Friday, 09 Sep 2005

Soil Ain't Green

British soil is losing carbon -- and may be contributing to global warming

Dirt may be one of the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that could throw a very heavy wrench into efforts to fight climate change. In the journal Nature, researchers report that as the soil in England and Wales has warmed over the past quarter century, many millions of tons of carbon trapped there have vanished. They say much of it has likely been released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, as higher temperatures have increased the rate of organic decay in the soil. "The warmer it gets, the faster it is happening," said lead researcher Guy Kirk of Cranfield University. The study results indicate the same phenomenon may be happening in temperate zones across the globe. According to another article in Nature, the amount of carbon released by British soil now completely offsets the gains the country has made in curbing industrial CO2 emissions. "Our findings suggest the soil part of the equation is scarier than we had thought," said Kirk. Indeed.


Many Grist readers are picky eaters -- er, discerning foodies -- and it shows when we publish stories on gustatory topics. Several readers wrote in with praise for local-food advocate Louella Hill, last week's InterActivist, while another suggests a writer who laments the cost of organics should get to a farm and get some dirt under her fingernails. Also, opinions on our business coverage, underwater logging, and importing elephants.

Clang of Four

Senators challenge Bush rewrite of mercury-emissions rule

A cross-party coalition of senators aims to use an obscure legislative tactic in an attempt to block implementation of the Bush administration's proposed regulation on power-plant mercury emissions. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) say the Bush rule rewrite endangers public health even as it caters to the utility industry. It would remove power plants from stricter oversight and a tight timeline for cutting mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act, giving them instead a reduced target and several more years to meet it. It would also let dirtier plants buy emission allowances from cleaner plants, which critics say would imperil those who live near high-polluting facilities, especially young children and pregnant women. The senators' maneuver has virtually no chance of success, as it would require the approval of the House, Senate, and president, but a coalition of 14 states that is challenging the rule in court might have more luck.


A skeptical reader asks Carbonfund cofounder Lesley Marcus Carlson if buying carbon offsets can really zero out a person's climate footprint and help stabilize the climate of the whole planet. Her answer? An emphatic "Yes!" As this week's InterActivist, Carlson explains how the concept works, how her nonprofit chooses renewable energy projects to invest in, and more.

Agony and Ivory

Activists sue to stop water project near ivory-billed woodpecker habitat

Bird lovers rejoiced when the ivory-billed woodpecker was rediscovered, but now the fun really begins. Eco-advocates are aiming to block two planned federal water projects that threaten the eastern Arkansas bottomland hardwood forest area where the bird resides. Two conservation groups filed suit in federal court yesterday to stop one of them, the Grand Prairie irrigation project, a 250,000-acre undertaking (located about 20 miles from where the woodpecker was sighted) that would divert about 158 billion gallons of water a year to the region's rice farmers. In early May, the Army Corps of Engineers stopped work on the project to assess its potential impact on the woodpecker, then determined that it wasn't likely to cause the bird any harm and resumed work in early June. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the Corps' assessment. But environmentalists aren't buying it -- they argue that both projects could drive the ivory-bill really, truly extinct at last.