Comments Emily Cunningham has made

I also had trouble following the logic...

..in this piece.  The four cited cases don't go together and don't make for a good argument.  But, I didn't see anywhere in the piece where the authors' note environmentalists are "failing to acknowledge their many victories" as you say they do, Dave.  

I have a problem with this too:

For another, just who are these reactionary, progress-inhibiting progressives? It's telling that not a single person or statement is cited.

More reasons why nuclear won't work

As Dave pointed to earlier, this interview with Jeremy Rifkin is excellent and quite illuminating, especially on the question of nuclear power. He makes one of the most damning cases against nuclear power that I've come across.

Rifkin is very clear that nuclear power won't serve us well even as a bridge out of fossil fuels:

Why not use nuclear power as a bridge out of fossil fuels, as some environmentalists are now arguing?

It makes no sense. The key is we've got 103 nuclear plants out there. They're amortizing out in the next 20 years. If you just wanted to rebuild them -- 20 percent of our energy out there is nuclear. If you wanted to double it to 40 percent, you would still not make much of a dent in terms of fossil fuel substitution. You'd have to really triple it. You're talking about $600 billion to a trillion right at the get-go over 30 years.

America's broke. We've got massive consumer debt. Massive government debt. Massive trade deficits. Where would we come up with that kind of money? Secondly, the cost of a nuclear power plant at $2 billion is 50 percent more than a coal-fired power plant, and it's much more expensive than a natural-gas-fired power plant, and so if you were going to go to nuclear, you'd have to have a discussion with the public -- eventually we will have this discussion, because Blair, Bush and Putin all want nuclear, but they've not had this discussion. The discussion is: Who's going to pay for it? The taxpayer will have to pay for it with deep, deep subsidies, or the consumer, or both, and I don't think the public's going to be willing to take that price. And the other reasons are I think its equally a no-go: We don't know how to get rid of the waste. No governor wants it transported across their state.

The uranium deficit is pretty critical. The studies by the Atomic Energy Commission and others, suggest that at a modern scenario we run out in 2025, and we have a deficit. At a brisk scenario, which doesn't even mean doubling nuclear power, we run out within 12 to 15 years. Uranium is finite, just like fossil fuel.

And then, of course, the big reason I would suggest is that it's a soft target: We don't want Iran to have nuclear power, but we're willing now to export nuclear power and build hundreds and thousands of nuclear power plants with uranium and transit all over the world? It's insane. In an era of Islamic extremist terrorism, this is pathology to do this.

The Australian government, last year, you may remember, just in the nick of time, arrested 18 Islamic terrorists who were planning to destroy the only nuclear power plant in Sydney. And the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission did a study just before 9/11. It hasn't changed much, I don't think. In a sample study of simulated attacks, over half the nuclear power plants in the sample flunked. ... This is more esoteric, but I think your readers will appreciate this: These technologies -- uranium-based nuclear, coal, gas, fossil fuels -- they're old, centralized, elite 20th-century technology. They do not fit the kind of open source, flat distributive world that a younger generation is moving into in the 21st century.

Things I did not know

Chain stores are good for the environment, child labor is good for economic development, and globalization is "doing more for world prosperity and peace than any government ever has."  

Am I alone here, or is this news to anyone else?On Could chain stores actually be good for the environment? posted 4 years ago 19 Responses

School choice: not a good choice

Over at In These Times there's a very good article that contradicts Akst's main thesis that "school choice" would actually be a good thing -- for the environment, for students, for desegration, for public education itself.   Interestingly, the author, Linda Baker, uses the green city of Portland Oregon as a case study to argue her point:

In Portland, the irony is especially bitter. A city that is nationally recognized for its emphasis on community building and sustainability houses an educational system where schools are disengaged from neighborhood, where more kids have to be driven to school and where students are increasingly sorted by race, social class,
interest and ability.

As for Akst's assertion that choice would support equality and desegration, Baker disagrees:

U.S. public schools have always eerily replicated society's racial and economic stratification, but the segregation caused by school choice is especially disturbing.
---
But how do you build up community when educational policies conspire to tear it down? As Olson points out, under Portland's school choice system, two of the city's poorest elementary schools, Humboldt and King, have lost 40 percent of their neighborhood student population to other schools. The city's two richest schools, by contrast, Forest Park and Ainsworth, enroll more than 95 percent of their neighborhood population.

And as for the viability of public education itself with "school choice" polices, I'll leave you with this:

The long-term problem with choice is that it leads down the slippery slope to the demise of public education itself. (After all, the Bush administration's initial plan was to support NCLB with school vouchers.) Nor can choice be divorced from the larger funding crisis facing public education.

I'm from Tucson

Joel, do you have a link where I can find out more about these events:

A group of Tucson-area employers staged "Meet Your Neighbor" events, bringing together workers from different firms.

I think my dad would be curious to learn more.On How to put the brakes on employee driving posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

It's called racism

"Why the majority of the poor people in New Orleans are black is a different issue."

Um, no, it's not a different issue.  It's called racism.  If racism is the reason why the majority of New Orleans' poor are black, then the inconceivable way this catastrophe was handled has everything to do with classism AND racism.  Countless, avoidable deaths and suffering befell one of our most vulnerable groups, making it not only a national tragedy, but a national shame.  From the way Katrina was (mis)handled the message is clear how our administration feels: "we do not value the lives of poor, black people." On Slow Katrina evacuation fits pattern of injustice during crises posted 4 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

This is the most HILARIOUS...

...thing I've ever read about teaching "intelligent design".  I laughed for, oh about 10 minutes straight

So absurd, yet so to the point. A guy writes an open letter to the Kansas School Board about the importance of teaching another intelligent design theory along with creationism and evolution:  that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Here're some snippets.  Oh!  BE SURE to scroll down and look at the pictures on the left hand side.  I almost peed my pants.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

Wikipedia nature quotes

I <heart> Wikipedia.  Check out this page of nature quotes. And then add your favorite quote!

Here are a few good ones that I came across:

"Nature is painting for us, day after day, pictures of infinite beauty."     - John Ruskin, (1819-1900)

"One Touch of nature makes the whole world kin." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Troilus and Cressida

"To be whole. To be complete. Wildness reminds us what it means to be human, what we are connected to rather than what we are separate from." - Terry Tempest Williams

Arguing with Signposts has an excellent roundup

You can find it here.

He has short snippets of 56+ conservative, liberal, and libertarian blog reactions.  Most everyone sees this as a VERY bad thing.

Here's some of Arguing with Signposts' reaction:

My prediction? Abuse. Abuse. And more Abuse. Can anyone say "new athletic stadiums"? "New Wal-Marts"? "New strip malls"?

Great.On The Supreme Court has expanded eminent domain to the point of absurdity and invited corruption. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Lame!

On Meta coverage gap posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Ok- - here goes

1. I like hot, semi-long showers.  Sometimes (once or twice a week) I take two showers a day- one to wake me up in the morning and one to get all the bike-commuting related grime off of me at the end of the day.

2. Sometimes I use my car because I've mismanaged my time, or am feeling lazy.  I also let friends borrow my car when they don't really "need" it, because I want to be a nice gal and I don't think they'd understand.

3. Sometimes I eat out and get to-go boxes that are stereo foam and I feel so guilty!

4. I eat more meat and packaged foods than I should.

5. I haven't figured out how to systematically use my money for positive change- i.e. how much to buy on organic food and (more) sustainable products, how much to donate to progressive causes, what organizations are strategically the best to donate to, where to put my money, etc.  Right now my consumption habits are very ad hoc, guided mostly by feelings and not by personal policy.  I mostly buy organic and I try to buy recycled products. However, when I'm trying to decide if I can afford something or not it's more like a "ah what the heck, just go for it" kind of a decision and I'm not always sure if I really can afford products or if I'm truly using my money in a long term, beneficial way (for myself and for the world).  It would be better if I'd already thought through my budget and money-related goals and came up with a personal purchase policy so that I wouldn't feel guilty or uneasy making purchase-related decisions. It would be simple, easy, effective, and guilt-free: a purchase either fits into my well-thought-out, socially/ environmentally guided purchase policy or it doesn't.  Bingo!  I'm working on it...
   

Nuclear Power? Thumbs down down down.

In dissecting a Friedman column, Alan points out the ills of nuclear power quite well (his arguments mirror jp's):

Next, Friedman goes flat by most of an octave, inserting an ill-informed note on nuclear power: "We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever."

Nukes have largely died from market forces, so why any market-savvy thinker like Friedman would want to resurrect them (presumably through further subsidy) I cannot fathom. Our energy future should flow from least-cost planning that tries to incorporate social and environmental costs such as climate change and national security.

Under least-cost planning, nuclear power does not fare well. Efficiency and renewables beat nuclear power on price alone in almost every application, because nukes are extremely expensive. Add environmental and security costs and nukes fade to a footnote. Generating electricity through a technology that creates wastes still deadly for thousands of years seems like folly. Peppering the countryside with such facilities in an age of global terrorism seems, well, like lunacy. (A recent National Academy of Sciences report on the terror threat of one aspect of A-plant management was summarized in the Washington Post yesterday.)

Scooter, if "energy choices have been driven by profits and subsidies" and my "best interest" will not be a conern or priority, that makes me, well, VERY nervous.  No, it actually scares the HELL out of me.  

This makes no sense.  At all.On Umbra on nuclear energy posted 4 years, 7 months ago 45 Responses

How did your Senators vote?

Common Dreams has the answer.On Senate votes to open Arctic Refuge to drilling posted 4 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses

But...

"The Earth and all life are (your) priority," but shouldn't humans be included in "all life;" aren't we a part of "the Earth"?  Your last sentence contradicts itself.  Maybe it would work if you said, "most of the Earth and all life (excluding human life) are my priority."

Again, I think we think about the environment in fundamentally differently ways. I don't think of the environment as this thing, "out there" that needs to be protected.  It's all around us, inseparable from our existence.  We are- along with land, water, air, and other life forms-- the "environment."  We can't take humans out of the picture. Human issues are environmental issues. The way we organize ourselves and treat one another have huge ramifications for the Earth. So we really have to look at human issues if we want our planet to survive.On Dramatizing the "death" of environmentalism doesn't help urban people of color, or anyone else posted 4 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses

And?

Ya, so prototypes aren't perfect.  Does that mean we should scrap 80 of them?  I think Daily Grist, on January 19th, says it well:

Lessees David Raboy and William Korthof say they're ready to purchase the vehicles, which cost very little to maintain, require no gasoline, and have no direct emissions. But Ford is ready to (ahem) pull the plug on these EV Rangers because, according to a spokesflack, "we've moved on from electric vehicles and our focus is more on hybrids." Raboy understands that cars are sometimes discontinued, but he wants to know why his truck is to be demolished and why the company can't sell it to him instead. "How about the Excursion -- it's being discontinued," he said. "It gets 12 miles per gallon. Why not go back and crush all of those?" Indeed.

If Raboy wants to purchase the truck, why in God's name do they need to scrap it?  

Sarah reported back in January that they had reversed their decision to scrap the EVs. Seems as if they're back to their old tricks .  <Sigh>.On Babes in EV-land posted 4 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Assuming makes an...

Jdhlax, you stated that,

For example, while I support Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the latter day Malcom X, and the original Black Panthers, their issues take a back seat to environmental issues for me, and I assume for other environmentalists.

You assume incorrectly. Racial justice does NOT take a back seat to environmental issues for me.  Can't you see that racism is intimately connected to environmental degradation?  Don't you think poverty-- people struggling for resources, people struggling for their very survival-- is a huge hindrance for "environmental" welfare?  This unwillingness to work to end racism, to see its quite obvious connection to the "environment," and to give it the priority it deserves in the mainstream environmental community is exactly why enviros are seen as (and are) out of touch.  It's a ginormous reason why we're being ineffective.  To permanently create a healthy place "where we live, work, and play" (language stolen from the environmental justice community to describe the environment) we MUST fight to end racism.  Yes, we can each work in our corner and do our piece, but we must work side by side those working to end racism.  Indeed, we must realize that what we're doing as part of creating a sustainable planet is creating a planet where each person's life is treated as just as valuable as any other person's life.  We cannot create the world we want any other way.

Oh and another thing about this sentence,

In contrast, a person of color living in the hood almost certainly does not give any priority to preservation of wilderness or wildlife, even if she supports that preservation.

Jdhlax, this is because of racism. If you were worried about crime, your friends and brothers getting locked up or killed, finding a job, making sure your kids are getting a fighting chance in school- things you have to deal with because of racism- saving some trees in a far away place is not going to be the first thing on your mind.  Even though you may want to make a difference.  You're especially not going to want to be involved if the people leading in green organizations seem to care more about the trees than you and your family.
On Dramatizing the "death" of environmentalism doesn't help urban people of color, or anyone else posted 4 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses

Obama

Phew, indeed.On Clear Skies takes a fat whack posted 4 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Bigger fish to fry

Sorry, but I'm with Katharine.  There are bigger fish to fry.  Plain and simple.  Maybe I just need to open my mind or something- I'm trying- but I don't think that "fish having feelings" getting out there is on par with the swift boat controversy "getting out there."  PETA may play the media, and sure, they get their messages out there.  But the media makes them look like fools while they make swift boaters look legitimate.  And while, like others, I agree with some of what PETA does, I think they are fools for not seeing that there are, in fact, bigger freak'n fish to freak'n fry.  On PETA and getting your message Out There posted 4 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses