Five for Friday: Great Green Blog Posts for the Week (10/8/10)
Put wooden pallets to work in your garden… and more. Yep, it’s been a few weeks since we’ve done a Five for Friday … but not because of a dearth of attention-grabbing posts. There’s always good stuff going on in the green blogosphere… so time to get back to giving that good stuff some love. The BP oil spill, and the politics surrounding it, are keeping the top spots on Regator’s environmentalism page , primarily because of this week’s report from the National Oil Spill Commission that the White House “ played down spill projections .” But topics like solar power and the Nissan LEAF are also in the rankings, so it’s not all politics all the time (thank goodness!). Lots beyond politics and tech out there, though… so let’s take a look at what hit our radar this week. This Week’s Five For Friday Green Blog Posts The Green Man (or Woman) on Campus: We’re big fans of sustainability efforts at colleges and universities, so we had to take a look at this post from NWF’s Wildlife Promise blog on how to become an eco-leader on campus … and we’re glad we did! New FTC Green Guidelines: This development’s received a ton of attention. Lane Jost at The Inspired Economist breaks down the details of the FTC’s new efforts to make sure products claiming environmental benefits actually provide it
Put wooden pallets to work in your garden… and more. Yep, it’s been a few weeks since we’ve done a Five for Friday … but not because of a dearth of attention-grabbing posts. There’s always good stuff going on in the green blogosphere… so time to get back to giving that good stuff some love. The BP oil spill, and the politics surrounding it, are keeping the top spots on Regator’s environmentalism page , primarily because of this week’s report from the National Oil Spill Commission that the White House “ played down spill projections .” But topics like solar power and the Nissan LEAF are also in the rankings, so it’s not all politics all the time (thank goodness!). Lots beyond politics and tech out there, though… so let’s take a look at what hit our radar this week. This Week’s Five For Friday Green Blog Posts The Green Man (or Woman) on Campus: We’re big fans of sustainability efforts at colleges and universities, so we had to take a look at this post from NWF’s Wildlife Promise blog on how to become an eco-leader on campus … and we’re glad we did! New FTC Green Guidelines: This development’s received a ton of attention. Lane Jost at The Inspired Economist breaks down the details of the FTC’s new efforts to make sure products claiming environmental benefits actually provide it

Continue reading here:
Five for Friday: Great Green Blog Posts for the Week (10/8/10)
The Origins of Butadiene’s Carcinogenicity
Environmental Pollutants: The normally helpful chemical scavenger glutathione does more harm than good with butadiene. [DOI: 10.1021/CEN093010144834]
Environmental Pollutants: The normally helpful chemical scavenger glutathione does more harm than good with butadiene. [DOI: 10.1021/CEN093010144834]

As the Senate debate expired this summer, a longtime environmental lobbyist told me that he believed the “real tragedy” surrounding the issue was that Obama understood it profoundly. “I believe Barack Obama understands that fifty years from now no one’s going to know about health care,” the lobbyist said. “Economic historians will know that we had a recession at this time. Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change. It may be true that Obama “profoundly” understands what failing to address global warming means. Certainly I (and many others) thought that was true — until he basically punted on the issue without a serious fight. The lengthy New Yorker piece, “ As The World Burns ,” however, suggests that if Obama did understand the transcendent nature of human-caused climate change, he personally didn’t try bloody hard to put together 60 votes for a bill. The piece is well worth reading, although the conclusion, quoted above, just misses the mark. I don’t believe that in 50 years “Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.” Let’s set aside whether “everybody” (or even most people) in 2060 (or even today) would know what the “James Buchanan of climate change” means. For the record, Wikipedia notes : Buchanan had once aspired to a presidency that would rank in history with that of George Washington. However, his inability to impose peace on sharply divided partisans on the brink of the Civil War has led to his consistent ranking by historians as one of the worst Presidents
As the Senate debate expired this summer, a longtime environmental lobbyist told me that he believed the “real tragedy” surrounding the issue was that Obama understood it profoundly. “I believe Barack Obama understands that fifty years from now no one’s going to know about health care,” the lobbyist said. “Economic historians will know that we had a recession at this time. Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change. It may be true that Obama “profoundly” understands what failing to address global warming means. Certainly I (and many others) thought that was true — until he basically punted on the issue without a serious fight. The lengthy New Yorker piece, “ As The World Burns ,” however, suggests that if Obama did understand the transcendent nature of human-caused climate change, he personally didn’t try bloody hard to put together 60 votes for a bill. The piece is well worth reading, although the conclusion, quoted above, just misses the mark. I don’t believe that in 50 years “Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.” Let’s set aside whether “everybody” (or even most people) in 2060 (or even today) would know what the “James Buchanan of climate change” means. For the record, Wikipedia notes : Buchanan had once aspired to a presidency that would rank in history with that of George Washington. However, his inability to impose peace on sharply divided partisans on the brink of the Civil War has led to his consistent ranking by historians as one of the worst Presidents
The rest is here:
The New Yorker: How the Senate and White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change
UPDATE: The discredited Anthony Watts, who consistently writes (or reposts) the most offensive pieces in the denialsphere, has outdone himself. In his effort to smear climate science realists, he actually got suckered into repeating the message of the most infamous and murderous terrorist in the world! Memo to Watts: You know your smear-fest has hit a new low when one of your own ‘tribal’ members, Keith Kloor , calls you out. Kloor comments on Watts’ latest masterwork : … Andrew W correctly gets your intention when he writes in a comment above: “Good on you Anthony, we need to get a link going in peoples minds between Bin Laden and the likes of Romm and McKibben”…. Just as the British video deserves to be widely denounced, so too does Watts — both for the smear and for serving as a vessel for Bin Laden’s disinformation.
UPDATE: The discredited Anthony Watts, who consistently writes (or reposts) the most offensive pieces in the denialsphere, has outdone himself. In his effort to smear climate science realists, he actually got suckered into repeating the message of the most infamous and murderous terrorist in the world! Memo to Watts: You know your smear-fest has hit a new low when one of your own ‘tribal’ members, Keith Kloor , calls you out. Kloor comments on Watts’ latest masterwork : … Andrew W correctly gets your intention when he writes in a comment above: “Good on you Anthony, we need to get a link going in peoples minds between Bin Laden and the likes of Romm and McKibben”…. Just as the British video deserves to be widely denounced, so too does Watts — both for the smear and for serving as a vessel for Bin Laden’s disinformation.
Here is the original post:
UPDATE: More thoughts on the offensive ‘No Pressure’ video — and the denialsphere’s hypocritical reaction
Thomas Edison perfected the first incandescent light bulb in 1879. It burned for 13.5 hours. And incandescent bulbs are still burning 131 years later, but at a price that’s costly to both our wallets and the environment. Incandescents are extremely inefficient. They operate at about 20 percent efficiency with the other 80 percent given off as heat energy.
Thomas Edison perfected the first incandescent light bulb in 1879. It burned for 13.5 hours. And incandescent bulbs are still burning 131 years later, but at a price that’s costly to both our wallets and the environment. Incandescents are extremely inefficient. They operate at about 20 percent efficiency with the other 80 percent given off as heat energy.

See the article here:
The Light Fantastic
