Uncategorized

Here comes the stretch …

It would be easier to write a sports column on an environmental blog if the athletic world was actually doing anything helpful to the earth. (I'm a busy girl with limited time for Google searching, people.) That being the case, some folks think we should rethink our way of sporting altogether. I say, when we've tackled the large-scale social and political adjustment that will allow us to effectively combat climate change, then we can move on to athletic-supporter adjustment. Hee hee hee.

So, right. Not much in the sporting world to write about today. So in the spirit of trying to make a connection where there isn't really one, here comes the stretch, and the pitch, from Tim Haab over at Environmental Economics.

Something’s fishy here.

From The New York Times:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration commissions report by Institute of Medicine on risks and benefits of eating fish. Institute of Medicine obliges, states that marine-life consumption "may" reduce risk of heart disease, but further study is needed per risk of exposure to PCBs, dioxin, and other nasty stuff. Meanwhile, Harvard School of Public Health conducts different study and declares fish to reduce risk of coronary death by 36 percent. Coauthor of Harvard study declares fish-eating risks to be "greatly exaggerated." NOAA sponsors press conference for release of Harvard study, much to surprise of Institute of Medicine. Why? Why would NOAA support the study they didn't commission?

"We're just trying to make consumers feel good," said William T. Hogarth, assistant administrator for fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service, part of NOAA.

Feeling good trumps awareness of risks to my health any day!

A Refine Mess

Bush admin plans to relax air-pollution regulations on ethanol refineries President Bush has been hyping the environmental benefits of ethanol in recent months, even as his administration has been preparing […]

Doesn’t exist.

It is practically a cliche among mainstream financial journalists that slowing (or zero) population growth is a threat to a country's economic health. Economist Dean Baker -- whose site is must-reading -- debunks the notion.

In other news, I'm going to be out all day, painting my new house while the kids are in daycare. See you tomorrow.

Do you care?

I presume all of you who reject my notion that animal welfare should be considered part of environmentalism see no problem with this development.

When’s Obama gonna do something?

I must confess that my initial infatuation with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Mount Olympus) is wearing off.

Yes, he's got the charisma, the personal history, the zeitgeist on his side ... but he hasn't done anything, and shows no signs of planning to do anything, of any daring or significance. Someone in his position, with that much media attention, that much popular support, has a responsibility to use that power to make something happen -- something other than political advancement. The jury's still out, but the clock is ticking, to mix metaphors.

Obama's on the cover of two national magazines this week: Time (along with an excerpt from his new book and a photo spread) and Harpers (not online). Though the pieces are written from decidedly different perspectives, they both tell the same basic story: look how amazing this guy is ... just imagine when he does something!

Want to see something that captures my mixed feelings? Watch this video:

Melting of Larsen B ice shelf connected to climate change

Introducing a new regular feature here on Gristmill: the Inhofe Alert.

Inhofe Alerts are not about Sen. James Inhofe (R-Mongo) himself. They're about the ever-accumulating evidence for global warming. Remember: based on the logic of the position he has taken, Inhofe must dismiss every one of these studies. He must claim each one is false, or that it is fabricated by brainwashed scientists seeking the approval of their peers. Or scrabbling for funding. Or acting on behalf of the New World Order. Or something.

Without further ado, today's Inhofe Alert:

Canadian conservatives suffer for environmental policy

The Conservative government in Canada -- once a proud Tory tradition, now effectively GOP-lite -- is slipping in the polls, after showing some gains during the summer.

The main reason for their difficulties? The laughable attempt to gussy up their hostility to living things and call it an environmental policy.

E.O. Wilson chats about his new book on the intersection of science and religion

E.O. Wilson. Photo: Jim Harrison In 1967, E.O. Wilson coauthored the book that founded island biogeography, a new field of scientific study. He could have retired then with a distinguished […]

Hormones and Groans

Endocrine disruptors in everyday products may trigger early puberty Some doctors worry that children as young as preschool age are facing a higher risk of early-onset puberty — including breast […]