Comments frw has made

  • making "3rd parties" a joke

    Nader was played out by 2004.  Now it's an old joke, not even laughable anymore.  He's doing a disservice to the goal of having a viable 3rd party.  Yes, we need to break the Dem/Rep duopoly of control over American Politics, but Nader takes us in the opposite direction, by affirming anyone associated with him or any 3rd party as a fringe nut with no grasp on the reality of his situation: i.e. he has no chance of winning >5% in any vote.  Build the Green Party, foster local elections, work for systemic changes.  But until Nadar stops making such public and predictably irrelevant campaigns, he will not only fail to change the system he rails against, but actually makes it harder for anyone else to, as well.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

  • Ignoring most environmental issues, too.

    Grist, the League of Conservation Voters and most other environmental groups (to say nothing of the mainstream media) are not only ignoring most candidates, but they are ignoring every single environmental issue except one.  If it doesn't relate directly to global warming.  

    Toxins, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, protecting roadless areas, plummeting marine populations, solid waste (the floating mass of trash in the Pacific Ocean) etc.  When the enviro.'s stop talking about all of those, I guess they aren't problems anymore.  I guess we must have solved all those problems during the past seven years.

    C'mon grist, don't jump on the bandwagon and narrowly pursue global warming solutions that cause serious enviro. side effects, and leave the rest of our endangered treasures to be plundered while we aren't looking.  You've got the bullhorn, this is you chance to draw attention to the Big Picture: All of these problems are connected...On Interviews and info on the presidential candidates' environmental positions posted 1 year, 9 months ago 53 Responses

  • to all who are naysaying this article

    This is an important reminder that any approach to global warming HAS to be done holistically.  How will we feel, if we succeed in lowering fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and factories, but at the cost of . . .

    • accelerated deforestation (esp. of rainforests)
    • accelerated extinction rates
    • increased nutrient loads in water bodies (from fertilizers used to grow biofuels)
    • increased soil erosion
    • accelerated loss of coral reefs (due to sedimentation and excessive nitrogen )
    • increased spread of toxins: pesticides, heavy metals and acids from batteries, CFL light bulbs etc.
    • reduced clean groundwater/surface water supplies (irrigation for biofuels, contamination from toxins, etc.)

    Please stop wasting your time nit-picking or poo-pooing this article.  The concept is real: Either we incorporate a holistic approach to global warming FROM THE START, or we support just any and all anti-global-warming techniques, and accept that there will be major consequences that follow.
    On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

  • Why only energy issues?

    It's not just Hillary, but also Grist and the League of Conservation Voters that have sudden amnesia about every single environmental issue that doesn't directly relate to global warming.  Toxins, loss f biodiversity, deforestation, protecting roadless areas, plummeting marine populations, solid waste (the floating mass of trash in the Pacific Ocean) etc.  When the enviro.'s stop talking about all of those, I guess they aren't problems anymore.  I guess we must have solved all those problems during the past seven years.On A look at Hillary Clinton's environmental platform and record posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

  • Energy is NOT the ONLY environmental issue

    Even here, even Grist's election coverage, can't make space to discuss even ONE other environmental issue besides energy.  Yes, global warming is the most popular (and among the most important) problem of our time.  But there are many other VERY IMPORTANT environmental issues that are being completely ignored this election cycle.  Can we PLEASE have at least SOME comparison of candidates on at least a FEW other very important environmental issues?  Here are some for starters:

    • Loss of biodiversity (land-rights vs. endangered spp., naval sonar testing, will Dept. of Interior define critical habitat protection for endangered spp.?  Also, remember when dam removal for endangered salmon was a big campaign issue?  The anti-dam-remover won, the dams are still there, why aren't we talking about them?  

    • Loss of old growth forests / other wilderness.  Roadless area protection?  Klamath, ANWR, southern Utah, many other pristine areas are under the gun, the federal government is pulling the trigger.  

    • Global environment: international trade accords?  import restrictions?  Pushing for protection of rainforests, migratory species, marine mammals, etc.

    • Toxins (Chinese imports do get discussed.  What about US manufacturing?  Electronics, etc.?  Support for organic farming?)

    • Solid waste (national bottle-bill, initiatives to support USE of recycled materials, etc., what ABOUT that floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas?)

    Even worse than ignoring all of these other important issues, some global warming solutions carry substantial environmental side-effects.  Nuclear power's caveats are unmistakable, but what about deforestation/conversion of our last prairie's to grow biofuels, massive bird kills by windmills, toxic batteries and solar panels, etc.?  Where are the initiatives or at least intention to address these?  

    Can we PLEASE broaden the discussion?On Obama or Clinton: who's greener? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

  • Euphoria check III

    Non-toxic alternatives
    3Rs & Mass Transit
    Think Holistically.On Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

  • Euphoria check II

    solar farm destroys natural desert
    Windmills kill birds
    Hydropower destroys riversOn Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

  • Euphoria check

    Fossil-fueled ethanol, toxic hybrid batteries, better technologies needed.On Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

  • NOT trivial, don't cop out here.

    C'mon Umbra, don't cop out on this one, help us with the calculations.  This is more than merely trivial.  I am now teaching at my second private school (one on the East coast, one on the West), both of which used disposable plates, utensils, cups, etc., for the ENTIRE SCHOOL, filling dozens of garbage bags a day.  And both of which claimed it was the environmentally best choice.  One was on a septic system it said couldn't handle dishwater, the other uses compostable cellulose-based plates and utensils which are a complete joke.  A science teacher has been trying to compost some potato cellulose-based spoons since September, and their still seem as solid as plastic.

    I would really like to see SOMEONE do the full calculations on a per-person per-year basis for the disposable vs. washable decision:

    I. Disposable
    a) landfill acreage (ignore only if composting REALLY occurs).

    b) tons of paper (plates/cups)

    c) gallons of oil (plastic utensils and cups)

    d) acres of farmland (compostable products).

    c) energy requirements for processing (all products)

    II. Washable

    a) water usage (dishwashing and hand washing)

    b) energy requirements for heating water

    c) quantity of dish-soap

    d) energy to treat dishwater (ignore if septic or greywater retrieval system).

    e) mineral requirements for producing ceramic plates/cups/mugs, glasses, and metal utensils (assuming a 20-year average life span)

    f) energy requirements for processing plates/utensils/etc. (assume a 20-year average life span).

    Feel free to add anything I've missed.On Umbra on paper plates posted 1 year, 10 months ago 15 Responses

  • outrage

    I am outraged at the way the media refused to give  Kucinich a fair chance in this campaign.  He was BY FAR THE ONLY (not "perhaps" the only) green candidate in either party.  From the beginning, they told us Kucinich wasn"t electable.  They never gave him equal coverage.  They barred him from debates.  They kept telling us we have to choose between three "serious" democratic contenders.  And then surprise, surprise, those three were the biggest vote-getters in the first small states to vote. Now, even though California is the biggest delegate state, and is one of the early primaries, Dennis was forced out so soon, that I no longer have the chance to vote for him.

    This is less about the media having their finger on the pulse of America, and much more about the media whittling down our choices, and convincing people who agree with Dennis, and would actually LIKE him to be president, to be afraid that a vote for him would be "wasted".  So they dupe people into voting for a second choice, a "lesser of two evils" rather than someone they truly believe in.  

    Sure, many people truly believe in Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. But if the media gave equal coverage and equal access to Kucinich, and encouraged people to honestly vote for their top choice, Kucinich would have gotten far more votes, and probably would still be in this race now.

    We need major electoral reform in this country.  Financing reform, instant-runoff-voting, laws requiring equal coverage and equal-access.  Until we do, we will forever have our choices prematurely limited to 2 or 3 "front-runners" because the media can't seem to cover more at one time.On Dennis Kucinich drops presidential bid posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • suggested e-mail

    To anyone else horrified by this plan, feel free to copy-paste any or all of this.  Here's what I just e-mailed to that NOAA comment address:

    Please choose either of the first two alternatives (no action, or non-lethal deterrence only) in your project to protect salmon from sea lions near the Columbia River's Bonneville Dam.

    Salmon are severely threatened and need our protection.  They need dams removed.  They need clear-cutting of forests halted.  They need erosion controlled.  They need new road construction halted in roadless areas.  They do NOT need you to kill any sea lions.

    Killing sea lions would be an atrocious step, providing a minimal solution to only one small fragment of the array of threats facing salmon.  Even if you killed every sea lion on Earth, the salmon might still face extinction.

    Please stop wasting your (and our) time on this distraction, and start working on the REAL threats to salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.On Federal officials suggest killing sea lions to protect salmon posted 1 year, 10 months ago 40 Responses

  • How to voice your opinion on this.

    "You may submit comments by e-mail. ... NOAA will consider all substantive comments received by 5 p.m. (PST) on Feb. 19, 2008."    

    This is from the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Enviro. Assesment proposing the sea lion killing, which the press release cited by the three articles ref'd above were summarizing .  Too bad none of those articles bothered to tell you any of this.  Too bad Grist didn't either.  C'mon Grist, you're usually great with the links!!On Federal officials suggest killing sea lions to protect salmon posted 1 year, 10 months ago 40 Responses

  • Wear The Coat!!!

    llj said it best above.  There are plenty of ways to wear this coat without supporting the current fur industry in any way.  I like the inside-out idea.  The benefits of re-using to the habitats, animals and the global environment trump all of the no-fur-no-exceptions arguments.  And that's not even considering your obvious sentimental longing to keep it and wear it.  Go ahead, get creative, find a way to honor grandma, and the little minks' grandmas who all died to leave you this coat.On Umbra on (inherited) fur coats posted 1 year, 10 months ago 60 Responses