By Lucille Chi •
October 20, 2009
Have you seen the comic art for the 2010 Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Cartoons? Shown above is a cartoon about science and the Endangered Species Act.
The entire calendar shows how “the absurdity of political interference in science is ripe for lampooning-and serves as a constant reminder of how vigilant we must be in defending science from politics.” The comics also highlight the need for the new administration and Congress to create a thriving federal scientific enterprise.
The Pew report recommends a new regulatory framework that treats animal farming no differently than other industries (that cause pollution and potential health risks). It also recommends phasing out any confinement system that restricts “natural movement and normal behavior” (such as calf-to-adult confined feeding stalls) and a ban on antibiotics not intended for disease eradication (i.e., growth modification, such as with veal calves).
By John Ivanko •
October 22, 2008
Suppose we suspend our “precautionary principle” and understanding about the Three Mile Island crisis. You know, that 1979 national emergency caused by a partial meltdown triggered by a loss of reactor cooling water. Unfortunately, over the last three decades, neither plant owners nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have adequately addressed the basic flaws in U.S. nuclear safety that led to the Three Mile Island accident, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
And suppose we just forget about what to do with the nuclear waste from the reactors, lethal to all life for more than 10,000 years. Even if we can contain the nuclear waste (a big “if” for many of us to swallow in these days of unforeseen financial market meltdowns), why pass this waste on to future generations, on to our great, great, great grandchildren?
That we’ve been unable to agree politically on a safe place to store nuclear waste (in Yucca Mountain, Nevada) masks the fact that we still need to move this toxic waste from as many as 104 currently operating nuclear reactors scattered throughout the continental U.S. Nice targets for those terrorists we’ve been unable to locate or perhaps for the swelling homegrown terrorist types as of late, folks who have come on hard times and can think of better things to do with a $700 billion bailout package and don’t like the way things are headed in Washington D.C. By the way, these nuclear reactors with a 40 year lifespan aren’t cheap, therefore they’ve been partially subsidized by American taxpayers for years.
What Senator McCain and Senator Obama seem to leave out in all their debates and public discourse is that America is no more energy independent with nuclear power than it is with oil. A key rationale for expanding nuclear power generation touted by those concerned about climate change – including both Presidential candidates: Nuclear power plants generate energy by splitting uranium atoms, resulting in no carbon dioxide emissions, standing in stark contrast to those CO2 emissions created by burning coal or oil. But the U.S., as it turns out, has even less uranium than oil as a percentage of domestic production.
By Jennifer Lance •
October 22, 2008
When I first read about Propositions 7 and 10, I thought they sounded like good ballot initiatives. Who wouldn’t want all utilities to be required to provide 50% renewable energy by 2025? It was only after I discovered leading environmental groups opposed these propositions that I began to question these statutes.
By Kelly Dunleavy •
September 9, 2008
Do you envision yourself the next Thoreau? Or Emerson? Or maybe you just really want to tell someone about your pet polar bear, your fight to save your favorite tree, or your terrifying bike ride to work in the name of the environment?
If you can shape the future of the fight on global warming in just 200-500 words, then submit your personal essay to the anthology Thoreau’s Legacy: American Stories About Global Warming.
By Simran Sethi •
July 20, 2008
If you ask Simran about compact florescent light bulbs, she may crack one open and cut you. Not really, that would scatter mercury, but she is loca for the light bulbs. Check Monday’s Huffington Post for the full version of this post.
People give you this whole rap about how easy saving the planet is. Change a light bulb and save the world. Yes and no. How about we consider it a start rather than an end destination?
Lighting accounts for about 20% of our electric bills. Traditional bulbs burn heat rather than light, so are extremely inefficient. Compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs) are 80% more efficient and can last up to 10 times longer than a traditional bulb. Last December, Congress voted to phase out the inefficient incandescent. By 2012, the 100-watt bulb will be history.
In the interim, environmentally-minded folks of all ilks are heralding the bulb. The virtual Stop Global Warming march reminds us swapping out three incandescent bulbs for CFLs will save us 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 a year. The Coalition On the Environment and Jewish Life suggests installing CFLs for Hanukkah as a way to redefine “energy-stretching light” and reflect environmental stewardship. Students in Pennsylvania sell light bulbs instead of candy to raise money for their schools. (Simran prefers candy.)
By Joe Mohr •
July 17, 2008
When you spend two terms refuting facts from the world’s top scientists and environmentalists and allow the oil industry to call all the shots in regards to the nation’s energy plan you end up with horrible solutions to huge problems…
