Comments da silva has made

Isn't this exactly what Gore's doing?

So: simplify explanations, focus on solutions, speak in terms of values, claim the future. All the usual stuff.

At this point it seems to me that good framing ideas on global warming abound. Now the question is: Why is nobody using them?

Seems like Gore's tact to me, albeit with the obligatory 'over-representation of factual presentations about the dangers etc, etc, up front. No?On Framing climate change posted 3 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Adapt and Change

Regarding #3. It's not really an either/or, is it? Given that we are already committed to a certain level of warming and thus instability, it seems we'll have no choice but to do both -- adapt, like it or not, but also curtail emissions with a vengeance, lest we send civilization tumbling over some unseen edge (those tipping points).

At the same time, your argument that adaptation will be a moving target is an important one, as the climate would not be likely to stabilize in any reasonable (human) time scale. Which begs the question: Adapt to what exactly?

The trick is to devise some carefully planned retreat from the status quo even as we struggle to "adapt" -- again, we'll have to adapt, like it or not.

But how do we allocate our resources in a way that makes sense given what we're up against? How do we curb emissions sharply enough? Nuclear energy is often pointed to as the answer, and it does seem to me like we may have to bite that bullet, at least until we can ramp up other alternatives sufficiently. The big thing now is to overcome inertia and the resistance to doing anything.On No. posted 3 years, 6 months ago 33 Responses

well, why didn't he just say so?

Nope, not determined to misinterpret. It simply wasn't clear -- not even in context. But thanks for explaining. So, all he really meant to say was: If folks aren't convinced of the danger, then you have to hit them with the facts and convince them first, before you can talk about solutions.

Right? So, why'd he have to gussy it up with "over-represent" this and "predicate" that? On Pat Michaels slanders Al Gore on Fox's Hannity & Colmes posted 3 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

Oy vey!

I once spent a brief time with a tribe in the Amazon. They had what I initially found to be peculiar sense of humor. e.g., when a thatched roof on one of the huts caught fire, they were all giggling uncontrollably, even as they formed a bucket brigade to put it out. Another time, some of the tribe were fishing in the river when one of them was shocked by an electric eel. He was rendered momentarily incapacitated and floated downriver, helpless. They found that absolutely hilarious. Poor guy nearly drowned they were laughing so hard.

Who was it who said 'Humor is a man in trouble'? Whoever it was, they were absolutely right. But it doesn't tell us why something is funny. I think Dave gets us part way to an answer: laughter's a response to a threat; it's a defense mechanism. It's also, I think, a nervous response to the general absurdity of life. In the final analysis, we're all in trouble.

Finally, as for the Dalai Lama and the Buddhists ... there are only two religions I can think of that have a sense of humor: Judaism and Buddhism. Buddhism is funny because it revels in absurdity. Absurdity is its very essense. A zen koan is basically a very sophisticated, bottomless joke. Judaism is funny for a different reason. The comedy comes in large part from the fact that they're always arguing with God. Here they are the "Chosen People" and where does that get them? In a whole lot of trouble. The joke is that the blessing is a curse. On It's funny 'cause it's true posted 3 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

sense of humor?

If there's one thing environmentalism suffers from it's a glaring lack thereof. C'mon, folks. It's called irony!On It's funny 'cause it's true posted 3 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

Link to the Lawrence Livermore paper

forgot to include the URL.

http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/On Some not-entirely-coherent thoughts on nuclear power. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 34 Responses

laughable?

Your statement that "Plutonium is lethal at a level of one milligram" begs many questions: In what form? Ingested or inhaled? If inhaled, the risk is certainly cancer, no? Or are you suggesting a person would drop dead on the spot? If you're suggesting that, then brother, that's laughable.

Yes, there's a big difference between the natural and the artificial, but that doesn't change the fact that your statement is still dead wrong: Plutonium, as awful as it is, is simply NOT the most toxic substance on the planet.

Undersand, I'm not advocating nukes or downplaying the dangers involved, (and, furthermore, I didn't change the subject). I simply urge you to stick to the facts. Talk about the real dangers of plutonium rather than propagating this ridiculous myth.

Don't believe the 'so-called' encyclopedia entry? Fine, here's another perspective: this one, a paper from the Lawrence Livermore National Labaratory dealing with common misconceptions about health risks and plutonium. But I'm sure you'll dismiss it too as nuclear sophistry.

I tell you what, though, rather than dismiss it, give us some sources to refute it. That would be interesting.On Some not-entirely-coherent thoughts on nuclear power. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 34 Responses

plutonium toxicity

All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like botulism toxin are still more toxic. Botulism toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose in the hundreds of pg per kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.

Orally, plutonium is less toxic than several common substances, including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more toxic than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco and many illegal drugs (some such as LSD and marijuana are negligibly toxic). Considering the pure chemical toxicity it probably ranks with lead and other heavy metals.

That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly.

Jdhlax: Just because Ralph Nader says it's so doesn't make it fact. Given a choice between eating plutonium and hemlock, which would you pick?On An interview with longtime anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott posted 4 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

wrong

Jeff, don't be daft. Africans didn't starve to death because of DDT. We can feed the world -- even an overpopulated one. People starved to death because of corruption, wars, and neglect. On The North knows best? posted 4 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

respect for the mosquito?

David Quammen once wrote an essay in which he struggled to find the good in mosquitoes. His conclusion: The good thing about 'em is that they kept large populations of humans out of the jungles where they bred. In other words, they were the crazy-making, disease-spreading guardians of the wild. It was a clever piece of writing. I imagine he probably wrote it while slathered in DEET in a cloud of mosquitoes somewhere. On The North knows best? posted 4 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

irrational man

All true, Shalini. But, I have to say, it reminds me of Bjorn Lomborg's argument about global warming; namely, that if the world shifted the economic efforts of Kyoto to, say, AIDs, malaria and water treatment, it would exert a much greater net benefit for humanity. Say what you will about Mr. Lomborg, but he's not entirely wrong there. He is, however, ignoring the reality of how things work. That is, we are not so rational. On Deck chairs on the Titanic posted 4 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

silent spring

So, in retrospect, how do we environmentalists judge Rachel Carson's Silent Spring? Did the movement born of her book do humanity a disservice by pushing to ban DDT entirely? It would be nice if the stalwarts in the 'movement' would consider the question and get out in front of the issue publicly. For now, it's left to the revisionists and right-wingers  -- the Crichtons and the Milloys -- to cry foul and point an accusing finger. They're not entirely off-base on this one. I'm glad to see environmentalists adjusting their position, but I find it a little disingenuous of the Greenpeace guy to simply say, "nobody's dogmatic about it." On The North knows best? posted 4 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

groan

The Sierra Club calls the Prius a gold mine, but ignores the fact (or doesn't know?) that Toyota has been selling them at a loss.

It hails the awarding of the Nobel to an environmentalist but ignores her comments upon winning about HIV being a tool of evil scientists to kill blacks.

The Supreme Court allows the administration to leapfrog the appeals court and take its case upstairs, then the justices pick apart the Sierra Club case. And somehow they tout this as a victory.

Now, what's so hard about acknowledging the whole truth of things? Why dumb things down to the point where you're left with half-truths? Yes, the Prius is cool. Yes, Wangaari Matthai has done good work in Kenya. Yes, the Sierra Club's case against Cheney lives on. But c'mon! Hey SC, how about some context. On Top environmental events of 2004 posted 4 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

accurate impression redux

Regarding consensus, this essay from Science concludes that yes, indeed there is one regarding anthropogenic climate change. It's also discussed at Real Climate (great blog, that). The Science piece, which looks at the question by surveying the peer-reviewed journals, ends this way: "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

Pretty deftly put, I'd say. On Politician instructs media on accuracy; timespace implodes on itself posted 4 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

looking out to sea

Thanks for the response, Alan. Valid observations and, yes, the opportunities are there to make things better, e.g. diminish predictable accidents, improve the safety record. On that we agree.

I would note, however, that your subject line is misleading. You say 'alternatives,' but you're still only giving criticisms. Which goes back to my point about we environmentalists being tagged as constant belly-achers. Are we?

And I'm still not sure that the precautionary principle is sound. Wouldn't it paralyze us? I'm all for making improvements as we go, but if we had to prove that we could, for example, conduct shipping without accidents before engaging in shipping, well, there wouldn't be any shipping.

We're an audacious species. We take risks. Sometimes those risks pay off, sometimes they don't. Sometimes -- most often, I'd guess -- the results are paradoxical: things get better and worse at the same time. Isn't that the human condition? Aren't we all in it together? On Our daily oil spills posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

alternative vision?

So, what would shipping look like if you applied the precautionary principle?

You've listed all the ills and evils of shipping. Care to proffer some solutions?

I'm not arguing with your points, but the preachy tone in your wrap-up makes me mindful of the trap we environmentalists so often fall into; i.e., knowing what we're against, but not what we're for.

Of course, it's not smart to go "lacing marine food chains with substances that are known poisons at high concentrations." But for the most part we're talking about accidents, not willful destruction. Or would you argue otherwise? On Our daily oil spills posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

a few things about biodiesel

The real point of diesel is efficiency, which means, all things being equal, you'll go farther on a gallon of gas. From a CO2/global warming perspective, that's an advantage. The downside, (and it's not trivial, as you pointed out), is the particulates and smog-related chemicals that come with burning diesel.

Now, as for running on biodiesel (vegetable oil), a diesel engine with fuel injectors or running in cold climates will require some modifications. You'd need to pre-heat the fuel to thin it out or else use a thinner blend. Biodiesel is actually a better lubricant than petro-diesel, so no, it won't shorten the life of the engine. It will eventually eat away at some fuel hoses, but you can buy hosing that resists this. None of the modifications are extensive.

If you think french fries and donuts stink, then yes, biodiesel stinks.

Biodiesel is nothing new, by the way. Rudolf Diesel used to demonstrate his engine with peanut oil. He imagined farmers growing their own fuel to power agriculture.

Today some towns and cities have started running their garbage trucks and such on biodiesel with good results. Now, if you took a waste product like used fryer grease, which requires special handling and is costly to dispose of, and converted it to usable fuel (strained it), you could conceivably have a nice, closed loop that could be instituted locally. Small-scale stuff, to be sure, but still ... pretty cool. Yes, this system would still result in smog-forming chemicals and some soot, but much less than if you did nothing. And, anyway, there is no totally clean car. Hybrids, as noted elsewhere, get high mileage but don't meet SULEV standards.

As for petro-diesel, you've read that engines are being made cleaner and laws are in the books to reduce emissions (by 95 percent, no less!), but you still don't like it, do you? You've bought the Sierra Club story that diesel is just bad, period. Oh well. That's where their 'pragmatism' gets us. On Diesel posted 4 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses

case against the precautionary principle in 2 word

polio vaccineOn Frankenforest posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

unpalatable ...

(thanks Dave.)

But that's the world we live in, ennit? We're always back to that Tolstoyan question, 'What then must we do?' (Actually, it's from the Bible -- Luke 3;10 for all you thumpers out there). Regarding the Arctic, I'd prefer to see it left untouched, but can't see it happening somehow. With China's burgeoning car culture, man, oil demand's not going away anytime soon. So how do we negotiate it so that, at the very least, the profits go directly to that pie-in-the-sky alternative energy program Friedman was going on about? Would we be selling out? Certainly. But let's at least not sell out cheap. On The people on top of our oil posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

to play devil's advocate

It may be worth noting that there are people (indigenous people, no less) on top of the oil in the Amazon and in the Niger Delta as well. And it's probably safe to say that exploration and extraction is carried out far more recklessly in those places than it is and would be in the Arctic.

One of the best arguments I've heard in favor of drilling in the Arctic, in fact, is precisely that it would be done more responsibly there than it would be in countries like Nigeria and Ecuador, where rules and regulations and the courts are lax and chaotic. To wit: The Niger Delta is a full-on environmental catastrophe. You simply can't compare it to, say, North Slope drilling, which has not been the disaster for caribou herds it was predicted to be.

Now, to argue the other side, the reason I can't take this logic very seriously is simply that there is no commensurate effort at conservation nor investment in alternative energy technologies -- nothing to show that we realize, okay, we need the oil, but we also need to get beyond oil, and quickly. In the real world, we'd just proceed to drain the Arctic oil fields while continuing to ravage the Niger Delta and the Amazon Basin and everywhere else unlucky enough to have crude underfoot. That is, allowing drilling in the Arctic wouldn't take much pressure off oilfields elsewhere. After all, all those new cars in China are going to run on something.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of your nemesis Bjorn Lomborg's intellectual exercise in setting priorities, in that, admirable as it may be, it has very little relation to the real world. An illustration of what I mean: When I was a tike, my mom would tell me I had to finish my dinner because, somewhere in India or China, some poor kid was starving. What I could never figure out was what good it did that kid if I ate my brussel sprouts. Either way, that kid, poor bastard, was still going to starve. On The people on top of our oil posted 4 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

values reconsidered

After reading more about the exit polls, I think it's possible that we're jumping to conclusions about which values exactly people had in mind. The fact is, they couldn't specify in the exit polling. It was a vague question that gave us the vaguest of data. Maybe it's best not to read too much into it. Maybe it's time to pay less attention to polls (and pols, too). On Making environmentalism palatable to social conservatives posted 5 years ago 19 Responses

you hit the nail on the head

Yep, they have taken this 'moral values' thing and run with it, all while intimidating voters at the polls and telling lies about John Kerry's war record, lying to the country about Iraq, presiding over the outrage at Abu Ghraib, cutting veteran's benefits, diverting money from No Child Left Behind, etcetera, etcetera... But then, I can't for the life of me understand why Kerry didn't just come out and call Bush a liar. Why didn't they attack Karl Rove and expose him for the closet Nazi that he is? Why did they take the Swift Boat Veteran's crap on the chin, while letting Bush's disgraceful record stand. Maybe they pulled all their punches because the focus groups and the consultants found it to be too risky. Me, I'd rather go down swinging. On Moral values posted 5 years ago 7 Responses

well then

while we're at it, I think we should all take a moment to heart Yvon Chouinard. What a mensch!

And good job to all you Gristers, by the way. The new site looks really, really good. Keep it up. On I heart Corby Kummer posted 5 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

just to be clear

I agree that a vote for Nader is a waste. As I said, I think his whole run has been a bad joke. This notion of his that there's no difference between parties is bunk. His notion that things will get so bad under Bush that the people will rise up and demand change is likewise bunk.

Now, on to some other points: The fact that Nader gets no support from the groups you mention means only one thing: He can't win and they know it. Nobody backs a loser.

But, again, to be clear, even if Nader could win, I wouldn't vote for him. That is, I don't see that as a 'pure and righteous' vote.

My main point, I guess, is that I'm somehow not as disturbed by the Nader voters as I am with all those people who will vote for Bush despite the fact that it goes against their own best interest.

Lastly, your sex/masturbation comparison/metaphor: Um, even when you have sex with a partner, you often 'make a mess and leave nothing enduring behind.' Unless you call that twinkle in their eye as they clean up, 'enduring.'On Nader haters posted 5 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

the other team

I think there are probably some Republicans (a handful) who look at Grist -- perhaps with a mixture of sympathy and contempt. But I also imagine (hope) they'll vote for the Dems this go-around.

Speaking of Republicans, folks might be interested to read Russell Train's screed in, of all places, the latest Patagonia catalog.

http://www.patagonia.com/enviro/reports/republicans.shtml

Wonder how many Republicans shop Patagonia?

btw, I watched the games in Pacific Standard Time as well. On Paper beating scissors posted 5 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

if you like Corby...

...you'll also heart Michael Pollan. Or am I being presumptuous? On I heart Corby Kummer posted 5 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

make it matter

Given the way that Kerry fumbled the topic when it came up in the second debate, maybe the Dems should be grateful the environment was passed over in round 3. That said, the issue could and should matter much more to voters, and it probably would if it were framed correctly. That we talk about "the environment" as a discrete issue rather than the very bedrock of it all, something fundamental to all life, is part and parcel of the problem. Even environmental groups need to change the way they talk about things like, say, toxins. When we talk about mercury pollution, for example, we're really talking about the food chain. Here's a question for the swing vote who claims not to care about the environment: What does it mean when it's no longer safe for a kid to eat a can of tuna? On The flu? posted 5 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

dissonance

The observations above are interesting, but I wanted to remark on another facet of the selection of Maathai; namely, her incendiary and ultimately harmful comments about HIV being hatched in laboratories by evil-minded scientists. On the one hand, here is a woman who is the genuine article -- a hero for the environment. On the other, she ascribes to this crackpot theory on the logic-less basis that HIV 'can't have been a curse from God' or derived from monkeys. ??!! They say that irony died the day Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the origin of the prize itself, which was named for Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite? In the end, perhaps its best to remember that prizes and titles and words don't matter much next to deeds. Her remarks were unfortunate, but planting tens of millions of trees is a tangible accomplishment which cannot be gainsaid. On Trees for peace posted 5 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses