Uncategorized

Conservatives and Clear Skies

Conservatives say that environmentalists only oppose Clear Skies because they hate Bush. My impression is that they only support Clear Skies because they hate environmentalists.

But of course I would think that.

If you want to hear what conservative bloggers have to say about Clear Skies -- much of which draws on a recent Washington Monthly article -- you can start here and then try here, here (good discussion in comments), and here. Feel free to leave additional links in comments, if you have them.

The fact is that Clear Skies is classic Bush. There's plenty of perfectly sensible stuff in it that is long overdue. It's also poisoned with several measures -- among them the loathsome mercury cap-and-trade program -- that no environmentalist or Democrat with a conscience could support. It's designed, like all Bush's initiatives, to gain just enough support to pass, while being as divisive as possible in the process. Rove doesn't want big majorities. He doesn't want bipartisan consensus. He wants open partisan warfare and narrow victories.

Marburger

Presidential science advisor John Marburger has been making some unusually strong and unambiguous statements lately about global warming. Here are my three theories about what could be going on:

1. He's off the reservation, sick of being bashed by the scientific community, and we're soon going to see the phrase "more time with his family" near his name.
2. It's pure greenwashing, an attempt to demonstrate that, despite appearances, the Bush administration takes global warming seriously.
3. Bush has decided that intransigence on warming is becoming a political liability, he's going to make some splashy policy moves soon, and this is an attempt to soften the ground and prepare his supporters.

Which do you think it is?

Just Looking

Forest Service considers sustainability certification In an attempt to stem criticism of its logging and forest-management practices from both timber companies and conservationists, the U.S. Forest Service is assessing a […]

Metals Gone Wild

Mercury seriously mucking with wildlife, study finds Mercury contamination of wildlife may be more prevalent than previously thought and influencing ecosystems in unexpected ways, suggests a study released yesterday. Researchers […]

Elevate Good Times, Come on!

Last chance to enter the Gristmill Environmental Elevator-Pitch Contest The time has come to close out the Gristmill Environmental Elevator-Pitch Contest. We’ll accept entries until Friday, March 11. On Monday, […]

PS: We’re all going to die

The latest science news, nicely coinciding with the belching of Mount St. Helens: some time, not sure when, an extra-giganto-huge volcano is going to erupt and kill a buncha people. Might be in Yellowstone, which is 40,000 years overdue for a super explosion and has inspired a BBC docudrama (check out the still of a pick-up truck fleeing the scene). Or might be somewhere else around the world. Might be tomorrow. Or might be thousands of years from now. But whenever it happens, it's going to be ugly. And, scientists say, there ain't nothin' we can do about it.

Is it any wonder people (and when I say "people," I mean me) bury their heads? The planet is scary, the experts who talk about it are scary, and we are helpless.

OK, well, got to get back to writing silly headlines.

Local v. organic

The study showing that buying local food is better than buying organic got covered all over the blogosphere, but Treehugger has a particularly helpful pair of posts up on what to do about it.

Death: A vast rightwing conspiracy?

I think this is a bit cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs, but if you're into that kind of thing, you'll be into it.

(via Sustainablog)

Bill Frist gets one right

Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has introduced a bill that would make access to clean water and proper sanitation an explicit objective of U.S. foreign aid. I haven't seen this covered anywhere but Joel Makower's blog, but really, what else do you need?

We'll write more on this in coming weeks.

It’s Girl Scout cookie season …

And along with $400 million worth of cookie orders, the national office of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. has received a number of concerns about the cookies saying, among other things, that child labor is used to produce the chocolate that covers Thin Mints -- an allegation Girl Scout officials deny. Critics also charge that Girl Scout cookies are contributing to the American obesity epidemic with high levels of unhealthy trans fats, particularly in their newest cookie, Animal Treasures, a shortbread treat featuring endangered animal imprints. Says Jennifer Romback of the Girl Scout Council of Greater New York, "I'd like to think that Girl Scout cookies are the least of our worries." Indeed.