Tuesday, 09 Jan 2007

The Choice of a New Generator

Dirty diesel generators proliferate in developing countries

The good news: Access to electricity is spreading to previously unserved areas, allowing residents of rural villages to grow more crops with electrically powered irrigation pumps and connect to the rest of the world through television. The bad news: The most common power source for these communities is filthy diesel generators, which pollute the air in previously clean areas. When the choice is between clean air and TV, guess which wins? Generous government subsidies for diesel and kerosene don't help matters. But some clean, renewable energy sources are making inroads into poor, rural areas -- solar water heaters, solar-powered lanterns, biomass generators, tiny hydroelectric dams. The trick is getting locals to try something new -- and getting foreign governments and foreign-aid organizations to follow up and carry through after they introduce new equipment and technologies to communities.


Henry David Thoreau went to the woods in order to live deliberately, and as a result spawned generations of googly-eyed, moss-worshipping nature writers. But is paying dreamy tribute to wilderness where it's at in the 21st century? Los Angeles-based writer Jenny Price submits that the answer is no. Writers and their readers would be better served, she says, by focusing on urban nature and its trappings instead.

Poison Penn

Pennsylvania governor blocked from issuing mercury rule

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) got green plaudits last year when he proposed a plan to scrub 90 percent of mercury pollution from the state's coal-fired power plants by 2015, but a little-known state agency is now blocking his move. The Legislative Reference Bureau has sided with the majority of state senators, who object to Rendell's plan and want Pennsylvania to stick with less stringent federal mercury rules. The bureau says the Senate hasn't had enough time to review Rendell's regulation and thus the bureau has refused to publish it, meaning it's stuck in rule purgatory. Meanwhile, as the politicians and bureaucrats bicker, Pennsylvania's 36 coal-fired power plants continue liberally spewing mercury, which works its way up the food chain to humans and poses particular threats to the development of children.


Close to 50 percent of environmental professionals and managers will soon be eligible for retirement, a prospect that has their employers worried. But more importantly, asks Kevin Doyle of the Environmental Careers Organization, what if they don't actually retire anytime soon? It means we're all gonna have to learn to play nice with each other. In his career-advice column on Gristmill, Doyle looks at the generational differences between traditionalists, baby boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials.

Enemy at the Gates

Gates Foundation invests in polluting companies that undermine its health goals

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends more than a billion dollars a year on promoting global health -- but it invests billions more in polluting companies that cause health problems around the globe. About 5 percent of the foundation's assets are dispersed in do-gooding grants each year, and the other 95 percent are invested; a Los Angeles Times series suggests that at least 41 percent of those investments are in companies that work counter to the foundation's charitable goals. For example, the foundation has invested $423 million into five petroleum megacorporations, leading to a variety of catch-22s: As the foundation fights malaria, water stagnates in oil drilling holes, attracting disease-carrying mosquitoes. As the foundation fights cholera, oil spills clog rivers and contribute to waterborne diseases. As the foundation fights polio and measles, pollution from oil plants weakens children's immune systems, making them more susceptible to those very maladies. A number of other foundations have started trying to align their investments with their missions, but so far the Gates Foundation hasn't. Can anyone say "wake-up call"?