McCain and Off Shore Drilling

From Paul Krugman's OpEd piece in the New York Times:

A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.

What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

...In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late.

...Mr. McCain’s claim that opponents of offshore drilling are responsible for high gas prices is ridiculous — and to their credit, major news organizations have pointed this out. Yet Mr. McCain’s gambit seems nonetheless to be working: public support for ending restrictions on drilling has risen sharply, with roughly half of voters saying that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

[All boiling down to this] The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral."

See full story here.

Juxtaposition of Articles

Holy shaking my head, Batman.

In today's edition of the New York Times, there's an article about the House Republicans not passing the energy bill because it DOES NOT allow for further off shore drilling on America's coastlines.

PLUS

Another article about an oil spill on the Mississippi Gulf Coast

The effect on the area’s economy was thought to be significant, with this city’s port estimating a loss of at least $100,000 a day and probably more the river remained closed, and petrochemical facilities dependent on it for shipping were threatened with a bottleneck, the Coast Guard said. Some suburbs stopped drawing drinking water from the river.

Juxtapose with this quote about the Republican effort to allow drilling off
the coast again from Sen Larry Craig (yes, that Larry Craig)

“What we know is that where we were allowed to drill, down in the Gulf of Mexico, that’s where a majority of our current oil supplies are coming from, even in the deep water,” Mr. Craig said. “But off the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, the Carolinas and Florida, it’s: ‘No. Heck, no.’ The politics won’t let us go there.”

And you got yourself a boatload of congressional ironies.

More on the spill here.
More on the morons here.

Happy reading!

Single Stream Recyling

I came home from Maine last week to find a very giant recycling receptacle in front of the house. (Two actually. One for the neighbors and one for us.)

Here's the skinny from Mayor Mumbles:
The City of Boston is investigating ways to increase participation, tonnage, and cleanliness of its weekly curbside recycling collection program. Therefore, the Public Works and Transportation Department (PWTD) is conducting "Recycle More, Trash Less" pilots. The pilots test the feasibility of collecting residential recyclables mixed together in one enclosed recycling container. This collection method is known in the recycling industry as "single-stream" collection.

As a former green collar worker, I was mightily pleased at the idea of not having to sort but just keeping it all in one big container. The tough part is the logistics with in the home. I guess what I'll do is have my trash can for regular waste and then have another trash can for all the recycling, since I no longer have to sort. However, I can't put a plastic bag liner in the recycling container, because those are recyclable.

Here's a question and answer I picked up from the Wisconsin FAQ Single Stream page.


1. What is single stream recycling?

Single stream (also known as “fully commingled”) recycling refers to a system in
which all paper fibers and containers are mixed together in a collection truck, instead of being sorted into separate commodities (newspaper, cardboard, plastic, glass, etc.) by the resident and handled separately throughout the collection process. In single stream, both the collection and processing systems must be designed to handle this fully commingled mixture of recyclables.

And here's a "how it works" video on Single Stream Recycling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RWqgXcP_k&feature=related

Fun times!

eff u "earrrrtttthhhh day"

\/Eff U Earth Day\/

Just like every month should be poetry month, every day should be earth day.

For Earth Day I:

• did not commute with someone else to work -- however, I usually do. My commuter mate is on vaca this weekend.
  
• did not put anything in the recycling bin -- because it was already at the curbside or pick up, and by "it", I actually mean them. We had one trash barrel and four recycling bins on the sidewalk
• did not ask people at my work to think about eco-friendly products -- because THAT'S ALL WE THINK ABOUT ALREADY
• did not start to give up meat-eating in recognition of the vast resources used to make one pound of meat -- because I've already been doing that for the last SIXTEEN (anniversary back in March!!!) years
• did not forgo using plastic & paper plates, knives, forks, etc -- because I rarely ever use them in the first place
• did not suffer the inconvenience of not having my purchases bagged at the store -- because I hardly ever use a bag (just throw it in my giant purse), and don't consider that an inconvenience
• did not change the margins of my print outs -- because I didn't print anything, and if I had, I would have reduced the margins to .7 all around and, in the case of my personal print outs, reduce the font size to 11 or 10, make two columns with .5 gutters and turn the page to landscape to portrait, often reducing printout by 2-4 pages, depending on the size of the document...

The point is: every day is Earth Day. And it is with very little inconvenience. Or, aybe, because it's so much of a routine, I don't recognize the inconvenience. Regardless, these little thing add up after 16 years of doing them, I imagine.

So I say, eff u "Earth Day" because we should think about climate change, resource management, reducing waste, decreasing emissions, conserving energy etc etc etc EVERY SINGLE DAY and not just once a year. Therefore, I get a little pissy on Earth Day and it's tokenism. Every day should be Earth Day -- and can be, so easily...

http://www.grist.org/

http://www.treehugger.com/

Greenandmore.com [disclaimer: my place of employment]

http://www.41pounds.org/

http://www.changethemargins.com/

Okay, strident people like Hilary and Barack and Nader need their soap boxes back, so I'm getting down.

For You, In the Pines Reader

If you are having difficulty seeing this image, go here. A special gift for your friends and family on a large selection of eco-friendly gifts, energy saving devices and much more at GreenandMore.com. FREE SHIPPING on select items at GreenandMore.com** Call Toll Free 1-877-473-3616 (1-877-GREEN16)
	See our New Products this Season! Subscribe to our New Green Products Newsletter. *on purchases totaling $200 or more GreenandMore.com is owned by Boston Green Goods. **To see products with free shipping click here. Promo code cannot be used on sale items. Offer cannot be combined with other discounts or promotions. Good for online orders only, and can not be used on past orders. Miele, IQAir, Ladybug, Blueair, Electrolux, Austin, Sebo, Royal Pedic, and Euphoria by Obasan products excluded. 100% Secure Online Transactions Verified by Authorize.net GreenandMore.com, 486 Totten Pond Road, Waltham, MA 02451 USA

Erickson House in Vancouver, from "TreeHugger.com"

Hey people,
Just sharing an article I read from TreeHugger.com, an on-line news source about environmental issues. I read it for work everyday.
This article is about an architecturally stunning house in Vancouver. Some other users have been commenting on the non-eco-friendliness of the house that currently exists, then asserting we should neither support the house that exists nor the development project that will be even more environmentally detrimental.
I see their point but I agree with the comparison to priceless paintings.
Judge for yourself, but I wanted to rebroadcast here.
-Bridge

Another One Bites The Dust: Erickson's Graham House

by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12. 3.07

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/another_one_bit.php

If you've gotta have a traditional monster house in Vancouver, you can't let history or genius get in the way. It was Arthur Erickson's breakthrough house in 1963, a stunning multi-storey wood-and-glass house that descends in levels. People are fighting to save it (architecture students are threatening to chain themselves to it) but the wimpy gutless excuse for a city planner Stephen Mikicich says "In the end, this is private property we're talking about,so we're really looking to encourage conservation by the tools that are available to us. " How about making some new tools that work?

Heritage West Vancouver president Carolanne Reynolds isn't ready to give up the fight, either.

"I really can't understand why a person with a piece of art like that wouldn't feel motivated to make it look its best and have the prestige of being in a house that's internationally known," she said. ::Province

It is time for Canada to develop preservation laws with teeth, and to ban demolition.

Erickson says "The David Graham house in 1963 launched my reputation as the architect you went to when you had an impossible site."

From Erickson's site:

The site for the house was a rock cliff dropping forty feet from the arrival level down a sheer cliff to a rock bench over the sea. The solution to this difficult site was the creation of a multi-storey house descending the slope in levels.

The formal idea of the piling up of hovering beams was the basis of the composition. These enclose the major living areas, which step down the embankment for four storeys from the carport to the bluff over the sea below. Each area opens onto a roof terrace over the living quarters below, so that there is maximum access to sunlight and view. Because of the ruggedness of the site, the outside living areas are confined almost entirely to the roof areas of the house itself.

A texture difference is achieved between the walls and box beams by using flat siding on the beams and a deep board and batten on the walls. The house is treated with a simple oil finish and the only other materials used in conjunction with the wood are used brick and a Welsh quarry tile.

This follow up comment by "gnoble" illuminates what the article could not:

Here's the deal. The house is owned by Shiraz Lalji (and his 2 brothers). Lalji is principal investor in an outfit called Larco Investments and owner of Hotspur Resorts. In addition to owning shopping malls and hotels, Hotspur is now taking over the Regent Las Vegas, fired everyone, and will soon reopen as a Marriott. But here's the catch, Marriott won't actually own it because the Marriott family is Mormon and can't own gambling operations, so they'll just operate the hotel, using their name recognition to drive business to it. Nice little ethical/religious loophole for them, eh?

This is the kind of slime we're dealing with here folks. Lalji has also not maintained the house at all since purchasing it 1988. This tactic is often used to "get rid" of buildings that might encounter resistance in doing so. How many mega rich folks would leave a "Monet" to rott in a musty basement. They do not view it as art, merely a conquest.

But it is art, and a national architectural treasure. I believe in property rights too, but where does it stop folks? I couldn't (and wouldn't) stop a fire station from being built 150 yards from my house because it is needed by the community -- for the greater good. Sucks for me but I'm trying to make it work by rezoning to mixed use.

You would think that the zoning laws there would have changed over the years to prevent rebuilding in such an environmental sensitive, seismically active, rock fall zone. You'd also think they could work out something where they restore it, take a huge write-off, then profit by renting this treasure out to other (more cultured, obviously) rich folks. "Come and be pampered in this architectural diamond, with unparalleled views !!" or something like that.

Always the extremes, rarely a workable compromise. ... from "They should be shot !" to "Then YOU should lose all of YOUR rights !". It is this very type of thing makes me feel that we are doomed, and I'm an optimist, sheesh !

"Pave paradise and put up a parking lot" or "Call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye"