Blogs

Happy 2008! Your Prius' Fuel Efficiency Just Dropped 16%

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 3:00 PM EST

2007prius.jpeg

Old-school Detroit must be smiling just a bit right now. After decades of providing unrealistic fuel-efficiency estimates—those big numbers touted in magazine ads and printed in large fonts on the vehicle-details stickers in new car lots—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has finally modified its method for calculating average miles per gallon, and the most fuel-efficient cars on the road have taken the biggest hit. Then again, they have a lot farther to fall.

The new method, which applies to all 2008 models and beyond, still doesn't quite reflect actual driving conditions, but unlike the old numbers, which basically reflected your mileage in heaven (or, if you prefer, in an idealized lab setting), the new ones take into account things like acceleration, winter driving, air conditioner use, and realistic speeds (ever tried doing 55 in a 55 zone on a moderate-traffic day? It's a recipe for abuse). Alas, the new formula appears to favor the gas guzzlers. Combined mileage for a 2007 Toyota Prius (automatic, 4 cylinder, 1.5 L engine) is down 16 percent under the new formula, to 46 mpg. The '07 Honda Civic Hybrid is also down 16 percent, to 42 mpg.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Has California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Actually Increased Carbon Emissions?

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 2:53 PM EST

Last year California passed a much-heralded law requiring oil companies to cut the carbon intensity of their fuel 10 percent by 2020. The state is allowing ethanol to be used as one low-carbon substitute, and recently raised the cap on ethanol in gasoline from six to ten percent. You've probably read about the ways the ethanol craze contributes to higher food prices around the world, but what nobody has calculated, until now, is how this affects ethanol's true carbon footprint. In an analysis released January 17th, two UC Berkeley researchers found that ethanol actually produces more carbon emissions than gasoline. As a result, the carbon intensity of California fuel has ironically risen, between 3 and 33 percent.
 
The researchers, professors Michael O'Hare and and Alexander Farrell, take issue with the model state regulators used to calculate ethanol's carbon output, arguing that it did not factor in the indirect effects on the global food supply. Among other things, higher corn prices cause farmers half-way around the world to convert more forests into farmland, and those trees are then burned or decay, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. The professors pointed this out in a letter sent earlier this month to the California Air Board, which is discussing changing its carbon model in light of the findings.

"The Man's" Morse Code and the Continuing Blight of White Racism

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 2:40 PM EST

Well, all my subliminal advertising worked: I'll be on Colbert today, barring death, famine, or a Britney Spears sighting.

If Tuesday's show is any indication, Colbert has still got it, writerless or not. If you didn't see it, you missed something sweet, wonderful and daring. I had extreme fun the first time last year and am determined to do so again. Here's hoping that I actually speak, given Colbert's nonstop high jinx. If I do, here's what I hope to get around to saying: Barack, don't let The Man force you to pull a Sister Souljah and apologize for being black.

In Slate, Mickey Kaus gallantly provides a primer for Barack to "escape the ghetto." Here's the thinking of no doubt many oh-so-post-racial white politicos (though Kaus doesn't endorse the entire idea; he just pubs it up): The moment Barack allowed the dreaded Reverend Al Sharpton to defend him against criticism for his past drug use, Obama became a race hustler, dealing the (oh dear, not this again) race card from the bottom of the deck. Sharpton is the embodiment of black perfidy, and to align oneself with him is to reject any claims of race transcendence or racial fair dealing, no matter whom whites ally themselves with. In other words, Caught ya being black, Obama! And we thought you were different. Funny how playing the race card is something only liberal blacks can do (though Secretary Rice's frequent invocation of girlhood segregation and knowing one of the Four Little Girls in Birmingham, not to mention Thomas' "high tech lynching," are never invoked as examples).

One of the things I didn't want to accept in Hillary's "it took a President to get the job done" was that she was sending The Man's Morse code—for President, read "white person," and for MLK, read "nice sermon, oratory boy, now step aside so the grown ups take over." Now I'm beginning to wonder. Are white folks calling up their new and improved inner night riders? SUVs instead of horses, but the demand, the expectation, of supremacy, remains the same.

The Nobel Laureates Have Spoken: We Need a Presidential Science Debate

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 2:05 PM EST

Eleven Nobel laureates, nine congressmen, multiple university presidents, and the heads of numerous science organizations have signed a petition calling for a presidential science debate this year. "Science and engineering have driven half the nation's growth in GDP over the last half-century, and lie at the center of many of the major policy and economic challenges the next president will face," says Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "We feel that a presidential debate on science would be helpful to America's national political dialogue."

It's not surprising that the candidates haven't jumped at the idea. Global-warming- and evolution-denying Republicans would look hilarious in such a forum, but even Democrats might worry about making a gaffe while weighing in on debates that are normally left to the experts. Still, it seems like an idea Democrats should take seriously. By signaling to voters that science is important, it would drum up support for the party's ideas, and, more fundamentally, lay out how post-Middle-Ages worldview translates into superior leadership.

Giuliani Foreign Policy Advisor Says 'Bomb 'Em'

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 1:50 PM EST

CGItemp20580120119620068.239.83.80-86.jpeg

With Rudy Giuliani hanging on at least until I-Can't-Believe-We-Have-Nine-More-Months-Of-This Tuesday (February 5), his candidacy still matters, if a little bit less than before. You might be interested to know, then, that one of the Hero of 9/11's neocon foreign policy advisors has just written an astoundingly long-winded piece in the conservative journal Commentary advocating that the U.S. military bring its shock and awe to Tehran. Norman Podhoretz, intellectual godfather to the neocons who goaded us into the Iraq mess, argues that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a preemptive bombing campaign—this despite the latest National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003. The only question, says Podhoretz, is of "who should do the bombing." Israel? Nope, they don't have the necessary military capability to ensure success and, besides, the Iranians would blame us anyway. "If Iran is to be prevented from becoming a nuclear power," he writes, "it is the United States that will have to do the preventing, to do it by means of a bombing campaign, and (because 'If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long') to do it soon."

So, does Rudy agree with this assessment? After all, as of October, Podhoretz was still among the group of hawks whispering in his ear (along with the likes of Daniel Pipes and Michael Rubin). According to Giuliani's chief foreign policy advisor, Charles Hill, a State Department veteran who also worked as an aide to U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali, the answer is no. "Norman's position is unique to Norman, and it's well thought out," Hill told the New York Sun last fall. "It is not a far out, radical position, and it is deeply felt and held intellectually, but it is unique to him. Rudy Giuliani has Rudy Giuliani's view." What's that exactly? That we should give tougher sanctions a chance. As for Podhoretz, he says, "I express my views mainly through email communications to the foreign policy team. Rudy is free to accept or reject them."

Still, having Podhoretz in the mix (not to mention Pipes and Rubin) is enough to make you question where Rudy's really coming from. He might as well add the Filipino Monkey as his communications secretary...

A Quick Hebrew Lesson for the Obama '69 Campaign

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 1:39 PM EST
obama-hebrew250.jpg

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson notes that Obama is now selling gear with his name in Hebrew. One small mistake: That '08 should really be a '69, since the election occurs in year 5769 in the Jewish calendar.

Update: I misread the Obama website; it doesn't call the pin the "NY for Obama button." But speaking of New Yorkers, you can get Hebraicized Hillary tote bags and t-shirts from Jews for Hillary.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

New Bond Movie Has Dumbest Title Ever

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 12:10 PM EST

CGItemp20500120119085068.239.83.80-orig.jpeg

Quantum of Solace. What exactly does that mean? Let's consult the dictionary... and not just any dictionary, but the Oxford one 007 himself would use.

QUANTUM
noun (pl. quanta) 1 Physics an individual quantity of energy corresponding to that involved in the absorption or emission of energy or light by an atom or other particle. 2 a total amount, especially an amount of money legally payable in damages. 3 a share.

SOLACE
/sollss/
noun comfort or consolation in time of distress.

So... could it be referring to atomic peace? Or perhaps to the total amount of... er, comfort our favorite spy is sure to receive from his new Bond girls (see picture)? I'm so confused.

Prepping for Bush's State of the Union

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 10:55 AM EST

President Bush's final State of the Union is coming up in just four days (yeah, we hadn't really heard about it either). The video below puts last year's SOTU into context and gets your bullsh*t force-field up and running, so you won't kill yourself on the 28th.

A Black Box for Botox?

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 10:51 AM EST

botox.jpg
In a move likely to be protested by TV anchorwomen and medi-spas everywhere, the consumer group Public Citizen has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to place a black box warning label on Botox indicating that the popular anti-wrinkle treatment can be deadly. The FDA has received reports of at least 16 Botox-related deaths, including four in children under 18, as well as 180 cases of serious adverse reactions to the drug.

The adverse reactions are much worse than a few laugh lines. The botulism toxin, which smooths wrinkles by relaxing muscles, occasionally migrates far beyond the creased brow. Botox can paralyze the respiratory muscles or cause difficulty in swallowing, a problem that leads to food and liquids lodging in the lungs and causing life-threatening pneumonia.

European regulators have already widely publicized the risk, but the FDA has been slow to react, leaving Americans blissfully ignorant about the perils of vanity and doctors free to administer the drug for all sorts of unapproved uses. (The only cosmetic use of Botox approved by the FDA is for smoothing wrinkles between the eyebrows.) While the new FDA data are striking, didn't we all sort of know, deep down, that paralyzing your face with a deadly poison was probably a bad idea? Here's hoping that Public Citizen helps make wrinkles fashionable again.


Charlie Wilson's War FY'08: New Defense Authorization Bill's 1,168 Earmarks

| Thu Jan. 24, 2008 3:34 AM EST

Good government group, Taxpayers for Common Sense' Laura Peterson writes, "With all the fuss about Bush putting the brakes on the 2008 defense authorization bill, which the Senate passed for the second time on Tuesday, one could almost forget about all the money the bill potentially contains. Authorization bills are intended to lay policy foundations for an agency, while the appropriations bills lay out the cash. Yet authorizations still contain earmarks—1,168 in this particular case, way more than the House version's 449 and the Senate's 309 combined. Even if authorization bills are passed after appropriations, as DoD's was this year, authorization earmarks are worth tracking because they often crop up as programs in the following years' budget request or pork added to future spending bills.

"Though we have not yet been able to database all the earmarks in the authorization conference report (you can see the House and Senate versions here) I have picked through them to ferret out 'airdrops,' meaning earmarks not included in previous versions. Some notable items: