What happens when you combine the evil of plastic bags with the evil of union-busting? No sun. So:

…?

Good takes this opportunity to point out that we use too many plastic bags.  A legitimate point (really, if war-time patriotism meant anything, wouldn’t it mean lowering one’s consumption of useless petroleum products?), but [...]]]> It just came to my attention that their is an island of plastic twice the size of Texas floating through the Pacific.

…?

Good takes this opportunity to point out that we use too many plastic bags.  A legitimate point (really, if war-time patriotism meant anything, wouldn’t it mean lowering one’s consumption of useless petroleum products?), but via Greenpeace comes this disturbing video that shows how ocean currents concentrate trash in a specific are of the Pacific.  It also shows a major national security threat heretofore unaddressed: Russia’s secret trash delivery system.

By simply dumping it into their coastal waters, Russia can deliver garbage all the way the United States with no energy cost.  This reveals a clear communist bias on the part of the Pacific Ocean.  In this post-9/11 world, one has to wonder if the plastic bag island was not a test of this new weapon delivery system; a warning shot across Uncle Sam’s bow (read: the boat word, not the ribbon word.  Your uncle is not a transvestite.)

Next time their could be a nuclear weapon on that island.  Or a new strain of gooey bacteria.  Or large packs of rabid dogs.  Or thousands of immigrants yearning to one day force us to “press two for English” as they prattle on in their Slavic languages.

This aggression will not stand.

Any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste.

I first heard about these guys when a commenter in Architectural Record complained that a picture caption that lauded a building for “lighting up [...]]]> The International Dark-Sky Association (warning: garish site design) defines light pollution as:

Any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste.

I first heard about these guys when a commenter in Architectural Record complained that a picture caption that lauded a building for “lighting up the night sky in Kansas City” was insensitive.  Inappropriate taking of anger out on a figure of speech aside, the organization is compelling.

Being a longtime big city resident, I don’t tend to notice the fact that at any time there is noise and people and light.  In fact I find it kind of reassuring.  I always know there hasn’t been a nuclear war and people are nearby if I yell for help.  The city is the most comfortable place to walk alone at night — in the suburbs, no one can hear you scream.

At the same time, anyone who’s taken the 405 through Long Beach at night has seen the Chemoil refinery lit up like a Christmas tree (disappointingly, I can’t find a picture anywhere, but it’s like this shot of Long Beach harbor, times ten), will tell you their are limits.  One of Dark Sky’s initiatives is reserves that will preserve low-lighting levels in certain areas, such as around the Mont Megantic ASTROLab in Quebec (an observatory).

This isn’t going to top my list of pollutions we need to fight anytime soon, but surrounding light norms are something architects should be taking into account with the lighting design of their buildings.  Stargazing and restful sleep are at stake!

Extensive climate changes…may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s [...]]]> Lorenloo builds up a solid rant around Gore’s award, and while I’m all for that, I want to point her to the Nobel PR on why climate change work justifies a peace prize.

Extensive climate changes…may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

So there is a link, even if it requires a “may” disclaimer.  In fact, it’s hard to imagine the world experiences massive climate upheaval without violent conflict; if we were evolved enough to deal with disasters rationally, then we’d be able to curtail our problematic behavior in advance of said disasters.

As far as the effectiveness of Gore’s global warming education: though the impacts are difficult to measure, the politics of GW has definitely changed.  Denial has decreased.  All the Democratic presidential candidates have global warming plans, including some good carbon tax schemes that would make a real difference.  Public opinion, as frivolous a thing as it may seem, creates the reality in which policy change is discussed.  Gore has been good for this reality.

I still don’t want the man to run for president.  I still feel just fine about protesting him in his last race.  But give him his due; he’s been doing important work.  And I like that he continues the trend where Democrats earn Nobel Prizes after they get elected president, while Republicans…do what exactly?  Disappear into the womb of their own wealth?  Does anyone know?

What appeals to me most about Earthship construction (and it is not the aesthetics) is that they demonstrate how a lot of our industrial infrastructure could be decentralized. Need power? Use photovoltaics! [...]]]> I like that term. I might just start referring to myself as a hippie-tect. Thank you Dwell posting on Earthships.

What appeals to me most about Earthship construction (and it is not the aesthetics) is that they demonstrate how a lot of our industrial infrastructure could be decentralized. Need power? Use photovoltaics! Need water? Set up a cistern and greywater recycling! Unwanted waste? Compost it!

It becomes possible to imagine existence without reliance on a corporate/state controlled utility apparatus (except to produce the PVs). Which is exciting.