Tuesday, 20 Feb 2007

They've Had Their Filament

Australia to fully phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010

In a world first, Australia will officially make the switch away from incandescent bulbs. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said today that the country would phase out inefficient lighting over the next three years, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions hundreds of thousands of tons a year and cutting household lighting costs up to 66 percent. "If the rest of the world follows our lead," he said, "this will reduce an amount of energy ... to the tune of five times as much energy as Australia consumes." Similar bulb-banning campaigns are gaining steam in the U.K. and California, with compact fluorescents -- which cost more up front but last four to 10 times longer and use 20 percent of the energy of incandescents -- appearing as the leading alternative. Critics in Australia pointed out that much more could be done, including focusing on industrial energy-saving measures and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. But Turnbull defended the move: "It's a little thing," he said, "but it's a massive change."


You heard it here first: former California environmental adviser Terry Tamminen has declared his presidential candidacy. And so can you! It's as easy as saying so, and outlining a platform to run on. Tamminen's priorities are getting troops out of Iraq and eliminating oil subsidies; with the money saved, he'd boost health care, tackle the transit system, and encourage volunteerism. Envision a world under President Tamminen -- then tell us what your own platform would look like.


In Beltway media circles, among pundits who nod at one another with furrowed brows on cable TV, a new consensus is congealing: global warming is real, but there's not much we can do about it, since efforts to substantially reduce emissions would destroy the world economy. These bed-wetters are waving the white flag in a country that once decided to send a guy to the moon just because it looked difficult. Two reports out recently counter the new defeatism, describing a road to slashed emissions and a growing economy. But will anyone listen? David Roberts wonders where all the courage has gone.

AAAS the World Turns

Leading science organization takes a stand on climate change

For the first time, the influential American Association for the Advancement of Science has weighed in on climate change. The verdict: it's bad. "The scientific evidence is clear," says a statement issued this weekend by the association, which publishes the journal Science. "Global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and it is a growing threat to society." Pointing to retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme weather, and unusually high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the 159-year-old society -- made up of 262 affiliated groups -- called for stronger political leadership at all levels, and quick-like. "The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be," it said. Research scientist Susanne Moser called the AAAS release "a continuation of the confirming and reaffirming and underlining of the consensus of mainstream science on climate change." And if that doesn't make for exciting news, we don't know what does.


They may be called Canada geese, but many Branta canadensis are born and bred in the U.S. -- and, often as not, they're not made welcome. A conflict in his own neighborhood led David Feld to start GeesePeace, a nonprofit organization that advises communities on how to humanely deal with unwelcome flocks. As InterActivist this week, Feld discusses the bungling mismanagement that led to the U.S. goose problem in the first place -- and his taste for quirky Australian music. Send Feld a question by 2:00 PST on Wednesday; we'll publish his answers to selected questions on Friday.

The Way to a Manchester's Stomach

New study says some organic food no better for the environment

In case you weren't confused enough about your grocery shopping, a government-sponsored study in the U.K. has added a possible twist. It suggests that some organic foods may not be better for the environment than their conventional counterparts. While the 200-page study by the Manchester Business School found that many organic products do have lower impacts than their pesticide-laden brethren, it points out that the act of producing others can actually have a bigger impact. Organic milk, for instance, requires 80 percent more land and creates 20 percent more carbon dioxide than conventional milk; organic chickens, because they're raised longer than those crammed into crummy conventional coops, require 25 percent more energy. Britain's top organic group, the Soil Association, acknowledged that in some cases organic farming can be less energy-efficient, but said that factors not considered in the study more than make up for that. Like, say, eating food that's not laced with neurotoxins.