that don't dump their toxic waste on the poor and future generations.  I'm pretty sure that if we, as Americans, would look at the total cost of conventional farming, buying organic food wouldn't look so expensive after all.  We won't have that conversation until people begin looking at the whole picture, of course, and it seems like companies like Monsanto (and their sycophants) are doing a damned good job at squawking "CHEAP FOOD" any time someone points out that chemical warfare isn't a great way to raise healthy food.On Pesticide efficacy is decreasing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

  • Synchronicity

    My wife and I were just talking about you last week, Christine (hope that doesn't creep you out).  Our conversation?  Why you haven't picked up biking yet.  And here you are.

    Congrats, hope you love it!  We're heavy into biking now too and think it rocks.On My bike and kids posted 2 years, 6 months ago 12 Responses

  • Poo 2

    There's no real debate over the 'green'-ness of disposable diapers vs. cloth.  I'm sure if you think about it for a little while you'd be able to figure out the answer for yourself.  As a thought experiment try this: what if you discarded the clothes you were wearing every three hours, every day, for the next several years?  Is that better than wearing durable clothes made of cotton?  Please show your work.

    MarkUK: there are ways around icky-poo smells.  You can store cloth diapers in airtight (or close, anyway) containers.  This container can be any inexpensive plastic container with a lid.  We have two, so when one is next to the washing machine you still have a place to put the nappies.  You can also store diapers 'wet', which I hear cuts down on odors and detergent.  I'm skeptical, but there you go.  Anyway, when you wash the diapers you'll be unhappy, but that's just a few hours a week.  Or you could use a diaper service, which is really the best of both worlds.

    There is also the gDiaper.  It's a compromise for several reasons, but we've used them on the road and found them acceptable.  Check it out.

    Do research.  Be creative.  Be rugged and come up with solutions.  The alternative is perpetuating the waste of virgin materials and landfill space on a staggering scale.On The paper vs. plastic question must die posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

  • Moderation

    Didn't call for it earlier, but I stand corrected.  This is a huge waste of time for everyone involved; it's the same recycled crap over and over.

    Also, Andrew should be nominated for sainthood.  The patience of a mountain...On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

  • Wow, a twofer

    Our resident trolls must have been up playing World of Warcraft together again.  So romantical.

    Andrew, given that there is now irrefutable evidence, what does this mean?  Is there a course of action, or is this just another 'document the decline' episode?

    Also, are the Chinese the undisputed kings of environmental annihilation, or do other nations support such a wide net of destructive practices?
    On Satellite images reveal scale of destruction posted 2 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Baffling

    The only thing parents should be feeding their newborns is breast milk.  Period, end of story.  There are rare instances where this is not an option, but there is a severe lack of information about the value of proper infant nutrition.  What pisses me off most is that the most obvious, natural and beneficial choice has been turned into a fringe issue.  Parents - vegan or otherwise - should default to breastfeeding as a matter of cultural conditioning.  Thanks to agribusiness, that is no longer true.

    As a side note, having been a vegan and having known many vegans, there is a stupendous lack of nutrition knowledge amongst the community.  What could be the foundation for an excellent lifelong diet has been turned into horrid 'lifestyle' with idealism and fanaticism serving as the core principles.  There are certainly many well-read vegans who enjoy superb health, but in my experience this is not the norm.On Educate yourself before going vegan posted 2 years, 6 months ago 39 Responses

  • Permit? What permit?

    Who would give one of these permits?  If the dumping occurs in international waters there's very little anyone can do to prevent it - at least from a legal angle.  The high seas are not regulated like city municipalities...

    Of course, this is in large part why our oceans are - to put it indelicately - fucked.  They're the planet's dumping grounds, there to be exploited without restraint.  The worthless, unenforced pieces of paper international treaties are written upon have been of little help.

    As someone here recently suggested, the only solution would be to sink the exploiters.  The dumpers, trawlers, tankers, finners, purse-seine death traps and whalers, all taking the long journey to the ravaged seabeds they helped shape.  

    Can you feel the rage? On Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good posted 2 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • "Fundamental Transformation"

    I have a question for the Big Brains here - has any society in history ever undergone a fundamental transformation willingly?  We talk a lot of how people need to change their attitudes and general outlook on the world, but it seems to me that every civilization since the beginning has stared Disaster square in the eye and marched forward unflinching.  What makes us even remotely optimistic that at this point in time things are different?  I mean, look at the damned CFL debate a few days ago - we're such resolute, rugged individuals that we can't get effing lightbulbs changed in our houses.  And yet the conversation inexorably lurches back to people making some divinely-inspired paradigm shift in their own lives.

    I'm not against talking about it, but do we really think it's going to happen?  Truly honestly?On Technoscientific and ... not posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

  • Re: Warmup Time

    This is an issue with some CFLs and not others.  I've yet to figure out what determines this, though perhaps it's simply the quality of the bulb as canis points out.  I've installed two brands of bulbs in our bathroom and one set takes a few seconds to warm up while the others spring to life immediately.  My household manages not to have a panic attack waiting for the full brightness to take hold, but YMMV.

    As for the other comments, I won't deny that the story could ring true in one household and not another.  I do take issue, however, with broad gender characterizations based on a few anecdotes and some very weak attempts at linking correlation with causation.  I believe it's counterproductive (and occasionally insulting) to create these neat little boxes that reinforce sexist prejudices.  Especially to generate FUD around what should be a straightforward course of action.  Perhaps the author will next inform us of how low-VOC paints don't supply the necessary range of hues for discerning gay couples because he talked to a few of them about it.On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

  • So true...

    I also hear that women enjoy gossiping and baking pies more than men.  And hate math.

    Seriously, what the hell?  Unless you're putting bare bulbs all over your house I defy you to tell the difference.  We've replaced all of our incandescents and cannot tell the difference, as the light is being filtered through frosted enclosures, lamp shades or are indirect.

    As for the other article assertions, maybe CFLs sell more slowly in grocery stores because people buy 1 or 2 replacement bulbs there, but at Home Depot go on a swap out spree because they're actually cheap there.  And old-style CFLs did suck; I doubt it's just women who became gun shy after dealing with them.

    As for JMG, I think you can have any light you damn well please next to you in bed.  Having strong preferences about a light two feet from your head makes a hell of a lot more sense than freaking out because your bathroom is lit in some new, subtle way.On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

  • Damn

    Thanks for depressing the hell out of me, Ken.

    I agree that most environmentalists (self proclaimed or otherwise) do not believe that action is truly necessary in ten years.  Any action at all, let alone massive, desperate action.  It's human nature that got us into this, and human nature will bring us right up to the brink and over.

    Most days I can ignore the pronounced lack of interest in the topic even by the supposed guardians, but today isn't one of those days.  Amen, VTpowderhound.On It's time to accept dire climate realities posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • Funny

    I'm going to the permit office tomorrow to see if I can get my radiant floor design approved.  This is on a 72-year-old house.  The secret is: you can remove your ceilings, they're not structural members of the house.  It's messy and ugly, but in the end you'll have more efficient, more comfortable heat.  I hope.

    As for insulation, windows and doors are a no brainer.  Also consider slow rise foam for your exterior walls - imagine having R-30 walls.  That's a lot of heat (or cool air) saved.On Umbra on home heating posted 2 years, 7 months ago 14 Responses

  • Moderation?

    Seriously, can you moderate your comments slightly, jabailo?  I personally don't care about your crypto-malthusian tourette syndrome posts, but now you're just showing an absurd level of insensitivity.  People live and die on the continued health of the oceans, and the dramatic destruction of ocean habitat is undisputed.  If you can't develop your sense of etiquette, try and focus on common decency.  Mocking the despair of millions as our oceans die is beyond the pale.On Multimedia series honored in 'explanatory reporting' category posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

  • Seanos - Cost

    We (as Americans) have dumped nearly half a trillion dollars into the sands of Iraq.  Exactly how much would that have bought us in terms of energy security and sustainability?  When we want something badly enough we find ways to pay for it.  Whining about how expensive and hard it is to take care of a pressing issue seems to come up only when we're not truly committed to taking care of the problem.

    As for what Gar is saying, we're not dealing with a blank slate here.  We have hundreds billions of dollars flowing through our economy that could be moved from destructive practices to sustainable ones.  Reducing waste and inefficiencies, rerouting massive subsidies into research and development, doing a little work for ourselves... these are all 'free' solutions that will take us a long way towards our goal.  It's not about injecting liquified CO2 or putting mylar reflectors into space, it's about acting like what we do has consequences.

    Guess I'm saying, life is hard.  Climate change won't go away on its own, and you gasp might have to do something about it yourself.  No one's going to go bankrupt because they're hanging clothes out to dry or riding a bike to work.  Get used to it; suck it up and take your medicine.On A reintroduction posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

  • Amen

    Jabailo, sometimes I wonder if you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.  Some of your posts make so much sense and others (especially around AGW) you simply revert to an incoherent stew of barely warmed over debunked arguments.  Forgive the backhanded compliment, but it had to be said.

    As for your humorous post, I agree.  Every time I read about an entity like Texas or PG&E doing something right, I think of Lil' Lisa's Slurry.  Even when they want to do good I can't help but think they'll do it all wrong.On Act nowor forever hold your pleas posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

  • I'm with Pandu

    We've done cloth for two children, three years running.  It's a complete non-issue for us and takes no more time to deal with than disposable.  And, as Pandu says, if you have a good detergent and competent washer, one cycle is enough.

    If you have children in diapers this is a HUGE way to reduce your impact.  The arguments are multitude.On Dare this mom to change her life posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

  • Since you asked...

    I hate to say it because you've probably thought it a dozen times yourself, but the reason you find living without a car so difficult is because you live in a pedestrian-hostile city.  The suburbs were created for cars, not humans, and your soft fleshy bodies are not well adapted to the rigors of the road.  So maybe a great challenge would be to figure out how to leave the suburb you live in and move to a walkable city?

    Not going to happen, is it?

    Probably for the same reason I still work 15 miles from home in the suburbs when I'm right by a commuter rail line going downtown.  Economics suck, especially in one income families.

    Perhaps a more appropriate challenge worthy of your level of crazy would be to see how much of your own food you could grow.  My guess is that you have an absurdly large lot covered in hydroponic turf, so not only would you be saving money (in the long run), but you would also be sequestering carbon by growing plants that actually have a root structure.  It would also give you and the girls something constructive to do on those long, hot summer days.  It certainly beats you wandering the shimmering asphalt with two small children.

    So that's my vote.  And my vote counts, as I have two girls of almost identical age (the youngest named Penelope!) who stay at home with their mom during the day.  We're struggling with the same issues, but in a significantly better environment.On Dare this mom to change her life posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

  • Thanks

    That was really perfect for my frame of mind this evening.  Thanks, bioD.On Americans spend 95 percent of their lives indoors posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

  • Re: Amsterdam

    DR, it does help that Amsterdam is as flat as a runway model - I remember seeing the city's bikers and getting a good chuckle thinking of them puffing up a SF (or Duluth, MN) hill in so casual a fashion.  After chuckling I began to whoop hysterically then got really paranoid, but the thought still counts.

    But seriously, terrain and environment means a lot.  When I was a bike commuter here in Minneapolis my rides would range from a delightful hour of fresh air to hellish treks across a hostile tundra.  The former required nothing special, but I sure loved my 'special gear' in the latter cases.

    After all, we can't all live in Amsterdam.  Or Cal-ee-forn-ee-ah.On Bike commuting fashion tips posted 2 years, 8 months ago 52 Responses

  • Coalition of the Willing

    Hey, wasn't the Czech Republic part of the coalition of the willing?  They're really batting 1000 on what disastrous Bush policies they're willing to support.  Come to think of it, same thing goes for Australia and its PM.  I'm beginning to see a trend here...On Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

  • Loving this

    I've been looking forward to this for some time. The liveblogging is great for me, as I cannot watch streaming video from work.  Thanks David!On Livebloggin'! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses

  • Residential?

    I remember sunflower saying that geothermal on a residential scale was sort of pointless - seeing as I'm moving to a new home shortly (and am, of course, thinking of a dozen ways to improve efficiency), why was that again?  I understand it's crazy expensive, but is that all?On Bush to cut funding for geothermal posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

  • I hate to do this

    But for some reason I can't help but reply to jabailo.  I know, I know, you feed the troll he keeps coming back for food.  Maybe it's because I'm bored.

    jabailo: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189

    Feel free to search the guide before your next questions.

    You're welcome.On 'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider posted 2 years, 9 months ago 19 Responses

  • Not to drag this out...

    Mihan,

    Never said that you said that they said that small things are unimportant.  But your last sentence seems unambiguous:

    Why worry what kind of detergent you use when 8 tons of carbon (in the form of two cars) is sitting in your driveway?

    We're very precisely talking about average people who want to change their day to day behavior.  People who do want to worry about the small stuff, and in many cases those people worry about the big stuff, too.  But if you're going to buy soap anyway, do you buy phosphate free?  If you're going to eat anyway, do you buy organic?  If you're going to drive anyway, do you drive a more fuel efficient car?  If you're going to change your lightbulb anyway, do you buy a CF?  This is the point I'm addressing, not a theoretical quandary that pits a kitchen appliance against an energy efficient home.

    As for prioritizing - which I believe is sort of the point you're making - well, clearly you should weigh your choices.  Iguana or child, yes?  Life has all sorts of either/or decisions, but it rarely keeps us from buying a different detergent whilst saving for a fuel-efficient car.On Salon dishes out Grist-like advice posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

  • Mihan

    I see that argument over and over (and over and over) in environmental circles, and it's simply bad logic - a false dichotomy.  Life is not full of either/or choices, and framing your impact in the terms you give above simply generates a defeatist attitude.  Indeed, why should you worry about local water quality when you have two cars in the driveway.  Why worry about those two cars when your house and job site create even more carbon and have even more of a footprint?.  Hell, why worry about that when just being an American means you consume more than five times that of the average world citizen?!  Wait, being a human (as opposed to a lemur, I suppose) means you are inherently destructive to the natural world, forget being an American, being a person is crime enough.  What to do!?

    There's an amusing argument used against animal rights philosophers that goes something like this: "There's a human baby and an iguana in a burning building.  Which do you rescue."  A devious trap, designed to show what a lout you are for caring about iguanas - after all, if you care so much about reptiles, how can you really care about humans?

    Which do you choose, then, when considering the impact of your actions on the environment?  Do you choose to drive to work, or pollute the waters?  Fund pesticide use or deforest Canada?  Do you pick The Most Important Issue out there and care about that, to the detriment of all others?  Or do you give a damned about ALL of your actions, big and small, because as Americans we have the time and money to actually care?

    We tend to frame this argument as some great debate, but what it comes down do is that what we do matters.  This applies not only to our impacts on the natural world, but also on how we treat one another from day to day.  Pretending otherwise makes us poor citizens, and we all suffer for it.On Salon dishes out Grist-like advice posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

  • A bit puzzling

    I see several types of response to this question, and they're almost invariably either overwrought nonsense or some sort of weird laisseze faire capitalism.  Just browsing the letters to the article in Salon I am informed that nothing we do matters, 'green' alternatives don't work, or that we're missing the point and we need to reduce population growth to address the issue (?!).  Umbra was just as confusing, saying not to sweat the small stuff and think bigger, then goes on to describe a dozen small things to do instead.

    I think that this is such an issue for Americans because we believe that a.) we can buy ourselves out of any problem and b.) with enough research we will find that perfect consumer item with which we will problem solve.  So everyone twists themselves into knots trying to figure out what's the best-most-awesome-to-the-max solution, creating a religion of perfection in the process.  Or they backlash against this way of thinking, giving in to despair and act like children in a tantrum.

    As for detergent, it matters if you care about water quality.  100 million households make a tremendous difference on our lakes and rivers when they choose lower-impact products.  It's the same difference that carpooling makes, or replacing an incandescent with CF, or buying in bulk: a tiny, infinitesimal impact made huge through sheer numbers.

    Any impact amplified through a billion people (or six, for that matter) is staggering.  Please, do sweat the small stuff.On Salon dishes out Grist-like advice posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

  • Good to see...

    that someone else obsesses over this band like I do.  And with the evangelical power of the internets the Cult shall rule the world.On More Cloud Cult obsession posted 2 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

  • Cloud Cult rules

    The only problem I have with Minowa's music is his use of sound clips from when his son was alive.  I find those little bits child voice agonizing, far more than I would have thought possible.  Other than that, one of my favorite bands of the last two years.On Their new album rocks posted 2 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

  • Weird

    It's a new phenomenon, so maybe it'll be short lived, but it's fascinating to see the extreme hostility to carbon markets.  Even Bart, normally thoughtful, goes straight to knee-jerk mode on an issue he claims to have no strong opinion about (hint, Bart: Adam does not make that criticism of 'anyone who criticizes [carbon markets]'.  He's specifically addressing a single author, Gar Lipow).

    I thought Adam's blogpost was well thought out and respectful for the most part, and enjoy seeing point by point rebuttals in any argument.  Have fun, looking forward to the usual flameworks.On They're not a silver bullet, but they generally work posted 2 years, 10 months ago 35 Responses

  • Hrm...

    I like the 'get real' sentiment of the article, but have a problem with both of the enviro points.  Sustainable living isn't an either/or proposition, and making perfect the enemy of the good certainly takes us down that road.  How about changing your lifestyle AND giving charitably?  How about getting a Prius (or riding a bike, or taking mass transit) AND buying a Terrapass?  How about getting off your high horse, setting aside the fatalism, and deciding that the first step on the journey is the most important?

    I had similar experiences when I became a vegetarian in college.  Most of my peers thought I was flaking out, the few vegetarians I knew thought I was a dilettante, and the vegans met me with outright scorn that I would still debase myself with DAIRY PRODUCTS!?  It's never good enough for some - maybe most? - people.  I've learned that the best option is to get your priorities straight and do what you think is best.  The approval of others is too fickle and too subjective to rate as a priority.On Your lifestyle won't save the world posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

  • Curious

    David,

    So what would make humanity deserving of harsh treatment by the forces of the universe?  I'm not saying that we are (not believing in such), but it seems that at some point there must be balance.On Things will fall apart posted 2 years, 10 months ago 18 Responses

  • Um

    Jabailo?  A quick Google search reveals that the Journal of Climate is a peer-reviewed journal.  Which means that the article was, in all likelihood, peer reviewed.On Melting of Larsen B ice shelf connected to climate change posted 3 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

  • Early Warming

    Hey Jack,

    Try Googling 'early century global warming'; you'll find a lot of information that will help you out.  Just to get you started, here's what appears to be an explanation from NOAA: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html

    Wow, that's a fun read.

    I think it's great that you're looking into alternate explanations of climate change, but keep in mind that for every 'rogue scientist' that's right (with the establishment being totally wrong), there are a thousand more who are simply idiots.  The scientific method is a fine way to root out the cranks, and in the case of global warming the evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of anthropogenic causes.  This is NOT to say that only humans can influence the global climate, but rather all indications of our current situation point that way.

    If you read back a bit, there were similar debates over the toxicity of DDT, the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, heavy metal poisoning and on and on and on.  Environmentalists get pretty tired of hearing the same crappy arguments trotted out every time an industry feels threatened, which is probably why you're seeing such hostility.  Simply put, if you're not a troll, your behavior is trollish.  Don't take it hard, just do the research and take the long view.On Here's how posted 3 years, 1 month ago 28 Responses

  • x100

    Agreed, sunflower.  My very first thought was, "Nice, but we need something closer to a trillion dollars to get started."  The latest warning from Lovelock and now the data coming from the UK over the isles' warming rate has got me thinking that our efforts should look like that of WWII.  From victory gardens (take that, JDS!) to public and private works turned to creating a carbon neutral society, this should be a whole-nation endeavor.  Take the money we piss down the hole in Iraq and pump hundreds of billions into modernizing developing nations, allowing them to leapfrog past fossil fuels straight into renewables.  Educate, educate, educate.

    Then again, we could just keep doing things the way we are.  I don't think we're the same kind of people who won the second world war.On Worth about $20 million per word posted 3 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Great story

    Is it bad that I was salivating through most of the story?  I've had a true masa tortilla once; I agree that it is one of the finest foods we monkeys have concoted.

    Also, I think you should include a relevant recipe to your VR articles.  All this talk of fresh tortillas makes me want to go out and make some.On How Mexico's iconic flatbread went industrial and lost its flavor posted 3 years, 2 months ago 13 Responses

  • False choice

    BioD -
    If dousing tigers in kerosene and burning them alive for entertainment were the only think that would save the species I'd be all for that too.  But that's not really the point.  What JDS is suggesting is an evolution in how we think about certain animals.  This is not too much to ask for - if you were to open "BioD's Grande Olde Golden Retriever Shoot And Burlesque House" people would be freaking out, and not because of the bare legs.  People (and by people I mean us Westerners) have evolved their thinking about dogs.  Why not tigers and lemurs?On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

  • Animals as Humans

    I see the anthropomorphizing of animals popping up a lot, which is odd considering the venue.

    Animals are not people.  They may have human-like behaviors, but they are in no way human, nor do they emulate human thought patterns.  A moose that kills a tourist isn't being 'mean' or lacking social niceties.  It's responding to a perceived threat, driven by instinct.  This is in no way analogous to a used car salesman shooting a sheep doing its sheep business.  It's probably closer to a human mother stomping the shit out of a rattlesnake who was innocently cruising around a corner past her fawns (chicks?  larvae?  (I kid, I kid)).

    Ultimately you cannot decide an animal deserves to be killed by human justice standards.  An animal a mile away that might kill you (if you were closer) because it's hungry is no more deserving of death than a cow deserves to die because it eats grass.  Unlike humans, it cannot choose a course of action based on some subjective moral continuum.  This makes all animals utterly blameless for their own behavior.  They are fundamentally amoral, existing outside of our notions of morality.  This may not seem 'fair', but again, the notion of 'fair' is a human one.  The 'tiger started it' because he has big teeth is not an argument.

    If it helps grasp the concept, let's consider animals mentally retarded humans for the sake of argument.  The picture changes quite a bit, doesn't it?On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

  • Depressing

    The WaPo article was much better and far, far more depressing.

    Are there actual action items for prophecies like this?  Or is the prescribed set of action to remained numb and stupified by the enormity of the problem, waiting for the stuff to hit the whirling bladed thing?On An interview posted 3 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

  • Techmology

    What's it all about?

    Technology is the solution trotted out by apologists for anything and everything that requires more than a moment's thought.  Peak oil?  Technology will solve it.  Vanishing fresh water?  Technology.  Massive loss of topsoil?  Technology.  It's a religous mantra repeated over an over until it becomes a talisman against bad thoughts and those awful negative environmentalists.

    I understand that people need something to cling to, but technology isn't magic.  It requires time, money and allocation of resources (also known as 'brains') to come into being.  (Many of our finest technologies, such as plastics or Post-it notes, were refined over decades or complete accidents)  Currently, technology is funded through one of two mechanisms: government and market.  And since there aren't many market pressures to enhance human adaptation to a wide range of climate changes, government has to pick up the slack.  Which is exactly what it isn't doing.

    So maybe right after you 'what are we adapting to', you can ask - then who's going to foot the bill?  I'm sure once the more severe effects of climate change take hold people will be tripping over themselves to invent their way out of the problem, but by then it will be too late to prevent the carnage.

    * Oh, and I'd also note that global warming apologists are probably being disingenuous with an answer like that, assuming they're not flat out idiots.  Solving a problem by saying some stranger or group of strangers will solve it for you through currently unknown mechanisms is hardly a response worth listening to.On Can we stabilize atmospheric CO2 at safe levels? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Where'd you get it?

    BioD - I've read your earlier post, but haven't seen any reference to where you got the kit originally.  I'm very curious now...On A home-built electric bike is working like a champ posted 3 years, 2 months ago 35 Responses

  • ALF vs EF

    Biodiversivist - don't radical environmental groups like Earth First! cause similar problems?  I understand that they make us uncomfortable - what with all of the yelling and sign holding - but I've always had a great deal of respect for radical organizations that help drive issues into the public eye.  

    I would say the same remains true of groups like PETA; while PETA is certainly tone deaf and clumsy at times, they're often the only ones that seem to care about a particular animal welfare issue.  It's not like there's a mainstream animal rights movement they're stealing the thunder from - they're all we've got in many cases.

    At any rate, I understand why radical groups aren't welcome under the umbrella, but maybe these groups wouldn't have to exist if the more mainstream environmental movement did their jobs for them.On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • Hooray for discourse

    As to the factory vs. other topic, I think we're finally in alignment.  My family buys all of its poultry from a farm south of the cities that raises thousands of birds a year.  I've been to the farm and have personally gone through the barns and processing facilities (as a fun farm visit, not as some freakish obsession) and was very impressed.  While they deal with relatively large numbers, the birds are not maimed, are on vegetarian feed (mostly corn from the field outside) and are unmedicated with the exception of vaccines.  Older birds have access to the out of doors, and the laying hens have full reign over the entire yard.  With the exception of heat (it gets very hot here) die-offs are very rare.

    Is this a factory farm?  Not in my mind.  But a few miles away, there is one.  And it's a world of a difference.  It's noisy, the smell is astonishing and the birds simply look like crap (even if you ignore their mutilated heads).  There are at least 10x the number of birds crammed in a similar space.  It's depressing.

    The two farms offer a complete contrast not only in how the animals are treated, but in environmental impact.  The former uses the chicken manure (composted) to feed the corn field.  The corn is harvested and fed to the chickens.  There are still huge fuel inputs, but the farm's footprint is relatively small.  The factory farm's waste goes... somewhere.  I would gather from the stench that a good deal of it leaches into the soil, but the rest is simply considered waste.

    I don't believe you have to be a vegetarian to care about animal rights (though it certainly helps) but I do believe that you can respect life even while you act your part as a predator.  And while having that respect and acting on it is a worthy goal unto itself, I also think that this respect results in benefits to the environment.

    (I think we've gone afield from the original post, but wanted to follow this one to its end)On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • No disagreement necessary

    dwm376s,

    Like you, I come from a rural environment (small down Wisconsin).  My hometown was primarily agricultural, and I spent my summers in high school working on friends' family farms.  I DO believe that most family owned farms do value the animals on which they rely, because I've seen it first hand.  Every life and death mattered.  This is a sidestep, however, from the issue of factory farming - perhaps we have a difference in definition.  

    From my perspective, a factory farm is a CAFO, or a warehouse with battery-raised debeaked chickens, or any other similar environment that puts large quantities of animals in compressed, inhumane and unhealthy surroundings.  I've been in these environments, too, and every life and death did not matter, not by a long shot.  In poultry sheds it's a fulltime job finding and removing dead birds - these birds do not die from having too much fun or from predation.  They die because stress kills them.

    If industrial 'farming' as described above is your idea of a humane environment where the animals are okay, then I must agree - we have no agreement between us.

    Otherwise, I don't think this conversation is about asking anyone who drives a car or likes to hunt to renounce their title as environmentalist.  I think it's to foster a conversation about how bettering the lives of animals that rely upon us goes hand-in-hand with an overarching ethic of bettering the environment upon which we rely.  No need to jump ship quite yet, eh?On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • Animal rights do matter

    I think that Jason had stated that the connection is not immediate to most people, but that as we evolve our understanding of other life we inevitably come to the conclusion that we have far more in common than differences.  The connection is, put simply, that life - like 'the environment' - has an intrinsic value.  When we attempt to boil down our support of the environment as a sound economic move or survival strategy, we lose the range of nuance necessary to protect relatively useless things like ANWR.  In the same vein, by viewing other animals strictly within a utilitarian context, we open the door to allow efficiency and cruelty to go hand in hand.

    dwm376s, perhaps your experience is that animal rights activists are only concerned with obviously shocking examples of brutality, but there are many who speak out every day about the incredible suffering imposed upon billions of domestic animals in perfectly mundane conditions.  Maybe animal rights do not concern you because it's a handful of battered seals to you; if that's the case, do a bit of research into factory farming.  You'll discover a world of suffering and misery that you couldn't possibly hope to comprehend, yet is utterly commonplace.  No sensationalism is needed to perceive the hopeless plight of these animals.On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

  • Renewable Nuclear

    Can someone explain to me how nuclear energy is renewable?  I keep seeing this made as a point in favor of nukes, but isn't uranium sort of non-renewable?  Or is more being made some place?  It seems to me either I'm very ill informed or the word 'renewable' doesn't have a well defined public meaning.On Lots of words, little meaning posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Victory Gardens

    My inclusion of the link wasn't to say that we need a return to war rationing or any such thing - it was to prove a point about the numbers.  Making a dent in our food supply is not only possible on city lots, it's been proven. If this were pie-in-the-sky dreaming about people developing these new things called 'gardens' and growing 'food' in them, but no one had ever done it on a large scale, I would imagine there would be room for skepticism.  But it's been done, and it worked.

    I totally agree that a more thoughtful approach to greening cities is another way to go, for all of the reasons ffletcher pointed out and more.  This is a problem can be solved at many different points, instead of slamming down a comprehensive single solution at a federal, state or municipal level.  By all means, get the USDA involved, add urban farming to the state educational curricula, get cities to engage in sustainability projects, but also encourage people to practice on their own lots.

    P.S. If you really want to blow your mind, Google 'humanure' for a look at how cities can go a long way towards sustainability.  And it's already being done.On The best ways to "fix" agriculture posted 3 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

  • Subsidies?

    We don't need no stinking subsidies.  American and British civilians proved the effectiveness of urban farming decades ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden.  

    I'm talking about education and logistical support to allow people to become more self sufficient while helping their country.  Maybe that's a pipe dream, but if I'm hallucinating to think that one 'fix' to agriculture is to ask people to take responsibility for the situation... pass the pipe.On The best ways to "fix" agriculture posted 3 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

  • Urban Farming, Indeed

    ffletcher took the text right out of my keyboard.  I see a recurring conflict in Gristmill between 'agriculture as an ideal' and 'agriculture as an economic asset', and I think the this problem emerges from people's inability to connect the land with the food they put into their mouths.  There's this ridiculous concept of city-here vs. farm-there, ignoring the fact that the 'farm' is everywhere you can find dirt.

    Obviously there simply aren't enough photons hitting the typical urban landscape to sustain its population 100%, but even a 20 or 30 percent decrease in food inputs to a city would make a huge impact on the surrounding environment.  This reduces production pressures on 'real' farms and allows natural landscapes to remain natural.

    In addition, urban farming changes our relationship to the land.  The earth beneath our feet isn't just an alternation between lawn or asphalt - it's potential.  The potential for life and our ability to cultivate it.On The best ways to "fix" agriculture posted 3 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

  • JDS

    Man, winning friends and influencing people.  You first imply that Tom doesn't couldn't muster the courage to be a dirty, dirty farmer like some common Mexican, then you imply that societies should value "higher-valued goods and services" more than a sustainable and healthy food supply.

    Slam. Dunk.On 'Free' trade plus nativism equals bad food policy on both sides of the Rio Grande. posted 3 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

  • Posh Chef

    So, how did you respond to your loyal chef?  I'm assuming you didn't just roll over.On Big buyers make organic farmers feel smaller than ever posted 3 years, 3 months ago 25 Responses

  • Yeah, what he said

    choffman just said what I was going to say, so I'll just chime in with my agreement: we don't trust them.  Too often companies, governments and politicians make grand statements about what they're about to do for the environment and never follow through.  Any idiot can see how advantageous that is; all you have to do is get a lot of free press when you make your statement, then do nothing.  People will remember the free press, but they're usually not going to do the necessary research to find out if you followed through.

    Perhaps the American public doesn't keep track of this stuff, but enviros have been for decades.  It's pretty clear that for every time a company (or any public entity) does what it says it's going to do for the environment, ten more don't.  MAYBE Walmart is sincere, but until real, tangible results are created, we're going to continue to be skeptical.

    There are, of course, a whole slew of sustainability issues around corporations like Walmart, but my first reaction when I read such things is, "Don't get played for a chump."On Why won't America's environmentalists accept positive developments? posted 3 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses

  • JDS

    I'm afraid that any sort of response would dignify what appears to be flippant and arrogant trolling, but I'll add a few things to what atreyger has said.  Hell, I'll restrict it to what global warming would do to plants.  If you want more, I can tell you all about what would happen to human and animal populations.  Then I can tell you about rising sea levels and the impacts of decreased salinity on phytoplankton blooms.  Then warming waters on coral.  Then the acidification of the oceans because of increased atmospheric CO2.

    Or, you know, you could just read Grist or Google global warming and find out a thousand negative impacts of rapid global climate change, all of which are dismissed or ignored by James Robbins.  There's not exactly a lack of evidence or research.

    Global warming indicates an increase in the average temperature of the planet; this increase will be made manifest in regional and local climates unevenly.  Some areas will swamp with water, others will endure long droughts.  The global climate system is not some homogenous I/O equation - any dramatic disruption to its patterns will result in very different behaviors across the planet.  This means more natural disasters and stronger weather related events - not something to laugh at.  Ask anyone who has had to endure a drought, flooding, a tornado or hurricane.  These events kill thousands and devastate whole economies.

    As the northern reaches warm, insect and disease populations will migrate.  Forests have always waxed and waned due to various events (notably the ice ages), but they need centuries to do so.  If global warming is half as bad as it's looking to be, whole forests will be consumed by exotic insect and disease populations they have no defenses against.  Plants only move through propogation, and without time, they simply die.

    Rainforests will not increase, because rainforests are vast and delicate ecosystems that have developed in specific regions over millenia.  Even assuming humans leave large tracts of land completely untouched (ha!), it would take an incredible degree of luck and time for anything that looks like a rainforest to emerge.  Indeed, if the weather continues to change at its current pace, your average temperate forest will have a tough time emerging.  

    I'll say it again, in plain words: plants do not like rapidly changing weather.  

    If a north becomes 'comfortably habitable' for people, what then of the south?  What will happen to plant ecosystems exposed to longer summers, shorter winters, greater heat, more frequent droughts?  The answer has been repeated throughout human history: deserts.

    "Hyper-adapted" species have always borne the brunt of large scale disasters, and in that Mr. Robbins is correct.  However, chalking up the loss of thousands of species to being evolutionary dead ends misses the point: most threatened species are simply well adapted.  I'll ignore the pathological lack of imagination, curiosity or empathy Robbins has for all non-human life in favor of pointing out that the pointless loss of these species is our fault.  It's akin to dumping a few barrels of bleach into a lake, then laughing at the deaths of everything in it because they were "hyper-adapted" to living in water.

    Is the this the paradise that Mr. Robbins foresees - a fleeing of equatorial lands, abadoning ancestral legacies so we can overrun the north like a plague?  And the upside is that there will be a real estate boom in Canada?  What a jackass.On Global warming is great! posted 3 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • I'll be damned.

    Huh.  So my idea wasn't so far fetched after all.  Do you have a good link for information about this Sweden thing?On Malcolm Gladwell on geothermal home heating posted 3 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • CO2 + H20 = H2CO3 (Carbonic Acid)

    And there are already reports of the acidification of the oceans due to increased atmospheric levels of CO2.  Perhaps liquid CO2 at depth would simply stratify and not dissolve into the surrounding water, but I'm not sure I would be willing to bet all of the oceans of the planet on that.

    Also, aren't there ecosystems even at the depths being spoken of?  I've watched all of the BBC's Deep Blue episodes (so I'm an expert), and there sure seeemed like a lot of things going on, even at incredible depths.On Limitless sequestration? posted 3 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

  • Definitely not for everyone

    I did a lot of research on this technology here in St. Paul, MN, even to the point where I was having a weeks-long conversation with a geothermal installer in the area.  The primary issue we had with this solution (and it's mentioned in the post) is that that people without a very large yard have to drill down to install the system.  For my old, 2,000 sq. ft house this meant drilling five holes a couple hundred feet into the ground; each hole would start at $2,000, and increase in price if they ran into obstacles like solid rock.  In other words, a $20k system could inflate to 30 or 40k very easily, dwarfing any economic benefit of reduced energy costs.

    A secondary issue related to the first is that installers are loath to work on city lots, as there are the usual labrynthine obstacles any well-developed bureaucracy will put in place.  It's simply a pain in the ass to secure permits, find a driller willing to work in the city, and risk their equipment on a tiny lot with the potential of layers of solid rock beneath their feet.  It's a LOT easier to just go out to a suburban lot, bulldoze the half acre needed to lay lines, and be done with it.

    After learning all of the down sides, we ended up bailing out of the conversation.  I was pretty irritated, because it felt unfair; here we were in our old, restored house, trying to reduce our bills and carbon impact, and the best technology for the job is being used on McMansions in suburbia.  That such a phenomenal solution be only an option for rich people with giant lots or big box retail outlets (both of whom don't really need the break on the utility bills) really grates on my nerves.

    I've thought about other potential solutions for urban lots, including combining multiple city lots as a single heat sink, but in reality geothermal seems destined to live on the outskirts of the places where it really would make a difference.On Malcolm Gladwell on geothermal home heating posted 3 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • Fair Use

    Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    Other sites, such as CommonDreams.org, republish copywrite-protected articles in their entirety every day.  The issue is full of murky gray, but read the wiki; it's not exactly fun reading, but illustrates the many angles fair use cases must be looked at from.

    For myself, I'd say this: if Gristmill wants to republish a single article, that's fine.  If they do it consistently, there's a good chance that an organization like Greenwire can claim damages, and that would be a bit unethical considering they lie in the same readership space as one another.  Finally, if Greenwire asks the content be removed Grist should do so.On Congress and global warming posted 3 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

  • Coming from the land of the unwashed...

    That's a lovely image of a world that does not exist in typical dense urban environments.  As someone who's lived in integrated neighborhoods for the last thirty years, there's plenty of racism, anger and self-imposed segregation in an urban landscape.  The notion of a bunch of people living in harmony due to proximity is science fiction, at least everywhere I've lived.  Unless the blog is talking about densely populated neighborhoods full of RICH people, in which case yeah, that sounds right.On Density is political destiny? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Agreed

    Both of your posts make a good point, and I won't contradict them.  However, I think that the US's impact on the global oil market will be sliding into a dimished role in the next few decades.  While there's certainly plenty that can be done here and now, the Canadian oil sands WILL be mined and the region WILL be devastated by their processing.  I do not see a way around it.  The world wants what we have right now, and - short of an act of some diety - they're going to get it.On Driving less is great, but producing more oil is a less-desirable reaction posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Also

    You can just ignore my previous question.  I actually followed the link you put out there and found a wealth of information.  It's pretty bad that my first assumption about a viral campaign is that they are shallow and useless.

    Carry on.On Plug-in hybrids go viral posted 3 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

  • Plug-in hybrids

    Hey Adam - is there a good place to get more information about plug-in hybrids?  On the face of it this seems like a good idea, but it also seems like using one would simply displace where the dead dinosaurs are burned.  

    More info from a reliable source would be handy.On Plug-in hybrids go viral posted 3 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses