Your Turn: Seeds Of Iwo Jima
Iraq misdirection play?
Cruel joke on New Orleans?
Time for sacrifice yet?
Have a little war with your nostalgia.
It's always about winning, isn't it.
Flag fatigue.
Green movement on Viagra.
Why does America always have to plant things full grown?
Still running interference for Bush-Cheney-Rove global war paradigm.
Your thoughts?
How to Win the War on Global Warming (TIME)
(photo-illustration: Arthur Hochstein. photo: Joe Rosenthal/AP. TIME cover: Apr. 28, 2008)
The problem is if you read the article (I wish you hadn't made me do it, now I have to wash my mouse), it is very long for very little content and doesn't address political power, ethanol, coal, and oil subsidies.
Posted by: marc sobel | Apr 18, 2008 at 04:21 PM
sorry, it does address them. very deep thinking too. at the end of the article.
While Washington should flood the zone with research funding, it should refrain from trying to pick a winner. The great biofuel scam—in which government support for corn ethanol choked the market with a fuel that simply creates other problems, such as deforestation and food price spikes—shows that straightforward subsidies can easily be perverted for political reasons. But a national renewable portfolio standard, which would mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity supply must come from renewable sources, can force utilities to adopt alternatives on a wider scale, going with the technologies that are producing the best results. For that to happen, though, the government has to stop providing the fossil-fuel industry with billions of dollars in subsidies, which boost the sector's built-in advantage even more. "How can the oil industry need a dollar in the days of $100 crude oil?" says John Berger, CEO of Standard Renewable Energy.
Posted by: marc sobel | Apr 18, 2008 at 04:23 PM
I think the green-gray-white cover look is much more inviting than the Time-tested red-black-white motif.
It is long past time to dump the "War on X" approach to problem solving. Not only is it trite and tired, it doesn't work. Our problems with drugs, poverty, and climate change require sustainable programs and a flexible approach. Shock and awe makes good movies, bad policy.
Posted by: black dog barking | Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Why are the Marines planting trees?
Don't we have some other Corps for that?
Posted by: mdhatter | Apr 18, 2008 at 05:44 PM
It is interesting, narc, that you should note the new colors the cover uses - because I for one remember when TIME never changed from the time-tested red and black. Until, that is, 9/11. Is that the message I'm supposed to be getting here, that the two are interchangeable?
Posted by: David Frankel | Apr 18, 2008 at 06:01 PM
ech . . . it's a nifty graphic. that's all
Posted by: James Warden | Apr 18, 2008 at 06:12 PM
What makes us think they are planting the tree and not pulling it out?
Posted by: boxcar | Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15 PM
It's a cell tree, a symbol of the administration's commitment to the environment.
Posted by: mommybrain | Apr 18, 2008 at 08:27 PM
In all seriousness, it is trying to evoke and harness nostalgia for The Good War and transfer that feeling to a Good Cause today. Iwo Jima and all that.
Once the good nostalgia feeling has been suitably evoked and enjoyed, let us remember that
nostalgia won't save us. We need
a Cultural Reformation (like the Protestant Reformation but different), and a War On Whatever
won't help us anymore.
Posted by: different clue | Apr 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM
The greenest magazine would be no magazine. Who still reads this stuff?
Posted by: Roi | Apr 20, 2008 at 04:11 AM
They STILL have absolutely no sense of proportion. A redwood would be staggeringly bigger than five people trying to lift it. The potential upheaval from climate change is staggeringly bigger than mainstream media presents.
Posted by: Megan | Apr 21, 2008 at 01:38 PM