Comments wordwright has made

encore

Of those few needs truly fundamental to our existence, I think none is so rich, so integral to our personal and social identity, so delightful as food.  Just as we eat daily, we ought to be aware always of the implications of our dietary decisions.  In that spirit, I hope to see this series back by popular demand as a regular feature.
Well done!On As food series ends, the story is just beginning posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

Would it work even if we wanted it?

Some excellent points have been made here, and I would add my voice to those expressing concern over GMOs as invasive species, impacts on pollinators and other animals, the terminator gene, and other potential, as-yet-unknown health and environmental impacts.  But I would also question the assumption that GM crops could reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides.  As Tom noted in a recent post,

The great Indian journalist P. Sainath wrote recently that "despite all the claims made for [Bt cotton], input dealers here have seen no decline in pesticide sales as a result of its use. Some claim higher sales than before."

awake and alive

and aware (thanks, hayduke1; I really like that one)On Vote! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

Senate bills

Clarification:  The bill David refers to in his original post is S 3930.  S 3880, mentioned by JanetT, is a separate bill.  Senator Feinstein voted against S 3930.On A heaping helping of paranoia posted 3 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

This is a great idea...

...except I think I really do want the drill.On Still cool posted 3 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

not so different

Please, can we talk about climate change like this?

ah, but we are:

Top U.S. energy execs ask Congress to regulate their CO2 emissions

Executives from leading U.S. energy companies -- including Exelon, Duke Energy, and General Electric -- joined giga-retailer Wal-Mart this week in calling on Congress to regulate their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Grist, 6 April 2006On Across the pond looks like over the rainbow: Business and gov't dealing with climate change together posted 3 years, 5 months ago 14 Responses

Another false dichotomy?

How about nonpartisanship?

"...this begins to sound like a sort of "upside down" democracy, where politicians are lobbying their constituents rather than the other way around."

Can we turn it right-side-up again with efforts initiated at the grassroots level?  I for one am so thoroughly disillusioned with politicians and the political process, across the board, and so struck by the lack of coherent leadership on environmental issues, that at this point I cannot imagine adequate solutions coming down from on high.  Judging by past proposals, not only is the "bipartisan possible" woefully inadequate, but so are the partisan measures proposed by Democrats.  It seems both options represent compromises we can ill-afford to make.  Is it more unrealistic to dream of local initiatives which will knit together to encompass the nation, or to expect meaningful results from the politicos in Washington?

If we can reverse these "spillover effects," if we can encourage social engagement of the climate change issue, at cocktail parties, in the workplace, in schools, in the media, perhaps we can generate enough interest, enough concern, to initiate change.  I know others on this blog have expressed the opinion that anything short of high-level policy change will be too slow, or too limited in scope, to save us from the impending consequences of further climate change, and certainly I share this concern.  Yet a significant part of me would like to place my faith in the people who have no thoughts of re-election...On Americans and Climate Change: The affliction of partisanship II posted 3 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

If teachers aren't teaching it...

Absolutely, curricula need to be reworked to include climate change and all kinds of other environmental and social issues.  Since I was in elementary school I've maintained that the entire public education system needs to be redesigned.  But considering the time involved, and the miles of red tape... maybe we should bypass the classroom for now and start out by adding climate change to Sesame Street and the SAT...On Americans and Climate Change: Incentives: Educators posted 3 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

Recommended reading

Thanks -- I'll put it on my reading list.  And if you really want to be a giant water nerd, I'd recommend that you put Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert on yours.  It's a little older and focuses on the American West (i.e., west of the Mississippi), but it offers a meticulously researched in-depth history.  And it's also very scary.On When the Rivers Run Dry posted 3 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

But the question was...

...For however long we need (or insist on having) vehicles (and note-- this doesn't just mean personal vehicles), should we power them with electricity?

David, you say biofuels seem inefficient.  But to my knowledge, even the most cutting-edge photovoltaic cells operate at less than one-third efficiency, and the figures I've seen for windpower are even lower.  And that doesn't factor in losses due to transmission or distribution or storage.  Without hard numbers on all these technologies, I don't think you're making a valid comparison.

That said, why make the decision based on efficiency?  Sure, that's the prevailing mentality in our society, but if we're out to change the world, why not start from the beginning?  If it's true that there's enough windpower in the Dakotas, or solar power in Arizona, to supply all our needs, shouldn't our primary concern be just getting our energy from renewable sources in sustainable ways?  And is choosing a single form of energy for all our vehicles a good idea?  What if some ran on biofuels and some ran on electricity?  We're pushing for diversity in our energy sources; that would be one way to achieve it.

Another point, since you seem to be such a fan of Amory Lovins:  wasn't one of the main points of his 1976 piece that the type of energy should be suited to the task, and that electricity, as a high-quality form of energy, isn't needed for most applications, including transportation?  I'm not, perhaps, technologically savvy enough to make this determination, but it seems to me that if we could achieve sustainable production of clean-burning biofuels, that might just be preferable to (and maybe less expensive than?) using electrical systems that require high-tech batteries made with heavy metals (even if the batteries are rechargeable and the heavy metals are eventually recycled).  Just a thought.

As to whether this is too much for an index card manifesto, I would say that depends on the intent of the manifesto.  If you're trying to encapsulate all of "green" theory on one 3x5 piece of paper... well, all I can say is, you'd better write really small.  If, on the other hand, you're going for a clear statement of goals which will act as a platform for action and an opening point for discussion, then I think you're on the right track.  Just look at all the discussion you've already generated with a single point, in a single forum...On What's sustainable? posted 3 years, 9 months ago 72 Responses