30 November 2006

How is climate change like child porn?

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court took on climate change. The specific question is whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be forced to regulate carbon emissions. It's worth noting that the EPA is part of the executive, i.e., under Bush's control. The current 'regulators' argue that the Clean Air Act (last amended in 1990) doesn't specify carbon as a pollutant; thus they shouldn't bother doing anything about it.
Without getting too technical, the case revolves around 'standing'; the real question is, are the plantiffs (U.S. states, cities and enviro groups) being injured by the behaviour of the defendent (the EPA); and can a lawsuit remedy such injury? During arguments some core questions were teased out:

  1. Does global warming exist? (the justices seem strangely reluctant to give even this question a 100% yes)
  2. Are the plantiffs being hurt? (Interseting detail: Assistant Attorney General James R. Milkey of Massachusetts aruged that the states risk losing "soverign territory" to rising sea levels)
  3. Does the E.P.A. have the power to act?

and:

4. Will action make any difference?

Big stuff.

29 November 2006

Newslide

OK, so I started as a way to chart the current and future impacts of climate change on our lives. Most of this has come from links to the MSM. But even that task seems to be tough. I turn my back for two days and there's too much to keep track of. If you're into your Malthusian economics, try Thomas Homer-Dixon's column in the New York Times. This is one of those big questions: is there an environmental limit to economic growth.
A bit more accessible: Newsweek's description of how and where we might have to deal with extreme weather events. But is it just me or is Newsweek, usually a reliable sort of downmarketish Time, a bit clunky. Not only does it describe a possible temperature change of 12 standard deviations as "statistician-speak for 'holy cow!'" - but elsewhere in the issue there's also this really unfunny satire.
To round it up - a round up. Of climate change books, from Sunday's Observer. Which reminds me to namecheck Bill McKibben's article published last year (eons ago, I know) on opendemocracy.net. It's the big inspiration for this little site.

27 November 2006

Downhill from here

For every point a counterpoint - and maybe the skiiers can move to Seattle. They'll have to endure more rain though. One curious detail near the end notes that "the population (of Seattle) suffers disproportionately from Seasonal Affective Disorder." I wonder where the citation comes from on this - are there tables around the USA or around the world of the most SAD cities? Which ones are they?

I pine for the Alpine

This is basically a perfect example of what I'm talking about in this blog so I'll just leave it at that: Climate change has disrupted Alpine snow patters and threatens the future of pro skiing.

24 November 2006

Snake vs. Gator - both lose

Last night I was thinking I shouldn't ever do the 'this doesn't really have much to do with culture and climate change' post. But, well, a snake trying to eat an alligator doesn't really have much to do with climate change, just check out the picture.
I could argue that with climate change we'll see lots more weird animal confrontations. And you'll probably be eating native things that weren't once native. I could argue that. But I won't.

23 November 2006

Hunt peck repeat

Corby Kummer gives a warning in the Thanksgiving edition of the NY Times – but it’s hard to know what to make of it really. Should we really be cut up about the fact that traditional American dishes might be sourced in Canada, over and above the fact that US agriculture is going to change big-time? That particular political argument seems irrelevant really.
More troubling is the hands-up-in-the-air attitude. Besides a cursory mention down at the bottom there’s no call to action or solution proffered. You’d think the author would at least throw in a mention of “food miles”.
Well Corby’s a senior editor at Atlantic Monthly so I’m sure he’s got more details than outlined here. I know this is a blog but no sense carving up the guy yet. I’ll have a search and let you know.

21 November 2006

Fusion donuts and radical non-drivers

You have to be a real geek to obsess over long-term future energy mixes, but you just have to be human to think that a fusion donut (nee doughnut) is pretty cool.
Also my recent article for Grist magazine on climate change direct action protesters has been plugged in their recent e-mail-out, so hey, I'll plug it again.
I mention in the article that the political terrain has shifted to an astonishing degree here in the UK, but I didn't see this experiment by the Rough Guide publishers until today. It's pretty astonishing to get half of the House of Commons to respond about any issue, much less agree on the need for action on it.

20 November 2006

The More Majority

Today I came across this commentary by George Monbiot. He's best when he's flipping something on its head - in this case, the assertion that it's climate change doubters who are ruining the planet. Instead it's the people who accept the science but refuse to do anything that are the culprits.
While Monbiot has a point, I can't help reading his stuff without imagining him thumping a big book (an ecobible?) and hectoring someone. The reality I see is people who know science and do something, but maybe not enough, or maybe they're confused about what to do to cut their energy consumption/carbon emissions, or maybe they want to change but it's incredibly difficult in their current situation.
An unrelated note: I'm listening to Front Row and a great interview with some kids from Manchester who have won a competition to design a new Prime Ministerial residence. They want him to grow his own vegetables and have put solar, wind and water power in the design. Chances of being built: oh well.

The taxing problem

First up, taxes. There's a new carbon tax in Boulder, Colorado. Also: Britain isn't meeting its biofuel targets, so the House of Lords is recommending tax incentives. Their new report attacks the practice of importing Brazilian bioethanol, which is often made on rainforest land that's been cleared for agriculture.
Let's ask: what's tax for? To fund the goverment, which will spend money on schools, roads, hospitals, that sort of thing, right? Well, no - maybe now taxation is a social lever in itself - a tool to directly affect the market rather than to redress imbalances (green or otherwise) after the collection and redistribution is all done.

17 November 2006

The point of the blog.

All the latest news about how human-induced climate change is affecting people.