Today
Sections
More
Features
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Starbucks' new drink size bigger than the human stomach
In order to compete with McDonald's and other fast food chains forays (such as they are) into coffee, Starbuck's is introducing the new Trenta size coffee. Forget the Master Cleanse: This puppy offers more liquid than the average human stomach can hold. Factor in its diuretic and laxative properties and this is one terrifying beverage.
Too small?
At 16 milliliters above the normal human stomach capacity of 900 milliliters, though, the new Trenta is still smaller than McDonald's 32-ounce tea drinks. Starbucks has also showed restraint by limiting the caloric value of its supersized offerings to 230 calories — about 10 percent of what the average person should consume in a day. McDonald's has no such calorie limit: Its small frappe mocha contains 450 calories, and the large has nearly 700.
Even so, what's up with a drink that can't fit in your stomach? The obvious deduction is that the drink is targeted to people whose stomachs are already stretched and strained by obesity. The coffee giant is offering the Trenta mostly in the South, not in quick-paced East Coast cities.
No wonder the chain buried the release of this new drink amid the fanfare of its new logo.
Via Treehugger
| Jan 18 at 11:29 AM
Monday, January 17, 2011
Does banning dogs from the GGNRA help the environment?
Once again, the feds are making an effort to limit off-leash dog areas in the Golden Gate National Recreational Area.
The conflicts that have already begun over the Park Service's recommendations (a 30-day comment period has opened) are described in terms of environmentalists versus dog owners. But that's a skewed perspective, since this blogger is hardly the only dog-loving nature lover in the Bay Area.
As an environmentalist, I want to keep pristine wilderness pristine. I would agree that dogs should be banned from such areas, because even good dogs get a wild hair from time to time and go tearing off the trail, doing some damage to flora and potentially frightening birds and small animals.
Even so, in big open areas, the damage is diffused, and unless the flora and fauna is particularly sensitive, life continues on according to its plan — particularly in lands where canine coyotes are native, like much of the GGNRA.
In a place like Fort Funston, where there are tons and tons of dogs, the damage is more significant.
But that's not the whole story. Consider that much of Fort Funston is paved and that the beach is home to old military constructions as well as to a giant pipe taking our treated sewage out to sea and you will see that delicate wilderness is not the issue. To wit: Dogs are also banned from the paved Tennessee Valley trail in the Marin Headlands.
If you read the fine print in dog-blocking proposals like the one just released, the real reason is almost always people — specifically, people who don't like dogs.
"The status quo is not really tenable," said Frank Dean, the superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. "It's confusing where you can go with your dog, and some people are not comfortable with dogs."
Those people are like straight couples who come into a gay bar and want to ban PDA there because they're not comfortable with it. They already have 99 percent of the GGNRA, while dog lovers get just one percent.
Certainly, let's clarify where dogs are allowed, but let's do it in a way that makes it possible for dogs to be off-leash in some areas. Also at the Marin Headlands, the most dog-friendly trail is a loop trail that allows dogs on some segments but not on others. Why not give dog people a single hike to enjoy?
I'd suggest that those who don't like dogs pursue their agenda at the expense of the environment, even while they dress it up as environmental concern. If off-lease dogs are banned from Fort Funston and other popular dog play areas, the dogs — who are animals, and thus part of the environment — are deprived the opportunity to socialize with one another, an absolutely core aspect of their instinctual behavior. They're also deprived the opportunity to get adequate exercise. (Any dog owner can attest that a dog needs more exercise than a human can keep up with.) That equals grumpy, poorly socialized dogs in the city, where it's harder for dog-haters to avoid them.
Another thing happens when you ban Rover from less sensitive habitat: Many frustrated owners will take him elsewhere. In the vast landscape of the GGNRA, a ranger is not always there to catch violators, and, in the end, we end up with damage to truly sensitive ecosystems by crying dog too often. The more parks ban dogs from paved trails and fire roads using "the environment" as an excuse, the less credibility this claim has with the average dog owner.
It's time to be honest: This is about people who don't like dogs, and those people already have more than their fair share of places to go in the world, including the entire national park system and virtually all California state parks. Let the dogs have their PDA at Fort Funston and Muir Beach.
| Jan 17 at 10:08 AM
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The high-speed rail debate resolved?
Californians want high-speed rail, but can't seem to decide on a route — a problem America 2050 may have solved. The group has created a map of potential high-speed rail routes and scored each of them on their ability to attract riders away from private vehicles and commercial air travel. (An explanation of the methodology can be found in the executive summary.)
The State of California may not want to hear it, but the best single route in our state would go from Sacramento to Oakland and/or San Francisco and onward to San Jose, then over into the Central Valley to connect Fresno and Bakersfield before dipping back to the coast at Los Angeles, finishing at San Diego.
A two-route option could branch off the Sacramento-Bay Area spur and head south through the Central Valley, while a a coastal route would continue on from the Bay Area to Salinas, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara before meeting the other track in L.A.
The report, which was national in scope, observed that California had the greatest potential of all the states to reduce air travel by offering well designed high-speed rail alternatives.
| Jan 15 at 07:40 AM
Thursday, January 13, 2011
How Congress could help the environment and cut the deficit
Amid the GOP push to curtail the deficit (so long as it doesn't involve taxing the most privileged among us), a number of excesses have come to light: earmarks, Congressional salaries ... and now this: bottled water for the Sens and Reps, which costs the taxpayer some $750,000 a year.
Flickr user quinn.anya
The price tag isn't the only problem with bottled water. The water comes, often for free, from public aquifers or even taps, only to be sold back for a profit. It's rarely tested for pollutants. The bottles usually contain BPA, which has been linked to a growing number of fertility and behavioral disorders. Plastic waste gathers in waterways, killing the birds and fish that mistake it for food for the hundreds of years it takes to break down.
For the members of Congress who don't give a hoot about pollution, price could be a powerful motivator. How can they justify an outlay of three-quarters of a million dollars a year when they could just as easily fill up some pitchers at the water fountain down the hall?
| Jan 13 at 07:13 AM
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Electric cars: Worth spying for?
There was a mystery in the pages of the New York Times this weekend. The front section's table of contents promised, on page 6, the tale of three Renault execs who were fired last week for corporate espionage. On page 6, more intrigue: The article wasn't there! It was, however, on the internet, offering a shadowy account of the company's suspension of three highly placed employees who disclosed top-secret information about the company's plans for all-electric vehicles.
The Nissan Leaf (photo courtesy Nissan)
The stakes are high: The French automaker, now partnered with Nissan, is betting its future on the popularity of the electric vehicle. It plans to introduce no fewer than three electric cars in Europe this year: a sedan, a light commercial vehicle, and a city car.
Unless the espionage thwarts its plans, Renault's gamble is probably a good one. Also last week, the judges of the Detroit auto show gave all their top awards to EVs and hybrids — proof, according the Guardian, that "analysts [are] bet[ting] on rising oil prices and wider acceptance of electric cars." Nissan's Leaf took second place to the Chevy Volt.
It's unclear to whom the Renault execs disclosed the company's EV plans, but suspects include China and competing automakers.
| Jan 11 at 06:53 AM
Monday, January 10, 2011
The high cost of parking
A national survey of parking spots conducted by U.C. Berkeley researchers found that there are three parking spaces for every car and truck in the United States.
While that might sound like good news, it's really not. The two vacant spots continue to generate carbon emissions and soot when your car isn't in them, based on life cycle analyses of the cement and asphalt. The Berkeley engineers say that, as a result, we should add 10 percent to our calculations of the greenhouse gases driving generates and double our estimates of the soot each car produces.
Even the current math says driving is an environmental doozy; with these new numbers there's that much more reason to improve our mass transit systems — and we still haven't factored in the carbon footprint of roads.
Oy asphalt.
| Jan 10 at 01:23 PM
Friday, January 07, 2011
Change brewing in organic wine labeling
When organic standards went mainstream under the USDA, many of those who are most passionate about organic farming were outraged. The USDA isn't known for making flexible rules or for concerning itself with sustainability.
To wit: Because preservatives were verboten in most organic foods, the USDA also forbade the addition of sulfites to any wines earning the organic label.
The choice preempted the development of any serious organic wine industry. It's really, really hard to make good wine without sulfites, which stop fermentation at the desired point and keep fruit flavors bright.
California winemakers — many of whom are very serious about sustainability — have adapted in a number of ways. Some label their wine as "made with organic grapes," but find that label lackluster.
Others have gone with more woo-woo philosophies, such as biodynamics, that gave birth to the organic movement in the first place. The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance has developed its own seal, which embraces a variety of approaches. (Find a list of wines earning that seal here.)
The result of the multi-pronged approach, however, is a confused consumer.
But some green vintners — including Paul Dolan, pictured, a pioneer of organic grape growing — are now pushing the USDA to allow sulfites in wine labeled organic.
I've heard from people who've worked with wine that sulfites are, in fact, nasty stuff, but only a tiny amount is used per gallon of wine. Nor are they the source of most wine allergies — and, as their advocates point out, allergies are not part of the organic criteria.
What do you think? Should added sulfites be allowed in organic wines?
| Jan 07 at 01:32 PM
Thursday, January 06, 2011
WikiLeaks show U.S. sought whaling deal with Japan
In a game of cat and mouse, the cat always wins but the mouse can be really, really annoying. So show (some of the cables in) the WikiLeaks dump: Japan, tired of having its whaling ships harassed by the Sea Shepherd group of TV's Whale Wars fame, asked the U.S. to look into the NGO's tax status.
The U.S. upped the stakes, saying it would try to rein in Sea Shepherd's at-sea antics if Japan agreed to kill fewer whales in the Antarctic whale sanctuary. The UK and the EU nixed that deal.
Many environmentalists have questioned the strategy of negotiating maximum quotas with Japan, which already flouts international laws controlling whaling. But Sea Shepherd head Paul Watson took pleasure in the cables' revelation that Japan blames his group for its failure to meet its minimum quotas over the last few years.
"This completely validates Sea Shepherd's actions as effective," he said.
Below is a video in which the Japanese whaling ship apparently intentionally strikes a Sea Shepherd vessel, which later sank.
| Jan 06 at 02:21 PM
Surgery as climate change villain?
Here's another excess of our overly interventionist health care system: Enough anesthetic gas is used each year to contribute as much greenhouse gas as a million cars, according to new research. In a single surgery, you could accumulate up to 470 hypothetical driving miles while you're out cold.
The inhaled anaesthetics used in most ORs are fluranes, related to the gases that ate a hole in the ozone in the 1980s. Although they've been recognized as greenhouse gases, medical practitioners aren't required to report their use because each patient gets a relatively small amount and it's assumed to be medically necessary.
Of course, when one hears reports that back surgery isn't more effective than physical therapy and that many women get C-sections because doctors don't want to miss their tee times, one may wonder how many of those surgeries aren't truly necessary. And, in any case, medical practices shouldn't simply get a free pass when it comes to reducing waste and improving energy efficiency, as a growing green movement within the industry attests.
From a patient's perspective, there are a few things you can do to limit how much flurane you personally contribute to the atmosphere. First, take good care of yourself so you won't need surgery. Second, get a second opinion before you go under the knife. Third, try asking your anesthesiologist about potentially using a less greenhouse-gas intensive knock-out gas: Adjusting for how the anaesthetics are used, researchers calculated that desflurane has roughly 26 times the global warming potential as sevoflurane and 13 times that of of isoflurane. It's desflurane that tallies up 470 hypothetical driving miles. Even so, if the doctor says desflurane is the best option for your surgery, best take his or her word for it!
| Jan 06 at 12:09 PM
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Behind the buzz about high gas prices
Is saying gas prices are out of control enough to drum up public backlash against environmentally responsible energy policies?
Conservatives are hoping so, with what appears to be an organized push to talk about gas prices reflected in Newt Gingrich's American Solutions site and in an interview former Shell president John Hofmeister gave to Platts Energy Week.
Hofmeister — who heads a lobby group called Citizens for Affordable Energy — predicts $5 per gallon prices by 2012, a number no economist has backed.
The national average price for gasoline is up roughly 21 cents since November 29, according to the New York Times.
American Solutions claims it's Obama's fault for nixing those controversial leases okayed by Bush at the 11th hour and — for no reason whatsoever! — for holding up offshore leases. Hofmeister threatens it will get so much worse if we don't stop dilly-dallying with renewable energy and go back to the black stuff.
"It's going to be panic time for politicians," he said in what he certainly hopes is a self-fulfilling prophecy. "They're suddenly going to get the sense that we better do something."
Except that the U.S.'s oil and gas production is literally a drop in the bucket and has been proven again and again to have only the most miniscule effect on global prices. (In the New York Times article, a fellow at the uber-conservative American Enterprise Institute makes the same point.
The conservative talking points are mostly just talk, but they're carefully timed to coincide with the recently released American Petroleum Institute's wish list for more petroleum to be garnered by way of offshore drilling.
Here's a news flash: Oil companies like high prices (remember those record profits last time gas prices were high?), so beware when you see the industry lobby dressing up its wish list as a populist handout. We can't drill our way out of higher gas prices, and we may be running out of oil altogether, so how about we do stop dilly-dallying with renewable energy and instead get serious about it?
Well, because it appears Obama is eager to "compromise" on this issue as well.
| Jan 05 at 06:34 AM
more