You Can Be Neutral On a Moving Train
Now that John Edwards is making his presidential campaign carbon-neutral, will others follow suit? Opine away in Gristmill (not you, Coulter).
Now that John Edwards is making his presidential campaign carbon-neutral, will others follow suit? Opine away in Gristmill (not you, Coulter).
We Get By With a Little Help From Our Friends
Grist seeks a whip-smart volunteer to help with routine (yet edifying!) editorial tasks in our downtown Seattle office, 10 to 20 hours a week. Academic internship credit a possibility. Email jobs@grist.org with "Seattle volunteer" in the subject line.
Grist seeks a whip-smart volunteer to help with routine (yet edifying!) editorial tasks in our downtown Seattle office, 10 to 20 hours a week. Academic internship credit a possibility. Email jobs@grist.org with "Seattle volunteer" in the subject line.
Take That, Iowa
New Hampshire towns send climate-change message to feds
The votes are in, and the message is clear: New Hampshire is peeved about global warming. Nearly 90 towns approved a nonbinding resolution at their annual meetings this week telling the feds to act on climate change and harrumphing that presidential candidates should make it a priority in their campaigns. About 90 more will debate the resolution -- which also endorses the idea of a national sustainable-energy research initiative -- at upcoming town meetings this spring. Given its traditional first-in-the-nation primary status, the tiny state's fist-shaking is nothing to sneeze at. "There's no doubt that urgent action is needed to curb the pollution that's causing our climate to change," said New Hampshire Sierra Club Chair Jerry Curran. "And New Hampshire citizens are showing America the way -- just as we did in the fight against acid rain a generation ago." Of course, they also "showed America the way" by voting for Al Gore and John McCain in the 2000 primaries. We're just saying.
Maybe They Should Just Call It LNG Beach
Natural-gas terminals canceled, pursued, and potentially dangerous
In a great victory for greens (we love saying that!), Chevron Corp. has announced that it will not build a $650 million liquefied-natural-gas terminal off of Mexico's Coronado Islands, rewarding years of protests about the risks to marine life. But farther north, the seas aren't so smooth. Even though Long Beach, Calif., just shot down an LNG project in January, a different company has already stepped in with a new proposal. In what Esperanza Energy's vice president calls "the most advanced, environmentally responsible, safe project being proposed," the company wants to build two zero-emission terminals 10 miles offshore. The location of the project has allayed some community safety concerns, particularly in light of a study released yesterday which estimated that a terrorist attack on a tanker carrying LNG could be searing enough to singe people a mile away. With LNG imports expected to increase 400 percent over the next decade, we hope we won't have occasion to verify that calculation.
 | NEW IN GRIST Food and Punishment Colorado's inmates-as-farmworkers plan says plenty about our food culture |
Last summer, Colorado cracked down on illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them, causing lots of folks to flee the state. But now that spring is rolling around, farmers are finding themselves out of luck when it comes to labor. Who will replace the poorly compensated immigrants who tended their fields? Well, poorly compensated prisoners, if Colorado has its way. The whole situation is a mess, and as farmer-writer Tom Philpott explains, it speaks volumes about the childish way Americans relate to their food. 
I Think I Can't, I Think I Can't
Automakers tell Congress why fuel-economy improvements won't work
Congress hosted a few more cranky white men yesterday, as the CEOs of Chrysler, Ford, GM, and Toyota's North American division appeared before a House subcommittee to explain why they couldn't possibly raise fuel-economy standards. Joined by the head of the United Auto Workers, the churlish chiefs pointed to the high costs of meeting a 4 percent a year raise proposed by President Bush, saying it posed a threat to jobs and retirees' health care. They also said using ethanol and regulating tailpipe emissions would be better ways to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil. Congressfolk, when they weren't stroking these engines of the economy -- a Mississippi rep called Toyota's head a "Tupelo honey" for building a plant in his state and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) referred to the fellas as his "dear friends" -- laid into the companies for making excuses and resisting change. Whined Ford CEO Alan Mulally at one point, "We need our government to be partners, not adversaries." Or maybe you need to grow up.
But What About Liechtenstein?
Survey unearths international climate-change attitudes
A majority of South Koreans believe global warming is a critical threat. Same with Iranians. And Mexicans. And Israelis. But Americans -- not so much, says a recent survey of more than 20,000 people in more than 15 countries. Granted, the U.S. could have been more ignorant: a solid 46 percent of Americans deemed climate change critical, and an additional 39 percent labeled it "important." Also encouraging: 43 percent of U.S. residents favor attacking global warming even if it involves "significant costs," while a mere 17 percent favor the let's-study-it-some-more approach. Chinese views were similar to Americans'; in India, 51 percent viewed climate change as critical, while only 19 percent gave the thumbs-up to significant costs for mitigation. Australians were the most concerned about global-warming risks, and the most climate-change-lackadaisical country was the Ukraine, where only 33 percent of respondents said global warming was critical. One Kiev hotel room for Al Gore, please!
straight to the survey results: WorldPublicOpinion.org
Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
No comments:
Post a Comment