Those darn scientists at that super-liberal group known as The United States Government. Once again, they're letting a little thing like science get in the way of politics and ideology. How dare they?
The USGA has determined that climate change might be occuring more quickly than anticipated. Sea levels could rise by as much as four feet within the next century. The American Southwest, which has been under an incredible drought for the past decade, will get drier.
I'm just glad that I won't be around for the worst of this climate change stuff. It'll be my kids' problem. Good luck to them.
Outdoor adventure and tree hugging: two great tastes that go great together. From the author of "Greasy Rider: Two Dudes, One Fast Food Fueled Car, and a Cross-Country Search for a Greener Future."
Monday, December 29, 2008
Arsenic and mercury-filled coal sludge inundates Tennessee town. Feds say everything is okay. Nothing to see here.
Here's the background: a TVA-run coal-fired power plant in the eatern Tennessee town of Kingston was depositing their coal ash waste into a giant retaining lake. The earthen dam holding it together gave way, and the sludge poured out (more than a billion gallons of it), covering an immense swath of land (and draining into the Emory and Tennessee rivers). The sludge contains mercury, lead, and arsenic. But the EPA says there's nothing to worry about. The locals are at no risk. And their drinking water is fine. And the Tennessee Valley Authority is arresting people taking pictures of the site.
I just love that clean coal technology!
I just love that clean coal technology!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Say it ain't so! Oil drops below $40 a barrel.
Oil has dropped below $40 a barrel. My friends at OPEC and Exxon Mobil are freaking out, no doubt. I'm freaking out, too. With every penny that the price of gas drops at the pump, I get a little less smug as I'm driving around in my station wagon that's powered by waste grease I get for free from a local restaurant. Who cares if I'm radically reducing my carbon footprint?
China sending three warships to battle the Pirates
Yes, China is conducting the largest mission of the People's Liberation Army Navy abroad ever by sending three warships off the coast of Somalia. This extension of Chinese military power has to be sending a shiver down the spines of some folks at the Pentagon.
It's about China protecting its ships. It's not about the oil, which isn't even mentioned in this Associated Press article. It's never about the oil.
For some context yet again. Most of the pirates are former fishermen, who looked for other work after the big fish disappeared off the coast of Somalia, thanks to foreign commercial fisheries. About 90 percent of the world's big fish have vanished in the last 50 years--any fisherman can pretty much confirm this for you.
I'm not condoning the acts of the pirates. But this is a tiny example of what happens when resources become depleted...
It's about China protecting its ships. It's not about the oil, which isn't even mentioned in this Associated Press article. It's never about the oil.
For some context yet again. Most of the pirates are former fishermen, who looked for other work after the big fish disappeared off the coast of Somalia, thanks to foreign commercial fisheries. About 90 percent of the world's big fish have vanished in the last 50 years--any fisherman can pretty much confirm this for you.
I'm not condoning the acts of the pirates. But this is a tiny example of what happens when resources become depleted...
Yes, we've sunk that low
How sad is it that people are excited simply because Obama's new cabinet members are experienced and competent at what they do.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Especially when it's inconvenient.
“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us."
Friday, December 19, 2008
Land speculation, anyone?
New science advisor understands that the sky actually is falling
Obama's new science advisor is John Holdren, the director of Woods Hole Research Center, and director of the Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He's one of the world's leading global warming experts. Judging by the president-elect's staffing choices, he's as aware--and unnerved--by the potential of global warming as anyone. And his advisors aren't going to let him do nothing, or they won't be around for long.
Here's an op-ed Holdren wrote for the Boston Globe this summer, called "Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics."
He writes: "The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going."
Here's an op-ed Holdren wrote for the Boston Globe this summer, called "Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics."
He writes: "The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
This just in: low-flow shower head revelation!

I've made a great new discovery about my low-flow shower head: my showers can be twice as long before I run out of hot water from my 50-gallon hot water heater. So instead of taking 15-minute-long showers, like I did with the old shower head, I now take 30-minute-long ones before the water runs cold! Brilliant!
Joe the solar panel installer

The basic philosophy of the upcoming stimulus package goes something like this: our old-school manufacturing base, born at the turn of the 20th century, is dead. The model T isn't coming through that door again, folks. USS Steel ain't gonna be ramping up jobs in Pittsburgh--and as far as the textile industry goes, I think even "Made in America" tags are now stitched in China.
We're a country that buys more than it produces. (In this global market, that's almost like a household constantly spending more than it makes. Hmmm...) Now this system is imploding, because the false wealth of real estate is gone.
So government investment will focus on infrastructure, to make us more productive--so we can create goods more cheaply, competitively, and efficiently. And it'll push forward (through incentives, and research dollars) an agenda to make us less dependent on foreign fuel (to reduce the trade deficit, among other things) and put us in the lead in manufacturing and creating green technologies. Maybe America's Model T of this century is the solar panel. Or the wind turbine. Or some other technology not yet even created. The people behind the upcoming stimulus are hoping to kick-start American manufacturing dominance for a new "green" world.
For an example of the green economy's potential, here's an article from the jobs section of the Times, talking about all of the new work being created by the solar industry. It says that even during this recession, business is booming for solar panel makers and installers.
But here's the big, troubling question: Is it possible for a government to be able to kick-start a new manufacturing industry in a country? Has it ever succesfully happened before? Or does such a process have to happen naturally and organically, through market-driven means? (Meaning, if times are tough enough, American entrepreneurs will bootstrap themselves up to dominance through their own ingenuity--and not through government stimulus and intervention.) Is the artificial creation of a green economy kind of a Soviet-lite philosopy? Or, given the situation--both economic, and in terms of the looming environmental catastrophe--do we have no choice but to follow this route?
We Americans often think we can change the world just by exerting our will--whether it's about democracy and human rights around the world, or even economically (home and abroad). But change and growth comes through a natural process. You can throw fertilizer on a seedling in a flower garden to make it flourish more quickly, but you can't put a gun to it and say "Bloom now! Or else!" The last eight years should have taught us that.
Ouch, this all makes my head hurt. I make a promise to all 16 of you regular readers (hi mom and dad): only low-calorie posts from now on.
We're a country that buys more than it produces. (In this global market, that's almost like a household constantly spending more than it makes. Hmmm...) Now this system is imploding, because the false wealth of real estate is gone.
So government investment will focus on infrastructure, to make us more productive--so we can create goods more cheaply, competitively, and efficiently. And it'll push forward (through incentives, and research dollars) an agenda to make us less dependent on foreign fuel (to reduce the trade deficit, among other things) and put us in the lead in manufacturing and creating green technologies. Maybe America's Model T of this century is the solar panel. Or the wind turbine. Or some other technology not yet even created. The people behind the upcoming stimulus are hoping to kick-start American manufacturing dominance for a new "green" world.
For an example of the green economy's potential, here's an article from the jobs section of the Times, talking about all of the new work being created by the solar industry. It says that even during this recession, business is booming for solar panel makers and installers.
But here's the big, troubling question: Is it possible for a government to be able to kick-start a new manufacturing industry in a country? Has it ever succesfully happened before? Or does such a process have to happen naturally and organically, through market-driven means? (Meaning, if times are tough enough, American entrepreneurs will bootstrap themselves up to dominance through their own ingenuity--and not through government stimulus and intervention.) Is the artificial creation of a green economy kind of a Soviet-lite philosopy? Or, given the situation--both economic, and in terms of the looming environmental catastrophe--do we have no choice but to follow this route?
We Americans often think we can change the world just by exerting our will--whether it's about democracy and human rights around the world, or even economically (home and abroad). But change and growth comes through a natural process. You can throw fertilizer on a seedling in a flower garden to make it flourish more quickly, but you can't put a gun to it and say "Bloom now! Or else!" The last eight years should have taught us that.
Ouch, this all makes my head hurt. I make a promise to all 16 of you regular readers (hi mom and dad): only low-calorie posts from now on.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Story of Stuff
Have you seen this yet? It's called "The Story of Stuff." An amazing video of the environmental impact that goes into the stuff we consume and then throw out. The system is called the materials economy. The narrator follows our stuff from extraction, to production, to distribution, to consumption, to disposal. Be forewarned: it's 20 minutes long.
Shaping young minds
Today I'll be videoconferencing with 71 students enrolled in the "Literature and the Environment" course taught by Richard Kentz at Union Mine High School near Placerville, California. Mr. Kentz actually assigned them to read "Greasy Rider." Unfortunately for his students, there's no Cliff's Notes for Greasy Rider. At least not yet.
That's right, I'm shaping young minds (although in fairness, it should be pointed out that the book is far from being classified as "literature").
That's right, I'm shaping young minds (although in fairness, it should be pointed out that the book is far from being classified as "literature").
Not to be alarmist, but...
Enough water has melted from the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland since 2003 to fill the Chesapeake 21 times. That equates to trillions--with a 't'--of gallons of water.
Stunning.
But all of this is reversible down the road if we use ingenious ways to block out the sun, and create global cooling, right? Surely we can control nature if we really, really want to. Let's wait until there's a huge crisis and see...
Stunning.
But all of this is reversible down the road if we use ingenious ways to block out the sun, and create global cooling, right? Surely we can control nature if we really, really want to. Let's wait until there's a huge crisis and see...
What would Michael Pollan think?
Tom Vilsack from Iowa named as Obama's agriculture nominee. That's good for corn-based ethanol. (If corn-based ethanol is your thing.) As for corn subsidies and the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup--which could be linked to the obesity epidemic in America--that's probably not going anywhere, either.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
How can you reduce water consumption? Eat more fiber.
Another entry from the Greasy Rider column on Outside magazine's web site:
Q: What one equipment change can I make in my home to reduce my water usage most?
A: For the average American, it's throwing out the sprinkler. There's no doubt a special place in eco-hell for the guy with the greenest lawn in Las Vegas, probably in a spot next to the designer of the Bellagio's Dancing Waters (though I do so love watching those 1,200 fountains ejaculating spray hundreds of feet above that 22-million-gallon, eight-acre man-made lake in the middle of the desert). A study by the AWWA Research Foundation tells us that 58 percent of household water consumption in America goes to irrigating our yards.
If you insist on a green lawn, look into a graywater system, which recycles from sinks, bathtubs, showers, and the washing machine to irrigate the yard and garden. The installation cost usually runs from $1,000 to $5,000, but like so many other environmental measures, it'll eventually pay for itself in savings.
Inside the home, it's the toilet. About one-quarter of the water we use is flushed down the drain, which amounts to about 18.5 gallons per person a day. A low-flow toilet slashes that number. For those of you who complain that you usually have to flush twice with low-flows—thus negating the water savings—I’ve got two suggestions: 1) eat more fiber, and 2) look at the AWWA survey. It found that homes with low-flow toilets barely flushed more times per day than homes with regular ones, and consumed half as much toilet water.
Q: What one equipment change can I make in my home to reduce my water usage most?
A: For the average American, it's throwing out the sprinkler. There's no doubt a special place in eco-hell for the guy with the greenest lawn in Las Vegas, probably in a spot next to the designer of the Bellagio's Dancing Waters (though I do so love watching those 1,200 fountains ejaculating spray hundreds of feet above that 22-million-gallon, eight-acre man-made lake in the middle of the desert). A study by the AWWA Research Foundation tells us that 58 percent of household water consumption in America goes to irrigating our yards.
If you insist on a green lawn, look into a graywater system, which recycles from sinks, bathtubs, showers, and the washing machine to irrigate the yard and garden. The installation cost usually runs from $1,000 to $5,000, but like so many other environmental measures, it'll eventually pay for itself in savings.
Inside the home, it's the toilet. About one-quarter of the water we use is flushed down the drain, which amounts to about 18.5 gallons per person a day. A low-flow toilet slashes that number. For those of you who complain that you usually have to flush twice with low-flows—thus negating the water savings—I’ve got two suggestions: 1) eat more fiber, and 2) look at the AWWA survey. It found that homes with low-flow toilets barely flushed more times per day than homes with regular ones, and consumed half as much toilet water.
Pirates, we'll get that oil tanker back!

Riding high from its many successful armed interventions with other failed states around the world in the past seven years, the current US administration has suggested conducting military raids into Somalia to stop the pirates.
Condi is going to try to put together a Coalition of the Willing for it. Good luck with that one.
Remember: it's about the safety of ships, it's not about the oil. It's never about the oil.
What? The Interior Department cooked the books on endangered species? That can't be possible!
I know it sounds incredible, but it's true: a top Bushie official violated ethics codes (if not the law) to cook the books on environmental information to meet the administration's political agenda. Yes, shocking. This time it's regarding endangered species, according to the Interior Department's own inspector general. The official, Julie McDonald, had no background in natural science, yet the Associated Press says she...
"...did pervasive harm to the department's morale and integrity and may have risked the well-being of species with her agenda, Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney said in his report out Monday.
The Interior Department last year reversed seven rulings that denied endangered species increased protection, after an investigation found that MacDonald had applied political pressure in those cases. The new report looked at nearly two dozen other endangered species decisions not examined in the earlier report. It found MacDonald directly interfered with at least 13 decisions and indirectly affected at least two more."
Apparently, her name has turned into a verb at her office. If you're a senior career worker in the Interior Department, and she comes down hard on you to lie or withhold information, you've been "McDonalded."
Devaney said "MacDonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act program and to the morale and reputation" of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act.
"Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure," from 2002 until 2007, the report said.
In a way, I'm really going to miss these people. The polar bears aren't, though.
"...did pervasive harm to the department's morale and integrity and may have risked the well-being of species with her agenda, Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney said in his report out Monday.
The Interior Department last year reversed seven rulings that denied endangered species increased protection, after an investigation found that MacDonald had applied political pressure in those cases. The new report looked at nearly two dozen other endangered species decisions not examined in the earlier report. It found MacDonald directly interfered with at least 13 decisions and indirectly affected at least two more."
Apparently, her name has turned into a verb at her office. If you're a senior career worker in the Interior Department, and she comes down hard on you to lie or withhold information, you've been "McDonalded."
Devaney said "MacDonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act program and to the morale and reputation" of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act.
"Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure," from 2002 until 2007, the report said.
In a way, I'm really going to miss these people. The polar bears aren't, though.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The "green dream team"
Obama's set to announce his environmental "dream team" of cabinet nominees today. Here's my concern with B.O.'s top officials so far: yes, they're all immensely smart, passionate and skilled. But do they know how to be managers? That'll be the key to whether or not they can really do a heckuva job. Has any of them, say, been the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association--or something similarly challenging?
Low-flow shower update
What's greener, a fake Christmas tree or a real one?

Get the real deal. Fake trees are made with PVC, which doesn't biodegrade. They also often contain lead. Real trees do biodegrade, and new trees are then planted in their place, soaking up carbon dioxide.
Though cutting down one of those 200-year-old spruces to plop into Rockefeller Center is truly a sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

