Uncategorized

Corn-based packaging not as green as it looks

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a memorable piece on its front business page about corn overproduction in Iowa. Entitled "Mountains of Corn and a Sea of Farm Subsidies," the piece featured a photo of a monstrous pile of corn outside of a stuffed-to-capacity grain elevator, "soaring more than 60 feet high and spreading a football field wide," the text informs us.

(Shame on me for not writing about this at the time; the piece has since gone premium.)

One ingenious entrepreneur has even rushed out with "Ski Iowa" t-shirts, the article reports -- a funny echo of the "Ski Iraq" t-shirt that transfixed the character Billy on Six Feet Under in its final season.

Seems that farmers once again produced way too much corn in 2005, cranking it out faster than the likes of Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill can transform it into industrial-food filler, high-fructose corn sweetener, and ethanol. Say what you want about it, but input-heavy, energy-intensive, subsidy-dependent agriculture has certainly proven it can crank out a whole bunch of grain.

I got to thinking about that mountain of unwanted corn when I read another page-one story from the Times' business page, this one on growing corporate/investor interest in "green" technology.

Further Down the Drain

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation wants to bet up to $1 billion of your tax dollars that its latest proposals to carry toxic waste waters away from the nation's largest federal irrigation project will not result in another ecological disaster like the selenium poisoning of the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge more than 20 years ago.

The Bureau is putting the final touches on an environmental impact statement (EIS) due Feb. 1, 2006 in which it will announce support for one of three possible drainage solutions: Delta Disposal, Central Coast disposal, or building drainage treatment facilities and evaporation ponds within the San Joaquin Valley with varying levels of land retirement.

Opponents say the Bureau's science is flawed, threatens fisheries and birds, and that construction and operation costs are likely to become astronomical for keeping just a few hundred growers in business irrigating a desert.

Schweitzer and coal-to-fuel conversion

I confess I'm not quite sure what to make of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer's grand scheme to make the U.S. energy independent with coal-to-fuel conversion. The NYT makes only passing reference to the pollution generated -- "what is new is the technology that removes and stores the pollutants during and after the making of synthetic fuel" -- and Schweitzer seems slightly too pat about the consequences of mining the coal:

Mr. Schweitzer said the mining could be done in a way that restored the land afterward. "I call it deep farming," he said. "You take away the top eight inches of soil, remove the seam of coal, and then put the topsoil back in."

Yes, because farming has been so kind to the Western prairie ...

Naturally, my environmental spidey-sense tingles at this sort of stuff. Will the mining really be done carefully? Will restoration really be a priority? Are the pollutants really "removed and stored" safely? I know very little about the process, technically speaking, and would love to be enlightened by an educated reader. But methinks when it comes to energy extraction in the West, an enormous dose of skepticism is warranted.

Still.

When Turkeys Attack

Wild-turkey comeback means more human-critter confrontations As Thanksgiving approaches, we offer this warning: The turkeys are back, and they’re not happy. From its nadir of perhaps 30,000 around 1900, the […]

General Electric Slide

Leaked memo raises doubts about thoroughness of GE’s Hudson cleanup plan Remember the historic settlement announced last month between the U.S. EPA and General Electric? The one that would have […]

The Constant Guardians

African parks and preserves face complex challenges Conservationists struggling to protect Africa’s nature preserves face challenges ranging from pirate trawlers to locals hunting monkeys for food. At Conkouati National Park, […]

California is in trouble

I know you've all checked out our nifty map showing where the next likely "Unnatural Disaster" will take place. In the same vein, check out this L.A. Times editorial on a possible Cali earthquake and its consequences for the levees that hold the state's elaborate water infrastructure together. Grim.

Should a magnitude 6.5 earthquake strike the San Francisco Bay Area -- almost a certainty by mid-century, though it could happen today -- about 30 major failures can be expected in the earthen levees.

About 3,000 homes and 85,000 acres of cropland would be submerged. Saltwater from San Francisco Bay would invade the system, forcing engineers to shut down the pumps that ship water to Central and Southern California while the levees were being repaired. This would cut off water to the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project.

The [Metropolitan Water District] has a water reserve of six months set aside for such a crisis, and it also accesses water from the Colorado River. Multiple smaller water agencies south of the delta, however, have no such reserves or alternate sources of supply.

Think of it: 3,000 homes under water; 16 delta islands and 85,000 acres of cropland lost to flood; drought conditions in Central California, followed by drought conditions in Southern California as thirsty people drink up MWD reserves in the first six months of a 12- to 18-month reconstruction period. Nor would the MWD be able to tap into an increased supply of Colorado River water, these resources having long since been allocated to Nevada and Arizona.

(Hat tip to Ezra for editorial and to Tool for the headline.)

FOX in thrall to Kennedy and Clinton?

Good grief, FOX's decision to run a special on global warming that accurately reflects the scientific consensus is really driving righties around the bend.

In the course of ranting about FOX's inexplicable capitulation to science radical lefties, Cliff Kincaid floats this theory:

Some observers think FNC turned its airtime over to [Robert] Kennedy [Jr.] because he may be in a position to help or hurt them. It has been reported that Kennedy wants to run for high office in New York, where FNC parent News Corporation is based. FNC is said to be cozying up to New York Senator Hillary Clinton for the same reason. 

Who, I wonder, are these "some observers," and why are they not named? And why must Hillary Clinton play a role in every single right-wing conspiracy theory, no matter what the subject?

Ah well. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to contemplate the full ramifications of this wingnuttery.

How did the comedy special on global warming do?

As discussed in Grist's interview with Larry David, last night TBS aired a comedy special about global warming titled "Earth to America!"

As I don't get TBS, I was wondering if any of you happened to watch. If so, how was it?

Based on the posts over on TBS's community forums, some people were disappointed and claim that the comedians focused more on politics than on the issue of global warming. Any truth to that?

One-stop shopping

Lots of good stuff stuff in Mike Millikin's week in sustainable transportation.