October 22, 2010
There’s only one logical thing for our almost-never-updated blog to do (other than popularize the use of extended adjective constructions in English): start a tumblr!
June 9, 2010
Clearly, this too is a poem of the highest order. In a statement made today to Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones (Link to the full article here, about whether carbon dioxide causes global warming or not, Lindsey Graham strung together the following paragraphs:
It makes sense to me that the planet is heating up because you can measure heat. It’s not a stretch to say that what goes into the air is contributing to global warming, but I don’t want to be in the camp that says I know people in Northern Virginia will never see snow. At the end of the day, I think carbon pollution is worthy of being controlled, whether you believe in global warming or not. I do believe that all the CO2 gases, greenhouse gases from cars, trucks, and utility plants is not making us a healthier place, is not making our society better, and it’s coming at the expense of our national security and our economic prosperity. So put me in the camp that it’s worthy to clean up the air and make money doing so. This idea that carbon’s good for you. I want that debate. There’s a wing of our party who thinks carbon pollution is okay. I’m not in that wing.
And in response to the question, why is carbon dioxide bad?
“I just think it’s bad … the reason I don’t hang out in traffic jams and get out and suck up the wind is I think this crap is bad for you. We’ve had an increase in asthma cases, if you’ve ever been to Thailand stuck behind 400 motorcycles, it’s a lousy place to be. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in my view to understand that the stuff floating in the Gulf , if you burn it doesn’t make it better for you. If you wouldn’t go swimming in this stuff, why would you burn it and want to breath it?
I cant parse it in the slightest. Maybe you theory types have some insight.
May 13, 2010
I reproduce here, in its entirety, a post-it note found stuck to a study carrel in a library. It is, without question, a poem of the highest order:
Wiki – Harold Bloom – Anxiety of Influence
May 1, 2010
One of my favorite personal finance blogs is Get Rich Slowly (yes, there’s no limit to our semi-personal aggregation). I don’t know how I started reading personal finance blogs but I’m sure I’d have a lot more money if I followed even half of the tips. Right now I’m scheming up at least twenty different ways of saving cash for various future endeavors.
For instance, in typical Yesterday’s Salad style I’ve decided to save all my change and deposit it in an interest bearing account. I’m also transferring all my Bank of America “keep the change” over to that account. And I’m not making any withdrawals until the balance is ten thousand dollars. It seems like a suitably large number yet also something I could potentially reach before the end of time. And, the best part: should I ever hit 10k, I’m totally blowing the money on some fancy trip. I’m already 1/200 of the way there.
April 30, 2010
For those who have not been closely follwoign the recent spat between Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid on twitter, it should be obvious given the recent politics that immigration is a much dearer issue to the Majority Leader than climate change. The bipartisan attempt constructed by Senators Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry is perhaps at its nadir, for Graham has effectively walked away, according to latest reports, should the Democrats consider immigration at all this year. Environmentalists, moreover, are not particularly happy about this bill. Greenpeace has already preemptively opposed. The reductions are weak, there are fairly extensive aids to coal companies, which is shameful. I am a rational enough human being to realize that while nuclear has some downsides, if you plan to do anything about climate change, you have to use nuclear and natural gas as transition fuels, while gradually scaling up wind, solar, and whatever other energies win the alternative fuel off. Coal is particularly bad, not just because of mountain top removal, but because it is the most intensive carbon fuel on the planet, and responsible for all sorts of other nasty pollutants. And CCS has never been anything but a myth. So in the first place the bill isnt so good, and in the second place, environmental penalty in elections isnt an especially weighty thing, as opposed to the backlash Democrats could suffer if they dont make token attempts at immigration reform.
The truth of the matter is that climate change has to be fought intergenerationally. There has to be a core of voters,that put the environment in general and climate change specifically at the top of their agenda. There has to be consequences for government for the way they act. This must be true on the local level, on the state level, and on the national level. Alternatively, powerful enviromentalist local leaders and executives can have large effects. Several small cities already aim for carbon neutrality. It is not difficult to find cities that have made positive steps on their own. Strong actions by municipalities, such as San Francisco, have changed the way individuals conceive of trash and environmentalism.
Read the rest of this entry »
April 17, 2010
Every morning I wake up. I listen for the town crier to give me the news and good Roman flour for good Roman citizens. Then I hit up grist.org. No site better aggregates and diffuses the ebb and flow of environmentalism. DS likes treehugger.org, but there is no filter there. Everything imaginable gets picked up. The current page ranges from renewable production in China, to state vulnerablilty to oil spikes, to EPA warnings about fleas and lice on pets. There’s just too much going on. Huffingtonpost green is also not so useful; it features cute animals just as much as real green news. The New York Times only hits environment stories once they get big. Nytimes also suffers from the way we live now mentality, which takes a few small stories and boils them together into some massive narrative about present American society.
Enter Grist. Small and lean (and Seattle based!), grist.org has regular columnists with assigned beats, long running series, and an active set of commenters. They cover long term environmental policy, specific sustainable practices that can be put into effect, notably through the Ask Umbra video and Indoor Gardening Girl video series, and recipes. They talk about food policy, international carbon trading regimes, and even, and perhaps most importantly, the changing face of the environmental movement itself. Some of the most interesting posts examine Greenpeace and Sierra Club tactics to see how they play out, and how these organizations have used Facebook, Twitter, and blogs to wage asymetrical and symbolic public relations wars against corporate actors. Grist has also covered Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry, i.e. Lieberman-Kerry-Graham much better than anyone else. In a mainstream source, you might hear a miss contextualized quote or two from Lindsey Graham about energy, but you sure wont see this. There is no more important source for understanding climate change, the environment, and the politics of green than grist.org
April 17, 2010
Americans, according to the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, use about 18.5 gallons of water in their toilet daily. This is quite a bit of freshwater, and there is a very simple and easy way to diminish this rather high water consumption.
Step 1: Find a container that fits behind your toilet
Step 2: Fill it with water.
Step 3: Open back of toilet, put the container into the back of toilet, making sure that it does not disrupt the pump mechanism.
Step 4: Close the back of toilet. You are now displacing X amount of water per flush, where X equals the volume of the container you have placed in the back of your toilet.