What Have Environmentalists Totally F*cked Up?

This great article by Kathryn Schulz (formerly an editor with Grist) raises the question of what environmentalists have gotten wrong.

Schulz, who wrote BEING WRONG: ADVENTURES IN THE MARGIN OF ERROR (a book with an impressive Amazon rank, I might add), has become something of an expert on wrongness.

When someone suggested she write about incorrect environmental predictions, she agreed. However, as she writes "rather than look outward toward all the wrongheaded beliefs we've fought against, I thought: Why not look to our own mistakes? Justly or otherwise, environmentalists are already associated with self-righteousness, and that's hardly a reputation that I (or Grist) want to fan. Moreover, and perhaps more to the point, environmentalists are no more immune to error than the species as a whole."

Schulz poses a number of questions, to which readers can respond by email or in comments (which they do -- read them). The questions include the following:

"How do we know if our predictions were truly wrong, or if the predictions promoted actions that then averted feared outcomes? When the stakes are as high as they often are in this domain, is it more important to be careful than to be right -- that is, to 'err on the side of caution'? Is it legitimate to say (as many do with respect to the Ehrlich bet, among other environmental issues) that however wrong we seem now, we are simply off on the timing, and will be proved right in the long run? (And if so, why are we generally unimpressed when others use that 'long march of history' excuse?) Do we weaken our cause if we publicly acknowledge our mistakes? After all, while scientists, including environmental scientists, are often models of epistemological modesty, activists are often models of pragmatism -- willing to streamline or simplify the facts (and sometimes even obscure or distort them) in the interest of sending a compelling message."

Well, someone had to ask.

The BP Oil Spill and PBS Corporate Underwriting

"One of the most minor and least visible effects of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is that two oil companies not connected to the explosion and sinking of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling platform have minimized their profiles as underwriters of some popular PBS programs as the crisis continues."

Thus starts a thought provoking column by the PBS Ombudsman. The question of whether PBS can provide impartial news coverage of matters like the BP oil spill when corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron and even BP underwrite the programs is examined thoroughly. (Other corporate sponsors like Monsanto have come under fire from PBS viewers who think the little farmer gets screwed when Big Ag sponsors programs.)

PBS claims to be unbiased and scrupulous in following policy where corporate sponsorships are concerned. It claims corporate sponsors don't shape editorial decisions. Nonetheless, given the "image-fashioning" corporations enjoy from being associated with PBS, the ombudsman thinks its producers and editors should "always be on their toes."

How Smart is a 'Smart Meter'?

If you're inclined to read the ins and outs about the costs and benefits of energy saving appliances, I just ran across an article that might be of interest about the cost of smart meters.

This article says that while the question of what a smart meter costs would seem to be simple, in fact it's not. The answer it seems is every lawyer's favorite: it depends.

The article goes on to discuss what it depends upon. It's kind of detailed and jargony, and even has a chart (that you can click on to enlarge).

This reminded me about another article I found (weeks ago) suggesting that smart meters actually weren't smart.

This one focuses on Ontario (significant? not sure) and also goes into somewhat detailed explanations with charts.

Conclusion about the worth of smart meters: I guess it depends, unless you live in Ontario?

Things Could Get a Bit Ugly About BPA

There's been a lot of talk lately about Bisphenol-A (aka BPA) in cans, baby bottles, Sigg bottles and such. Concerns have been raised about BPA's safety. It's reached the point where some folks are calling for a ban or other regulation.

Needless to say, the industry isn't overjoyed. In fact, the Business & Media Institute ran an article called Media Continue War Against Plastic Chemical BPA, claiming that "news media have been scaremongering about BPA for years, even going so far as to compare it to tobacco at one point, but a cautious tone from the government and left-wing junk science prompted recent hyperbole from reporters." Along with that, it goes on to call the U.S. PIRG (which recently announced a study purportedly showing that BPA is present in canned goods at "alarming levels") a "left-wing, pro-regulatory group."

Gee, that's not too inflammatory, is it? So, what else does it have to say?

It says that "according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry, BPA is not a known carcinogen. Its website says 'based on sound, robust scientific evidence, some government bodies around the world have concluded that BPA is not carcinogenic in humans.'"

Well, okay, let's assume the American Chemistry Council is neutral enough on this topic to give an impartial opinion. (Psshh!! Sorry that was me laughing so hard my drink shot out my nose.) Is there more to go on here? And is cancer the only health concern?

The article does mention a report from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To wit: "The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) latest report on BPA, a chemical used to harden plastic and a primary ingredient in the plastic resin that protects the flavor of food in metal cans, said that studies 'have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.' New results from the National Toxicology Program caused FDA to request more research about the effects of BPA and recommended 'reasonable steps' to 'reduce' exposure, particularly in infants and children. FDA made it clear that BPA has not yet been proven harmful to humans at current levels."

Well, there you go. The federal government has spoken. And we know how much we can trust the FDA, right? Sure, no problem.

Except, wait. Someone disagrees.

According to this Planet Forward article, things aren't all that peachy.

To quote the article: "In the middle of May a report was released that showed the occurrence of BPA in canned goods was not tangible but that it was in truth common. How can this be when you consider the recent high profile of the risks associated with BPA?

"Officially only Canada, Denmark, and a small portion (5 states) of the US have restricted the use of BPA in selected products such as baby and infant formula can linings. At present numerous other countries and states are actively reviewing the implementation of BPA bans or at least restrictions and bans. This report provides new data about the amount of BPA that could be consumed from eating canned food and drinks available in the U.S. and Canada, the reported data is not only bad news but the results have not improved. Test were conducted on the food and drinks contained in canned products purchased in 19 different US states in addition to Ontario, Canada. The report shows that BPA is routinely measurable in our canned foods, and while a single can is not cause for great alarm a continued pattern can lead to levels that have been shown to cause health effects in developing fetuses in laboratory animal studies." (Emphasis mine.)

The phrase "health effects in developing fetuses" may not be terribly specific, but it doesn't sound good, either. It would sure be nice to know what animals were studied, and how well the effects on them translate into effects on humans. But this is yet another hole in the information we're getting.

In that case, let's consider both sources. Planet Forward is a company that specializes in "sustainable products" (however, you'd like to define that). They also support an Eco-Fundraising program that works in partnership with schools to advocate sustainable practices. So -- they're pinkos.

The other article was published by an organization "devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media." They seem to think the American Chemistry Council is an impartial source of scientific information. (*snicker* Sorry.) And, of course, if the FDA approves something, it must be good (maybe). So -- clearly they're not pinkos.

Well, forgive me if I'm a bit, er, skeptical.

Global Warming Skepticism Isn't Only Made in America

The Shelton Group's blog has an interesting item about how it's not just U.S. citizens who are becoming increasingly skeptical about whether global warming is caused by people.

The post quotes an International Times article which says, "'A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that "climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade," down from 41 percent in November 2009.' Further 'a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that "reducing Britain’s carbon footprint" was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.' This after the British Parliament made carbon emissions cuts a national law back in 2008."

So ... it's not just Americans who harbor doubts about this stuff.

But wait -- the only example the article gives is Britain. So what about all those other countries?

As for the Conservative Party candidates, well ... not much of a surprise there, is it?

Just sayin' ...

Chocolate is Not All Sweet

Miki Mistrati and U. Roberto Romano have made a film called The Dark Side of Chocolate, a behind-the-scenes look at how chocolate is made.

The trailer says the filmmakers used hidden cameras to film things like young children being smuggled to work in the chocolate industry.



As one who loves chocolate, this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I checked the viewing schedule. The film doesn't seem to have a U.S. release date. I hope it will be shown in the states at some point. People need to know.

Will Cost Blow Wind Power Away?

In the U.S., wind power has been touted as the renewable energy source with the most potential. Unfortunately, despite the development of new projects, the American Wind Energy Association has its doubts.

The problem: cost.

"Everybody wants to buy wind, but not at the price we're offering today. We have to get our costs down." So says Michael O'Sullivan, senior vice president of NextEra Energy Resources (formerly Florida Power & Light).

Not only have the costs of building wind farms risen, but the price of natural gas has dropped from $10 per million British thermal units to $4 per million BTU over the last two years. That's quite a drop.

Further, reliability can be a problem. Wind farms must be built where the wind can be counted on to blow hard and often. So, despite the hard times for oil, supporting wind power as an alternative energy source can be like walking against the wind.

Well, at least someone has defended wind farms' visual impact, noting that the view of turbines beats at least one of the current alternatives.

Green Realities of Food

On the subject of sustainable food, it's been said that we have really cheap food in the U.S., but it comes at a great social and environmental cost. These costs include water pollution from farm runoff, overuse of antibiotics in meat production, mistreatment of farm animals and our country's obesity epidemic. The article suggests various ways to address these problems.

And -- surprise, surprise -- McDonald's issued a report a few months back about its "global best practices in the areas of sustainable supply chain, nutrition and well-being, environmental responsibility, employment experience, community and corporate governance and ethics." The article has a link to the company's corporate responsibility report. The article makes their efforts look impressive. Let's hope it's not just PR (or GW -- as in greenwashing -- get it?).

Plus, on the subject of restaurants, it's nice to know that not all diners are "greasy spoons" that serve frozen or canned foods transported over long distances. Regional chain Silver Diner has changed its menu to feature locally grown and sustainable food. This includes hormone-free meat, fresh produce, natural milk and dairy products and multigrain bread.

Finally, Planet Green asks "Is a Reusable Ceramic Mug the Only Green Solution to Coffee Drinking?" The answer isn't as simple as you might think. One can always reuse and recycle paper cups (and even plastic lids, it seems).

Hmm. Food for thought? (No pun intended.)