Uncategorized

International group attempts to tame China’s dustbowl.

A few days backed I asked readers to send me a copy of a (subscription-protected) New Scientist story that tantalizingly promised to cover "the biggest ecological project the world has ever seen."

Well, thanks to the magic of the worldwide internets, I now have a copy of the story (thanks Mike!).

Here's the deal: Every spring, winds kick up and start blowing dust off the plains of Inner Mongolia and northwestern China. This is a natural event -- been going on for millions of years -- but overgrazing and deforestation have dramatically increased the amount of dust and the damage it does:

Kelpie Wilson calls out the recent nuclear PR campaign.

We all know that Grist readers just can't get enough of the discussion about nuclear power. Kelpie Wilson dissertates on that very subject in an op-ed over at truthout.org. Among her many points, she notes that the nuclear industry has seized on the fact that when it comes to carbon emissions, nuclear is squeaky clean. She highlights the public-relations campaign being run by the industry to "rebrand" nuclear.

So how about it? Have those of us who have been reconsidering nuclear been conned? Swindled? Perhaps even taken in by a fly-by-night salesperson promising us seventy-six trombones?

TPMCafe RSS

Political junkies will be happy to learn that the recently launched TPMCafe now has a full menu of RSS feeds. Greens will be sad to note that it -- like so many mainstream political blogs -- is virtually devoid of environmental coverage.

A new way to mitigate congestion.

We've already heard about pay-as-you-drive insurance, but British Transport Secretary Alistair Darling announced today that he is considering a pay-as-you-go plan to ease congestion on some of England's most heavily traveled roadways to avoid "LA-style gridlock." The plan involves using satellites to track cars, which would have to be equipped with a "black box," and charging the driver per mile traveled. Charges would range from 2 pence to over 1.30 pounds per mile.

Greenpeace UK had their own take: make the system scaled so that gas-guzzlers pay more than gas-sippers. They also expressed dismay that the charge might be a replacement, not a supplement, to existing road and gas taxes.

The plan is far from being implemented, though. The Observer cites experts estimating the system won't be practical until 2014.

Personal privacy concerns are obviously relevant here. But I guess if you don't like the idea of the government knowing where you are, you can just stop driving.

Update [2005-6-9 23:25:53 by Andy Brett]:
There have been some more articles at BBC news:
Road Charge Plans to be Outlined
Road Charge Helps Rural Drivers

The topic will also be featured on this week's Talking Point; click here to send in comments and to watch the show after it airs on Sunday, June 12.

And the "you can just stop driving" line was intended to be a little more light-hearted than I think it comes across :)

Satellite images reveal humankind’s impact on earth.

A new photo atlas released by the United Nations Environment Program illustrates, in no uncertain terms, humanity's impact on the planet. We're talking 300-some pages of salacious satellite images documenting rampant deforestation, retreating glaciers, and massive urban sprawl (a la the images of Las Vegas, Nev., at left, in 1973 and 2000 respectively) in before-and-after photo spreads that put even the most trashy of gossip rags to shame. Sadly, however, I fear more people will see the aforementioned mags than this atlas. Plus, everyone knows before-and-after pics are always doctored. Nice try, U.N.

Views on global warming from across the pond.

Despite some pretty outlandish views from some of the correspondents, among them the idea that global warming is a result of the sun getting hotter, the BBC program (programme?) Talking Point had a pretty good rundown yesterday of oft-discussed topics in the global warming dialogue. The host is Robin Lustig, and his guest was Professor Martin Parry of the IPCC. Among the topics discussed:

Will individual actions stop climate change?

Between the Urban Environment Accords signed by over 60 mayors at the World Environment Day conference, Arnold Schwarzenegger's pledge to reduce California's GHG emissions, 158 other mayors pledging to reduce their cities' emissions, and carbon-neutral driving, gift-giving, and rocking becoming popular (well, maybe not popular), could it be that sub-national groups of people or even individuals are going to take a leading role in combating soaring emissions?

The answer, of course, is still up in the (hot) air. Obviously if everyone in the world made all of their actions carbon neutral, we'd be all set. But is it reasonable to assume that everyone who has the means (or the disposable income) to afford a climate neutral lifestyle will do so? A shift in climate that's a long way off may never be enough to get anybody "fired up," and many people may be deterred by the fact that even if they eliminate all their own carbon emissions, it won't even put a dent in the several gigatons the world emits.

Hope below the fold ...

WED

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that today is World Environment Day. So, uh, Happy Environment, everyone!

A new think tank tries to link up justice, poverty, and green issues

There's been a lot of talk since ... well, forever, but especially since the paper that shall go unnamed, about greens forming strategic alliances with other progressive groups. One such proposed alliance is between big green groups and groups working to fight racism and poverty. Most of this, sad to say, is just talk, but Joel Makower brings word of Reclaim the Future, a new think tank from Van Jones' Ella Baker Center that's trying to make it happen.

Reclaim the Future's slogan is "Green Jobs, Not Jails," and as you might gather, the idea is "representing and empowering ecologically sound, urban entrepreneurs and the communities they provide opportunities for." Jones says the goal is to quickly find a kind of showcase project -- an urban green business that's profitably employing recently incarcerated or at-risk youth -- and leverage the hell out of it. "We want to create a demonstration project that gives us the opportunity to go out and build the political constituency that can multiply that by a thousand-fold," he says. To which I say: Godspeed.

I've often thought that all the talk about bridge-building between extant progressive groups isn't going to amount to much. Institutional cultures and habits are deeply ingrained. From Joel's post:

Clinton

I'm listening to an interview with Bill Clinton on public radio. He just claimed that his administration had the best environmental record since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration -- citing, in particular, the Roadless Rule. He also said that he wanted to raise CAFE standards, but "Congress wouldn't pass it," even when the Democrats were in the majority.

What do you think?

Update [2005-6-3 20:44:39 by Dave Roberts]: In answer to a question about managing China's transition to global powerhouse, Clinton said it's crucial to (among other things) create a new generation of high-tech, high-wage jobs. What jobs? "Clean energy."

Ira Flatow then responded that he had 8 years to advance smart energy policy, and he didn't (though less bluntly put). Clinton had three responses:

• Energy issues had low visibility back then, because other priorities were intruding and oil was cheap;
• the Republican congress enjoyed the oil and coal economy, and still does;
• and he did actually do some stuff, tax credits and such, not to mention Kyoto.

Update [2005-6-3 21:22:14 by Dave Roberts]: A caller just asked him about the hydrogen economy. His answer, paraphrased: Hydrogen is great, and eventually we'll end up there. But it's a ways out. It shouldn't take money from more short-term achievable things like hybrids, compressed natural gas, solar, wind, etc. In general, we should spend far more on the emerging clean-energy economy.

The problem is that the old energy economy -- oil and coal -- is highly centralized, with access to influence, and very well-financed. The new energy economy is decentralized, entrepreneurial, under-financed, and lacking clear markets. The feds should help it along.

Flatow then asked him about nuclear, mentioning that "a lot of green people" are saying it's the answer. His answer, paraphrased: We should "look seriously" at it, and it's clear "we can run safe nuclear power plants." However:

• Will we get enough benefits in the short run given the enormous capital requirements, or would it make more sense to use that money building up renewable energy?
• Should we build 40 new nuke plants before we know what to do with the waste (Yucca was chosen for political, not environmental reasons)?
• Is nuclear more more cost effective than "letting 1000 flowers bloom" with small-scale wind, solar, biomass, etc. projects?

My overall impression of Clinton is basically what it always was: He's a mesmerizing speaker. He talks about progressive issues in a way that seems almost calculated to piss off True Believers, but in the process sells progressive solutions to Middle America more effectively than anyone I've ever heard.