Uncategorized

More Gore

Al Gore had "a most excellent time" at Sundance, and if press coverage is any indication, he is well on his way to shaking his image as a stiff automaton. Check this out:

He is wearing earth tones again. He seems jolly. He brought Tipper and the kids. He is attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans and enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel soiree. He's palling around with Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," who says, "Al is a funny guy." But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.

If I were Al Gore's 2008 presidential campaign manager -- not that he's running! -- reading stuff like that would put a big fat grin on my face.

Europeans vote: Solar

A new poll asked the question:

To reduce dependency on imported energy, which of the following should the government focus on in the years to come?

The highest polling answer? Solar.

And the least favorite option was nuclear, probably due to the fact that Europe doesn't have a drilling-ANWR-option (PDF) to occupy that rung.

Solar enjoys similar levels of support in the U.S. This past summer we used the well-respected Field Poll to gauge support for California's Million Solar Roofs initiative, and found 77% of Californians gave it the green light -- and that's without explaining the benefits.

That's political capital. In the months leading up to the California Public Utilities Commission's vote on the 11-year, $3.2 billion solar incentive program, we helped organize a demonstration of the popular mandate, and over 50,000 Californians emailed the Commission in support. 50,000 may sound modest -- until you consider that that's one in a thousand Californians (if one were to correct for literacy, internet access, etc., the number becomes even more impressive). The CPUC received more emails on this than on any other subject in their history, including the 2001 energy crisis.

Most importantly, when the only poll that really counts was taken, the measure passed 3-1.

Big Oil suppressing biofuels? Obama thinks so.

Well well. Seems Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) agrees with ThinkProgress that Big Oil doesn't want you to know about biofuels.

Hot off the press-release presses:

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) today asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether big oil corporations are knowingly restricting consumer access to alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a result of company policies.

"I believe that it is crucial for our national security and economic security that the United States lessen its dependence on foreign oil," said Senator Obama. "And if big oil companies are standing in the way of consumers who want to fill their vehicles with cleaner alternative fuels made here in the United States, then I believe the American people deserve to know why."

According to an internal memorandum from a major petroleum company obtained by Senator Obama's office, gas station franchise owners are prohibited from selling non brand name renewable fuels like E85 and B20 from fuel islands or underneath canopies bearing the oil company's name or logo. The memo also said that any alternative location of fuel pumps dispensing alternative fuels must be approved.

This could get interesting.

The Sierra Club’s singing bears

I've never been to Yellowstone, but I'm pretty sure the bears don't sing -- and they certainly don't look like this.

Regardless, you can sign the Sierra Club's petition to help keep Yellowstone's grizzlies on the Endangered Species List.

Energy prices will force a reevaluation of how much elbow room we really need

The Ashland Daily Tidings has an interesting (though brief) article exploring what exactly might happen in their corner of southern Oregon if oil prices keep going up. It's good to see people thinking more about this. Not just because it will help people prepare for the adjustments needed should oil become progressively dearer -- but also because it might help shift people's thinking about what kinds of transitions might be possible, even desirable, even if oil prices flatten out or decline.

But I do think a word of caution is in order -- if energy prices do continue to trend upwards, we're going to have to take a cold and steely-eyed look at our proposed solutions to help people cope. Some of them, however well-intentioned, just might not cut it.

Take a Toxic Load Off Annie

Environmental factors may cause many breast cancers, report says Up to half of all new breast cancers may be caused by environmental factors — including exposure to everyday chemicals — […]

Dropping Acid

EPA asks companies to phase out toxic chemical PFOA The U.S. EPA, having recently discovered that P stands for “protection,” has asked DuPont and seven other chemical companies to phase […]

Another pundit on the take

Is every conservative pundit on the take?

Today Paul D. Thacker reports in The New Republic that Fox News columnist and junkscience.com proprietor Steven Milloy -- stalwart defender of tobacco and fossil fuels -- has been receiving hefty payments for years from, uh, tobacco and fossil-fuel companies.

However, unlike other news outlets that have dumped pundits after finding out they're receiving money from the subjects of their columns, Fox has been looking the other way (to put it charitably). Thacker concludes:

Perhaps the real reason the news organization tolerates Milloy is that his pro-industry, anti-environmentalist views dovetail nicely with those of its political commentators. Still, this misses an important distinction. Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.

It’s biofuel realities that matter, not airy scenarios

All due respect to the intrepid folks at ThinkProgress, but I think this defense of biofuels falls a bit short. There's this:

First, developing a biofuel economy can actually help reduce hunger and poverty by diversifying agricultural and forestry activities, attracting new farmers, and investing in small and medium enterprises. Increased investment in agricultural production has the potential to boost incomes of the world's poorest people.

In what world does "investment in agricultural production" benefit "the world's poorest people"? The trend for the last half-century has been for agricultural investment -- read, subsidies -- to go to mega-agribusiness. If biofuel really catches on, if a robust global market develops, is there any reason at all to think that the same huge corporations won't dominate it?

I was browsing through this month's Atlantic Monthly; in the first 20 or so pages, I saw two advertisements touting the magic of ethanol. Guess who paid for the ads? Siemens and Archer Daniels Midland. Not exactly "small and medium enterprises."

And this:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Over on Alternet, Traci Hukill has a nice and fairly comprehensive piece up about the U.N.'s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Worth a read.