REMEMBER THE MIDWEST

Visit us at The Relative Comment

2009-07-20T10:04:00.004-05:00

Remember The Midwest is saying goodbye. The editors have created a new project, The Relative Comment. Please stop by if you have a moment to see our new blog covering a wider array of issues with more in-depth analysis, and less snarky commentary. But still some snark.

These kinds of resolutions still happen?

2009-06-30T11:39:00.004-05:00

I sure hope it doesn't pass.
What is to blame for the economic recession? Well, Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern has it all figured out.

"WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior"

It's always the same. Abortion, Gays, Divorce, Babies, Forsaking Christianity (we're doing that?), giving a month to immorality (WTF?). Ignoring the national day of prayer. Really. You can, with a straight face bring up such a stupid ridiculous complaint and place upon it the economic crises that are hurting millions of people around the world? Because Obama skipped out on the national day of prayer?
You are something, Sally Kerns. I hope that your constituents are embarrassed by this. But I'm afraid they are not.

Climate Denial.

2009-06-29T13:48:00.005-05:00

If you followed the Climate Change debate with teh Waxman-Markey bill in Congress, you saw what could best be described as a bunch of people not talking about Climate Change, but about politics. Not a big surprise, it's D.C. But still, it is unexcusable, and some day, soon we hope, this kind of debate that ignores science can end. Paul Krugman puts it well in the NYTimes.

"But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause."

Here's a best of video if you're interested.

The Superlative Man

2009-06-26T19:19:00.002-05:00

Reading about the death of Michael Jackson, I have been struck by the amount of superlatives that are used in describing his life; this representing both the positive and negative actions of a life that accounted for many on both sides. But I think it speaks to the genuine enormity of the person who was Michael Jackson. It is as though he could not be spoken of unless it was in terms that could not be surpassed.
In that tradition, this could be the most electrifying live performance ever; and they love (LOVE) the moonwalk. To the man of Superlatives.

It's a Great Time to be a Nerd.

2009-06-22T17:42:00.001-05:00

Ladies and Gentleman...Sarah Palin.

2009-06-12T13:07:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin was on Matt Lauer, and he asked her this question: "Lauer told Palin that 'your name has been on a list with people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney,' and that she was considered a fund-raising superstar. 'Does that translate to you being the future of the GOP?'"
To this, she gave the best. response. ever.
"Absolutely not necessarily."
What?

A good question...

2009-06-02T16:38:00.003-05:00

RTM has long derided the Hummer Brand of vehicles. I believe we called it "useless piece of crap," and generally disparaged it's massive incongruity with living a civilian life. So it is with some satisfaction that we considered the loss of Hummer as a part of GM. It was put up for sale with the announcement of GM's bankruptcy, and it appears, a bit too fast for RTM, that the brand has found its buyer. But who is it?
"We love a mystery. And today we can't help but wonder who is buying Hummer -- and why?" The WHY seems even more interesting than the who? WHY! "A day after filing for bankruptcy reorganization, General Motors said today that it has a buyer for its Hummer off-road-vehicle brand."

Well, it turns out it was Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company, Ltd.This Chinese company plans to allow Hummer to keep doing its thing, which for GM, wasn't too spectacular. "The Hummer and other large vehicles have been a drag on the U.S. auto industry since fuel prices spiked in 2008 and the recession deepened. GM said it sold 5,013 Hummers worldwide in the first quarter, down 62% from the 13,050 that it sold in the same period the prior year."

A Small Car.

2009-05-30T11:03:00.003-05:00

GM to Build Small Car in U.S.
Why does this headline merit being written? Really? A small car? You're going to build one? Actually in the United States? Teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, after all this time and all these gas price spikes and valleys, General Motors has now, just now, realized that having ONE small car might benefit the company?
"General Motors announced this morning that it will build a new, fuel-efficient small car in the United States in the next few years, bucking a longtime industry trend to manufacture such vehicles overseas."

Seriously. It will be good to have an efficient car built in the U.S. instead of overseas. But I'm not going to celebrate this happening now. I find it absolutely infuriating that it hasn't happened long before now. You get no props from RTM, GM, nor you, UAW, who could have helped this along years and years ago.

God help us if this is true.

2009-05-28T11:47:00.003-05:00

**UPDATE: The White House and Pentagon have denied these reports. I wish that was good enough for me.

"The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004.According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported. It was not immediately clear from the report who had seen the photos or how they might have been obtained."

Is it really necessary to spell out that it is inappropriate to rape prisoners?
I don't know if this true, but I really fucking hope it is not.

Not to be outdone.

2009-05-18T10:37:00.002-05:00

America, according to a recent Greendex Survey, is the least green consuming nation in the world. We go all out, so really, there's not much of a surprise.
"You can read all 296 pages of it here [PDF]—but if you want the short version, here it is: developing nations like India and Brazil have the highest (read: greenest) Greendex numbers, while Canadians and Americans round out the bottom ... overall and in pretty much every category (way to be consistent!)."

We got the lowest score on public transit use; the highest score on number of people who have never used public transit; lowest locally grown food consumption; and least green housing. For what it's worth.

Green Team! (NSFW)

2009-05-14T15:58:00.001-05:00

Some eco-humor for your weekend. GREEN TEAM!

Green Team from Will Ferrell

Ladies and Gentleman...Norm Coleman, pt. 2

2009-05-14T12:00:00.002-05:00

Here's the latest about once and (not?)future senator Norm Coleman:
"The FBI is investigating allegations that former Senator Norm Coleman had clothing and other items purchased on his behalf by a longtime friend and businessman Nasser Kazeminy, according to a source in Minnesota who was interviewed recently by federal agents."
I got to be honest about Norm Coleman and this 'friend bought clothes' story. I don't care. I'm sure it's illegal for some rich guy to buy Coleman suits that cost more than our car. But that is not what I'm interested in when it comes to Coleman. I am much more interested in, say, ending the goddamn senatorial election in Minnesota. How about that one, FBI?
Said Coleman of the allegations: "Nobody but me and my wife buy my suits."

In our Schools We should Teach all of the Facts

2009-05-06T14:36:00.003-05:00

In the last two days, I have come across two videos from the t.v. in which folks fight with each other about Creation and Evolution, on the value of teaching science and Creation, on whether scientists who use the scientific method to find results can be trusted (i.e. Global Warming, Evolution, Stem Cell Research, etc). One participant equals not teaching evolution to our children with child abuse and attempting to intentionally limit their intellectual growth (a point of view I have never considered, though I think not teaching evolution would just be stupid).
This is a debate that will never end. Not believing in Science is not something you can argue with, just like not believing in Religion is something you can't argue with.
The two videos are below, if you're interested. The first is The View. The second is Chris Matthews and Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Pence is particularly intriguing, as he attempts to tread lightly. He argues that the Republican Party is not anti-science (they are), while doing everything not to offend his anti-science voters.

The Plummer's Friends

2009-05-04T17:33:00.002-05:00

I would love to meet Joe the Plummer's gay friends. He has had some, he said in an interview with Christianity Today, and they sound like they're pretty close.
"People don't understand the dictionary--it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual...You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do--what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."
Wait, you have friends that are "actually homosexual?" What does that mean, actually? They're your friends, but you won't let them near your children? You sound ridiculous. Go away publicity hound. You serve no purpose, and you are actually an asshole.

Ah...Legitimacy

2009-04-30T12:19:00.002-05:00

It is with a certain amount of self-congratulatory surprise, that the editor-in-chief of RTM announces that in two years, his blog might be legitimately informative and able to support itself with more than just snarky comments.

I have accepted an offer to attend the MS in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana in Missoula. My lovely wife and I will be transporting there in August.

Science gets in the way

2009-04-26T16:43:00.005-05:00

Here is the problem with science, illustrated from the NYTimes article Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate.
There was a group that represented the interests of industries tied to burning fossil fuels called Global Climate Coalition during the 1990s. They had long stated that the burning of fossil fuels and increased greenhouse gases could not be connected to global warming. This is not unusual. Dirty industries have long been involved in doing anything they can to convince congressman and the public that GHGs and climate change aren't problems. The problem this time is that the GCC attempted to use science to prove their point.
If they simply said, "The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," as they stated in the early 90s in a "backgrounder" for congress, they ought to back that position up, right? Well they tried. And now, thanks to documents that surfaced in a federal lawsuit, the opinions of their scientists have come out.
In 1995, an internal scientific report was issued by the Clobal Climate Coalition, stating essentially 'we are wrong.' "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied." It doesn't get much clearer than that. And from the very scientists hired by a firm to represent the interests of the auto, oil, and coal industries of the United States. This finding was of course kept a secret by the organization, likely due to the fact that it countered the very purpose of it existing. It disbaned it 2002.

This is a damning story. The industry and its lobbyists knew then, or they were told by their scientific community, that they were wrong. But GCC didn't want to bother with science. Instead they wrote another internal paper, a 17 page primer for the company written up in 1995 that contained the above findings.
"'The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change,' the advisory committee said in the 17-page primer. According to the minutes of an advisory committee meeting that are among the disclosed documents, the primer was approved by the coalition’s operating committee early in 1996. But the approval came only after the operating committee had asked the advisers to omit the section that rebutted the contrarian arguments. 'This idea was accepted,' the minutes said, 'and that portion of the paper will be dropped.'

There you have it. Science gets in the way, and 14 years later we find out that it was suppressed by a group looking out for industry. One wonders why they bothered with the research at all?

Newsworthy non-news.

2009-04-23T12:21:00.003-05:00

I read this non-environmental story on HuffPo today, and had to post it since it is, likely, the least newsworthy piece of news I've come across in a long time. Even more so than the Naked Wizard who was tasered at Coachella.
What could be less newsworthy than that? 3 in 10 Americans think Fox News is too hard on Obama. And guess what? Mostly democrats think so! Republicans tend to think Fox is not too hard on Obama! Can you even believe that! Thanks HuffPo!
In other breaking news, the English tend to think that they live on an island when compared to the United States. Also, babies prefer to eat baby food more than foie gras.

How much can we gain from Drilling off shore?

2009-04-21T09:55:00.003-05:00

Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior for the United States, has been kicking about the idea of drilling off the shores of California. He visited the state, and much to his chagrin, I imagine, he was met with opposition by the states leaders across party lines (a lot of them). They said, we like the coastline the way it is now, an attraction for people to come and enjoy. They said, we should be investing in alternative and renewable energy, instead of drilling more fossil fuels. Then say said this:
"The potential output of oil (estimated 1% of US daily consumption by 2030) comes no where near to justifying the risk posed to its economy and ecosystem." All that damage, irreversible destruction to a beautiful space, for 1% by 2030? Is this the best we can hope for from more drilling? I remember during the campaign last summer, when more drilling was a talking point, that any benefits would not be seen for at least a decade or longer, but at least they made it sound like there would be oil to make it worth it. Then, at least, there was an argument to be had, and we did. But there is not even an argument to be had over this one, is there?
Drill, Baby, Drill, for one more percentage point of daily usage in 18 years! Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, you know?

Inhofe on EPA on GHGs as Pollutants

2009-04-17T18:15:00.005-05:00

I posted my take on the big environmental story of the day (EPA finds GHGs to be pollutants) today over at Critical/Ecological, so I won't repeat them here.
But I did want to post the response from Sen. James Inhofe. He is famous for being kind of crazy, and, well, not someone who puts much stock in the science of climate change ("Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people...").

"Today’s action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America’s global competitiveness. It now appears EPA’s regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act…It’s worth noting that the solution to this ‘glorious mess’ is not for Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which replaces one very bad approach with another. Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks."

I love the notion that EPA will regulate GHGs in a way that will inhibit assisted living facilities. As though the environmental crowd has been frothing at the mouth to get those polluting elderly care folks and their dastardly ways. It's bullshit, by the by, that such things will happen, but that is for another time.

High Speed Rail gets a Plug.

2009-04-16T15:09:00.004-05:00

Part one: call for High-Speed Rail, accomplished.
Now, part two: build it.
So, build it.
Obama: "This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It's happening now. The problem is, it's happening elsewhere."

That Show about that Family that's just Too Big. Or another one, anyway.

2009-04-15T19:51:00.005-05:00

Not long ago, RTM asked this question: "What is the deal lately with babies and TV shows?" The question arose after reading and interview with one of the very (very) large families that have a lucrative television show depicting their lives with their many (many) children. The interview took place in the wake of the Nadya Suleman octuplet scandal, if you recall. In that previous post, I also asked this question about Ms. Suleman: "Ms. Suleman is the woman who recently had eight children via in vitro fertilization. She already had 6, and she's unemployed...you know the story. How's she going to turn that all around? She'll probably get a TV show."

Well I hate to say I told you so. But I did. Not that it took much creativity to see this coming. Unlike Jon and Kate and the Duggar Family, who apparently just shill out their family for a few years to support their families, it looks like Ms. Suleman will take it the respectable way by partaking in a "documentary series" that will last "until the children are 18 years old." EIGHTEEN. It's not like they are in a tough enough situation, being one of fourteen children of a single mom. Eighteen years of being on television as one of eight twins.

Oh well, at least there is no shortage of food or water in the world.

Slow Steps from Big Plans

2009-04-11T12:24:00.002-05:00

Obama planned big. That was part of his appeal. Things had gotten out of control in this country under the previous, lackluster administration, and Barack Obama was going to make changes. Of course, once he was in, things were going to slow down. In the concerncs of climate change, that has happened. It's been frustrating me for a time now, and the NYTimes have a little piece about what that slowdown looks like. They even posit that the Obama administration may not be slowing down, but engaging in "misdirection." Which I'm not that interested in. Stop wielding a club that you're not going to use to engage in a dialog with congress that will not yield the results you want. Use the club.
(sorry this is quick. I don't yet have the internets at my new home, and am blogging from my mother-in-law's kitchen counter.)

Who's Green and Who's Greenwashing?

2009-04-03T09:19:00.004-05:00

24/7 Wall St. has done another of those worst American Corporation lists. This time: Worst Greenwashers. They compiled a list of the 10 worst "Environmental Champions that Pollute the World." Who they are is not much of a surprise, given what these companies do. As much as we might like to think otherwise, the task of managing a 'green' oil or gas or chemical or waste or auto company is pretty damn hard. There's a lot lifted, but the article itself is long and very detailed. Below is the list and a line for each.
"'Greenwashing' is the act of misleading the public regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product, service, or business line. Due to the public’s increased awareness of environmental issues, including global warming, deforestation, and the loss of endangered species, greenwashing has become a staple of corporations marketing efforts."
1. General Electric. "GE was the fifth largest producer of chemicals with four facilities in the top 100 generating 332,336 pounds in waste in 2007."
2. American Electric Power. "AEP is one of nation’s biggest polluters, now that GM is making fewer cars."
3. Exxon Mobil. "According to the company’s 2008 Corporate Citizen’s Report, ExxonMobil has finally admitted that its funding efforts to research groups that deny global warming has an adverse effect on the environment. "
4. DuPont. "The violations alleged by the EPA included “multiple failures to report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004."
5. Archer Daniels Midland. "Although the problem is occurring across Southeast Asia, “the problem is particularly acute in Indonesia which has been named in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records as the country with fastest rate of deforestation." (Where ADM produces palm oil).
6.Waste Management, Inc. "What the ads fail to disclose is that burning trash doesn’t come without a price."
7. International Paper. "Out of the LCV’s Dirty Dozen, International Paper’s PAC has donated thousands of dollars to 5 of the Dirty Dozen, including the leading denier of global warming, Senator Jim Inhofe."
8. BP. "A commercial that played in 2008 suggested that alternative energies were important to BP...was, at the same time, actively lobbying against efforts to limit global warming legislation – beyond petroleum and into the backrooms."
9. Dow Chemical. "As recently as 2008, the company claimed that it needed to measure the amount of the pollution before it could establish a cleanup program."
10. General Motors. (I'm surprised GM isn't higher). "GM has long been one of the most anti-environment companies in America’s history, dating back to its efforts to limit car emission standards. Because of their lobbying efforts, they created a loophole to reduce the average fuel economy of a car-makers fleet.".

*NOTE*There is a related story about Greenwashing and Professional Sports at Critical/Ecological.

'Trappings of Sovereignty'?

2009-03-31T14:18:00.005-05:00

RTM has never loved the Hummer. It's a useless piece of crap, as far as a civilian commercial product, which we've said before. The brand has been struggling for a long time, as has Hummer parent, GM. Despite a possible selling of the brand or even scrapping it entirely, there is a new place where Hummers are finding a home: Iraq. Apparently they love Hummers, at least those looking for an obnoxious status and power symbol to declare their status and power. And this at a time when "Iraqis are paying historically high prices for gasoline."
Aren't their enough military Humvees in Iraq that a rise in civilian Hummers would be unpopular. Who knows. But the NYTimes puts a positive spin on it nobody can deny. "It beats being obsessed with, say, car bombs."

"It's not altruism"

2009-03-29T00:51:00.003-05:00

Looking for action on climate change? I am. And I don't expect it to come from business. But there is a new coalition of businesses looking for just that. It's called BICEP. As in, flex your biceps.
"Nike, Starbucks, eBay, and a handful of other big-name U.S. companies are putting forward a climate agenda that's just as ambitious as that of many environmentalists, if not more so. The new coalition -- Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP for short -- grew out of a partnership between Nike and Ceres, a nonprofit network of investors and enviro groups. Other members now include Gap, Symantec, Levi Strauss & Co., Sun Microsystems, and Timberland. At a briefing in Washington, D.C. in early March, the coalition unveiled its priorities: cutting emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and creating an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that auctions 100 percent of carbon credits."
If that doesn't mean much to you, that's a pretty extreme plan for regulating emissions. It's impressive to see such calls coming from these industries. Hopefully this will lend a strong voice to those already pushing for a dramatic change in environmental policy. The companies claim that their push is good for their business, and that "it's not altruism." Regardless, we could use the advocacy, and the change.

More Bachmann

2009-03-27T13:02:00.005-05:00

Usually, when someone in politics says something that is kind of ridiculous or over the top, they come down and temper their words. And then there is Michelle Bachmann. She recently called for Minnesotans to get "armed and dangerous" in order to "fight hard" so "we don't lose our country." This was in regards to Obama's new energy tax plan. It seems like a pretty clear overreaction. So how did Bachmann follow it up?
With an appearance on Sean Hannity's show, spouting off about Marxism (something I have recently learned should be avoided on blogs...but what can I say, I like quite a bit of Marx).
"We are headed down the lane of economic Marxism," said Bachmann. "More quickly, Sean, than anyone could have possibly imagined. It's difficult for us to even keep up with it day to day...We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch."
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what "it" is, I guess 'economic Marxism.'

Anyway. It got worse: "Economics works equally in any country. Where freedom is tried, the people rejoice. But where tyranny is enforced upon the people, as Barack Obama is doing, the people suffer and mourn." Obama is tyrant? Freedom equals economic success? What the fuck are you talking about? But it just...keeps...going...
"This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I'm going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind...Do we get into an inner tube and float 90 miles to some free country? There is no free country for us to repair to. That's why it's up to us now."
So...Obama is the greatest threat to American Freedom in the past 230 years?
I don't mean to harp on Ms. Bachmann, but I just can't believe her. It makes me very sad that of all the districts in all the states of all 435 members of congress, I live in Michelle Bachman's.

Gov't Sponsored River Poisoning

2009-03-25T16:58:00.004-05:00

Sometimes, one needs to read a story with a keen eye to see just what is going on. Like this story from CNN: Feds' plan to poison banks of Rio Grande Stalled. Wait, they planned to poison the river? So why did they stall the plan? "Federal officials postponed poisoning a mile-long stretch of the Rio Grande's banks this week after residents complained that doing so posed health and environmental risks on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border." Really? Poisoning a river poses a health risk to those surrounding the river?

So why poison the river in the first place? Obviously, to deter illegal immigration. "U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it wants to eradicate the invasive Carrizo cane infesting many portions of the Rio Grande's banks between Texas and Mexico. The lanky cane provides cover for immigrants crossing the border illegally and poses a danger to Border Patrol agents trying to stop them."
Poor river. What did you ever do to deserve a government poisoning plan?

Ladies and Gentleman...Michelle Bachmann.

2009-03-23T17:42:00.003-05:00

The latest in our Ladies and Gentleman...(insert Minnesota Politician Here) series (previous entries include Norm Coleman) is Republican crazy person Michelle Bachmann. Her latest gem regards encouraging the folks of Minnesota towards a revolution to overthrow Obama's government. Yeah!
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."
How dare we limit carbon emissions. Nothing like playing the 'freedom is in danger' card to discredit political opponents.

the Science of Alternative Sciences

2009-03-13T11:00:00.004-05:00

The Environmental movement is based as much on feelings, emotions, spirituality as it is on science. This, I would say, can't be denied. The American spiritual connection to wilderness has been as big a factor in the environmental movement as the scientific basis for, say, protecting forests because they consume the CO2 that is emitted by humans. But as positive as this association of moral and philosophical ties is, it can lead to some associations that might be better off left behind.
The Guardian posits that one such association which should be severed is the connection between green issues and alternative medicine. The author argues that we need not be solely motivated by science. The love of nature affects many without any knowledge of science. "My environmentalism arises from both a deep love of the natural world and a strong sense of the injustices done to vulnerable people: it's an emotional impulse, in other words. But we must at all times be informed by [science]. There is no room for wishful thinking...The great majority of alternative medicine, by contrast, relies to some degree on wishful thinking."
Alternative medicine has become tied to environmentalism. It is something I don't entirely understand. The actual protection of the environment is largely a scientific endeavor; alternative medicine isn't.
The commitment many have to alternative medicine could be healthy. I don't know. But it is important to be aware of the science to support one's medicine, isn't it? I take vitamin supplements because I believe they will make me healthier. But I'm fully aware that vitamin supplements are not approved, are not even subject to approval, by the FDA. I take it on faith that they will help me until the science comes out to support it.

Heartland Institute and the Crisis that never was

2009-03-09T12:09:00.003-05:00

A year ago, RTM posted on the conservative, climate skeptic organization Heartland Institute, and their oil company sponsored Conference. Last year's theme was "Global Warming is not a crisis." This years? "Global Warming: Was it ever really a Crisis?" That is a brilliant title. Not only does it imply that Global Warming as a crisis is over, but begs the question that it never needed be a crisis in the first place.
There is not much here to say. Climate skeptics have every right to get together and discuss their views. But there are a few notes I'd like to point out here.
The keynote speaker at this years conference is Vaclav Klaus, the president of Czech Republic. Klaus "believes that efforts to protect the world from the impact of climate change are an assault on freedom...believes that efforts to protect the world from the impact of climate change are an assault on freedom."
The other interesting note is that, apparently, Exxon Mobil no longer is pouring their money into this conference or the Heartland Institute. "Large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks."

GM doesn't want to alienate (non)customers

2009-03-05T11:16:00.003-06:00

Is GM going to enter bankruptcy? Should we be concerned if they do? At RTM, we've written quite a lot about the auto-industry's downturn and bailouts, and have shown little compassion for those running a poorly managed industry.
It's not so easy to cast aside the employees of those companies, as well as all those companies that are dependent on a healthy auto-industry, which is an awful lot of people around the world.
So the prediction made by GM auditors that the company may have to file Chapter 11 leaves an odd impression.
One of the chief reasons you hear from GM regarding why they can't be allowed to be go bankrupt and restructure is because they don't believe customers will want to buy cars from a company who filed bankruptcy. This begs the question: What customers do you fear you will lose? If you had customers, you wouldn't be here in the first place.

In a related note. If we as a country get out of this whole and recession regarding the auto industry, and we do not have a commitment to smaller, fuel-efficient, alternative powered vehicles, our leaders are truly morons. Everything is being restructured, we won't have a better chance to abandon unsustainable vehicles which will prop up unsustainable companies.

Calm down.

2009-03-03T11:40:00.003-06:00

Here's one of the odder stories you will hear for a while. A man in Nebraska had a cat that needed to be calmed down. So he did what anyone would do in such a situation. He put his cat into a bong, then smoked marijuana from the bong with the CAT INSIDE.
"'This cat was just dazed,' Sgt. Andy Stebbing said. 'She was on the front seat of the cop car, wrapped in a blanket, and never moved all the way to the humane society.'"
Really. The man is being charged with animal cruelty, as well as cruelty to human intellect by alleging to have some.

The other side of this story comes from the "professional" "reporters" that work at MSNBC.
"MSNBC's Tamron Hall covered the story and was unable to stifle her giggles as she introduced the 'sad but true' story. The network evidently felt the story lacked a certain realism because they played the sound of gurgling water over the anchor's report. Anchor Contessa Brewer couldn't quite believe that the cat was stuffed inside the bong, but as Tamron informed her, 'I understand you can make a bong out of anything.' There were then more giggles all around."
They played the sound of bong water? Due to the bravado of my 14 year old cousin, I was just explaining to my gramms the concept of making a bong out of an apple. But I don't think she would have liked to hear about the cat-bong.

Clean Coal by the Coen Brothers

2009-02-26T14:44:00.002-06:00

Here is a new Clean Coal ad, harnessing the power of the word clean, directed by the Coens.

Stop Watching Those Volcanoes, NOW

2009-02-24T21:32:00.005-06:00

Regardless of all the things I disagree with that Bobby Jindal had to say after the President's speech, there is one thing that I have to question.
Does Governor Jindal really believe that we should not be monitoring volcanoes? Of all the examples of 'wasteful spending,' does he truly not see the simple, self-evident, need to monitor VOLCANOES?!
There have been times in history when a little volcano monitoring might have come in handy. But, you know, we can just let that go, since there are not any pending volcano eruptions in these parts.

*Update: Seems I'm not the only one who thought Jindal's 'volcanoes don't need monitoring' comment was ridiculous. "Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. "We have one that's very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently."

Critical/Ecological

2009-02-24T18:44:00.002-06:00

The editors of RTM have endeavored to create a new blog. It is entitled Critical/Ecological. In its posts, there will be general discussions surrounding media and arts, politics and society, and how these things tend to influence our ability to think critically and ecologically about our surroundings and environment. From the C/E homepage:
"How do we think about the natural world in our media, art, and minds? The green movement in the U.S. has taken strong hold, but little reflection on the natural world seems to accompany it. Due to this, we often continue to waste, pollute, and ignore, even while trying to ‘go green.’
Critical/Ecological will attempt to help us think about how we think about nature, the world, and our place in it, as we investigate how that relationship is portrayed."

We'd love to have you visit us there, on your blog rounds.

Carbon Regulation

2009-02-23T10:42:00.002-06:00

There was a huge story in the NYTimes last week, and it was not about the Oscars, or the auto bailout, or the Stimulus.
It is about the EPA, and carbon emissions. "The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet."
This is a big deal, and many have been trying to see this happen for years, but despite the clamor from scientists and the Supreme Court, it was as unlikely during the Bush Administration as the Academy giving Best Picture to Wall-E (even though it probably deserved it).
From an environmental stand point, regulating carbon is only a positive thing. There is not, as far as I am concerned, a caveat. There will be other concerns, but if we take the threats of climate change seriously, this will be inevitable, and necessary.
The question then remains, in this article and for the gov't: should carbon be regulated under the antiquated and complicated Clean Air Act, or should new regulatory controls be created for carbon? If so, by who?

Babies and TV shows

2009-02-20T12:05:00.003-06:00

What is the deal lately with babies and TV shows? I have never heard of the Duggar Family, until I read this interview on CNN where they discussed the Nadya Suleman story. Ms. Suleman is the woman who recently had eight children via in vitro fertilization. She already had 6, and she's unemployed... you know the story. How's she going to turn that all around? She'll probably get a TV show. Why? We love our humongous families.
What is it that makes me think...the more the babies you have the more tv deals, book deals, Oprah appearances, and website donations you can find. Pop 'em out, the money will roll in.
I cannot imagine how the Duggar Family could possibly survive without a tv contract. And the shows called "and Counting," so they should just keep dropping them.
The Duggar Family consists of 18 children. That's a household of 20. They have a show on TLC called 17 Kids and Counting. Then there is Jon and Kate plus 8, about the Gosselin family of 10. Also on TLC. Kids by the Dozen; TLC. Is TLC singlehandedly paying for, and thereby encouraging, reproduction in such numbers? That doesn't account for any competitors who host their own shows about giant families that I've also never heard of.
Here's some suggested reading for your producers, TLC. It's called Maybe One. Check it out, for balance if nothing else.

"Why are we trying to keep them in their houses?"

2009-02-19T13:58:00.004-06:00

I just watched this video of a CNBC anchor named Rick Santelli yelling a lot on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange about Obama's Housing Bailout, and how nobody wants to pay their neighbor's mortgage on the house with the extra bathroom...and that keeping people from having their homes foreclosed rewards the bad behavior of those who drink the water but cannot carry the water...what he calls "subsidizing the losers' mortgages."
It leads me to a sincere question: What happens when someone has a house, can't pay their mortgage, and their home is foreclosed? I don't mean to sound like a bleeding-heart liberal, but seriously, where do those people live once they are out of their homes? Is there a system set up to help? I'm asking sincerely.

High Speed Rail out of Low Speed Spending?

2009-02-18T14:48:00.004-06:00

Not everyone is crazy about investing our future in rail transportation. Those are the people who do not see a problem with banking everything on a resource that is limited, environmentally hazardous, internationally volatile, and entirely economically unstable.
But we at RTM believe strongly that investing in a regional High Speed Rail system for our nation is not only sound environmental strategy, but will be popular. People will use it, more than anyone can expect. That's just a prediction, but we make it and feel secure in it.
The beginning of this investment in High Speed Rail will come from the stimulus bill that was signed this week, and Huffingtonpost has a look at what that rail plan might look like sometime in the future.

new auto era

2009-02-17T13:24:00.002-06:00

This interview was on the Daily Show last night. It's a repeat, but I missed the original.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Daniel Sperling

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Ben Stein & Intelligent Design vs. Darwin

2009-02-15T16:21:00.005-06:00

Any attempt at "Rational Dialogue," which Ben Stein claims to be seeking in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is turned in on itself about an hour into his film, when he and his associates claim that Darwinism, essentially, leads to Nazism and genocide. It is intellectually dishonest, and rhetorically disgusting. The implied associations are incorrect, if not totally immoral, in their intent. After that point, the film loses all direction, and forgets what is was trying to do, which is scrutinize the scientific community. Instead it becomes an argument about whether God exists; this is entirely beside the point of the first hour of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Somehow Ben Stein becomes Ronald Reagan on the push for Democracy in the world.
But what about the previous hour?
Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design is such an old and immovable argument that it seems almost moot to try to pull it apart. But I've put together a few thoughts after watching Expelled. First, I watched the film out of interest in the debates between Religion and Science. It doesn't come from my side of the argument, but we should be fair and balanced, as they say.
What I hoped would be addressed in this film with actual intellectual curiosity was the consequences of allowing that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. I enjoy this thought experiment. It would mean to me that ID cannot claim the identity of its designer. The Christian God seems no more likely than aliens, or that the entire world is a computer program, or produced by magic (J.K. Rowling, I'm looking in your direction). If there is a designer, who that designer is cannot be identified scientifically, right? That's kind of fun. Instead, Richard Dawkins (of all people) is allowed to voice this briefly, only to be berated in voice over by Mr. Stein.
The other problem with this discussion, in Expelled, and in society in general, is that our commitment to Freedom of Speech and Democracy seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. My opinion on evolution is not created equal to others. Evolutionary Biologists outrank me. That's the only way it can be. Same with Lawyers, Economists, Doctors, and HVAC Installers. It's not a freedom of speech issue. Its simply a question of education. Opinions are not equal, no matter how much we would like them to be. Academic freedom is a trickier issue, and I don't like to see folks lose their jobs over their personal beliefs. But Freedom of Speech does not lead to equality of opinions.
But I don't know if the IDers would concede these points. Maybe they would. As much as Ben Stein and his film try to separate ID from religion, they fail miserably. It seems their cause, as put forth by Ben Stein, would be better served by accepting this fate.

The Problem with Job Creation

2009-02-12T14:42:00.005-06:00

We are trying to create jobs in this tough time. Obama's stimulus plan, according to him, will create or save 3.5-4million jobs (one of which I would appreciate receiving).
The problem with talking about how to create jobs is, how do you create jobs? We can't even decide what "job" means. So when I read this story on the subject today, it roiled me for several reasons.
It is being said that Nancy Pelosi, admittedly no one's favorite politician, apparently wants some money to be spent on restoring wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area, of which one goal would be to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.
This plan is being ridiculed by the GOP as a waste of money that would not create jobs. Asked Michael Steele: "So can Speaker Pelosi explain exactly how we will improve the American economy by helping the adorable little fellow pictured below?"
"One simple answer: workers would be paid to restore wetlands, and the restored wetlands then have an economic benefit in terms of filtering water, slowing run-off and improving the health of fisheries."
That is a simple answer to a simple question. After all, wetlands don't restore themselves. That's one of the great problems of destroying wilderness, it can't ever be wilderness again. But put that aside for now.
The bigger problem here is that the stimulus and recovery package doesn't contain a 30million dollar wetland restoration for the Bay Area. Said Pelosi's office: "There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco... The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication."
So what the hell are we talking about?

Recession in the time of Peak Oil

2009-02-10T09:47:00.003-06:00

Peak oil is a scary thing. We've had a few discussions surrounding the topic, and it's something that is always hanging around, for those who are aware of it.
This morning, Grist has an article positing that we may have already reached peak oil in the international markets, leading to a decrease in production of around 30 million barrels per day by 2015. What does that mean?
"Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia's production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report."
The fall in output, as well as demand has been complicated by the economic recession, which has cut global investment for oil production. "The only thing that can save the world from a return to soaring oil prices by 2010 or 2011 is if economic slowdown turns into 'a multi-year event where global oil demand was pushed down structurally for the next five years.'"
That's a pretty gloomy prospect. Avoid booming gas prices by plunging deeper into recession.

Ladies and Gentleman...Norm Coleman

2009-02-09T15:24:00.003-06:00

"When asked about the recount and how it is affecting him personally, Coleman said he starts every day with a prayer and that he knows 'God wants me to serve.' Coleman did later temper those rather immodest remarks by adding that he 'is not indispensable' and that others can serve as well. Coleman closed the interview with an appeal to Gallagher’s listeners for contributions to his campaign website."

It's awfully gracious of him to acknowledge that 'others can serve as well.'
How about this Senate race end about now.

Washing away Washington.

2009-02-06T16:33:00.002-06:00

Many folks think that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is threatened, and could melt away in a warming world. That's a lot of ice, adding a lot of water to the seas. No one is particularly fond of predictions like these, but researchers are thinking that if the West Anarctic Ice Sheet melts, it might submerge Washington D.C. "Largely underwater," they say.
"The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated. Much of Southern Florida would disappear, according to researchers at Oregon State University."
Small changes can lead to great consequences. 21 Feet is no small change.

C-Span and Bipartisanship

2009-02-05T11:12:00.002-06:00

We at RTM have some free time. To fill it, we occasionally watch C-Span, which we did for a while today. We have some thoughts.
Is Bipartisanship real? Does anyone actually give a single thought to real bipartisanship? I only ask because no party actually seems interested in working together, unless they are out of power, which isn't a surprise. Lindsey Graham today railed for 15 minutes against the stimulus package. About how it is not stimulative, does not take the concerns of the Republicans seriously, and won't be accepted by the public. Then Max Baucus had about 15 minutes, where he said that Democrats are working with Republicans, the package is stimulative, and the public wants the bill.
They'll vote on it, it will probably be along party lines, maybe a few crossover votes, and they'll move on. Save your time and stop asking for bipartisanship, which no one actually wants. Unless your in the minority.
I guess the message is, don't watch C-Span.

the Goracle? That's all you got?

2009-01-29T19:57:00.006-06:00

I understand that Dana Milbank is being facetious, and putting Al Gore's prophesying down by highlighting Gore's fearmongering (not hard to do, I understand), but Milbank could have done a better job. He has only one tool, the overused phrase "The Goracle." It's not even original.
Anyway. Gore testified in front of Congress this week to encourage them pass legislation checking carbon emissions, even though the economy is struggling, or whatever. If you want an example of something that people don't seem too interested in when the economy is struggling, it would be climate change.
Here's Milbank: "Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. 'What does your modeling tell you about how long we're going to be around as a species?' he inquired. The Goracle chuckled. 'I don't claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.' It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as 'unified national smart grid' the way he once did 'no controlling legal authority' -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes."

Emerson on January 20th, 2009.

2009-01-20T10:22:00.003-06:00

"When the moonlight was a pleasing fever and the stars were letters and the flowers ciphers and the air was coined into song; when all business seemed an impertinence, and all the men and women running to and fro in the streets, mere pictures.
The passion re-makes the world for the youth. It makes all things alive and significant. Nature grows conscious. Every bird on the boughs of the tree sings now to his heart and soul. Almost the notes are articulate. The clouds have faces as he looks on them. The trees of the forest, the waving grass and the peeping flowers have grown intelligent; and almost he fears to trust them with the secret which they seem to invite. Yet nature soothes and sympathizes...
The causes that have sharpened his perceptions of natural beauty have made him love music and verse. It is a fact often observed, that men have written good verses under the inspiration of passion, who cannot write well under any other circumstances."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Love"

Best we keep this between ourselves, guys...

2009-01-19T20:09:00.002-06:00

"Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance. They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.
'Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,' said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.
He believes the phenomenon is an 'evolutionary adaptation' that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality."

I might argue the science involved in such studies is suspect, but my objectivity, as a low(no)-income blogger, is probably in question. Here's another problem:

"The study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers."

Russia Disproves Global Warming

2009-01-13T13:30:00.002-06:00

That pesky Global Warming threat is finally taken care of. Thanks, Russia and the Pravda Newspaper.

"Earth is 'on the brink of entering another Ice Age' that will last for the next 100,000 years, reports the Russian Pravda Online newspaper, attempting to counter the widespread view that human activity is contributing to an unwanted and dangerous warming of the planet."

Done and done.

Of course, here's another take on this report: "This is simply wrong."

Your Internet Usage

2009-01-12T16:29:00.003-06:00

Here's something that you probably don't think about. I don't. I don't particularly want to. Because I use the internet everyday. A lot of the day, and wondering how much energy every Google search uses doesn't sound like knowledge that would be comforting.

Well, a new study out has attempted to determine the carbon footprint of Google. You know Google, the massive, cajillion dollar global dominating company. They have data centers spread around the world, and they use energy. Tons of it.
According to this study, conducting 1 google search from a desktop produces 7g of CO2. Which makes two searches the equivalent boiling a pot of water. 2 searches!
"A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. 'Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable'."

I guess I can use this as my defense for not posting on RTM for a few weeks. And justify why only a few people will come and read this, if anyone still comes around.

Good News for All.

2008-12-20T11:30:00.003-06:00

Here is Obama discussing his view of making things better:

"Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation,” Obama said in his radio address. “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology...“It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient,” Obama said. “Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."

Science isn't the only thing that matters, but it sure matters a whole lot. Particularly when it comes to issues of Science, like biology and ecology and technology for making the planet more livable. Generally speaking, science should have a pretty strong voice in such matters.

Endangering Species

2008-12-16T10:42:00.003-06:00

When you cause damage to the management of endangered species, it's often irreversible. Yet, high ranking officials in this government continue to do it, and science continues to be ignored.
"A high-ranking Interior Department official tainted nearly every decision made on the protection of endangered species over five years, a new inspector general report finds, concluding she exerted improper political interference on many more rulings than previously thought.
Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant secretary overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service, did pervasive harm to the department's morale and integrity and may have risked the well-being of species with her agenda."
Why do this? Personal or political agenda can only get you so far in your reasons, and Julie MacDonald, it seems, took things far beyond that.
"'Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure,' from 2002 until 2007, the report said...the report by Devaney last year found that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. That report also said MacDonald censored science and mistreated staff."
There's only so long that science can be treated with such contempt and humans can continue to live. Hopefully, that kind of behavior will stop for good with the Bush Administration.

Don't Believe the Myths

2008-12-12T11:49:00.002-06:00

TreeHugger has a list of 5 common myths that surrounding causes for climate change. It's a fairly interesting bit of reading, for those of you looking to read something. But I will say that is has its share of problems.
Here are some mythic examples:

Green Myth #1: Genetically Modified Crops Have Higher Crop Yields and Help Reduce Poverty. (this is one that strikes me as problematic).

Green Myth #4: Wind Turbines Are a Serious Threat to Birds. (this, however, is right on, and needs to be extinguished).

News update; Two Stories...

2008-12-12T08:38:00.003-06:00

...That require only blurbs.
First, some failure: "The Senate on Thursday night abandoned efforts to fashion a government rescue of the American automobile industry, as Senate Republicans refused to support a bill endorsed by the White House and Congressional Democrats."
Second, a positive eco-story (!):"The powerful California Air Resources Board has adopted the nation’s first and most sweeping plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The action aims to slash the state’s emissions by 15% over the next 12 years and sets targets for practically every sector of the economy, the eighth largest in the world."
If California is successful, managing such a large economy, maybe there's some hope.

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 3

2008-12-11T21:49:00.002-06:00

So here’s the problem: How boring would this discussion be on national television? Maybe I’m anti-capitalist, that does not bother me; I’m certainly not anti-religion. But if you argue on television that you do not mind being anti-capitalist, you default into anti-democracy, and anti-religion. Possibly even anti-freedom. The United States lives in a time when one’s conscience can only be voiced with authority in the public world if the conversation focuses on very specific issues. There is no need to name them; we all know them. But the environment is not one of them.
That may sound like a surprise. Everyone on tv, every station and every news channel has their devoted programs and anchors and spokesfolks to discuss Climate Change and melting ice caps and the endangerment of Polar Bears. They just don’t want to talk about solving the problems they represent: conserving energy and polluting less in an effort to protect the ice caps, and thus the Polar Bears. Why would they? What would they report on?
The true result of bringing environmental activism into the public sphere has not been seen, because it has not occurred. Even Al Gore, Oscar winner and Nobel Laureate, can’t bring it about. I hope he keeps trying. Next year we’ll have a pro-environment President, they say, and he’ll put energy issues and conservation on the map. I’m hopeful that the results will be positive. But it’s just hope, now.
That’s the problem. No one, yet, has carried to the American people the face and fire of the environmental damage which has occurred, and will continue to occur. So how can someone who believes that the natural world deserves more attention than, say, prosperity, enter the debate? If we’re talking about the American people, and somehow in this country we always are, how can one tell the nation convincingly that the bog preserve they smell could be more important than their pocketbooks? It just won’t sound quite, well, polite enough to be accepted. It certainly doesn’t sound like something Jesus would say.
Maybe it’s not. But that’s where reading the Bible for years, and reading the land for years, has brought me. And I know, and thank whatever God there is, that it’s not just me with a clear conscience. The world will not be in more peril because of me; that is all I’ve figured out how to do. I hope we protect this world; I hope others will do their part to keep it around. But until those nationally televised pundits allow science into the conversation without the crippling banner of socialism and anti-capitalism, until they realize that most of us have got nothing against the Bible or their God, we just might not believe in them, what chance do we have?

oh. my. god.

2008-12-11T09:52:00.004-06:00

What have they done to my beloved Christmas? And in the name of CLEAN COAL?
Instead of posting about this abomination myself, I am just going to set up the link to the Clean Coal Carolers, and to the folks over at EnviroWonk, who have done a nice job with this one.

When is a book not a book.

2008-12-11T09:38:00.003-06:00

I fear the end of books, when we will all read things on a small, electronic device. It doesn't sound appealing, but it will probably come around. The business of making books is not very earth-friendly. Despite my best efforts to claim that book reading is better for the planet than the electronic alternatives, the argument is getting harder to uphold.
"There are caveats as usual, but I am forced to report the general conclusion that e-books produce less CO2 emissions and use less water than conventional newspapers and books...Of course, all these studies make certain assumptions, and the results change depending on the source of electricity, the number of times a newspaper is read, how long the e-reader is used, and so on. There is also, of course, the unquantifiable joy of holding and touching real paper...There does, however, appear to be a pro-e-reader trend."

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 2

2008-12-10T19:39:00.001-06:00

If science is overrated, one assumes the alternative must be religion. In this country, Christianity and the Bible are what the tv talks about, when the tv talks about religion. But, you know, I’ve read the Bible; the Bible doesn’t particularly answer the environmental questions. Nor does it defeat them. It certainly does not tell us to destroy the earth, although that has been proclaimed with ‘subdue the earth;’ nor does it tell us to worship the earth. It pretty much says that everything from God is good, and love your neighbor and the Lord.
When I used to read the Bible, I enjoyed it. There is very little concern with science, as far as I can tell. Sadly, though, it has been held up as the opposition to science. When someone claims science is overrated, I can only assume the contrast is to something like faith, and I shake my head and think, how did this happen? How did the battle lines become so concrete?
Religion deals with conscience, and conscience is an important thing. When I am asleep, and my wife sleeps next to me, and my conscience from the previous day is clear, everything in the world seems fine. Peace brings rest and the world moves forward and I think that maybe nature won’t be destroyed by humanity. But most of the time I am awake, and I think the natural world could be doomed to suffer a slow, slow death. At those times, it’s easier for me to worry about my own actions, my own impact on the tiny ecological world that I inhabit, and do everything not bring harm upon it, because too many others aren’t looking out for theirs. That’s how I view membership in the physical world.
Mary Oliver said that she thinks like an ecologist but lives like a member of a great family that includes herself and elephants and teachers and industrialists and wheat. I think that’s a brilliant woman who has found a way to exist in the world. I’m not an ecologist by trade. But I can find no justification, in the Bible or elsewhere, to live in the world while simultaneously harming it. This position, of human as equal members of the earth, has become the enemy of politics, both republican and democrat. Politicians are frustrating to listen to because they spend so much time not talking about something. By not talking about it, they believe they are free from the concern and will voice support for something else. If you do not talk about the destruction of forests in your state, and you do not oppose it, you support the loss of those forests, politician. You should know that. The Bible agrees with me on this. And you should want the forests anyway. Maybe, if things change, you will want the Lord to some day appear near your presence, or maybe you’ll want to bring an offering. That seems to happen an awful lot in the presence of trees.

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 1

2008-12-09T15:49:00.004-06:00

The Environmental Movement, as it has taken shape these past few years, cannot offer answers to those who would not allow answers. It moves no conscience when one’s conscience cannot be moved. For example, a while back, a certain bow-tied conservative said on national television that ‘science is overrated.’ To this there can be no response. Much later, another pundit on the same network asked a gentleman on his national program about the scientific community’s view on Global Warming. The response was that the science was practically conclusive and that the threat of Global Warming has not been overestimated. Then, another gentleman on the program was allowed to respond. He replied that Global Warming is ‘socialist alarmism.’ This is the public debate, as it stands, in 2008.
I do not pretend to understand all the science that is involved in Climate Change, as I am sure those national pundits would also concede. But the world under discussion in this debate is not beyond me; nor is it beyond any other television host or writer. I can see it right here, or in Chicago, and after years of appreciating the planet I live on, and listening to people proclaim their overt desire to destroy it, I have come to realize that my conscience will no longer allow me to live in a way that destroys the earth. It’s not much for a revelation, maybe, but it’s difficult.
The same people who think science is overrated in the Climate Change debate also do not want America to change its ways. They will say something to the effect of ‘China and India are big, dirty, industrial countries, and getting bigger and dirtier, so why should we change if they won’t.’ I have heard from many people who maintain this opinion, who must be smart, logical women and men. But their logic is deeply flawed. The world is not just somewhere else, as this argument supposes; the world is here. Despite what some may wish to believe, the natural world still lives in the U.S., and if we as a nation wanted to keep it, we would try, even against the longest odds, to protect it. No matter India or China’s opinion.
In the same interview that suggested environmentalism was socialist alarmism, the host claimed that environmentalism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. What do they mean? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t know what they mean. If we make fuel efficient automobiles and start encouraging mass transit and bicycling instead of driving, or investigate and invest further into alternative energy sources, does this mean we don’t want the U.S. to thrive? The environment can produce jobs, and it will, as does any new and growing industry. If we know that surface mining for coal harms the little remaining bit of the natural world left in the U.S., why don’t we attempt to do something else? At least try to. The conscience of the country will support it.
Maybe that is too bold a statement. But do people really want the country to continue growing in a way that will permanently alter and disfigure the face of the planet if we know it is happening and are making no serious attempts to stop it? This Bush administration seems to believe Capitalism cannot be defeated. So how can the environmentalists harm capitalism by trying something new? Isn’t that what capitalism is supposed to be all about?
Yet here we are, somehow positioning environmental concern with anti-capitalism and socialist propaganda. ‘Think twice about buying an SUV’ has transformed from sensible advice to a credo that marks one as an anti-business, tree-hugging activist who hates America and wealth. Truth be told, I don’t really like wealth, and I am an activist. Most of the people I know don’t have any real wealth. Most of those who do don’t seem to care much about the trees they see me hugging, or any other part of the world surrounding us. That’s why we seem anti-capitalist, I guess, when we’re really just thinking: why don’t people with millions to spare, spare a little to help save some of this?
They don’t seem to want to. Most of them, anyway. So what can I do? As a young man who simply enjoys immersing himself whenever possible into the natural world, who doesn’t want to see that part of it that remains in the U.S. destroyed, who is trying in every part of his life to simply not harm life. This is who I am, and I’m trying to figure out what to do. But I guess I already know.
I’ll continue to ride my bike to work as long as it’s possible, and if it rains too hard, I’ll take the bus. I’ll do everything I can not to waste energy in my home, or water. I won’t throw trash on the ground; I’ll recycle everything I can. When my wife and I can own a house, we’ll outfit it in order to conserve as much as possible. Can it get more basic? Doesn’t it seem like nothing? Those nationally televised pundits, who sit behind their desks and claim the pitfalls of science and the alarmism of activism, they see these actions of mine, and they see a threat. To Capitalism, and Democracy, and other Idols. Even these simple tasks are not encouraged to our citizens because they are a change leading towards, as unlikely as it sounds, socialism. But at night, even though the science will be beyond me and the debate may never end, I will simply go to sleep next to my wife, with my conscience clear, knowing that today I did as little as I could to add to the destruction of the world that surrounds me.

Recycling takes a downturn

2008-12-08T13:20:00.006-06:00

Did you know that recycling is an industry? It's true. And like most industries, the recycling world is in trouble.
"The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals. Across the country, this junk is accumulating by the ton in the yards and warehouses of recycling contractors, which are unable to find buyers or are unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices."
Notice how quickly the material has become 'junk.' It was no such thing just a few months ago, when people were stealing the siding from trailer-homes and ripping the plumbing out of foreclosed houses. Now, no one wants to buy that junk, because the buyers have no one to sell it to. And when recyclers cannot recylce the material, they do what everyone else does with it. Drop it in a landfill.
"Ordinarily the material would be turned into products like car parts, book covers and boxes for electronics. But with the slump in the scrap market, a trickle is starting to head for landfills instead of a second life."
Recycling strikes RTM as the fundamental action of an earth-friendly community. If we can't maintain a respectable, workable system for reusing our waste, then other commitments, like reducing our carbon output, are just not going to come about. How bad is it? "The precipitous drop in prices for recyclables makes the stock market’s performance seem almost enviable." Talk about a dire situation.
How does it fare for the environment? "'Before, you could be green by being greedy,' said Jim Wilcox, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. 'Now you’ve really got to rely more on your notions of civic participation.'” Have we come far enough along in our environmental ethics to continue a program that is good for the earth but not for the pocketbook? One can only hope.

Making Spirits Bright

2008-12-07T12:41:00.003-06:00

Paul Krugman is spreading Christmas cheer around the globe. How? By predicting the end of the U.S. Auto Industry. I like Krugman, and think he has a pretty good read on the pulse of our economic situation, but does that mean we have to beleaguer how desperate our situation is for the satisfactino all those Swedes? (Krugman is in Sweden to receive his Nobel).
"[The American auto industry will disappear] because of the geographical forces that me and my colleagues have discussed."
Good point, Paul. Way to make things clear.
As to the bailout? "Krugman said plans by U.S. lawmakers to bail out the Big Three automakers were a short-term solution, resulting from a 'lack of willingness to accept the failure of a large industry in the midst of an economic crisis.'"
No argument here.

the Lemuroid Possum

2008-12-07T12:05:00.003-06:00

It's no small story when an animal goes extinct. Extinction, particularly from human causes, is always a sad story and it is with sadness, we report that scientists believe that Climate Change has brought about the first mammalian extinction: the white lemuroid possum.
"The white lemuroid possum, a rare creature found only above 1000m in the mountain forests of far north Queensland, [Australia,] has not been seen for three years. Experts fear climate change is to blame for the disappearance of the highly vulnerable species thanks to a temperature rise of up to 0.8C."
This is an important reminder of the delicacy of the ecosystems of earth. 0.8 degrees may not seem like much, but the ecological equilibriums that have been created on the planet are precise, and even slight changes can have negative, and irreversible, affects.
This possum is a sensitive and vulnerable creature to begin with, and some think it will be "the most significant loss since the extinction of the Dodo and the Tasmanian Tiger." "

The dangers of lame ducks

2008-12-05T08:48:00.006-06:00

I don't understand these kinds of decisions. The possible benefit of advancing surface mining is very small, and yet here it is coming about. This is just another bad Bush environmental policy, and everyone must know it, or it wouldn't be snuck into law in the last moments of a lame-duck presidency.
"The Bush administration is easing the way for coal companies to dump debris from mountaintop mining into nearby valleys and streams in a move deplored by environmental and Appalachian citizens' groups. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday approved the repeal of a 1983 law that prohibited surface coal mining within 100 feet of flowing streams."
What purpose are we serving here, for long term good? Besides the terrible damage of mountain top and surface mining that is already taking place, we now are going to allow the waste to be dumped into the waters? The EPA itself has "concluded that dumping mining waste into streams devastates downstream water quality." And yet, the agency will be repealing their own regulation on the practice.

The Future of Clean Coal

2008-12-04T21:11:00.004-06:00

RTM posted a while back about the relief of having someone, even Al Gore, speak out about the illusion that is clean coal as a positive environmentally friendly option. It's not an option because it is not. It just isn't there. I believe RTM said: "Real solutions are available and necessary, not simply fantasy."
Now Gore and co. have a new ad highlighting the illusory nature of this clean coal, and the red herring nature of those who speak out for it. It's like the Bush plan to develop hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to end the addiction to oil, which he began discussing in the state of the union 2000 and continued ad nauseum.

drive to DC, leave with billions

2008-12-04T11:13:00.004-06:00

The Big 3 automakers are back before congress, desperately seeking billions of dollars to keep them afloat. Without the money from the federal government, there seems little doubt that they will flounder, enter bankruptcy, and possibly collapse.
These billionaire CEOs are back, and they are willing, this time, to admit to some of the mistakes the American Automakers have made. Big of them.
Here's Rick Wagoner, head of GM: "We’re here today because we made mistakes...we’re here because forces beyond our control have pushed us to the brink....I'm sorry to be asking for this support."
I got to tell you, Wagoner and friends, I just don't know that I believe you. I don't think you're sorry at all; I don't think you believe you've made mistakes. It's all 'forces beyond your control.' That's what I think.
If you want the money, you need to know what you will do with it. Profitability by 2011 through more fuel efficient cars doesn't cut it for me. Because it won't happen. Unless you've got the cars sitting in a stockroom, unrevealed, that can come out and compete fiercely, which you don't. You might have cars on the drawing board, or ready for sale, like the Volt, which I sincerely wish could compete in the market, but if you truly had cars that could sell you wouldn't be where you are. Because this is not a new problem, it is not this recessions fault. It has been happening for some time and you have been ignoring it.
I don't pretend to know if the bailout will help or not. I don't know. But I can watch, and read, and see the behavior of those who will get this money. And we can question whether it is deserved.
p.s. Driving your hybrids to Washington! Beautiful. Since we didn't take our private jets, you can see we've learned our lesson. Isn't there a word for that kind of faux-eco-behavior? Green-washing, isn't it?

Your Thermostat and Your Absence

2008-12-04T10:59:00.003-06:00

The Grist Q&A known as Umbra, has taken on an issue that I have debated, time and again, with several people in this world. You know who you are. I'm not saying this is the final word, but it's another voice, maybe one folks will take as more weighted than mine.

"Q: When I tell people I turn my heat down when I leave the house even for an hour or two, and that I turn it down to 50 at night, they say, "I thought it takes more energy to reheat the house than to keep it at a constant temperature. Please clarify. If it is better to turn the heat down, then there is a LOT of room for education on this topic, as even many people in the environmental community are confused.
A: But let me be crystal clear up here in the thesis paragraph: Turn down the thermostat at night and before you leave the house...I repeat: Reheating uses less energy than keeping it hot while you're gone. No organization -- reputable or disreputable -- disagrees with this advice. To quote the EERE, "This misconception has been dispelled by years of research and numerous studies."
People, turn your thermostats down."

Read the article for the explanation if you want. There's only one person I know who lives by this rule religiously, and I live in his basement. For once, I applaud his actions.

talk about your broken system

2008-12-03T08:47:00.002-06:00

This isn't enviro-related, but it is career related for RTM, and it makes RTM not as sad about leaving his post in higher education. The system is ridiculous, and getting worse. Its as though, as institutions, our colleges and universities do not want to offer education to everyone.

"Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.
'If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,' said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education....'Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.'”

Obama's move to the Green House

2008-12-02T16:02:00.006-06:00

If he can do it to that old Manor, then you can do it to your studio apartment, 1 bedroom flat or even your McMansion.

"Obama will be sworn in on Jan. 20, and he said he wants to work quickly to make the White House "green." The president-elect said he plans to sit down with the chief usher for the presidential mansion and do an evaluation of its energy efficiency .'Part of what I want to do is to show the American people that it's not that hard,' Obama said."

Forests, Preserved...

2008-12-02T11:51:00.005-06:00

There is not that much forest wilderness remaining on the planet. Some people will disagree with such a statement, but how they can do so is a mystery to me. We are ruining wilderness, and quickly. But there are places where massive forests still grow, like Brazil, and protecting them should become a priority. There are several reasons this is important, which is fodder for another post. That protection is coming, if slowly, to the Brazilian forests.
"The Brazilian government on Monday unveiled a plan to cut the deforestation of the Amazon by 70 percent over the next decade. It is the first time Brazil, home to the largest area of tropical woodland on the planet, has set a target for reducing the damage wrought by illegal loggers and ranchers."
Illegal deforestation wreaks great damage on in the Amazon, but legal logging also causes problems. Forests take carbon out of the air, and they make the planet, which we can all support, livable.
"Just in terms of avoided deforestation in the Amazon, the plan foresees a reduction of 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide that won't be emitted up to 2018 -- which is more than the reduction efforts fixed by all the rich countries."
We'll see how it goes; skeptics, of course, are numerous when it comes to Brazil's plans. It would have been nice if this could have happened a decade or so ago, but it's still a positive step.

One for the birds

2008-11-25T20:46:00.003-06:00

Stop me if you heard this one.
It's 1996. A man named Leslie Owen Collier has a bit of a coyote problem. He wants them dead and gone. So he takes raw hamburger and mixes it with pesticides. Then he spreads it around his ranch. Later, Collier found he had killed a whole lot of animals, in what must have been a sad day to walk around that farm. Among the bodies were "seven coyotes, [3] bald eagles, a red-tailed hawk, a great horned owl, an opossum and a raccoon." Killing Bald Eagles, it turns out, is a federal crime. It has been since 1962. Collier plead guilty, was fined $10,000, and received two years of probation.
What's the point of this story? This 12 year old crime was pardoned yesterday by President Bush. Lord knows what possessed Bush to include this in his end of term pardons. Maybe he thought those eagles had it coming.

what?

2008-11-25T10:32:00.001-06:00

"...an alphabet soup of satellites and experiments has led a growing number of astronomers and physicists to suspect that they are getting signals from a shadow universe of dark matter..."

What if it will cost you?

2008-11-25T09:50:00.005-06:00

The reality of taking a planet that is bound to fossil fuels and breaking the bond for the health and well-being of people and planet alike is not, and never will be, easy. But there is a test coming in a few weeks to see if the world has the motivation to do so. It will take a deep motivation to fulfill such a goal, especially now; we are in a recession. Doing something positive for the future that is expensive today is rarely popular, let alone in a recession. The 190 nation climate talks in Poland are approaching (December 1-12), and we will want to hear what they have to say in these hard economic times.

"I'd expect the economic crisis to have an effect' on resolve, Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said of the outlook for Poznan [Poland]. And 'lower oil prices will mean less of an incentive to invest in renewables. The minute the financial crisis struck, industries said 'this makes it difficult to take on expensive targets,' he told Reuters."

Of course, de Boer is right. In an economic downturn, it is expensive and sometimes impossible to commit to decreasing production or output, changing toward renewable energy, or any future promises.
But what does it mean not to do so? That, when it comes down to it, the world does not mean what it says about helping the earth survive? Isn't that what we have been talking about? Or will we do so, but only if we can do it when the price on fossil fuel is high, and the cost to ourselves is low?

I will not do my part.

2008-11-23T21:37:00.003-06:00

Grist has a bit about the ridiculousness of the latest run of Chevron ads. The ads offer up a string of strategies to combat climate change, and they imply, essentially, that it can be done by doing nothing.

"I will leave the car at home more."
"I will take my golf clubs out of the trunk."
"I will replace 3 light bulbs with CFLs."
"I will finally get a programmable thermostat."
"I will consider buying a hybrid."

What these are, to RTM, are reasonably third-gradish solutions to a very serious problem. Take the golf clubs out of the trunk? What does that accomplish? Seriously? Change 3 lightbulbs? If you believe in changing your lightbulbs, why not change all of them? You will consider buying a hybrid? This is the first time I've ever heard an environmental solution that involves zero benefit to any living thing from plant to animal to person. What does your consideration accomplish? The point isn't that you actually buy a hybrid. It's the deference of responsibility to your consideration.
Keep it up Chevron. You've just about got us out of this pickle.
The issue, as Barack Obama has pointed out for us, isto stop focusing the nation's attention on the minute personal changes (which need to happen, but are simply not going to have any effect on climate change) and put the onus on companies like Chevron and the need to stop reckless burning of fossil fuels. Don't recommend people change their lightbulbs, Chevron. Instead, consider what conservation means to you.

Alaskan oil and the Bowheads

2008-11-21T13:06:00.004-06:00

A long awaited decision has come down against the Shell Oil company and their desire to drill oil wells off of Alaska's North Slope. The court ruled "after finding that the Interior Department had failed to conduct an environmental study before issuing the company’s drilling permit." Shell and their companies deny this, but the according the majority, "There remain substantial questions as to whether Shell’s plan may cause significant harm to the people and wildlife of the Beaufort Sea region."
All eyes in the U.S. Oil Industry were on this case, as it was seen as a possible harbinger of the future of Alaskan oil drilling. Much money and resources are going into the hydrocarbon possibilities in Alaska, and these findings have to be ill tidings for those whose hopes are dashed.
In this case, the court found that potential damage to Bowhead whales in their migratory pattern was too great. Bowheads are the main resource for the subsistence economy of the indigenous Inupiat people.

time to get started.

2008-11-21T10:26:00.003-06:00

Yesterday, Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, announced her plan to move quickly on two new pieces environmental legislation to be introduced in January.
"The first is a proposal to create a grant program that would hand out $15 billion a year to support clean energy innovation...The second bill would direct the U.S. EPA to develop a carbon cap-and-trade system by amending the Clean Air Act."
Such new regulations are necessary, and the urgency makes sense. With the new Obama administration riding a wave of popularity, and congress eager to get through legislation that has stood no chance for the past eight years, Boxer and her allies can quickly bring an about-face to the government's environmental reputation.

Obama's plan to get moving on a new green-energy infrastructure seems to be coming right along side Boxer's legislative agenda, with Rahm Emmanuel (Obama's White House chief of staff) saying that they plan to "throw deep and long" on the issue.
Maybe a new day really dawns for environmental issues with this new White House and Congress. It comes not a moment too soon.

Bush and the Animals

2008-11-20T16:43:00.004-06:00

In one last insult to earth, the Bush administration is attempting to relax the laws surrounding endangered species before the Obama administration will have a chance to review them.
"The Interior Department rushed to complete the rules in three months over the objections of lawmakers and environmentalists who argued that they would weaken how a landmark conservation law is applied...The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself if it is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants."
To someone this may seem like a positive change. Taking those who study such things as danger to wildlife out of the judgments of potential dangers to wildlife is not a smart move.
Nothing like a little midnight legislation to harm plants and animals already in peril.

Dingell loses his seat

2008-11-20T11:17:00.004-06:00

In an update to a previous story, the Chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has been decided. And it has gone to the new blood.
"By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell’s nearly 28-year reign as his party’s top member on the committee. In doing so, Mr. Waxman’s backers upended the seniority system to install a leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of issues."
We here at RTM indicated our support for Waxman, so he better move things in a good way.

Evidence? Support? Just do what we say.

2008-11-14T13:14:00.004-06:00

"In a major win for environmentalists, the U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board handed down a landmark decision on Thursday that essentially puts a freeze on the construction of as many as 100 new coal-fired power plants around the U.S. It will now be up to the Obama administration to develop rules on carbon dioxide emissions from such plants."
Is this a victory for the movement? I hope so, but it doesn't have to be. It only benefits on the assumption that we can get some decent regulation standards on CO2 emissions or a tax on emissions, which, if we can't, well, God help us.
The ruling found (this is awesome), that the Bush administration "failed to offer a good reason for not regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from the proposed Bonanza plant." Isn't it really just that simple. If you want to do something, say continue polluting as much as you can, then you better be able to actually provide a reason.
This is what I'm always telling my students. It's not good enough just to make statements. You have to support them, or they are meaningless. That's basic rhetoric and composition, Bush administration. We meet on Mon/Wed/Fri at 9 am.

the auto bailout.

2008-11-14T08:30:00.003-06:00

NYTimes — "The prospects of a government rescue for the foundering American automakers dwindled Thursday as Democratic Congressional leaders conceded that they would face potentially insurmountable Republican opposition during a lame-duck session next week."

Should the auto companies get a government bailout? That's the question RTM has been pondering, as was seen in the previous post. If the NYT is reliable, it doesn't look good, and I don't know that I am terribly disappointed by the potential failure of a bailout. I don't know where any blame might lay in the failure of American Auto companies, but it chiefly seems like it would be the companies themselves. And as they say, what's the point of throwing good money after bad.
Should they get the bailout? We're not economists, we're environmentalists. You tell us.

*David Brooks certainly doesn't think the Automakers should get it.
"If ever the market has rendered a just verdict, it is the one rendered on G.M. and Chrysler. These companies are not innocent victims of this crisis...In short, a bailout will not solve anything — just postpone things. If this goes through, Big Three executives will make decisions knowing that whatever happens, Uncle Sam will bail them out."

Dingell and Waxman. Don't they write musicals?

2008-11-11T13:17:00.006-06:00

There is an important committee in congress that relates directly to the goals of this blog. It is called the "House Energy and Commerce Committee." It is a broad reaching committee, and under its umbrella lies, among other things, "public health, air quality and environmental health, the supply and delivery of energy, and interstate and foreign commerce in general" (Wikipedia).
It's an important committee, and the Democrats are, like Democrats, fighting over who will be it's chairman. The chief candidates for the job are: current Chairman John Dingell, from Michigan and his opponent Henry Waxman, from California.
The man appointed will have a great deal of sway on the environmental future of U.S. Industry. So it is something that we should take great care in handling, and the two men will hopefully have a respectful discussion about it. But it appears like they are not going to.
Says Dingell: "Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) [is] an 'anti-manufacturing left-wing Democrat' who has a 'serious lack of understanding of people in the auto industry and manufacturing generally.'" Dingell's loyalty to the auto-manufacturing industry is long and pervasive, and RTM has noted before his willingness to block eco-friendly legislation to protect the failing American carmakers. And thus, the industry element is pushing in strong favor of Dingell. Waxman, though, seems to have a good chance. Said a Dem lobbyist/former congressman: "Henry has the votes."
What is very interesting about this, and what we will have to watch in the coming weeks, is how the Bush Administration (are they still here?) and the upcoming Obama Administration will handle the declining American auto industry. They need money, bad. And they don't seem to think that Waxman will help them much. Not to mention that auto and energy policy, hopefully, will be directed towards greener and safer energy sources, which Dingell has been reluctant to support and Waxman has been outspoken in his committment to fight greenhouse gas pollution and clean energy. This is not to say that Dingell has never been on board with eco-friendly and climate change policy. But he does not generally support them when it might hurt powerful industry. Needless to say, industry would prefer Dingell.
In fact, they make no bones about it. From the Coal side: Waxman is "a very slow learner on the importance of coal for affordable energy."
From the auto industry: "A Waxman chairmanship would be 'very unfortunate.'"
Two of the most polluting, and environmentally detrimental industries in the U.S. are going all out to support John Dingell. Call me illogical or just or idealistic and naive, but those are pretty damning endorsements.
(Story from Grist)

Al Gore the dream of Clean Coal

2008-11-09T12:33:00.003-06:00

Al Gore, from an op-ed in the NYTimes.
"Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology. But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion."

Gore's article is about the crucial time of change that is taking place, and the opportunity we have now to make great strides in the fight against climate change. But what RTM wants to highlight is chiefly this: Real solutions are available and necessary, not simply fantasy, or as Gore calls clean coal, illusion.

Bagging it.

2008-11-07T10:27:00.003-06:00

When my wife and I shop for groceries at our local Target, we use cloth bags. They are, in every imaginable way, better. We once loaded a bag with about 20 canned goods. We fill them to the brim, and they last and last. They have handles that don't rip, and they hold as many items as you can fill. They get rid of the plastic, single use bag problem. And the best part is, we save 5 cents for every bag on our purchase, thanks to a Target initiative to sell Target reusable bags. We don't have Target bags, but they don't have to be. Trader Joe and Post-It bags work just fine. Sweet.
Those plastic, single use bags, are free. But not to everyone. Just to the consumer. Well, Michael Bloomberg, the NY mayor, might try to change that. Get your cloth bags now.
"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has called for charging shoppers 6 cents for every plastic bag needed at the register...City officials estimate that the fee could generate $16 million a year, a figure that Mr. Bloomberg would no doubt appreciate, given the lingering and concussive effects of the global economic crisis on the city’s economy."
That's right, 6 cents a bag.

laides and gentleman...Barack Obama...

2008-11-06T13:53:00.003-06:00

"I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f[uck]ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

That's not a bad answer. A little bitchy, but RTM can handle that. At least it belies an understanding of the magnitude of the problem.

The Climate President.

2008-11-05T22:29:00.003-06:00

I don't know what to expect. To have a President who will not only admit to the dangers of Climate Change and the environmental threats posed to the world, but who will actually, actively, and sincerely, look to combat them. It should be pretty exciting.

another nice result.

2008-11-05T22:14:00.002-06:00

RTM wanted to spend a moment to congratulate Minnesota on it's passage of a ballot initiative that created a 3/8 of a percent increase in the state sales tax in order to fund clean water, outdoor preservation, wetland protection, and arts funding. The increase will be in effect for the next 25 years, and though it is not perfect, and we will have to hope that the board which is created by the initiative to run the issue will be trustworthy. But it's a good sign, I think, from Minnesota.
"It means that the Minnesota that we all grew up with and loved will be protected and passed on to future generations," said Ken Martin, campaign manager for Vote Yes campaign.

Bush's Complicated Simplicity

2008-11-04T09:37:00.006-06:00

Think you know President Bush? Here's the complexity of the man.
This first is from the liberal elite Grist (as njdt has called them).
Did you know that Bush plans to add more marine area to the *Protected Marine space* off of the Pacific. Surprise.
Dick Cheney, however, does not approve. So. Bush has, somewhere inside that complicated visage, a conservationist streak. How deep does it run?

Over at ENN, they have this headline: "Bush Team Rushes Environmental Policy Changes.' And unlike the Grist story above, it does not have a happy ending.
There are a great deal of changes, "Whether it's getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste or making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations, these proposed changes have found little favor with environmental groups. The one change most environmentalists want, a mandatory program to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions, is not among these so-called "midnight regulations."
Hmmm.

*Edited for coherence, 11/6

Election Day

2008-11-03T23:34:00.003-06:00

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? GO VOTE!!
THEN GO TURN ON CABLE NEWS, OPEN 5 WINDOWS ON YOUR DESKTOP AND TUNE IN TO REAL CLEAR POLITICS, or NEW YORK TIMES, or WHEREVER. RIGHT NOW, IN ALL LIKELYHOOD, I HAVE ALREADY VOTED, AND AM WATCHING TV. OR LISTENING TO NPR. GO!

In Other News...

2008-11-03T13:36:00.002-06:00

The NYTimes has an article of particular interest to us at RTM, since academe is where we currently find ourselves. What is it? The Liberal College and Unversity System in the U.S. is inundating and propagandizing students into becoming progressive whack-job liberals. New studies show: it just ain't so.
"The notion that students are induced to move leftward “is a fantasy,” said Jeremy D. Mayer, another of the book’s authors. When it comes to shaping a young person’s political views, “it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15,” said Mr. Mayer."

Palin criticizes Obama (gasp!)

2008-11-03T10:36:00.005-06:00

Sarah Palin, in recent days, has opened up a new line of attack on Sen. Obama's comments on coal that were made in San Francisco last January. The video is on Youtube, and the Obama campaign has claimed it is 'wildy edited' to take his remarks out of context.
What does he say that is so damning? Here's a piece of the article on the video and Palin's criticism.

"He [Obama] said that, sure, if the industry wants to build new coal-fired plants, then they can go ahead and try . . . but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen," the GOP vice presidential nominee told 4,800 supporters at Marietta College.
...
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted,' Obama said.
Palin did not mention remarks Obama made elsewhere in the interview about coal's role in the nation's energy future.
"But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion," [Obama] said. ". . . If we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, we can allow the market to determine, and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what's the best approach to take."

Finally, Palin has found the argument that can turn this around. Obama wants to tax emissions (as does John McCain, or at least a cap-and-trade. Kind of.), and he wants to move away from Coal power. Can you believe it? It must be the notion of bankrupting the coal industry, which Obama openly admist won't happen. If only it were possible. That could only mean we wouldn't need the coal industry, right? Aren't we all in support of that, in some way? Replacing coal and coal jobs with clean energy and clean energy jobs? The audacity.

Something's Gotta Give

2008-11-01T10:55:00.003-05:00

Recently, we posted about a growing excitement surrounding the possibility of new climate change and environmental policy. Since then, though, everything RTM read seems to be destined to break down any excitement, and point out that we are still headed firmly in the direction of a dirty future.
For example, this story from ENN, which argues that CO2 emissions in the workplace are multiplying very quickly due to the world's increased reliance on the internet. Isn't the internet a clean and quick way to communicate? It all depends on how many computers you're powering. "The energy required to power all the world's computers, data storage, and communications networks is expected to double by 2020."
Along with increased internet CO2 (please don't bother to point out that I'm blogging on the internets) is the story, not surprisingly, that people's concern for the environment is actually a concern for their pocketbooks. Not that I blame anyone, my wife and I are quite poor. But a concern for climate and energy issues should not entirely take a back seat to money all the time. I know how it sounds just to say that. But if we're serious, something will have to give, sometime.
Even the possibility of drinking to wipe away the depression is taking a hit. "Researchers report this week that potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals exist in more than 100 types of red and white wines from a dozen countries." Great.
It goes on. The point is, it's easy to get excited about the prospect of positive change in the future. But even easier is the possibility of depression when one considers future prospects.

At least there is this. "A giant bat with a wingspan up to 5.5 feet (1.68 metres) has made a comeback from the brink of extinction in Tanzania in a rare conservation success."

candidates on Animals (not literally).

2008-10-31T10:54:00.002-05:00

Grist has a nice little article reviewing the Presidential Candidates views on the Endangered Species Act, and general attitudes towards animals. It's important to remember how much easier it is to back species and wildlife protection when it comes to marquee animals, like Pandas or Whales or Gorillas. Which is unfortunate for the red-tailed squirrel or salmon.
Here's a quote form the article, guess who said it:
"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."
(p.s. It's Barack Obama.)

New Energy Policy for President

2008-10-30T11:06:00.007-05:00

At RTM, we are excited, and we thought we would share it.
The possibility of comprehensive, intensive, truly transformational changes in energy and climate policy are on the horizon. And that is exciting.
Some might even say it is probable. But for RTM the odds of truly transforming our energy and environmental policy remain at possible, and very, very exciting. In light of that excitement, we have a few recommendations for the next president.
Obama, today, promised to spend $15billion a year on alternative energy. So do it. I don't know where that money will come from as of now, but you better come up with it. And you better not let people simply forget about why the country has to do all this energy stuff you keep talking about, because they will if gas and oil continue to drop. Let people know that only one piece of the energy future is dependent on gas and oil prices. Pay some to attention to regional differences when remodeling the energy infrastructure, because we have a big country, and needs can be met in different ways throughout it. Don't commit to something that won't provide results, whether it be a luke-warm desire to off-shore drilling, or a plan to produce the engimatic 'clean coal.' Don't ignore eco-geeks who are creating new technology, but don't delay making committments to existing technology because something new is just around the bend. Industry, by the way, cannot continue to pollute and produce CO2 at outrageous levels, you'll have to put a carbon tax on them; they have to sacrifice. Which reminds us, tell Americans, convince them, that they will have to make personal sacrfices. The U.S. has pulled together in the past with the right leadership. Make sure Americans don't forget that carbon based fuels are dirty and as they decrease in supply, they will increase in price. Continue giving people incentives to clean up their carbon use, including automobiles, but also in the building and remodeling and powering of homes. Require government buildings to lead the way and show how it can be done. Finally, remind citizens that, though transitioning to new energy will be expensive in the beginning, in the long run it will be better for their pocketbooks, for the country's security, for their children's future, for the beauty of the land, and for their spiritual well-being.
That's it, next president. Don't let us down.

Ivory for sale?

2008-10-28T11:30:00.004-05:00

The UN has sanctioned four legal auctions for the sale of Ivory. It's a long controversial issue, and in general, the prohibition has been an attempt to protect the elephant population from poachers. Conservationists, naturally are upset, thinking that it amounts to a tacit approval of poaching, something already devastating to the wildlife population.

1% from you; commitment from us.

2008-10-28T10:51:00.004-05:00

In the Washington halls of Bush's DC, they've being saying it for years. If you want the U.S. to get serious in the fight against global warming, then China, India, and the quickly developing nations have to climb aboard. Otherwise it will be all for naught.
China, it seems, has answered. They will come aboard on the fight against climate change. And it isn't going to be cheap for the U.S.
"China wants rich countries to commit 1 percent of their economic worth to help poor nations fight global warming, and will press for a new international mechanism to spread "green" technology worldwide."
This development seems to take on two factors in the difficulty of global action.
1) The desire to slow growth when growth is booming, like in China, isn't popular, and it's not hard to imagine why.
2) Despite this, nations like China can no longer get away with simply expanding infrastructure exponentially without recognizing that Global Warming is there, and potentially dangerous. But rather than slow the growth, it seems technology will have to step in.
What comes of this request from China will remain to be seen. Despite the U.S.'s generosity, 1% of the GDP is a lot, and the U.S. gov't, believe it or not, can be stingy.
Said a senior Chinese official for climate change policy, "Developing countries should take action, but a prerequisite for this action is that developed countries provide funds and transfer technology."

Global Solar.

2008-10-26T11:44:00.005-05:00

Did you know that "the sun consistently shines on some part of the planet." It's true. And it's a convenient piece of information for European groups who are actually interested in moving away from fossil fuel dependence.
One plan to begin that move is to set up a 'Global Solar Energy Grid,' using new nanotechnology and Dye Sensitized solar Cells for optimal storage and output.
There is, of course, difficulty with solar, including geography and exposure to direct sunlight, but a global network could achieve a significant change in fossil fuel dependency. "'If solar energy is harvested where it is most abundant, and distributed on a global net (easy to say - and a hard but not impossible task to do) it will be enough to replace a large fraction of today's fossil-based electricity generation,' said Kasemo. 'It also would solve the day/night problem and therefore reduce storage needs because the sun always shines somewhere.'"

Biden's VP cred.

2008-10-26T11:18:00.001-05:00

I know some people are wary of a Biden VPresidency, but I've liked him for a while. He can be long winded, but so can Obama. And he can say foolish things, but who doesn't. Others worry about him in interviews, but this morning I watched this video of Biden, being asked questions from a far-right political standpoint, and thought, wow, did Biden handle that well. If you're looking for some comfort in what Biden can do, I think this is it.

Cutting Emissions, Building Economies

2008-10-15T13:52:00.003-05:00

RTM posted in the past about a report from California that stated that Cutting Emissions could boost the economy. It is opinion that is often viewed with very little support by those who would not want to hear such news.
Now it seems that the EU is finding similar results in their research about rebounding the struggling European Economy.
"'We think this (climate) package is consistent with solving the financial crisis... At the moment, people are focused on the economic crisis, but our package is part of the solution,' Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told reporters in Warsaw. 'Fighting climate change means investment in energy efficiency, promoting renewable sources and providing incentives to stimulate the economy and contribute to growth."
No one can say for sure whether a stronger investment in cutting emissions will truly help the economy, but it seems more and more plausible as more countries come to the same conclusion.

on another note.

2008-10-15T13:14:00.002-05:00

I like language. Words are interesting to me, and generally words themselves, I think, are harmless. It's the words that come before and after each individual word that matters.
Anyway, on CNN I read a story about Kevin Smith's new movie, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," and how advertisers are refusing to run ads due chiefly to the word "Porno." I think that's stupid, but whatever, that's not my point. My point is this: How can a respectable news source use the following in defense of their position.

"One complaint came from a man watching a game in September with his young son, who did not understand a suicide-squeeze bunt the Dodgers tried, Rawitch said. He was explaining to his son what a squeeze bunt was. Commercial break, the ad comes on, and the kid asks, `Dad, what does porno mean?' Rawitch said. 'Dodgers baseball has always been about family, and we've always been sensitive to the type of advertising that runs on our games.'"

Isn't that just precious...and bullshit. Unless that man was Norman Rockwell and the kid was the Beaver, that story just did not happen. I don't know why this pisses me off. But it does.