Uncategorized

The new coalition of national security types and greens promising.

Hello, Gristmill readers. I'm very excited that Dave has asked me to do some guest blogging here, as Grist is my favorite environmental magazine and I'm thrilled that Gristmill is asking good questions and reaching out to other bloggers and publications. As I told Dave via email, I used to blog about environmental topics on the now-defunct American Footprint, before I got distracted by terrorism and American policy in the Greater Middle East.

Always in the back of my mind, however, has been the conviction that environmental and in particular energy issues aren't getting enough attention, and that they are deeply intertwined with our national security. Our current national complacency is, in the long run (or even in the short run!), going to make us less prosperous and less safe. I'm by no means a policy expert, an economist, a scientist, or a defense strategist. I'm just a regular old blogger. But I do read a lot and what I read makes me very, very concerned that we aren't doing enough as a society to make the right choices. Because we do have choices, and we are at a clear fork in the road.

There have been a number of developments recently that, in my humble opinion, offer great hope. The first is that the American public, by and large, is well aware of its growing dependence on imported oil. This is more true when pump prices are high, as they are now (and may well be indefinitely). The second is that several powerful new groups--defense hawks, unions, big business, and evangelical Christians--are starting to make noises that they, too, want to push for change, and push hard.

And that's a good thing.

Traditional environmental activists (assuming there is such an identifiable group) should warmly welcome their support, because we're going to need it. They've got big megaphones and beelines to important centers of power. I don't expect all of the factions of this emerging coalition to get along all of the time. Some compromises may need to be made in order to keep everyone on board. But the conversation and the jostling and the disagreement about strategy and tactics are ultimately a source of strength, because the more debate the broader public hears, the better. And those folks know how to win converts to their causes, and no doubt have many lessons to impart. Let's play this game to win.

And isn’t that the best kind?

Is the Cape Cod Times editorial board in the pocket of big anti-wind groups?! Are they skewing and suppressing news coverage in service of their rabid anti-wind bias!?

!!!???

Yes, these are matters of minimal national import, but they do provide some fun drama. Jack Coleman says he left the Times after getting sick of the increasing slant of its news coverage against Cape Wind, the big wind project planned for Nantucket Sound. Apparently the editors are allied with the ruthless Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound. The hoo-ha even reached the Boston Globe.

I can't say I've been tracking the trials and tribulations of Cape Wind that closely, but everything I've seen leads me to the same conclusion: This is a group of privileged upper-crust aristocrats perfectly willing to advocate for sacrifice on the part of, say, Michigan auto workers, but who react with umbrage when their precious views and sailing waters might have to be part of the solution. Maybe a commenter can explain to me why this is not what it seems.

Vote early and often!

Grist has been nominated for a Webby award in the "magazine" category. Webbys are the Internet Oscars. You know it's true, cause their site says so!

Seriously, though, it's a cool thing, and to be nominated alongside Consumer Reports and Alternet, well, it's downright heady.

So please, all you Gristers: head over and vote for Grist.

(Yes, you have to register to vote. And yes, it's a pain. But you love us that much, right?)

The Onion: funny.

The Onion is, as always, hilarious.

There are serious issues in the vicinity, however. If you care to read about them, check out this Mark Schmitt post.

Popping corn

Every time I post something about biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), it gets, shall we say, spirited comments. Passions run hot on both sides, with opinions split between those who think that biofuels are one of the most promising solutions to America's petroleum dependence and a great way of reducing climate-warming emissions, and those who think that that biofuels are mostly a costly and wasteful distraction.

What do I think? I posted a longer post on that subject on the Cascadia Scorecard Weblog. Here's a Cliff Notes version.

• Corn ethanol's chief critic says that it's a waste of energy -- ie., that it takes more fossil fuel energy to grow corn and distill it into ethanol than the ethanol itself contains. But he uses outdated data.
• A widely cited USDA researcher says that corn ethanol can reduce fossil fuel use -- ie., that corn ethanol contains considerably more energy than is contained in the fossil fuels used to farm corn and distill ethanol. But he relies on some generous assumptions, and ignores some significant energy costs.
• Averaging the two views, it seems that corn ethanol probably uses about as much fossil fuel energy to produce as is contained in the gasoline it displaces -- maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but not a lot either way.
• Which means, as things currently stand, that I'm much more interested in promoting fuel efficient vehicles and compact urban design than I am in even discussing corn ethanol. Those steps can have a big impact on fossil fuel consumption. Ramping up corn ethanol production--unless I'm badly mistaken--won't.

Now, obviously, there are lots of other points to be made both for and against corn ethanol; and these arguments don't carry over into biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. But they do make me feel like shrugging and changing the subject whenever someone gets all excited about corn ethanol, either pro or con.

Sometimes political showmanship is just what the Dr. ordered

This comment from reader mmuller23 on the by-now-notorious CHEERS study raises an important point that is worth elevating here. On the Senate Dems' efforts to stall Johnson's nomination, he/she says:

Somehow it has more the feel of an easy media stunt than the rational approach to policy making we (liberals) like to take pride in.

My initial reaction to this is: Argh.

To flesh that out a bit:

Arctic Refuge drilling debate misses the big picture

Sun-drenched Pelican Island in Florida is about as far from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as you can get in the United States. At first blush, the 5,000-acre warm marsh […]

The Ventilator

Washington state law calls for new public buildings to be green Washington state will be the first in the nation to require new public buildings to meet green building standards, […]

Do the Riot Thing

Chemical factory pollution sparks riot in eastern China Thousands of farmers rioted in a village in eastern China over the weekend, taking a stand against encroachment of the country’s fast-growing […]

Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Missing Waste

Like absentminded professors, nuclear plants misplace their waste A comprehensive new report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reveals pervasive problems in the nuclear industry, abetted by lax federal regulation. […]