Below are the top ten Google NEWS search inputs in 2006. Draw your own conclusions.
1. Paris Hilton
2. Orlando Bloom
3. Cancer
4. Podcasting
5. Hurricane Katrina
6. Bankruptcy
7. Martina Hingis
8. Autism
9. 2006 NFL Draft
10. Celebrity Big Brother 2006
Technorati Tags: paris-hilton, orlando-bloom, hurricane-katrina, american-idiots
Joel Makower says it perfectly: Carbon offsets are the latest corporate greenwashing craze. Smoke and mirrors, baby.
Actually, he says, “Buying offsets for an energy-wasteful home or business and calling it environmentally responsible is akin to buying a Diet Coke to go with your double bacon cheeseburger — and calling it a weight-loss program. Efficiency (and calorie reduction!) comes first.”
And he says a lot more.
Now this is great news. Turns out that Monsanta-engineered soya, widely used and consumed in the United States, causes a massive increase in birth defects in rats. Just in from the World Watch Wire, Buckaroo, via The Independent: READ THE SCARY STUDY HERE.
++
The most significant book about our future you will read or I will buy it back from you at full purchase price: Lester Brown’s Plan B 2.0 Trust me on this one, just order it. You’ll thank me later.
This is a list I look forward to each year. Taken directly from the almighty Treehugger, via Project Censored’s website, is this year’s list of the most “censored” articles of 2007. Treehugger has placed in bold those stories with an environmental impact. Go to the Project Censored site to read more.
#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media; #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran #3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger; #4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US; #5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo; #6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy; # 7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq; #8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act; #9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall; #10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians; #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed; #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines; #13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup; #14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US; #15 Chemical Industry is EPA’s Primary Research Partner; #16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court; #17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda; #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story; #19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever; #20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem; #21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers; #22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed; #23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe; #24 Cheney’s Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year; #25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region.
The best article I’ve seen on ethanol’s inherent problems: CLICK ME, DARLING.
No, the article doesn’t go into why driving up the price of corn, a staple crop upon which many of the world’s poverty stricken nations depend, is a terrible idea. That’s Why Ethanol Sucks Reason #1. Do some research to discover Reasons 2 and 4-7.
Yesterday, my friend Marc Bojanowski (amazing fiction writer - check his book out HERE) pointed out a book review in the San Francisco Chronicle of a new book by Linda Nash entitled, “Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease and Knowledge”. The review in full is HERE. I’ve already picked up a copy via Alonovo.com (I always use this instead of Amazon). I think many of you will be interested as well as Nash appears to be breaking new ground in environmental writing.
Today, I intoduce you instead to the world’s greatest hip-hop band, GRAND BUFFET (pictured above). These guys give a damn, and were recently rated by “Street Gyrations” magazine the top lyricists in the nation. Oh, and they’re funny as hell. Lyrics from their monster jam “Pink Deadly” are posted below. FYI: “Pink Deadly” was the #2 hit in Luxembourg last year - like I said, they’re the world’s greatest and the only reason they didn’t take the top slot is because the Pope’s son (a whole different story - trust me I have the inside scoop on this juicy bit) runs a record label and greased the payola wheels of Luxembourg’s radio stations and dance halls, offering mafia-supplied cash and access to the Vatican’s secret sex chambers, propelling his pet band, Quick Tricks with an Open Mouth, to the top spot.
PINK DEADLY - GRAND BUFFET
I was thinking of a parable last night, the one with the wise crow
Sitting by the accent light with my exacto
Ears splitting, stereo heat wave emitting
Motivation to move the sharp blade
Down the construction paper page rounding the edges out
Until the lion mask was made
And when the downbeat played I would command
Every ground beef kid and briefcase business man
Twilight comes nightcap lies flat
Over an old bed spread, dreamscapes with hi-hats
Metropolis chitchat, don’t let it brand me
Run along stop eating medicated candy
Charm school regrets bets that I placed and lost
My right arm’s regarded as a saint in ring toss
Spanning the globe on a tanning bed
Wearing a helmet to insulate the bullshit in my head
Driving a Malibu tank through edited scenes
A steady diet of beans and franks and Marines
I’m happening, not meaning in a fashionable sense
But if your car breaks my flight path I’m making a dent
So riddle me this, why is it griddle cakes taste so good,
After a night of capture the flag in the deep woods?
Jaminator pro, Casio rap control
Death by shark attack, that’s my final goal
I seen a monster in my backyard on the swing set
He said, “Sir I’m taking this with me.”
I said, “That’s some bullshit. I’ve got the wherewithal
Got power in my veins, got rugged hands
That stuff belongs to my two kids
I want your ass up off my land.
Once the Democrats decide where they stand on the environment, we just may seem some rapid and positive changes. In what I call “sounds-really- great-but-I’ve-had-my-hopes- up-before” news, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she is seeking to set up a new committee (ahem) to (finally) tackle global heating through progressive legislation. It looks like the great rush to be “the-one-who-pushed-a-substantial-pro-environment-bill-into-law” is finally on. Could it be that, by the time of the 2008 elections, the environment will be a hot-button issue? Recent polls show that it languishes behind such comparatively insignificant issues like war and ‘family values’. Yes, I said that war is comparatively insignificant. Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice my rabid use of hyphens in this post. Indeed, it has me a bit nervous. More on that later.
From Pelosi:
“The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal,” Pelosi said in a statement. “With this new select committee, we demonstrate the priority we are giving to confront this most serious challenge. Now is time to act. The future of our country, indeed our entire planet, is at stake.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Remember, however, that Gore said much the same thing ten years ago but did nothing.
The way you can tell this is serious, and that there may be some real good to come of it, is by looking at the quotes from embittered old-timey politicians, like Michigan Democrat John Dingleberry who dismissed Pelosi’s plan thusly, “We’re just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.”
The great website, Environmental News Network has the whole story. CLICK ME, BABY.
Likely, you’ve heard of California’s relatively progressive pro-environment legislation, AB 32, which, while rather weak , is the nation’s first statewide legislation that directly aims to tackle global warming, and as such represents a significant step.
Guess what? Democrat Diane Feinstein recently introduced, then withdrew, and is currently pondering the re-introduction of a bill that, under the pretense of utilizing a cap-and-trade system, would gut AB 32 by exempting power companies from the legislation’s regulations! You heard it right. Here’s a quote from the 18. January L.A. Times article:
Under the clause, power plants would be exempt from any state laws regulating greenhouse gases, including several in New England as well as California. Feinstein said she had removed it for now because “I know the environmentalists have concern.”
Further -
Feinstein’s office provided an analysis that it said showed that her bill would result in an 11% to 12% cut in national electric sector emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. TWELVE PERCENT? OVER FIFTEEN YEARS? Brother, that’s like using a teaspoon to bail out the Titantic and claiming success because you’ve emptied a vase.
The full text of the article can be found here: DIANE FEINSTEIN ATTEMPTS TO CREATE MASSIVE LOOPHOLE IN AB 32, ENDANGERS FUTURE GENERATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONTINUING SUPPORT OF HER WICKED PAYMASTERS
(My sources at the L.A. Times tell me that the above article title was the original title, but was replaced due to space requirements)
Of course, this registered nary a blip in the greater eco-blogosphere (CORRECTION: Always on the ball Siel over at GreenLAGirl.com has vented her frustration at DiFi), as most prefer to criticize only Republicans (who created AB 32), paying blind allegiance to the Democrats as the “eco party”. Something I find very, very strange, considering Barack Obama’s wrong-headed plans for liquid coal.
For years, environmentalists have slammed the Republicans for being historically anti-environment, and most often quite justifiably. Now, are these same people going to make the calls to Feinstein to let her know of their disapproval? You, who read this, you are exactly who I’m talking about. Are you going to pick up your phone and call Feinstein’s office (202) 224-3841 to let her know that you will not support this undermining of your goals?
I’m betting no more than three of you actually do. I’m betting no more than three of you truly give enough of a damn to pick up that phone. If you do make the call, as I have, find out as much information as you can. During my call, a flustered aide argued that Feinstein’s national-level goal would reduce U.S. emissions and is stronger than California’s AB 32 - a point on which I disagree but which reinforces my suspicion that Feinstein is really simply grandstanding, trying to steal some of California’s thunder so that she can take credit for a national policy and reinvigorate her naive hopes for a future Presidential run.
Why are the Dems divided on environmental issues? Because their constituency has yet to make environmental stewardship a priority. They don’t have to pay attention because the issue will not in any way impact any election. We need to get a lot louder, real, real fast.
Of course, one can easily answer both. I’m more interested in how we in the United States view ourselves, as opposed to the ease with which we slide from one label to another as we go about our everyday duties. This is an important question to ask, as it very much has to do with a prevalant attitude that maintains we can ’shop our way to environmental good stewardship’ as opposed to rallying for powerful legislation. I say “as opposed to” instead of “in conjunction with” because to date I’ve seen very little willingness by the eco-community to stand up against the political establishment and make real demands. There seems to be a mysterious pathogen that has infected many eco-intellectuals, rendering their faith in the Democrats unassailable, however untenable and illogical (if one posits that faith in a political party is the result, in part, of past proactive legislation). Again, I have zero faith in either party to make great strides in this arena until such a time that the citizens of the United States stage unparalleled demonstrations in favor of a stridently pro-environment agenda. If push comes to shove, we are duty-bound by our Founding Fathers to shove and create by force or by will a government that represents what is good for the health and well-being of the citizenry.
In reading cultural critic P. David Marshall’s essay “The Embodiment of Affect in Political Culture,” I came across these words, which are very apropos:
“The linchpin of legitimacy in consumer capitalism is the consumer. The centerpiece of contemporary political culture is the citizen. In contemporary culture, there is a convergence in subjectivity toward the identification and construction of the citizen as consumer. This convergence entails a reinforcement of the dual system of rationality in politics. The citizen becomes reconfigured in political campaigns as a political consumer who, like any consumer, must make purchase choices among several different commodities.”
Again, which is it? Are we forced into this dual identification? Have we been so thoroughly commodified, as individuals, that the labels of consumer/shopper/republican/homeowner/renter/voter/democrat accurately describe the contents of the individual “package” than anything else? If we accept these identifications, and allow them to dilute our base identity, can we really expect to retain the power inherent in citizenship? Can we really expect to speak truth to power, as our great leaders did in the past (see below) and expect power to listen? In this battle we wage to save our planet for future generations of all living creatures, we must look more closely at our current position. I fear that we collectively press forward with an overwhelmingly naive sense of optimism, due primarily to the fact that we don’t even realize the enormity of the identity crisis that paralyzes us from within and without.
Thoughts?