Uncategorized

No, not that

Talking about climate change, that is. More evidence that it's the hot political topic of the moment -- even the muckety-mucks at Davos are all abuzz over greenhouse gas emissions:

Let’s put bison back on the praries

Every once in a while, a pearl tossed to the swine (we Gristmill commenters) by a fellow Sus scrofa domestica (that's for you, Canis) sticks in my ear. Blame this one on amazingdrx. He mentioned that a concerted effort to restore our prairies could sequester underground much of our carbon without any new technology or the warming effect of temperate tree plantings.

Harvesting a mix of prairie grasses to displace coal in a power plant is many times more efficient and ecologically benign than converting it to liquid fuel, and would tie in nicely with the URGE2 concept. I'm not licking boots here. URGE2 is a powerful idea.

Pew report shows Americans poised to take global climate crisis seriously

The State of the Union address may be just a lot of talk. But considering that each word in these national speeches is painstakingly choreographed, a small phrase for a president can be a giant step for mankind.

That's why, when Bush uttered the words "global climate change" before a TV audience of 45.5 million, I nearly jumped out of my seat. He said it! He said it for the first time in any of his seven State of the Union addresses.

This is huge. Especially in light of the results from a Pew Research Center poll on global warming that was released Wednesday. Even those few words, when spoken by Bush, may signal a tipping point for Americans who remain on the fence about the reality of climate change and what can be done about it.

Check out these numbers:

Yeah, yeah, it’s not about the celebrities. Only it is.

I spent most of my time in Utah almost seeing stars. Hung out with a biofuels enthusiast that Ed Begley Jr. had hung out with the day before. Rode in […]

The music video

OK, it won't win any Oscars or snag a screening at Sundance, but this little clip only asks for three minutes of your time:

Nice Perc if You Can Get It

California to phase out toxic dry-cleaning chemical Continuing its quest to show the rest of the country up, California has notched another first: the state’s Air Resources Board has voted […]

But I’m a Cheerleader

Renewable energy could power half the world by 2050, says new report Renewables could satisfy half the world’s energy demand by 2050, says a new report by Greenpeace and the […]

The Best Defense is a Good … Defense

Two-year exemption allows U.S. Navy to continue sonar trainings In a saga lasting longer than Moby Dick, the U.S. Navy will be allowed to train with sonar for two more […]

Yes

A few years ago, Nordhaus and Shellenberger made the case that because the environmental community hadn't been able to make progress on climate change -- which to them defined almost all of environmentalism -- the environmental movement was a failure (and should die). I argued then that given the scale of climate change, the uncertainties, and how deep it cuts across all sectors of the economy, it was unrealistic and silly to expect immediate action. I also argued that traditional forms of environmental activism were alive and well and there was no need for a new paradigm.

Well, I think with this past election cycle we should lay the "death of environmentalism" to rest once and for all.

Mmm … oranges

David Roberts strongly objected to a critique of offsets and especially of credits for tree planting. The critique was originally made in the comments section of a post on a "carbon neutral" Super Bowl.

Bruce Sterling chimed in, noting that nobody can compete for purity with the dead. This is first rate irony, but unless the intention is that no one should ever criticize false solutions, no matter how wrongheaded, it only has bite if the solutions critiqued actually work. Tree planting may do all sorts of good things, but outside the tropics, it is not a significant way to fight global warming.