economist’s take on clean energy oddly one-sided


I was surprised by The Economist’s recent headline piece (‘Clean energy’s dirty secret’, February 25th). Not because it didn’t jibe with my worldview – that I could’ve guessed from the title – but rather by the omission of significant facts and perspectives in the story and the lack of a clear argument to reach its conclusion. I have come to expect and respect level-headed analysis from this newspaper, even on matters over which we disagree. Pro-stability and neoliberal though it leans, it is usually at least thorough and logical. Not so this time.Read More »

makes no frackin’ sense (part ii)

energy-satellites-flaring-north-dakota-main-art_72347_990x742Part I: on Obama approval of cross-border fracked gas pipeline used to dilute tar sands

Gas flaring is apparently a thing. It is a way to deal with the natural gas that is released as a byproduct of fracking for crude oil. Normally we hear about hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) of shale in North America as a way to extract shale gas. That gas is usually piped and shipped to be combusted as energy. But the gas that is released while extracting crude oil from shale rock is considered a waste byproduct – unusuable and nonmarketable… for want of pipelines. Read More »

mother gaia

Clipboard01This comic strip gave a me a jolt and really spelled out why exactly environmental degradation is such a bad thing. Up till now, my understanding of nature was that it had intrinsic value and intrinsic beauty and deserved humans’ respect – just ‘cuz. There was always a majesty and gravitas to the nature I grew up with: west coast wilderness of soaring, jagged, snow-peaked mountain ranges, unending swathes of towering forest, and thunderclaps where Pacific waves met the American landmass. I was taught to steward the land, to protect it and preserve it, because it was the right thing to do. Ethically. Morally.Read More »