Wednesday, 08 Jan 2003

Not Buying It

Did you enjoy your holiday season? If so, you're clearly out of step with the nation, because it turns out Holiday 2002 was a "failure," according to no lesser authorities than CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and Alan Greenspan. It would seem Americans just didn't spend enough on gifts and vacations at the end of the year. Some of us, though, think that's good news. Eric Brown of the Center for a New American Dream writes in our Soapbox section that perhaps 2002 will become known as the year Americans started questioning the all-but-inescapable mandate to consume. That change in attitude may result in gloom-and-doom stories in the newspaper and dire predictions about the future of life as we know it. But don't be fooled: Less holiday consumption is good for our quality of life and good for our environment. Read about Brown's idea of holiday success, only on the Grist Magazine website.

Bjorn Loser

In 2001, Danish author Bjorn Lomborg rocketed into the spotlight with the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, which claimed to debunk virtually all environmental concerns, from global warming to species extinction, and sought to assure the public that there was nothing much to worry about, ecologically speaking. Now, a division of the Danish Research Agency has condemned Lomborg for "scientific dishonesty," deeming the book "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" and systematically one-sided. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty conducted a six-month review of the book after several scientists filed complaints; despite the damning conclusions it reached, the group stopped short of finding Lomborg guilty of gross negligence or deliberate attempts to mislead readers. Lomborg rejected the committee's findings and said it could get him fired from his new post as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, but government officials said his job was not in danger.

Glowing Report

The top dogs at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say they are fully committed to safety -- but their own employees are not so sure. One-third of NRC workers question its commitment to public safety, and nearly half would not be comfortable raising safety concerns within the agency, according to a survey conducted by a private consulting firm. About half of the NRC's 3,072 employees were surveyed, ranging from clerical workers to nuclear engineers to senior managers; nearly 90 percent of the latter group said the agency was firmly committed to safety, but 30 percent of non-supervisory workers, including senior career employees, were not convinced. A significant number of workers also expressed concern about the nuclear industry influencing regulations, and just under 40 percent reported a lack of confidence in the NRC's senior management team. As alarming as these figures may be, most of them are actually improvements over the results of a 1998 survey, as NRC Chair Richard Meserve was quick to point out.

GM's My Anti-nutrient. What's Yours?

Genetically modified food could contain excessive amounts of dangerous compounds because of the government's failure to adequately regulate the production of such foods, according to a report being released today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The report says the Food and Drug Administration made "obvious errors" in reviewing some GM crops, and that its procedures are so hit-or-miss that the agency will not be able to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply as more and more companies try to market transgenic foods. The report was timed to coincide with today's meeting in Washington, D.C., of a panel of the National Academy of Sciences charged with investigating the potential impact of GM crops on human nutrition. Some experts fear that "anti-nutrients," or harmful compounds found in trace levels in many food crops, could appear in higher concentrations in genetically altered crops. The FDA has not established clear guidelines for testing for anti-nutrients in GM foods, according to CSPI.

Giving Us Tropopause

The tropopause has risen by an average of 650 feet globally in the last 22 years because of global warming and ozone depletion, according to a study published in the latest issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. For those of you who've forgotten your junior high school science, the tropopause is the atmospheric layer above the troposphere (which swaddles the Earth) and below the stratosphere (where commercial jets fly). According to the research, which was conducted by 12 experts from around the world, greenhouse gases created by the burning of fossil fuels warm the atmosphere and cause the troposphere to expand, much as a balloon filled with cool air will expand when heated. As the troposphere expands, it forces the tropopause upward. At the same time, the breakdown of the ozone layer is causing the stratosphere to cool and contract, which pulls the tropopause up further. The scientists say the height of the tropopause could be a useful litmus test for the human impact on climate, but they acknowledge that it's too early to know what effects the changing height will have on the Earth's weather patterns.