Uncategorized

Personal conservation habits will never be enough

I'm not sure if NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller intended to write a piece of sly satire with this story on Bush's conservation efforts, but it's brilliant nonetheless.

You may recall that last week Bush called on Americans to conserve energy by driving less, turning off the lights, etc. He instructed federal gov't agencies to "cut back on nonessential travel and also encouraged them to carpool, telecommute and use public transportation."

The ironies here are rich and multifarious, but let us first quote at length from Bumiller's piece, which is just too delicious:

Meanwhile, members of the administration were not especially responsive last week to questions about their personal conservation strategies.

When asked by e-mail what he was doing to conserve, Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, hit "reply" and asked, "What are you doing to conserve?"

Margaret Spellings, the secretary of education, said that she was avoiding nonessential travel because "I'm working so much that I don't have time to go anywhere personally."

Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman's spokesman did not say what Mr. Bodman was doing personally, although he did say that Mr. Bodman had asked employees to actually read the president's conservation directive.

Back at the White House, it was unclear how many people, if any, had turned in their parking passes for Metro rides. But there was one incentive: "You can get it back - it's like squatters' rights," said Trent Duffy, the deputy White House press secretary. "You don't have to give up parking permanently."

I find Mr. Bodman's efforts particularly heroic. Getting low-level gov't employees to actually read a memo from the boss!

But on a more serious and wonky note:

The U.K. is trying a huge toll-road pilot project

Here's something definitely worth watching: The UK is considering a massive pilot project to make drivers pay to use the roads. And not just on a few select roads -- the system would effectively turn every street and highway in Great Britain into a toll road. (Here's a link -- but the article is subscription only. Sorry.)

Tolls would vary based on the kind of road, the number of miles driven, and the time of day; it would cost more to use the most congested roads during rush hour, say, than an uncongested road in the middle of the night. This sort of system -- sometimes called "value pricing" -- is a much better bargain than it seems at first blush. It simultaneously cuts congestion, saves fuel, reduces accident risks, and, perhaps most importantly, relieves some of the pressure to build new roads -- an expense that only seems to grow more costly with time.

As a side benefit, this sort of system would make it far easier for insurance companies to offer Pay As You Drive car insurance. That's a big benefit to people who don't drive much -- since they drive less, they'll pay less, and will stop subsidizing people who rack up both big mileage and big accident risks.

The basic technology underpinning value pricing isn't far-fetched at all -- in fact, mobile Global Positioning Systems are already available as an option for new cars, as well as in some rentals, and their cost will only go down over time. The Puget Sound Regional Council has experimented for years with a small-scale value pricing scheme. That said, there are still all sorts of potential technical kinks to be worked out before the system can be adopted more widely -- which makes a big UK pilot project all the more valuable.

Ag subsidies

I've long thought that massive U.S. agricultural subsidies are a disaster -- environmentally, economically, socially, [your adverb here].

Over on the Environmental Economics blog, an expert (Prof. Bruce Gardner) discusses the issue in a somewhat more nuanced way, but doesn't say anything to dissuade me.

Alfredo Quarto, head of Mangrove Action Project, answers questions

Alfredo Quarto. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I am executive director and cofounder of the Mangrove Action Project. What does your organization do? MAP is dedicated to reversing […]

Smells like pimply teen spirit

I thought this Hummer-branded laptop was absurd. But apparently that was just the tip of the iceberg.

See, e.g., Hummer Stuff: the complete catalog for the Hummer lifestyle, and unambigous proof of the impending end-of-days. If you want, you can even smell like a Hummer. I hear it's like catnip for the ladies. Gotta get me some before that seventh seal opens...

Win, Lose, or Crawfish

New Orleans-area fish, shrimp, crab are OK to eat; oysters, not so much Though few folks are there to eat it, much of the seafood from Lake Pontchartrain next to […]

Hack to School

Japanese fishermen slaughter their competition

All over the world people are feeling the effects of overfishing. While I would personally advocate not eating fish to begin with, others have come up with alternative solutions, from establishing sustainably managed fisheries to launching campaigns educating the public on what fish to consume.

And then there is this:

In the Japanese fishing village of Taiji, fishermen are rounding up and slaughtering hundreds and even thousands of dolphins right now.

After driving pods of dolphins into shallow coves, the fishermen kill the dolphins, slashing their throats with knives or stabbing them with spears. Thrashing about, the dolphins take as long as six minutes to die. The water turns red with their blood and the air fills with their screams.

This brutal massacre -- the largest scale dolphin kill in the world -- goes on for six months of every year. Even more shocking, the captive dolphin industry is an accomplice to the kill.

Way to go fellas -- violence and murder is always the easiest solution, isn't it? Who's next after you wipe out all of your non-human competition?

If you would like to do something, One Voice, the Earth Island Institute, and the Elsa Nature Conservancy have a few options on their website.

Call for submissions

It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks Current TV needs more green. In fact, Current TV agrees! What are you waiting for, people? Send them your videos!

And thanks to Current TV blogga Robin for linking to Grist from their blog.

is an industry effort to shut down threats to their bottom line

This Alternet piece on the new "eco-terrorism" hype covers ground mostly familiar to Grist readers. But it's got some important details.

The piece identifies two specific groups behind the recent hype: the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative lawmakers, and -- behind them -- the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group that shills for the alcohol, tobacco, and restaurant industries. CCF is one of many front groups for Berman & Co., a lobbying firm owned by Rick Berman, a former restaurant industry executive. Berman is legendary as a ruthless fighter against any regulation or taxes that might hamper his industry friends. He's also known for close ties to Republican lawmakers.

He once told Chain Leader Magazine, a restaurant trade publication, "Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons."

The strategy isn't difficult to discern: Hype the threat from "eco-terrorists," lobby friendly lawmakers to pass draconian laws, and then work hard to tie these "terrorists" to activist groups that hinder your clients' interests. From the Alternet piece:

David Martosko, a CCF official, told the House Ways and Means Committee in March that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the United States Humane Society (USHS), and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) have, to varying degrees, supported known eco-terrorists.

"I urge this committee to fully investigate the connections between individuals who commit crimes in the name of the ALF [Animal Liberation Front], ELF [Earth Liberation Front], or similar phantom groups, and the above-ground individuals and organizations that give them aid and comfort," Martosko testified. "I would also urge members of this Committee to prevail upon their colleagues to re-examine the tax-exempt status of groups that have helped to fund, directly or indirectly, these domestic terrorists."

There's the nut: "re-examine the tax-exempt status." It's an overt attempt to shut down particular activist groups.

For industry, it's a way of destroying threats to their financial interests. For Republicans, it's a way to damage political enemies. For the mouth-breathing, talk-radio-listening Republican base, it's another focus for their spittle-flecked hatred. Everybody wins.

Don't get distracted. This whole kerfuffle about eco-terrorism isn't about objectively weighing threats to our country. Don't start arguing about what really is or really isn't terrorism. Don't feel pressured to incant the line, "Of course I disavow the tactics of those groups, but ..." The merits of the case against "eco-terrorism" are a total distraction. The people waging this war could give a rat's ass about the merits.

Call it what it is.