Uncategorized

Guess That Makes Us Punstitutes

BLM focuses on drilling at expense of wildlife, critics charge Wildlife biologists at the Bureau of Land Management office in Pinedale, Wyo., are finding their talents put to unusual use: […]

Sludge Dread

Post-Katrina sludge puts kids at risk, says NRDC Government officials have been downplaying the public-health risks posed by the post-Katrina sludge coating greater New Orleans, which is spiked with potentially […]

But Who’s Responsible for Seafoam Green?

R.I. jury finds paint companies liable for billions in lead cleanup A six-person jury in Rhode Island made history yesterday when it found Sherwin Williams Co., Millennium Holdings, and NL […]

Bleg

Does anyone know, off the top of their head, of a company that's making money by working with poor people to improve their environmental and economic conditions?

(Random question, I know.)

(Definition of "bleg" here.)

Umbra on vacations

Dear Umbra, My wife and I want to celebrate our 25th anniversary by taking a significant trip. We are thinking of a 10-day European vacation, possibly the Greek islands. I […]

One fish, two fish, red fish, ew fish

As part of their Last Days of the Ocean special package this month, Mother Jones magazine has a feature entitled "Toxic Fish and Poor Communities." An interview with eco-justice fighter Sharon Fuller of the Ma'at Youth Academy, the story begins like this:

In San Francisco's tony restaurants, one can feast on perfectly seared ahi tuna or sample butter drizzled mahi mahi accompanied by a $50 bottle of wine. Just across the Bay, however, is a whole different world -- fishermen in Richmond live on toxic fish caught from a place that is recognized as an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site.

Continue reading.

Discover new species in the Caribbean, a new reef off Thailand, and an ocean-centric MoJo issue

Ahoy, mateys! Welcome aboard the good ship Something Fishy, a biweekly blog column focused on all things, um, fishy, and oceanic, and marine biological, and whatnot. It's sure to shiver your timbers ... if you know what I mean. (Should I have stopped at "ahoy"? Methinks the eye patch is on a bit tight. Aarrr!) Pirate lingo aside (for now ... there may be mention of a "poop deck" later on), this first column will focus on the theme of buried treasure -- from new species to new reefs to an ocean-centric issue of Mother Jones. Read on ... or I'll make you walk the plank!

The future

This makes me want to cry.

Poverty and sustainability

Basing information on the Earth Council website, the world has 2.1 hectares of biologically productive area per capita at a population level of 6 billion people. That population is currently using the resources of 2.8 hectares per capita, meaning that humans are consuming more than can be replenished. In the U.S., we consume the equivalent of 10.3 hectares per capita.

In order for the world to be sustainable, in theory anyway, humans would have to reduce consumption of resources by over 33% from current levels. For comparison, we would have to maintain a lifestyle similar to the average person in Turkey or Jordan. And this is assuming zero population growth. If population growth is factored in we would need to live like the average Chinese peasant.

In order for Americans to acheive the level of 2.1 h/cap, we would have to reduce our consumption by 80%. I do not see how by simply being green we can acheive that drastic reduction. I think we delude ourselves when we think we can live sustainably while maintaining our standard of living. Technology alone cannot bridge the gap. Take a look at your own lifestyle and think through what it takes to maintain every aspect of it.

Cleared that right up

By now, everybody's probably familiar with the sequence of events:

1. Energy bill passes with promises of funding for renewables research.
2. Cuts in actual funding for renewables research.
3. State of the Union speech with big promises of funding for renewables research.
4. Budget shortfalls force firing of 32 researchers at National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
5. Bush launches PR tour to tout energy proposals, schedules visit to NREL.
6. Weekend prior to visit, Energy Department scrambles to rehire 32 researchers.
   
   Now here's the part that really amazes me:
   
   
7. Bush visits NREL, laments "mixed signals," and says this: "The issue, of course, is whether good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. ... I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

"I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

It's like the distinction between substance and perception is just invisible to him. It verges on autistic.

Update [2006-2-22 14:18:33 by David Roberts]: Actually, let me put in more of the quote, since in some ways it's even more incredible:

I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding. The issue of course is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone.

Matt Yglesias responds:

I say the government is being run by idiots. There are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone? The MBA presidency? The grownups are back in charge?

The whole episode is really mind-boggling, if one was still capable of bogglement at this point.