Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

  • Al Gore wants Earth Day volunteer videos

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Al Gore is calling on volunteer videographers to create short videos about their favorite organization working on climate-change solutions. Three of them will appear on YouTube’s homepage on Earth Day, April 22. Then millions of YouTube viewers will have their climate awarenesses raised. For one whole day … Can’t hurt, right?

    “This year on Earth Day, we need more than just another celebration,” says the Goreacle. “We need a revolution, a clean energy revolution.”

    Here’s the video from Gore’s Repower America:

    Related Links:

    McDonald’s responds to April Fools’ story (via Twitter)

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Rachel Maddow takes on denial-funding Koch Industries






  • Me, on Grit.tv, talking about Obama’s drilling plan

    by David Roberts

    Yesterday I went on Grit.tv with Laura Flanders to discuss Obama’s new drilling plan. Watching it now, I think the main lesson is that I desperately need more sleep, or at least a professional make-up artist to hide the bags under my eyes.

    Here it is:

    One quick follow-up note: I think my focus on Republican votes was somewhat overblown, an analytical mistake that lots of people have been making over the last few days. As much as Republicans, Obama’s move was meant to appeal to—and provide cover for—conservadems like Landrieu and Warner. Chris Bowers is smart on this point.

    Related Links:

    Obama was against offshore drilling before he was for it

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    The Climate Post: Read this. Read now. Pay nothing.






  • A view into the U.S. diet

    by Tom Philpott

    The above chart, created by the USDA, compares the food consumed by the average U.S. citizen (using “loss-adjusted food availability” data as a proxy for consumption) to Federal dietary recommendations. In other words, what Americans eat vs. what the federal government thinks we should be eating.

    According to this analysis, we eat something like 30 percent more grain than we should—presumably mainly in the form of bread—and 20 percent too much meat. Meanwhile, we’re eating just 80 percent of the vegetables we should be, 60 percent of the dairy, and 40 percent of the fruit.

    Another way to put it is like this: from a dietary perspective, we’re overproducing (and consuming) wheat and meat, and underproducing (and consuming) fruits and vegetables.

    There are many ways to interpret this information. One is to read it as a pure reflection of consumer preference: Americans like bread and meat; fruit and veg, not so much—nanny-state nattering by government dietitians be damned.

    But the dietitians have a point. Excess meat consumption appears to be pretty bad for you —particularly pork and beef. And the dietary recommendations aren’t exactly skimpy on meat.

    And, of course, dietitians aside, the federal government has facilitated the the abundant availability of meat in a variety of ways—through massive subsidies of livestock feed crops like corn and soy, by looking the the other way as meat packers consolidated and drove down the price of meat, and by allowing meat packers to externalize public-health costs and environmental costs, and keep labor costs to a minimum at expense of worker safety.

    In short, the net effect of federal policy has been to encourage the public’s appetite for meat, by creating an environment in which cheap meat thrives.

    Perhaps the time has come to change that—to create policies that force food enterprises to pay for their messes; ensure that a few large entities don’t wield sufficient market power to dictate conditions on farms; and encourage a diversity of crops—with an emphasis on fruits and vegetables.

     

    Related Links:

    How export-focused agriculture has failed everyone it was meant to help

    Watching the green screens at the Environmental Film Festival in D.C.

    Silicon Valley investors place bets on sustainable ag






  • Ask Umbra on Babeland’s boinking for bucks

    by Umbra Fisk

    Birds do it. Bees do it. You know what I’m buzzing about. And
    as long as you’re doing it, why not do it for Grist? For the entire month of
    April, Babeland will be
    donating 20 percent of sales
    of all their eco-friendly sex toys to Grist.

    You might remember this video about breaking
    up with your blow-up doll
    revealing the toxins hiding in your bedside
    drawer. Your privates deserve better than phthalates. So take this opportunity
    to support two of your passions: the eco-news and advice you love and, well, you
    know …

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra’s pearls of wisdom on spring cleaning

    How to strangle a climate skeptic [VIDEO]

    Ask Umbra’s DIY healthy junk food: Kale chips [VIDEO]






  • Ask Umbra’s pearls of wisdom on spring cleaning

    by Umbra Fisk

    Dearest readers,

    Ah, spring is on the
    calendar and in the air. Birds are singing, bees are buzzing, flowers are making me sneeze—or
    perhaps it’s this dust that’s been building up all winter. Time for the annual
    washing, scrubbing, wiping, sweeping, and general expunging of stuff known as
    spring cleaning. I scoured the archives for some past advice on all things
    tidy, hygienic, and sparkling. Got any special tips for getting the grime out? Hit me up in the comments below.

    DIY
    not?

    Forgo commercial chemical cleaners, and make your own. All homebrew cleaning
    recipes involve four simple ingredients: white vinegar, castile soap, baking
    soda, and water. Baking soda is the
    scrubber
    .
    Abrasive, soluble in water, and anti-fungal (or at least anti-some-fungi),
    baking soda requires a bit more elbow grease than chlorinated powders but
    leaves you with a working windpipe. Vinegar is the deodorizer and sanitizer;
    its mildly acidic nature is anathema to bacteria and mold. Soap is the…soap. It cleans away dirt. Don’t mix it with vinegar. Other components of a
    good, healthy cleaning regimen include hot water and arm strength. You can even
    put your old
    toothbrush to use
    with your homemade creations. Get the full Ask
    Umbra answer
    and video.

    Break
    the mold.

    Give those nasty black spots in the bathroom the boot without toxic chemicals. A
    mixture of hydrogen peroxide and water may do the trick; let it sit a few hours, and then
    wipe away with impunity. Borax is another option. Of course, the best solution
    is to avoid mold in the first place by regularly cleaning your bathroom with a basic vinegar/baking soda/hot water cocktail. Get
    the full Ask Umbra answer
    .

    Method
    to the madness.

    Eco-cleaning lines
    like Method have proliferated on the shelves at Target and Whole Foods, and while they’re a better option than their toxic chem–ridden counterparts, that doesn’t mean you need to stock up on the vast pastel parade of pump
    bottles. Yes, we need non-polluting laundry detergent and soaps, but almost all
    of our other general household cleaning can be done with DIY cleansers.
    Individual grapefruit-scented wipes (non-toxic and bamboo-based or otherwise)
    are, basically, silly. Don’t get sucked into the shopping vortex. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

    Bleach: Not just a Nirvana album.
    Bleach is bad. Let’s start there. Reserve it for only the most necessary
    disinfection emergencies (MRSA or, um, copious amounts of blood, for example). Chlorine bleach eats
    at your lungs and mucus membranes. The production of bleach results in the production
    of dioxins. Do I need to say more? Probably
    not, but just in case, you should know that
    as you use the bleach, it may produce trihalomethanes, which are linked
    to cancer, and absorbable organic halides, which are harmful to marine
    organisms. If all that you seek are grime-free, shiny surfaces, our old friends
    vinegar, soap, and baking soda will do you proud. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

    Scrubbing bubbles-ly,
    Umbra

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra on Babeland’s boinking for bucks

    How to strangle a climate skeptic [VIDEO]

    Ask Umbra’s DIY healthy junk food: Kale chips [VIDEO]






  • How much renewable juice does it take to power an Apple iPad?

    by Ashley Braun

    With Apple fans’ fingers itching for the newest glossy touchscreen machine to hit the market this Saturday—the legendary iPad—it only makes sense to ask how the latest gee-whiz gizmo will impact the environment. Even with ten to twelve hours of battery time, they’ll have to recharge the wunder gadget sometime.

    So why not utilize refreshing, renewable, citric energy? Let’s see, if it takes 2,380 orange slices to charge an iPhone, then to power an iPad would take, uh, … a lot of juice. By my sketchy math calculations, about 9,996 orange slices (if an iPhone 3GS uses about 6 watts and the iPad about 25 watts). These are probably way off, but I’ll squeeze as much as I can out of the concept.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Like what you see? Sign up to receive The Grist List, our email roundup of pun-usual green news just like this, sent out every Friday.

    Related Links:

    How to improve a Hummer’s mileage and add retro style

    Why you should be afraid of huge cow manure bubbles

    Greenpeace takes on iPads, cloud computing, other click-friendly subjects






  • McDonald’s responds to April Fools’ story (via Twitter)

    by Grist

    It looks like McDonald’s has a Big Mac–sized sense of humor.

    The official McDonald’s Twitter account responded to readers’ questions about our April Fools’ Day report saying that McDonald’s is scrapping a composting plan because its food won’t decompose. While some people didn’t realize it was fake news, McDonald’s did, and responded to a tweet from Edible San Francisco saying:

    @EdibleSF: This one had us laughing 🙂  It’s an #AprilFools joke!

    And here’s another:

    @aarieff: They say April Fools jokes are a form of flattery!
    This one had us laughing too! ^Mol

    @aarief responded: “But what r u doing about waste?”

    McDonald’s linked to the company’s sustainability practices, where, regarding packaging and waste management, they are “exploring ways to reduce the environmental impacts of our
    consumer packaging and waste in our restaurant operations.”

    McDonald’s points to the 1990s where they “eliminated 300 million pounds of product packaging.” Come on McDonald’s, that’s sooo last century!

    They’ve got a long way to go before they hear us saying, “I’m lovin’ it!”

    Related Links:

    Al Gore wants Earth Day volunteer videos

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Rachel Maddow takes on denial-funding Koch Industries






  • Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Offshore drilling, auto-efficiency standards, water-heater regs, green jobs for strippers … there’s a ton going on this week.

    But today’s big news is a lot brighter than yesterday’s offshore drilling hubbub: the Obama administration announced sweeping new regulations for mountaintop removal, the coal-mining method that tends to (a) remove mountaintops, (b) fill mountain valleys with rubble, and (c) pollute waterways downstream.

    The new EPA regs focus on clean water, which limits the ability of mining companies to dump waste freely, which puts the whole mountaintop-removal method in jeopardy. So it’s kind of a big deal. Both mining advocates and mountain-and-water defenders agree on this.

    “It could mean the end of an era,” Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association told the Washington Post. He said that to limit valley fills “is tantamount to saying the intent is to strictly limit coal mining in Appalachia.”

    “Mountaintop mining, by its nature, destroys water,” Joe Lovett of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment told the Post. “I hope it means the beginning of the end.”

    And Kate Sheppard provides some good context:

    The EPA has had a mixed record on MTR in the past year. Last fall they called for a time-out on MTR permits, but soon afterward approved a mine site in West Virginia, alarming many anti-MTR activists. Last week, however, the EPA vetoed the largest proposed MTR site in the country.

    Enviromentalists cheered today’s move. But as Rainforest Action’s Amanda Starbuck points `out, the administration stopped short of issuing an outright ban on MTR, which many groups have called for. “Moving forward, we urge the EPA to take holistic measures to end this devastating practice once and for all,” says Starbuck. “We cannot end mountaintop removal coal mining pollution without ending mountaintop removal all together.”

    A couple caveats: This is an executive-branch guidance, not a law, which means President Palin (shudder) could undo it in the future. Mountain defenders are calling for Congress to pass a Clean Water Protection Act and Appalachia Restoration Act to make protections more permanent. Also, the rule is exclusive to Appalachia and won’t affect other areas, like the Kensington gold mine in Alaska. There’s more from the intrepid West Virginia reporter Ken Ward, Jr., Jeff Biggers, and Jim Snyder.

    Finally, MSNBC’s Howard Fineman has a post today that draws out some of the connections between coal, offshore oil and natural gas drilling, and renewable energy:

    Forget whatever else you hear about energy policy, the real fight — and the real political problem — this year in Congress will be how to deal with our nagging reliance on the most abundant component of our carbon-based patrimony.

    We can talk until we’re blue in the face about offshore drilling, wind power, natural gas, and energy conservation … but the short-term drift of history still dictates a heavy reliance on the dirtiest and deadliest of all fuels: coal.

    For all the symbolic weight that offshore drilling carries, Fineman’s right that coal is America’s real energy dilemma. It’s cheaper than oil, dirtier than oil, and we have a lot of it. So the new protections are nothing to sniff at.

    Related Links:

    Al Gore wants Earth Day volunteer videos

    Me, on Grit.tv, talking about Obama’s drilling plan

    McDonald’s responds to April Fools’ story (via Twitter)






  • The Climate Post: Read this. Read now. Pay nothing.

    by Eric Roston

    First things first: The Obama administration today finalized greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks first proposed last May. The practical upshot of the rules is a roughly 40 percent rise in fuel economy, to 35.5 miles per gallon, by 2016. The government said the measures would save owners about $3,000 in fuel over a vehicles lifetime, but add a grand on average to sticker prices.

    Of drills and bills: Energy independence has attracted bipartisan support and high-level media interest at least since 1948, when the U.S. first became a net importer of oil. Calls for freedom from foreign energy sources (or for “energy security” among the more sober-minded) have grown particularly acute in recent years. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin popularized the chant, “Drill, baby, drill!” during the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich contributed “Drill here. Drill now. Pay Less.” Democrats have weakened in their rhetorical opposition to domestic offshore oil exploration as these slogans took off.

    Politics can do funny things to strident partisan positions. Obama’s announcement this week on off-shore drilling might not be any more surprising than President George W. Bush’s re-purchase of oil-and-gas-leases off the Florida coast, during his brother’s, Gov. Jeb Bush, re-election bid. (“At the time, Bush’s decision was hailed by some environmental groups.”) Blood and electoral politics run thicker than oil.

    The question, squarely framed by the New York Times, is, Will Obama’s political jujitsu work? Howard Kurtz, media critic of the Washington Post, runs amused through the top papers’ takes, from the NYT’s “nobody-much-likes-it” to the Los Angeles Times’ “this-won’t-accomplish-much” to right-wing pundit Don Surber’s observation that “Still, it is an admission by Obama that Sarah Palin was right.” He repeats the last four words about 125 times over a full browser page.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a key architect of the climate-and-energy bill expected in mid-April, said yesterday that Obama’s drilling proposal is a “good first step,” echoing other calls from Senate Republicans that the sale of drilling leases be expanded to include the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the West Coast, and Alaska. Graham and Lieberman at the end of last week chatted with reporters about two elements of their developing climate bill. Utilities would participate in a market for carbon-emission permits, and the oil industry would have to pay a “fixed fee” for their carbon emissions. Last week 10 coastal Democratic senators sent a letter to Obama admonishing the administration against “unfettered” drilling. Watch to see if Obama’s drilling announcement this week is sufficiently fettered.

    Traders to the cause: The 2009 results of the E.U.‘s Emissions Trading System are drawing scrutiny. Analysts attribute to reduced economic activity an 11.2 percent drop in E.U. industrial greenhouse gas emissions, a number that falls at the high end of expectations. Critics say industrial firms that receive pollution credits for free are benefitting from cyclical market dynamics, instead of permanently reducing emissions by deploying clean energy technologies. The decline in carbon prices, reflecting the recession and diminished outlook for a global treaty, have led to carbon trading firms’ disappearance from HSBC’s index of companies involved in climate solutions.

    E.U. authorities have stepped up enforcement of about $6.75 billion in tax fraud they suspect within the trading system. Spanish police arrested nine people suspected of running a “carousel fraud.” In this scheme, traders buy credits in one E.U. country without paying a value-added tax, and sell them in another country at a price that includes the price of a tax.

    It’s confusing enough without the outright accusations of fraud. An executive board that oversees a carbon-finance program set up by the Kyoto Protocol has suspended four auditors in a year and three months. The most recent companies penalized are carbon-market auditors in Germany and South Korea, who may now seek clarification on the market’s rules.

    Against the backdrop of sagging carbon credit prices in Europe, a group of economists led by the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton in the U.S., suggests that target costs of greenhouse gas pollution are too low to effect the scale of change that many scientists call for.

    More ‘sunlight’ in climate science: The U.K. Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee issued findings from its investigation into climatologists’ behavior as documented in emails hacked out of University of East Anglia servers last fall. The Members of Parliament, as many others before them, found little or nothing in the episode to weaken the evidence that suggests industrialization waste is transforming the global climate. But they slammed the climate scientists as a group for secretive handling of data. The MPs heavily faulted the university itself for the scientists’ poor responsiveness to Freedom of Information Act requests. Phil Jones, who stepped down temporarily under fire as director of the UEA’s Climate Research Unit, was exonerated by the committee. Newspapers, such as the Guardian, tack on garden-variety “he-said, she-said” evaluations of the report.

    Data’s gotta come from somewhere: Obama’s 2011 budget proposes increased funding for NASA’s aging Earth observation infrastructure—62 percent more by the end of 2015. The investments would shore up data streams on ocean temperature, ice extent, ozone, and anthropogenic carbon emissions.

    Satellite monitoring would be much easier if the risks of launching tin cans to space weren’t so high. NASA expects to rebuild its Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), after the initial model fell into far-southern waters. The OCO may be the best-named satellite ever. A triple pun, OCO is a normal acronym, a chemical diagram (carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, O=C=O), and a homophone of the Polish word for “eye.” This week Europe will launch its CryoSat-2, a device precise enough to measure changes in ice thickness within “a few centimeters” accuracy. The first iteration, CryoSat, was destroyed in a launch failure five years ago. This week’s most thought-provoking statement from a scientist occurs in the Nature story (see previous link) about CryoSat-2:

    Technical problems with the rocket have already delayed the launch, which was originally scheduled for February. “I hope this time around probability is on our side,” says Duncan Wingham, CryoSat-2’s principal scientist, who will watch the launch from the European Space Operations Centre of the European Space Agency (ESA) in Darmstadt, Germany.

    Beware of dueling headlines:

    Green economy grows despite policy vacuum(DailyClimate.org)

    Where have all the green jobs gone? (BBC News)

    The truth is out there. Ernst & Young probes the renewables market in greater detail. A third of the jump in U.S. climate spending came from last year’s stimulus bill, according to a Congressional Budget Office report.

    There’s something up there… What do people think about climate change who rarely think about climate change? A minor indication came this week in a Washington Post book review of Ian McEwan’s new novel Solar (NB: The first paragraph of the review has an adult theme). The third paragraph addresses global warming:

    The subject, though, is hot. Whether or not carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere, there’s no denying that novelists are warming up to the subject.

    Perhaps I’m over-thinking this, but how is it intelligible to pose the question, even in a dependent clause, “whether or not carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere”? Certainly, there is carbon dioxide coming out of our tailpipes, smoke stacks, and melting permafrost. Maybe what’s accumulating in the air is something that has the same spectral and biochemical properties as carbon dioxide, but isn’t actually carbon dioxide.

    At any rate, something that behaves identically to carbon dioxide is doing this. “Should” the author of the review (an editor) know that, even as a cute framing device, this dependent clause has negative communicative value?

    Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist. Chapter about Ginkgo biloba and climate change available at Conservation.

     

    Related Links:

    Me, on Grit.tv, talking about Obama’s drilling plan

    Obama was against offshore drilling before he was for it

    Me, in the NYT, on Obama’s drilling plan






  • The future of freezing

    by Ben Strauss

    Cross-posted from Climate Central.

    In many parts of the U.S. March went out like a lion this year.

    But a new interactive map of high-resolution climate projections from Climate Central promises much tamer, warmer Marches in the future. In fact, freezing March temperatures will retreat northward this
    century like a routed army. (The retreat would slow to about half the speed
    under a low carbon pollution scenario.)

    Click on the image above to view the map.

    Of course, the idea of thawing temperatures seems pretty nice at
    the end of a long, snowy winter like the one we just had in parts of the U.S., and the trend does promise earlier starts for golfers, gardeners, and farmers in the future.

    But warmer Marches also mean earlier snowmelt—and that’s not such good news.
    Across the American West, early snowmelt years have already been linked
    to drier rivers and forests later in summer and to much higher wildfire activity (see this video on the fire situation in Washington State).
    Scientists project these problems will worsen with further
    warming. And water shortages will present challenges for farm irrigation and trouble for trout and other cold-water stream life (explored more in this video about Montana).

    Climate Central‘s maps show what will happen to average March temperatures if we continue to emit carbon at today’s high rate. By the end of this century, all states analyzed will experience a majority or near complete loss of areas
    in which average March temperatures are currently below freezing.
    The biggest losers, in terms of total area, will be Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota; but seven states, from Arizona to Wisconsin, are
    projected to lose just about all their frozen March acreage.
    (For a full tally, see this table.)

    It’s interesting to note that while Washington, D.C. had record-breaking winter snows this year, March temperatures in the nation’s capitol never dipped below freezing—a new record for warmth.

    Speaking of warmth, the thaw season has just begun in the Arctic. Over recent
    decades, the Arctic has been the fastest-warming region on the planet,
    a pattern scientists expect to continue. Arctic warming trends and their
    consequences—shown in this new video short (based mainly on NASA satellite data)—make projections of March warming in the U.S. look tame.

    Click on the image above to watch the video.

    For example, Greenland is shedding ice at a rapid pace; the average net loss per year from 2004 to 2007 was about 25 times greater than the average from 1992-2002.
    How much of this shift may have come from natural variation and how
    much from human-caused warming is difficult to assess. But two things
    are clear: Arctic warming means Greenland ice loss, and Greenland ice loss means rising seas. Recent scientific studies that take Arctic trends into account generally project more than a three-foot rise in sea level this century.

    Another key trend just coming to light is that the crust of ice that covers parts of the Arctic Ocean has been getting thinner. Most observers have focused on the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice. But the ice appears to be thinning even faster. Just-published research (subscription required) suggests that the ice may be thinner than
    we thought, a troubling finding since thinner ice is more vulnerable to
    future disintegration.

    Bright, white sea ice reflects the sun’s energy back into space—like a giant
    planetary heat shield. As sea ice disappears, more dark ocean is exposed, absorbing more of the sun’s heat, and accelerating Arctic warming.

    So, as we dump our winter coats and turn our minds to spring—let’s take a moment to celebrate the cold days of March, while they’re still with us!

    Related Links:

    Without affordable clean alternatives, South Africa turns to coal

    The changing threat to water: Global warming & World Water Day

    Stealing home: James Hansen’s audacious battle to save the planet






  • Appalachians hail EPA’s great victory for Clean Water Act and justice

    by Jeff Biggers

    Earlier this morning, I wrote a piece for April Fool’s Day, Obama Ends 150-Year War of Strip-Mining in 24 States: Mountaintop Removal Loses Its Groove.

    Well, turns out the second part wasn’t an April Fool’s joke after all. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson invoked the rule of science and law today—and for the first time raised the concern of the health care crisis in the coalfields from mountaintop removal.

    The EPA administrator announced a major decision today to clamp down on Clean Water Act violations from mountaintop removal mining—yes, the EPA administrator actually used the words “mountaintop removal” and not “mountaintop mining” in the press conference today—and effectively bring an end to the process of valley fills (and the dumping of toxic coal mining waste into the valleys and waterways).

    Citing new EPA studies that conclusively demonstrate that “burial of headwater streams by valley fills causes permanent loss of ecosystems,” the EPA issued new conductivity levels “to protect 95 percent of aquatic life and fresh water streams in central Appalachia.”

    In responding to this benchmark set on measuring conductivity levels from mining discharges to streams and waterways, Jackson declared in the question and answers with journalists: “No or very few valley fills that are going to be able to meet standards like this.”

    In the words of 95-year-old Ken Hechler, the former West Virginia congressman who introduced the first bill in Congress to stop mountaintop removal and strip-mining in 1971, “This is a great victory for the Clean Water Act and justice.”

    In 1971, Hechler testified in a House committee: “Representing the largest coal-producing state in the nation, I can testify that strip-mining has ripped the guts out of our mountains, polluted our streams with acid and silt, uprooted trees and forests, devastated the land, seriously destroyed wildlife habitat, left miles of ugly highwalls, ruined the water supply in many areas, and left a trail of utter despair for many honest and hard-working people.”

    Forty years later, with over 500 mountains and 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests decimated and blown to bits, with more than 2,000 miles of streams and waterways jammed with toxic coal waste, and untold thousands of American forcefully removed from their historic communities, the nightmare of mountaintop removal appears to be coming to the end of a long and tortuous road of regulations.

    Lorelei Scarbro, a Coal River Mountain Watch community organizer and resident in West Virginia, declared: “We are so thankful that the EPA is basing their decision on science, environmental justice, and the health and welfare of coalfield residents. This is a biggy. This is the beginning of the end for valley fills and mountaintop removal. We are not leaving our mountains.”

    The beginning of the end of mountaintop removal. Let’s hope.

    Meanwhile, Appalachian Voices legislative aide JW Randolph adds: “It is in that vein that we expect Congress to follow the Obama administration’s lead by passing legislation that will permanently protect our homes and communities from mining waste. The Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310) currently has 167 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives, and the Appalachia Restoration act (S. 696) has 10 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate. Change in Appalachia is now inevitable, and the time for Congress to pass this legislation is now!”

    And while the 150-year strip-mining war continues in 20 other states, this is a beautiful and historic moment to celebrate on behalf of human rights and environmental justice in the Appalachian coalfields.

    Related Links:

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules

    Coal industry unveils disturbing iPhone application






  • Me, in the NYT, on Obama’s drilling plan

    by David Roberts

    Yesterday, Obama announced a new offshore drilling plan that would open up parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard for leasing and exploration. The New York Times’ Room for Debate blog brought a few folks together to discuss what it means. My contribution is reposted below. See also comments from:

    Peter Maass, author, “Crude World”
    Frances Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council
    Samuel Thernstrom, American Enterprise Institute
    Donna R. Christie, Florida State University College of Law

    Here’s my bit:

    ———

    The most important thing to understand about President Obama’s announcement on offshore drilling is that it’s mostly for show. Its intended effects are political—corralling more Senate votes for a climate bill and defusing anticipated voter anger over gas price spikes. Even on those grounds, however, it’s unlikely to succeed.

    Oil companies aren’t even drilling in most of the offshore areas they already have leased—some 34 billion barrels worth of leases are going unexploited, mainly because the cost of offshore drilling is prohibitive at today’s oil prices.

    According the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there likely won’t be any oil from these new offshore areas until 2017, and full production won’t ramp up until 2030. Even when it does, it will produce some 100,000 new barrels a day—about 1/1,000 of total global supply. The impact on oil prices will be “insignificant,” says the Energy Information Administration, and it won’t make America any less dependent on foreign oil, either.

    The White House has made clear that one intended effect is to drum up more support for a comprehensive climate bill. However, as the administration’s experience with stimulus and health care reform make clear, preemptively compromising is not a savvy negotiating strategy. President Obama is now committed to drilling, and asked for no firm commitments in exchange. What motivation does any senator have to change his or her position?

    Another intended effect is to blunt the anticipated political blowback from the spike in gas prices this summer. But gas prices are going to go up regardless, and the electorate will find no shortage of politicians willing to blame the president. Pandering in advance won’t reduce that political cost; it’s a basic misunderstanding of electoral psychology.

    Offshore drilling may poll well, but as a wise man once said, “my job is not to go with the polls, my job is to tell the American people the truth about what’s going to work when it comes to our long-term energy future.” That was candidate Barack Obama, in June 2008, telling voters the inconvenient truth that offshore drilling “would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off investments in clean, renewable energy.” That, he said, “is not the kind of the change the American people are looking for.” Don’t you miss that guy?

    Related Links:

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    The Climate Post: Read this. Read now. Pay nothing.

    Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules






  • How to improve a Hummer’s mileage and add retro style

    by Ashley Braun

    Improving a Hummer’s mileage doesn’t take much. And it doesn’t even require pricey, high-tech electric batteries.

    Artist Jeremy Dean says you have to go Back to the Futurama, which is more 19th century than lithium-ion centric. But how to actually improve a Hummer’s mileage?

    Easy: Put two horses in front of it and take it for a ride through Central Park. While we’re not sure how much you’d have to pony up to get this kind of horsepower, the video below is worth watching to see how Dean’s Hummer hoofs it. 

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Like what you see? Sign up to receive The Grist List, our email roundup of pun-usual green news just like this, sent out every Friday.

    Related Links:

    How much renewable juice does it take to power an Apple iPad?

    Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules

    Do Americans really make the connection between transportation, oil use, and environmental impacts?






  • Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    The federal government rolled out new auto fuel-efficiency standards today, capping more than a year of planning and, as the New York Times notes, a 30-year battle between regulators and automakers.

    The new standards are a big deal—they’ll do more to cut the pollution of heat-trapping gasses than anything the Obama administration has done so far. But if it seems like you’ve heard about them before, you probably have—the regs got lots of press when they were first proposed last May. Thursday’s action puts that plan into effect, for 2012-2016 vehicles.

    So I’m reposting our cheat sheet from last May, The scoop on Obama’s new fuel-economy rules. Here it is:

    On May 19, President Barack Obama unveiled new standards to regulate fuel economy and greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks.  

    The bottom line:  New automobiles will have to get better gas mileage

    The numbers:

    Current standards: 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 24 mpg for light trucks
    Starting in 2012, fuel efficiency will rise more than 5 percent each year
    New standards for 2016:  39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks—an overall average of about 35.5 mpg

    The environmental benefits: 

    Will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program
    Will prevent 900 million metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions
    Will be like taking 177 million of today’s cars off the road, or shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants

    Fans of the plan:

    The major automakers, because they now have certainty and one clear set of regulations to follow
    The major environmental groups, because the federal government is actually doing something to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
    California and 13 other states, because they have long wanted tougher auto emissions standards

    Obama sings the plan’s praises:

    In the past, an agreement such as this would have been considered impossible. That is why this announcement is so important, for it represents not only a change in policy in Washington, but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington. … And at a time of historic crisis in our auto industry, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century.

    Find out more:

    Kate Sheppard reports that the new rules are the administration’s first real step to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says it’s happy with the new rules.
    Michael Moynihan argues that fuel-economy rules are among the least precise tools for addressing climate change.

     

    For some related big-picture pondering…

    I’m glad to tell you why the bakery of transportation choices includes tastier options than stale auto dependency.

    And Grist’s David Roberts considers what a post-auto American city might look like.       

    Related Links:

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Rachel Maddow takes on denial-funding Koch Industries

    Appalachians hail EPA’s great victory for Clean Water Act and justice






  • Do Americans really make the connection between transportation, oil use, and environmental impacts?

    by Stephen Davis

    The
    national poll that Transportation for
    America
    released this week makes it clear that Americans are overwhelmingly
    in favor of increasing our access to transportation options, no matter where
    they live in America—big cities, suburbs, small towns, or rural areas. The
    majority believes that their community—and the country as a whole—would
    benefit from an expanded and improved
    public transportation system including rail and buses
    .

    Americans
    not only underestimate how much of their tax dollars actually go to
    roads and bridges, 58 percent think we should be spending more of those
    dollars on public transportation and expanding other options
    . This is
    certainly encouraging news, and it shows just how disconnected a lot of D.C.
    policymakers are from what Americans really want.

    But why do Americans think we need to increase spending on public transportation and
    ensure that more Americans have access to different ways to get around? 

    Well,
    one thing we learned is that it’s not to
    prevent global warming
    . Among a lot of very good reasons to provide more
    options, global warming ranked last, with a bare majority of 52 percent seeing
    it as a likely outcome. That’s not too surprising: even many environmentally
    minded folks don’t automatically make the connection between having options to
    drive less and reduced emissions. The evidence to make that case is
    accumulating rapidly, but it gets much less discussion than fancy hybrid
    vehicles or dreams of cleaner fuels. And global warming skeptics don’t buy any
    of it, of course.

    Our
    past polling has shown that nearly everyone cares about oil dependency,
    however.

    Somewhat
    surprisingly, then, reducing oil dependency only did slightly better than
    global warming as a rationale for more, and cleaner, transportation options.
    One obvious reason is that most people don’t realize that the lion’s share of
    our oil consumption is for transportation. Once they’re told that 70 percent of oil consumption goes to
    motoring around
    , support for reduced oil use as a rationale leaps to nearly
    two-thirds—and this crosses party and
    geographic lines
    . And when they’re
    subsequently asked which of many potential outcomes would be the best reason to support expanded options,
    reducing our dependence on foreign oil
    tops the list
    .

    So
    what’s the lesson? We all need to start talking about the 70 percent solution
    to oil dependency: reducing the amount
    we burn for transportation
    . There are three ways to do it: More efficient vehicles,
    renewable and/or diversified fuel sources, and spending less time driving
    around. The technology for the first two is in development, while the
    technology for the last has existed in one form or another for many, many
    years. Walkable neighborhoods, streetcars,
    light rail, buses, and safe streets for walking can work in tandem with newer
    technologies such as broadband internet and wireless networks, to make it
    possible for people to avoid some trips, take others by transit, foot or bike—and still drive their hybrids when it makes sense to do so.

    Do
    American voters need to understand all this to strongly support a federal
    transportation program that invests substantially in providing these less
    oil-consumptive options? Well, it wouldn’t hurt, but as the poll shows, people
    have plenty of other good reasons as it is.

    “If
    Americans themselves were crafting the transportation bill,” T4 America
    co-chair Geoff Anderson said yesterday, “we would see a doubling of the share for public transportation; an
    ironclad system of accountability for restoring existing roads and bridges
    before simply building more of them; and a strong commitment to making all
    our streets safe enough for kids to bicycle to school or so seniors can walk
    to nearby restaurants or the drug store
    .”

    Talking about
    transportation on terms that Americans relate to strongly will help us move the
    debate forward, and more importantly, start building the kind of transportation
    system that Americans overwhelmingly want and need.

    Stephen Davis is the Online Coordinator for Transportation
    for America Campaign (T4).

    David Goldberg is the communications director for
    Transportation for America Campaign (T4) and Smart Growth America.

    Related Links:

    How to improve a Hummer’s mileage and add retro style

    Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules

    Energy Independence Through Greater Addiction






  • Coal industry unveils disturbing iPhone application

    by Bruce Nilles

    We’ve had some disturbing news come to us from the coal industry. It’s appropriate that it comes to us on April Fool’s Day, as it is a coal industry iPhone application that is designed to fool the American public about the devastating cost of coal.

    Watch this video from our Executive Director Michael Brune to learn more.

    While this iPhone app is a bit shocking, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised coming from an industry that, besides the coal carolers and the coal coloring books, also unveiled pro-coal cell phone ringtones last year. (We gave those ringtones a reality check in this video).

    Check out our webpage on this latest coal industry embarrassment to learn more.

    Related Links:

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Appalachians hail EPA’s great victory for Clean Water Act and justice

    Obama Ends 150-Year War of Strip-Mining in 24 States!






  • With a bit more cash and lots of ingenuity, school lunches could be much better

    by Ed Bruske

    Chef Allison Sosna: doing it right for the kids. This is the second of three articles detailing how food made from scratch using local ingredients is served to students at the Washington Jesuit Academy in Northeast Washington, D.C. The first is here.

    Allison Sosna is a young chef who fell in love with local produce. She remembers where: it was in a Washington, D.C. restaurant called “Hook,” working with celebrated sustainable seafood chef Barton Seaver.

    “We would get amazing produce every day from farmers in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania,” Sosna recalls. “They would just walk through the back door into the kitchen and start unloading all of these ingredients that I had never seen before: candy-striped beets, purple bell peppers, black radishes, pom-pom mushrooms. And I got hooked. I wanted to know what else was out there, these ingredients I had never seen or heard about before—and right in my own back yard.”

    Sosna is executive chef at Fresh Start, the
    for-profit catering arm of D.C. Central Kitchen, a
    social services innovator that provides much of the food for the city’s
    soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Fresh Start handles the cafeteria duties at Washington Jesuit School. To make her vision of good-quality local ingredients for Washington Jesuit’s 71 students, Sosna and her crew have had to think hard about costs—and test their resourcefulness. What they’ve learned can teach us important lessons for how to bring healthy food to the nation’s 31 million children who rely on the National School Lunch Program.

    Lunch Lessons

    Sosna’s infatuation with locally grown food helps explain why cook Eraleigh Green was sorting  baby beet greens and mache the morning I arrived to check out the kitchen operation at Washington Jesuit Academy. Sosna insists local produce is not only fresher, more vivid, healthier, “it allows the kids to see what real food is, where it grows, and to establish the connection that food comes from somewhere, and how special and delicious that somewhere is.”

    While I looked on, Eraleigh Green carefully rinsed and sorted the ingredients for a diverse salad bar that later would be wheeled out of the kitchen and into the dining hall for lunch service. On the salad bar for the school’s 71 middle-school boys to choose from were mixed salad greens, spinach leaves, sliced mushrooms, sliced radishes, carrots, raw broccoli florets, cucumber slices, red onion, red and golden pear tomatoes, diced beets, bean sprouts, baby beet greens, mizuna leaves, green apples and plums, and a chicken salad made from roasted local chickens.

    The kitchen even made two dressings from scratch: Caesar and honey-mustard.

    The selection—all of it locally grown—definitely reflects a restaurant chef’s sensibilities and is miles away—about 3,000 miles, to be exact—from the salad I saw being prepared at my daughter public elementary school here in the District when I spent a week in the kitchen there. That salad arrives as plastic bags of processed iceberg lettuce from California, each containing smaller bags of processed carrots and shredded purple cabbage for mixing.

    You might well ask whether 11- and 12-year-olds can possibly appreciate the difference between baby mizuna from southern New Jersey and iceberg lettuce from California. But there is more going on here, says Sosna, than designer greens.

    Quite a bit of thought and effort has gone into selecting ingredients that aren’t just different and interesting, but fit into the school’s food budget. Specialty items such as the beet greans and mache are purchased when they are on sale, or when the produce distributor is having trouble selling them at all. In fact, provisioning Washington Jesuit Academy with local ingredients has taken months of legwork, endless conversations with farmers, and constant prodding of the Washington area’s agricultural distribution network.

    “When you work out partnerships with farmers by explaining to them—vividly—your expectations for deliveries, price points, and volume ordering, you can get local produce into schools,” Sosna says. “It takes time to build relationships, nurture them, and grow them. Through high volume and accurate inventory keeping, you can lower your price points and food costs and still buy local. This is not to say that every ingredient can make its way into your refrigerator. Local corn shoots and micro-greens are still going to be expensive because they take a lot of labor to produce.”

    In the world of traditional restaurants, supermarkets and school kitchens, a vast distribution network easily delivers foodstuffs from California, Mexico, Florida and beyond with a simple phone call or the click of a computer mouse. Alas, no such system exists for local foods. Sosna and other enterprising food lovers like her are simply making one up to suit their own needs.

    Recently I attended a conference here in Washignton where Doug Davis, the head of school food service in Burlington, Vermont, explained to a group representing school kitchens across D.C. how it has taken him eight years to incorporate local farm products into school cafeterias in Vermont. Making the connection between schools and local farms requires determination and persistence. Local family farmers are just begining to understand the needs of large institutions such as schools. 

    “As a catering company, I had to ensure that we had inventory and access to all products within a 48-hours notice, and sometimes less,” Sosna explained. “So this requires me to have purveyors that can keep a steady and consistent product in-house and are able to get it to me with a relatively quick turnaround. Over the course of a year, I have been working to get more and more farmers and artisans set up so that I can buy from them consistently and in high volume.”

    A year ago, D.C. Central Kitchen hit upon its own scheme for using local produce cost effectively in the 4,000 meals it cooks for the District’s needy every day. The Central Kitchen positioned an employee in the Shenandoah Valley two hours southwest of Washington to start talking with farmers there. Soon, the kitchen was dispatching trucks once or twice a week to purchase “seconds”—produce blemished or otherwise unable to command top dollar—and haul it back to a new processing and storage facility in the city.

    D.C. Central Kitchen now makes regular 145-mile trips to a produce auction in Dayton, Virginia, with access to about 100 Shenandoah farmers, to purchase large lots of wholesale fruits and vegetables, some of which is processed and frozen for future use in things like the corn chowder I saw being served to the students at Washington Jesuit Academy.

    Sosna said that through the Virginia produce auction, D.C. Central Kitchen in the last year has used more than 50,000 pounds of local fruits and vegetables—50 percent of the kitchen’s total requirement—and directed  10 percent of its total food budget into local products.

    The Central Kitchen’s facility is now viewed as a potential model for a proposed city-funded plant that could process local produce for the District’s entire school system. “Healthy Schools” legislation pending before the D.C. Council includes a provision for just such a facility.

    If Sosna seems thrilled by local vegetables, she is positively giddy over the organic dairy she’s placed in Jesuit Academy cafeteria. She chose Trickling Springs Creamery, in Chambersburg, Pa., because the company “gets the struggle that chefs like I have with trying to get local produce and ingredients.” Grassfed, hormone-free milk from Trickling Springs is displayed in gallon jugs on the food line for Jesuit Academy students, and the kitchen uses butter and cream for cooking. But getting to that point wasn’t necessarily easy.

    “For two months, I worked with this local company to figure out price points, drop-off times, and an invetnory that made sense and ensured a smooth operation,” Sosna said. “This is just one exmple and we are currently using 12 purveyors, from which we use 15 farmers and local artisans.”

    The day I visited the Academy, the kitchen had run out of milk. Chef Duane Drake said Trickling Springs only delivers once a week, and he doesn’t have room in his walk-in refrigerator for all the milk the he needs. Instead, they were serving grape drink from powdered mix.

    You get what you pay for

    Okay, so getting local farm goods into school meals can be done, although not without some effort. But how much does all this cost?

    Sosna figures the food cost at Washington Jesuit Academy for each student at around $3.50 per day for breakfast, lunch and dinner. By comparison, the food cost for a typical lunch in a public school is estimated to be around $1, or a little less. But a significant portion of the food used in public schools consists of commodity products donated by the federal governement. Publich schools that participate in the federal meals program receive up to $2.68 in subsidies for each lunch served (about two-thirds of that amount goes to overhead, leaving just a dollar or less for ingredients). Washington Jesuit Academy does not participate in the program and does not receive commodity donations.

    While Eraleigh Green was putting the finishing touches on the salad bar, Duane Drake stirred a spaghetti sauce he was making with local plum tomatoes in the kitchen’s free-standing kettle cooker. He began peeling eggplants to add to the sauce, along with the meat from some leftover roasted chickens.

    “We were getting organic chicken from a farmer in Pennsylvania, but it was expensive,” Drake says. “We’re looking for a farmer who does his own processing.”

    Drake peeled and sliced carrots, scattered these over sheet pans with snow peas to roast in the convection oven for a vegetable side dish. In just a few minutes, there would be a mob of hungry boys—and teachers—clamoring for lunch. It looked like we’d be ready for them.

    Monday: why the administration at Washington Jesuit Academy committed to paying more for better school food.

    Related Links:

    In praise of the sandwich-shop trend

    In a D.C. school, the simple power of a good breakfast

    The NYT highlights a key food-system gap: infrastucture






  • Tokyo launches Asia’s first carbon emissions trade scheme

    by Agence France-Presse

    Tokyo. Photo courtesy hide99 via FlickrTOKYO—The city of Tokyo on Thursday launched Asia’s first scheme to trade carbon credits, aiming to lead Japan in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.

    The mega-city of 13 million mandated that the 1,400 top-polluting factories and office buildings reduce emissions, with the aim of slashing Tokyo’s total output of carbon dioxide by 25 percent from 2000 levels by 2020.

    “We want to be a model for the Japanese government,” Yuki Arata, the director for emissions trading at the Tokyo metropolitan government’s environment bureau, told AFP.

    Japan, Asia’s biggest economy, has pledged to cut greenhouse emissions by 25 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, provided other major emitters also make sharp reductions, one of the most ambitious targets of any industrialized country.

    In Tokyo, in the shorter term, the businesses will have to cut carbon dioxide emissions by six percent during the 2010-2014 period compared to their average emissions of recent years.

    Under the scheme starting in 2011, companies that cannot meet the target will have to buy “right-to-pollute” credits from those that can, or will face fines and the bad publicity of having their names published.

    To meet their targets, businesses can cut emissions through greater energy efficiency and by using renewable energy sources.

    Tokyo’s Governor Shintaro Ishihara, known for his strong nationalist and ecological ideas, led the city’s unsuccessful bid to host a green 2016 Olympic Games, which he promised “would save planet Earth.” Rio de Janeiro beat Tokyo, Chicago, and Madrid to host the Games.

    Related Links:

    Obama’s mountaintop-removal crackdown could mean more than offshore drilling

    Rachel Maddow takes on denial-funding Koch Industries

    Everything you need to know about Obama’s new fuel-economy rules






  • McDonald’s scraps composting program because food won’t decompose

    by Grist

    A McDonald’s composting initiative is going to the dump.Photo: bhamsandwich via Flickr

    UPDATE: Happy April Fools’ Day!

    McDonald’s announced this morning that it would discontinue plans for a worldwide composting initiative after scientists confirmed that no item on the McDonald’s menu is compostable.

    The plan to keep food waste—more than 1.5 billion tons a month—out of landfills would have been the largest composting program in the world, with bright green composting bins at all the 31,000-plus restaurants around the world.

    But McDonald’s halted the plan after scientists at the University of California-Berkeley discovered that none of the items on the McDonald’s menu would compost in the next 500 years, nor would any start breaking down for an estimated 1,000 years, the projected life span of a plastic bag.

    “To be honest, this food is better off in a landfill.” said lead researcher Donald MacGregor, from the University of California-Berkeley, on a press call early this morning. “It would get in the way of perfectly good compostable materials. Additionally, gardeners disliked the highly acidic leaching of the non-composting Big Macs in field tests.”

    McDonald’s says it has no plans to reconsider the idea. However, company officials will be considering other waste management options, such as incineration and outer-atmospheric storage.

    “It would have been great for McDonald’s to lead the way on corporate composting,” said McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner at a press conference today outside the fast food giant’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. “We had to make a tough decision, but in the end I think we made the right one for us and for the environment.”

    A source at Greenpeace says today’s announcement is “extremely disturbing.” The group plans to launch a campaign to get McDonald’s to overhaul its menu.

    Related Links:

    McDonald’s responds to April Fools’ story (via Twitter)

    What to make of the Pollan/Schlosser agreement with Wendy’s?

    How to strangle a climate skeptic [VIDEO]