Key dates and facts about crack vs. cocaine sentencing, 3-strikes laws, and other drug law details Key dates and facts about crack vs. cocaine sentencing, 3-strikes laws, and other drug law details

When Weyerhaeuser began clear-cutting the Douglas firs on the slopes surrounding Little Mill Creek, local water officials were on edge. They worried new slides could dump sediments into the mountain stream and overwhelm a treatment plant. Those fears came true last December.

A transition to renewable energy sources promises significant global job gains at a time when the coal industry has been hemorrhaging jobs for years.

Awareness is low, but 63 percent of those who had a view on it favor a California ballot measure that would require half the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025, a Field poll issued on Tuesday shows. Voter awareness of Proposition 7 on the November ballot is extremely low -- 82 percent of those interviewed said they did not know of the measure. Phone interviews of 672 likely voters were conducted last week, Field Research said. Voters were asked opinions on several issues on the statewide ballot this November. On the renewable energy measure, 24 percent said they were likely to vote against it and 13 percent said they were undecided.

Political appointees at the Dept. of Labor are moving with unusual speed to push through--in the final months of the Bush administration--a rule making it tougher to regulate workers' exposure to chemicals and toxins.

As wind energy continues to expand across the U.S. heartland, rural America is likely to experience a revitalization not experienced since the homestead land grabs of the 19th century. Green jobs - high-quality employment for environmentally sustainable industries - and related spin-off opportunities are proliferating across West Texas. Local leaders predict that the economic growth has only just begun.

Common household items such as dryer sheets, fabric softeners, detergents, and solid, spray and plug-in air fresheners are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a new study finds.

With the Games due to start in less than three weeks, Beijing on Sunday cranked up anti-pollution measures by yanking cars off the roads, expanding mass transit and staggering work hours in a bid to meet its pledge of a "green" Olympics.

Global food shortages have placed the Middle East and North Africa in a quandary, as they are forced to choose between growing more crops to feed an expanding population or preserving their already scant supply of water.

A flame retardant that was taken out of childrenâ??s pajamas more than 30 years ago after it was found to cause cancer is being used with increasing regularity in furniture, paint and even baby carriers, and EPA's safety assessment is biased toward industry, again.

New evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Thursday.

BPA Free is a new running Greenthinkers feature where we discuss BPA, link to BPA-related pieces in the news, and also discuss and review all the BPA-free products you can handle. Enjoy your new BPA-free life.

BPA in the news this week…

Canada.com: A recent U.S. study found most of its subjects had rocket fuel chemicals in their bodies as well as a host of other toxins like bisphenol A, which gives the clear, pliable strength to plastic water bottles as well as baby formula bottles. Health Canada tests reveal that bisphenol A disrupts the body’s hormones and could be toxic even at low levels. Because the government here is worried that bisphenol A migrates into baby formula, Health Canada is banning its use in baby bottles.

Vancouver Dad: Environment Canada and Health Canada selected BPA as one of 200 substances in need of assessment. Critics charge that the government shouldn’t wait for the results and ban BPA now, saying there’s enough evidence that it’s harmful.

CBC: Bisphenol A — a chemical used to make some hard plastics — does not pose any human health risks, the European Union’s food safety regulatory agency says.

I'm not going to pull punches:  The Oregonian ran an opinion piece on climate science, penned by columnist David Reinhard, that simply isn't up to the standards of responsible journalism.  Not only does it get basic facts wrong, it displays a disturbing arrogance, coming from someone who's arguing that others should display a little humility.

The Oregonian's readers deserve better. 

At risk of giving the article more attention than it deserves, I'll point out one basic factual error, one conceptual error, and one instance of self-serving rhetoric.

First, the factual error. Reinhard discusses a recent article, published in a newsletter of the American Physical Society, that expresses deep skepticism about human-induced climate disruption. In Reinhard's view, the article exposes a long-hidden, embarrassing fact for climate science:  there really is no scientific consensus about human-induced global climate change.

This past week witnessed the great breakup not of the icebergs, but of the global warming consensus. What's existed beneath the surface, apparent to those who dug, exploded into public view.

But in fact, the article exposed nothing new: skeptical scientists have long been part of climate change debates, both academic and public. Their views and critiques have been in plain view.  There's really nothing original here, and certainly no "explosive" exposure of a hidden and inconvenient truth.

Perhaps more importantly, prominent climate scientists have openly challenged the validity of the article itself.  (I think that this response, from the well-respected "Real Climate" website -- run by actual scientists, not by editorialists -- sums things up nicely, and points to other concise responses.)  Perhaps most damning of all was the response of the American Physical Society itself, which has now added the following text to the top of the "explosive" article:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

So there you have it -- the article wasn't peer reviewed, and has been essentially repudiated by the scientific society in whose newsletter it appeared.  For climate science, this has been little more than a blip -- more an implosion than an explosion, at least among the academics who make a career of studying the atmosphere, and who have weathered this sort of critique time and again.

Second, a basic misunderstanding.  I think Reinhard doesn't quite get the idea of scientific consensus. The word "consensus" is not a synonym for "unanimity." Instead, it implies general agreement, after all views have been aired. So a scientific consensus is still a consensus, even if there are scientists who disagree with it.  The publication of a single article -- unless it's a truly groundbreaking one, which the APS article apparently was not -- does little to shake an established scientific consensus built up through literally millions hours of collective labor, by tens of thousands of researchers worldwide, across the span of decades.

Still, to Reinhard, it seems that the publication of any article scientific article challenging climate change was sufficient evidence that the facade of "consensus" is cracking.  That's a basic misunderstanding of how science works, and of the very meaning of a scientific consensus.

Of course, the critique over a lack of "consensus" on climate scientists might be fair if dissenting voices had somehow been suppressed in the climate science debate.  But that simply hasn't been the case!  Indeed, far from being hidden, scientists skeptical of climate change have captured enormous amounts of attention, both from the scientific community -- who take their critiques quite seriously -- and the public at large.  Indeed, these voices have dominated the political response to climate change.  And they get plenty of play in the press. (Think, for a moment, of the scores upon scores of articles in academic journals that did have found strong evidence of human-induced climate disruption.  Yet Reinhard chooses to write about one of the relatively rare articles that questions that view.)

To be clear: I'm not accusing all climate scientists who don't believe in climate change of acting in bad faith or committing scientific error.  I'm just pointing out that their influence has been substantial, and probably out of proportion to their numbers and standing within the community of academic climate scientists.  Obviously, part of their disproportionate influence stems from finances:  the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money to promote their views and support their research.  But their public and political influence has also been spread by lazy "he-said-she-said" reporting, and "gotcha" journalism that finds narrow conflict more interesting than broad agreement.

Third, the rhetorical sleight-of-hand.  Reinhard decries the passion with which climate advocates argue their cause.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's James Hansen, a global warming guru, calls skeptics "court jesters," and Al Gore likens them to "flat-Earth" advocates....Curious. Why all the loaded verbiage?...Why all the anger?

Why all the anger?  Well, Mr. Reinhard, James Hansen and Al Gore are angry because--after a sober evaluation of the evidence--they believe that rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will undermine agricultural production, spread tropical disease, flood low-lying areas, cause large-scale global population migrations, and disrupt both natural ecosystems and human cultures.  They're angry because they believe that future generations will decry our own--and rightly so--if we put our own convenience above their livelihoods. And they're angry that there are people who are deliberately spreading falsehoods and sowing confusion about the meaning of "scientific consensus," and who act as though skepticism is a higher virtue than compassion. 

In short:  They're angry because they care. 

So here's the problem:  Reinhard tries to equate this anger not as a sign of conviction, but as a sign of uncertainty and confusion:

The less sure people are of their views, the more inclined they are to name-call, yell and bully.

So, by implication, if anyone calls Reinhard to the mat over his article, it's not because they've done their homework and are legitimately disgusted by basic errors and lazy reporting. Instead, they're angry because they're simply confused and  "unsure of their views."  Nice.  No wonder folks get angry at the Reinhards of the world -- the ones who, in their own words, "bet" that the climate change consensus "isn't all it's cracked up to be,"  when it's not their own lives they're betting with.

Innovative News covers companies and institutions who are developing technologies to promote green living. But in this post they’ve moved away from that outlook to look internally. We present to you their top ten ways to live a green life.

1. Reduce your energy consumption in ways you CAN control.

2. Be aware of the preciousness of water.

3. Reduce your dependency on the automobile.

4. Get the most of your daily food.

5. Create a compost pile in your backyard.

6. Reducing waste means enhancing your green life style.

7. Reusing items helps to reduce waste.

8. Realize recycling in your life in a threefold way.

9. Create your own personal green day.

10. Start living green!

Click here for lots and lots of detail and links.

The scented fabric sheet makes your shirts and socks smell flowery fresh and clean. That plug-in air freshener fills your home with inviting fragrances of apple and cinnamon or a country garden. But those common household items are potentially exposing your family and friends to dangerous chemicals, a University of Washington study has found.

As we start to tackle the world of BPA-free living here on Greenthinkers, we’d be remiss to not point to this article as well.

Via Consumerist.

Here’s an interesting piece. From Bamboo 54 Inc. comes a ‘Bag Bamboo Square Burnt’ with a square shape, made from bamboo root, in a burnt color with a vinyl lining and zipper. Interesting.

Who is Bamboo54 Inc.? It’s an L.A.-based company that makes its wares from materials like bamboo, hemp and others of that ilk.

For identical prison guards Sukari Barnes and Tajiri Swindell, corrections is a family affair.

Hot off the Just Jared press comes some more green celebrity news.

As a spokesperson for PUR water, Cindy is under extra pressure to be green, and her children even get on her case about it. “They go to a school that’s very green”, Cindy said as she discussed the pressure the kids put on her to make “cool” choices. If she even attempts to use a plastic bag, the kids ask her what she’s doing and remind her to use her cloth bags.

But what is PUR you ask? PUR’s Thirsty for Change campaign features Cindy Crawford encouraging use to use reusable water bottles.

BPA Free is a new running Greenthinkers feature where we discuss BPA, link to BPA-related pieces in the news, and also discuss and review all the BPA-free products you can handle. Enjoy your new BPA-free life.

To begin, what is BPA? To start, let’s get scientific: Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, is an organic compound with two phenol functional groups. It is a difunctional building block of several important polymers and polymer additives. With an annual production of approximately 3 million tonnes, it is an important monomer in the production of polycarbonate. Now let’s get real: Bisphenol-A is a hormone-disrupting chemical considered to be potentially harmful to human health and the environment. It has been known that scratched and worn polycarbonate feeding bottles will leach this chemical into liquids.

Is this new? All in all, BPA has been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s though it only really started to grab headlines this year when several governments issued reports questioning its safety and some retailers even started to pull products made from it off their shelves.

But how harmful can this really be? While the plastics industry insists BPA is harmless, recent reports suggest it has an estrogen-mimicking effect that interferes with hormone levels and cell signaling systems. Long-term exposure may put you at risk for a gamut of health hazards including breast cancer and uterine fibroids, in women, and prostate cancer and decreased sperm counts in men. Even scarier? Infants and children could face behavioral problems such as hyperactivity or an early onset of puberty.

Scared yet? No need. Over the coming weeks and months, Greenthinkers will be bringing you lots of BPA news, views and product reviews. We hope you enjoy it.

Aster Vesara’s bamboo bracelets are made from bamboo harvested in the rainforests of Ecuador. Toasted to a warm coffee colour and then sanded to a glowing polish, they are beautiful pieces. Click on the link to see the photos.