Clicking Our Heels

A few days ago Still-President Bush lifted an executive order banning expanded oil drilling off of American coasts (originally issued by his father). Today, the Interior Department opened up 2.6 million acres of Alaskan land for "energy exploration" (that's code for ripping up the Earth to extract something crude).

And look! Oil prices are dropping already! Clearly we have causality!

Except for the fact that oil had actually begun to drop a week ago. But don't tell the man behind the curtain that.

While I Wasn't Blogging: News You Might Have Missed

When I was a kid, my parents (posterity and my mother would like me to note that credit here is in fact due to my grandparents) got me a subscription to Ranger Rick magazine. Through reading that magazine I learned about meerkats, cool bugs, and why chopping down the rain forest is bad. I also learned about the Exxon Valdez.

You remember the Exxon Valdez.







To put the following paragraphs in context, in February of 2008 Exxon announced the largest quarterly profits that any U.S. company has ever reported. Ever. Profits so high that the corporation made approximately $1,300 a second in 2007.

$1,300 a second.

Puts our offshore drilling "debate" in perspective, no?

Given that reality, I find it beyond appalling that our highest court in the land (emphasis, apparently, on "high") reversed the $2.5 billion dollar ruling against Exxon in the Exxon Valdez case as "excessively punitive." Excessively punitive to a company that made $2.5 billion dollars in less than three days last year.

Is it even possible to punish this in excess?



According to the Supreme Court, the "reasonable" cost of atonement for the Exxon Valdez oil spill is not $2.5 billion, but $507 million — an amount which the corporation is projected to make in less than one day. And that $2.5 billion was already down from the $5 billion that Exxon was originally ordered to pay by "a jury of its peers."

But see, Exxon doesn't have any peers. Except for maybe Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had to recuse himself from the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Of the people, by the people.

When the Ambulance Crashes

Here's the lead: "A Red Cross boat carrying rice and drinking water for [Myanmar] cyclone victims sank Sunday, while the death toll jumped to more than 28,000 and aid groups warned of a humanitarian catastrophe."

Here's the UNICEF link. Hopefully they have sturdier boats.

What's That Go to Do with the Price of Rice in Sioux Falls?

In one of the more baffling abdications of journalistic responsibility in at least, I don't know, a month, the mainstream media continues to by and large ignore the fact that our planet is experiencing an increasingly serious food shortage. But it might get harder for the likes of Chris Matthews and Larry King to keep their heads buried in the mineral-depleted soil as the soaring costs of basic foodstuffs begin to impinge upon the U.S. marketplace. Already in the past week, multiple reports of rice and grain rationing are coming out of cities as disparate as San Francisco and Sioux Falls.

Ironically, this is partially a robbing Peter problem — diversion of edible crops to the manufacture of biofuels has helped to shape the situation. Another component is the incessant plundering of grain fields to feed the nation's millions of dead cows walking.

But really, can our busy journalists be blamed for getting distracted by things like Miley Cyrus' green bra? I mean, it is Green Week or whatever, right?

Soy for Streams

The ironic thing about Earth Day is that the greatest impact humans have on the planet is perhaps less on the actual earth than on the planet's water. While we in America go through bottle after plastic bottle of clean water each day, forty percent of the planet's population lack basic sanitation facilities. Literally thousands of children die each day as a result of conditions related to water and hygiene, which I imagine is about as pleasant as it sounds.

What can you do to help? There's the obvious — water your lawn less liberally, wash your car less often, and switch to a low-flow shower head. That last action would save roughly 2,500 gallons of water per year.

But why inconvenience yourself all year long when you can absolve yourself of all moral obligations vis a vis water in just one day? According to The Food Revolution by John Robbins, the production of one single pound of beef uses between 2,500 and 5,200 gallons of water.

Simply put, forgoing one hamburger is better for the environment than not showering at all for an entire year.

I can't imagine an easier way to be environmentally proactive than occasionally skipping the Super-Mega-Double-Crazy-Vein-Polluting Beefy Burger. Besides. These things are pretty damn tasty.

Bigfoot Sightings

In honor of Earth Day on April 22, I will be devoting several of this week's posts to environmental issues. Today I'd like to talk about your shoes. No, not the fact that you've chosen to wear charcoal grey slacks with brown dress-tennies (although that's also a problem). Rather, I'd like to talk about your footprint — your carbon footprint.

Your carbon footprint measures the extent of the adverse impact you have on the environment merely through virtue of your existence in a modern industrial society. The measurement is based on the estimated amount of CO2 emissions you produce each day. The less "green" your lifestyle, the greater your carbon footprint.

The Environmental Protection Agency offers one of many Carbon Footprint Calculators (although they call theirs a Personal Emissions Calculator because if they used the parlance of the people their collective head would explode). According to the EPA, the average two-person household produces about 41,500 pounds of carbon emissions over the course of the year. My husband and I came in at an estimated 33,500. That's better than average, but given the consumption averages of the stereotypical American, that's like saying we're funnier than Jamie Kennedy.

Another fun calculator is at Carbon Footprint. Their calculator allows for more detailed information in terms of dietary habits, travel habits and so forth. My carbon footprint there came out to 7.654. That just a little over one-third of the average American's carbon footprint (20), about two-thirds of the average First-Worlder (11), but almost twice as much as that produced by the average human worldwide (4). I suppose for an imperialist swine I'm doing pretty well (I suspect not eating meat has a lot do with it), but given the worldwide target of 2...

My feet hurt.

But the news isn't all tragic! According to the EPA, if my husband and I replaced six light bulbs in our home with energy-efficient bulbs, it would reduce our annual carbon shoe size by two percent. Done and done.

Click here to see what you can do to quit kicking the planet in the face.

Out of the Frying Pan into the Popper

Problem: Reliance on foreign oil.

Solution: Fuel cars with corn instead.

New Problem: Rapidly spreading global famine leads to accusations that biofuels constitute a human rights violation.

New Solution: Given our proclivity for invading four-lettered nation-states that begin with the letter I, move that we invade Iowa and nationalize all arable land.

Or, we could always do that potato famine thing again.

Nimble Jugglers That Deceive

What better way to bury a news story than to sneak it through on a day when the vast majority of Americans are guaranteed to be distracted by mountains of tryptophan or embarrassing antics courtesy drunken co-workers? Thanks to the internet, I bring you the top ten most common ways to bury a news story.

My favorite technique is the Friday-afternooner. Did you know that the Environmental Protection Agency lowered the clean air standards about a month ago? Me neither. But you know who did? People who watched the news at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, November 15. So that would be, um, my retired world history teacher, that weird guy who works at the gas station, and Karl Rove.

Go Team Democracy!