Wednesday, 09 Mar 2005

The time has come to close out the Gristmill Environmental Elevator-Pitch Contest. We'll accept entries until Friday, March 11. On Monday, the finalists will be announced, and readers will be able to vote on their favorite (creator of said favorite will -- get this -- win a Grist T-shirt!). For those just tuning in, here's the challenge: You are in an elevator with a skeptic. You have six floors (and only 30 words). What does environmentalism stand for? Why should s/he get on board? (Hint: If said skeptic believed that Mother Gaia's soul encompasses and nurtures all interconnected creatures, said skeptic would probably already be an environmentalist.)

We'll Drink to That

Americans prefer their water clean, poll shows

"An overwhelming majority" -- some 86 percent -- of Americans believe clean, safe water is a national issue worthy of government spending, a new poll concludes. The two polling firms (one from each side of the partisan divide) conducting the opinion survey asked 900 adults a variety of questions related to hypothetical federal legislation creating a clean-water trust fund. The response favored the fund, with more than eight in 10 surveyed supporting the idea and some 71 percent picking clean-water programs over road construction and aviation projects as the most deserving of a trust fund. Two-thirds said they would rather the government spend more to guarantee clean water than cut taxes, and almost 80 percent would be more likely to vote for congressional representatives who supported the legislation. Says pollster Frank Luntz of the results, "Americans are sending their lawmakers a clear message."

Metals Gone Wild

Mercury seriously mucking with wildlife, study finds

Mercury contamination of wildlife may be more prevalent than previously thought and influencing ecosystems in unexpected ways, suggests a study released yesterday. Researchers in the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada found higher-than-expected levels of mercury in the region's birds and other animals, supporting the hypothesis that mercury from power plants and incinerators may be getting into the forest food chain in much the same way it enters water bodies and aquatic ecosystems. Leaves and the moist forest floor act to transform the mercury that falls from the sky into its most toxic form -- methylmercury. Insects then easily accumulate the metal in their bodies, passing it up the food chain and around the ecosystem. "The impacts of mercury go well beyond what anyone would have envisioned yesterday," said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project in Vermont, who played no role in the study. The research adds to the arsenal of environmental advocates who argue that the Bush administration needs a more aggressive plan for curbing mercury emissions.

The Prices' Height

Market notices that natural resources are shrinking fast

While some folks in political circles still like to pretend that natural resources are endless, global financial markets aren't, uh, buying it. Commodity prices recently hit a 24-year high, driven by worries that burgeoning global demand is rapidly outstripping supply. We'll try to spare you most of the numbers (masochists may click the link below), but suffice it to say: Copper and oil prices are near record highs. Countries that export loads of raw materials (Australia, Canada, South Africa, et al) are loving life as their currencies rise against the dollar. Continuing economic growth in the U.S. and China means that prices will probably continue to go up, and "[t]he only thing that will get us to move decisively lower is a global recession that would reduce demand,'' said Citigroup analyst Kyle Cooper. Analysts at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. said oil prices will rise until 2008 and stay high thereafter, based on worries that global oil production is reaching its peak. Hmm ... seems like the Birkenstock crowd has been saying that for a while.

Just Looking

Forest Service considers sustainability certification

In an attempt to stem criticism of its logging and forest-management practices from both timber companies and conservationists, the U.S. Forest Service is assessing a handful of forests to determine if they meet management requirements outlined by two very different sustainable forestry organizations, with an eye toward possible certification of national forests in the future. The Sustainable Forest Initiative, supported by the industry group American Forest and Paper Association, is, its critics argue, little more than a timber-industry rubber stamp. The other program, run by the Forest Stewardship Council, is more stringent -- for instance, it does not allow logging in old-growth forests or sensitive wildlife areas. For now, Forest Service officials say they're just looking at how their practices measure up before deciding whether to pursue certification. "Certification has become part of the global vocabulary," said Forest Service spokesperson Dan Jiron. "As an agency, we think, 'Why wouldn't we look at these things?'"