Weekly Web Roundup
Posted January 16, 2009 in The Media and the Environment
- Fast Company lists the ten best green jobs for the next decade.
- EcoGeek says the Obama administration needs to re-tool the Bureau of Land Management.
- On Green Inc., Kate Galbraith writes about a mileage tax as an alternative to the gas tax.
- The New York Times is creating a dedicated environmental reporting team.
- City Parks blog explains the merits of roundabouts.
- In the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert writes about Van Jones and his goals to broaden appeal of the environmental movement and bring jobs to poor neighborhoods.
- "Global warming" or "climate change?" DeSmogBlog's Kevin Grandia breaks it down for us.
- Triple Pundit offers four available innovations to help the solar industry survive the recession.
- Grist says Obama's request to delay the switch to all-digital broadcasting is the perfect opportunity to improve electronics recycling programs (read Kate Sinding's post about it on Switchboard).
- Treehugger shares five ways that Obama's Inauguration festivities will be green.
- WorldChanging imagines what cities will look like when oil is gone.
- A study shows that air pollution is causing snow to melt faster in the Northwest, which could worsen water shortages in late summer.
- Climate Progress summarizes the electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid announcements at the Detroit Auto Show.
- Toyota plans to launch ten new hybrid cars by early 2010.
- An EcoGeek blogger shares his video tour of General Moters at the Detroit Auto Show.
- Climate Biz explains both sides of the ethanol subsidies debate.
- Salon and Green Wombat write about the toxic chemicals used in solar panel manufacturing.
- The drop in oil prices and the credit crunch bring challenges to the Pickens Plan.
Think I missed anything really great? Feel free to share it in the Comments section.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Ronaldo — Jan 17 2009 05:45 PM
No, Climate Biz does NOT explain both sides of the ethanol subsidies debate. It purports to, but instead sets up straw-men arguments from the critics of ethanol policies only to then give those from the industry the last word. The article insults those from the environmental community who have been campaigning for reform of current ethanol policies by making it appear -- wrongly -- that the campaign is somehow lead by the Big Bad Grocers and food manufacturers.
To quote from a comment in response to that article:
"[T]his is not simply a debate between the ethanol industry and the food manufacturers, but between the ethanol industry and people who have the good of the country at heart. If the food producers aren't playing fair, so be it. But that should not be used as an excuse to ignore the arguments made by economists, environmentalists and development-assistance agencies.
"Mr. Sterlicchi writes that 'With ethanol companies struggling at present – with the fuel being more expensive than gasoline – it is important to the industry [that it] has a message that resonates.' The main message that resonates with the industry involves holding onto the government teat ever tighter. There is no limit to the subsidies and intervention that the industry is ready and able to demand. Not satisfied with all the other benefits it has extracted over the last 30 years, now it wants a piece of the bailout pie.
"When you listen to the arguments from the two sides in this debate, please ask yourself: what does this person have to gain? The WWF, EWG and other environmental groups are looking for a better environment. The industry is simply looking for more subsidies, and more protection from competing producers and technologies."
Kim@NRDC — Jan 18 2009 12:15 AM
Thanks for your comment, Ronaldo. I appreciate your feedback.