Uncategorized

NYT bashes new forest-management rules

The New York Times editorial page has a lucid take on the Bush admin's new forest-management rules. Daily Grist summarized the basic news here, but the NYT digs a little deeper into the likely ramifications of the policy overhaul -- and the Gray Lady doesn't like what she sees:

The ostensible purpose of the change is to streamline a cumbersome management process and give individual forest managers more flexibility to respond to threats like wildfires and the increasing use of the forests by off-road vehicles. But the new rules would also eliminate vital environmental reviews, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, jettison wildlife protections that date to President Ronald Reagan, restrict public input, and replace detailed regulations, like those limiting clearcuts and protecting streams, with vague "results-based" goals. These are unacceptably high costs to pay for regulatory efficiency.

More broadly, the whole idea of giving local managers more flexibility defies history, however reasonable it appears on the surface. The main reason Congress enacted the National Forest Management Act in 1976 was that the public had lost confidence in the Forest Service, not only local foresters but also their bosses in Washington, who seemed mainly interested in harvesting timber no matter what the cost to the forest's ecological health.

GMO

If you can tolerate pointless (though free) web registration and downloading a PDF, this piece on agricultural biotechnology (uh, PDF) in the latest World Watch Magazine is good reading.

Top 10 sustainable biz stories of 2004

I find myself tempted to link to just about every post on Joel Makower's blog, and this list of the ten biggest stories in green business in 2004 is no exception. As he says:

The bottom line: amid steady declines in ecosystem indicators and devastating rollbacks by the Bush Administration in environmental laws and enforcement, there's some good news to report. Companies seem to be stepping up to the plate -- or are being forced to do so by shareholders, activists, or competitors.

Glass half full and all that ...

UPDATE: If you'd like to get involved in green investing and "build a sustainable portfolio," check out this guide from Sustainable Business Insider and this gloss on it from Treehugger.

Dumb mongering

I don't want to get into the habit of flagging every piece of writing by a climate change skeptic -- it's a mug's game. But this column by Debra Saunders goes beyond the usual selective emphasis and obfuscation and crosses the line into, well, stupidity.

She starts by pointing out that no enviro has blamed global warming for the recent tsunamis. Right. That would be dumb. But, it seems, some have pointed out that rising sea levels -- which are attributable to global warming -- are likely to increase the damage done by future tsunamis. Saunders calls this "capitalizing on the tragedy." Uh ... what? Are the people pushing for the creation of a better early-warning system also capitalizing on the tragedy? How about the people advocating for a stable international aid organization? How exactly does pushing for action to reduce the impact of future tragedies amount to capitalizing on current ones?

Capitalizing on the tragedy would mean using it to make cheap political points against strawman opponents, and so far that seems to be a climate change skeptic's game. See Joel Makower and Chris Mooney for other examples.

After a jaw-droppingly uncritical paean to Michael Crichton's new book and the work of the well-funded skeptics upon which it is based, Saunders concludes with this gem:

On Dec. 29, National Geographic's Web site reported that while media accounts "frequently assert that climate change is uncertain," a UC San Diego professor read 928 scientific papers and found, "Not one of the papers refuted the claim that human activities are affecting the Earth's climate." (Funny, Crichton's 20-page bibliography found contrary opinions.)

The piece that Saunders didn't take the time to track down is here, and it refers to papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Yes, Crichton found plenty of skeptical sources, but none that had survived the process of peer review. That might have meant something to Saunders, were she not simply filling column inches with vapor to get to her risible, utterly unsupported concluding accusation:

...some global-warming true believers argue things that they know aren't true. And that makes them dangerous.

One can only shake one's head in wonder at the sight of the scientific community and environmental activists being branded "dangerous" by a group that includes a best-selling author, several mega-billion dollar industries, the think tanks they fund to produce and disseminate skeptical chaff, and a party that controls all three branches of government.

UPDATE: More on this from Chris Mooney.

New Year’s, Re: Solutions

Green resolutions for the new year Green-minded self-improvers, we’ve got just the resolutions for you. In 2005, pledge to tackle “the big stuff” — your choices on transportation, food, and […]

Blair keeps warning of warming

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is keeping up attempts to push climate change at the next G8 meeting. His latest high profile statement is a by-invitation piece in the Dec. 29 issue of The Economist. He sets out the rationale for tackling climate change and African poverty and health challenges as Britain assumes the chair of the G-8 this month.

I fear he goes off track in dealing with the United States, however, when he says, "Through the G8, we have the opportunity to agree on what the most up-to-date investigations of climate change are telling us about the threat we face."

It is not about the science with the Bush administration. It is hard to conceive of an IPCC consensus that would change minds on Pennsylvania Ave. It will be the states, the private sector, and/or the faith-based communities that produced a changed policy. International conferences to debate what we know and what we don't know just offer more opportunities for opponents of action to emphasize scientific uncertainty.

Blair needs to adopt the winning U.S. election strategy of getting out the bases -- red states, big money, and the faithful.

David Helvarg, marine activist, answers questions

David Helvarg. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I’m president of Blue Frontier Campaign. What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute “mission accomplished”? Blue […]

Tsunami response

If you're wondering what to do about the Indian Ocean tsunami, here is some advice I trust from my friend Vicki Robin of the New Road Map Foundation and Conversation Cafe: make a donation to the Sri Lankan grassroots development movement Sarvodaya. (Back when I studied such things -- a dozen or more years ago -- I regarded the organization as among the best in Asia.)

Vicki passes along a note from a friend of hers named Sharif Abdulla:

BINGOs talk back about World Watch article

The debate rages on. World Watch magazine's new issue contains a whopping 16 pages of letters [PDF] in response to Mac Chapin's controversial article "A Challenge to Conservationists" [PDF], which accused big international conservation NGOs of trampling indigenous people's rights as the groups work to put ever-larger chunks of land under protection.  

“Climate variability”

Global warming, climate change, global climate change -- so 2004. The hipsters are now calling it "climate variability." Or, well, at least a few Bush admin spinmeisters are hoping they will be 'ere long.

In Buenos Aires earlier this month, when they weren't busy stymieing progress on Kyoto, U.S. reps were trying to get folks jazzed about the fresh coinage "climate variability." So much more pleasing to the ear than those stilted, passe climate phrases of yore. After all, variety is the spice of life!

Look forward to a lot of spicy weather ahead.