If you haven’t already found Grist, you’re missing a lot of good reading. For example, there’s Bill Becker’s recent piece, the perfect antidote to the naysayers who tell us that powering the world with renewables is the impossible dream. An excerpt:
A recent issue of Scientific American featured a "Solar Grand Plan." Its authors described a way for the United States to obtain nearly 100 percent of its electricity and 90 percent of its total energy, including transportation, from solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources by end-of-century. Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
U.S. carbon emissions would be reduced 62 percent from their 2005 levels. Some 600 coal and gas-fired power plants would be displaced. The federal investment would be $400 billion over the next 40 years ($10 billion a year) to deploy renewable technologies and suitable transmission infrastructure.
If that future seems too good to be true, then look at two other studies during the past 13 months that have reached similar conclusions: one sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society (PDF), the other by the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. All three concur that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can satisfy the nation's demand for power without additional nuclear or fossil-fueled power plants.
If $400 billion seems unaffordable, consider: It's less money than the federal government already has spent on the Iraq war, only a third of the $1.2 trillion that some experts now predict the war will cost, and only a sixth of the federal government's current annual subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy.
You can find the DailyKos Environmentalists here.
You can find the two most recent Eco-Diary Rescues here and here.
Here’s the Rescue:
jillian compiled another wide-ranging BREAKING!...the Earth (Yes...I survived E Day version): "District connects lead with special ed. Galveston Independent School District has too many African-American students in its special education program. And school administrators think it may be due to lead. Galveston County Daily News"
ANIMALS
If you’ve never read one of Mark H’s Marine Life Series, Friday’s installment on the Albino Rock Crab is an excellent place to start.
Tonight I’d like to show you my newest marine acquisition, which was brought in just a few hours ago by a friend of mine who has been fishing rock crabs for about thirty years. This is the first albino he’s ever seen.
ENERGY
Dopeman suggested an alternative version of alternative fuel at Hemp-based biodiesel, NOT ethanol.: "It's important that we make this clarification before we take over here in about year, we want Biodiesel, NOT ethanol. More specifically, we want hemp-based biodiesel. That may sound like a pipe dream, but somebody has already planted a seed in the great state of Vermont."
Corn ethanol makes climate change worse?, written by ATL Dem, gave us more reason to take Dopeman seriously: "Those new studies on the effects of corn ethanol on greenhouse gases should be a wakeup call. They don't call into question the problem of climate change. And they don't finally answer the questions about the roles of ethanol in combating it. But they should make us slow the rush to corn ethanol -- touted by farm groups, Midwestern states, Bush, and carmakers alike -- as an easy, quick, and unambiguous win in the climate fight."
But MinneaPolitics challenged two recent studies on corn-based ethanol in Anti-ethanol studies reach wrong conclusion on greenhouse gas: "A new policy brief from the Minneapolis based Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) criticizes the authors of two recent studies published in Science for advancing a conclusion not supported by their own studies. "The studies usefully estimate how much carbon will be released when new land is brought into crop production," says David Morris, ILSR’s Vice President and author of Ethanol and Land Use Changes. "But the authors’ declarations that ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions, a conclusion that has made headlines around the world, is not supported, and may be contradicted, by their own data." The report notes that the vast majority of today’s ethanol production comes from corn cultivated on land that has been in corn production for generations. "Since little new land has come into production, either directly or indirectly, the current use of ethanol clearly reduces greenhouse gas emissions," says Morris, who served six years on an Advisory Committee on biomass to the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture.
As part of his "Burning the Midnight Oil" series, BruceMcF looked at Sustainable Energy Independence: "Sustainable Energy Independence? Its such a large topic in a nation deeply addicted to fossil fuels, with more and more of that fuel imported ... where do we start? Well, I reckon we go back to our technological roots, and get out future back on track. After all, this was a nation built with rail, and therefore, in a real sense, it’s a nation built for rail. And, in a deep sense, we don't have any alternative if we are to remain a transcontinental nation ... its only be electrifying our trunk rail lines that we can ensure the ability to move freight from one side of the country to the other, once the impact of Peak Oil begins to hit. We either electrify our freight rail system, and move our transcontinental freight onto that system, or we start working out how to divvy the nation up into smaller parts."
WattHead warned of how Midwest Oil Refineries Gobble Up Canadian Tar Sands, Spew Greenhouse Gases: "According to the Chicago Tribune, oil refineries across the Midwest are set to expand and are planning on processing heavy crude oil from Canadian tar sands, part of an industry-wide trend to buy more Canadian crude. Canada has huge reserves of tar-soaked clay and sand known as "tar sands" lying under the swampy forests of northern Alberta. At today's higher oil prices, these tar sands are seen as a profitable and reliable source of oil but they require environmentally devastating mining processes and vast amounts of energy to extract. The resulting heavy crude oil requires also more energy to process at refineries."
gmoke announced his broadcast appearance on Solar on the Radio: "I will be on the Samantha Clemens Show on WMFO 91.5 FM Medford this Saturday, February 16 from 10 to 11 am EST to talk about Solar IS Civil Defense and other things."
FOOD, AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE
Frankenoid spent a little more than she expected, as she told us in Saturday Morning (Home And) Garden Blogging Vol. 3.51: "In preparation for the planting season, on Wednesday I went to a nursery near Younger Son's school to buy some seed-starting mix, and some rooting hormone so I can get some cuttings off a houseplant. What should have been a $20 stop turned into something else. And it's all your fault. Instead of just buying a bag of seed starting mix and a bottle of rooting hormone, I was enticed... nay, pulled... nay, forced to browse among the orchids. The many, many orchids, with their bountiful shapes and colors and smells.
Bob Guyer wrote Of Plants and People: "In eating what nourishes ‘the economy,’ we support an interlocking food production and medical care delivery system that feeds off of the collective degradation of our health. Treating chronic diseases cost 1.4 trillion dollars per year, disease directly caused and preventable by a healthy diet, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and obesity, form the bulk of those diseases. If we could save ½ of the cost of medical services through investment in education and production of healthy food we would save 700 billion dollars per year. Agricultural subsidies for the raw materials out of which the American diet is constructed add more cost to the primary cost of medical treatment."
Hardhat Democrat played substitute in Vegetables of Mass Destruction - Book Review and Chat: "Stepping in this weekend for one of my favorite dKos diarists, OrangeClouds115, I am going to share some thoughts on a couple of really good books I've recently had the pleasure to read. I am also hoping that we can get some other suggestions from you all in the comments as to any new-ish books, articles, blogs, films, etc.. on general food and sustainability issues that you'd recommend. For this diary, I am going to focus on Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, and Ann Vileisis' Kitchen Literacy: How We Lost Knowledge of Where Food Comes From and Why We Need to Get It Back."
POLLUTION
runesmith informed us about Governor Schwarzenegger’s continuing battle in Arnie vs. the U.S. Government: Round TwoThe Governator is at it again. After putting his state way out front in the battle against global warming by legislating strict GHG emission standards on cars in California (and fighting the EPA and the federal government tooth and nail to do it), Arnie is taking the same approach with another environmental issue: Toxic chemicals."
Code Breaker gave us the skinny from the other coast in New Jersey & PA Help lead the way for clean air.: "In another talking-to to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an appeals court said the EPA can't ‘average-out’ the goals for reducing air-borne mercury from coal-fired power plants but must set one standard and enforce it uniformly. The ruling effectively scrubs a bartering system under which dirtier plants could exceed their permits if they purchased credits from cleaner plants. It's easy to see how this system mocks the law. Air pollution wafts where the wind blows it, unmindful of political jurisdiction. That's why New Jersey sued the EPA and was joined by several other states, including Pennsylvania. Mercury is increasingly viewed and measured as a health threat, particularly to pregnant women and children, as it enters the food chain from the air to the water and into fish.
CDC Great Lakes Health Risk Study - A Follow-Up, JLowe wondered if perhaps people haven’t gotten bent out of shape for no good reason: "The lefty blogs are talking about this study of hazardous substances and adverse health effects around the Great Lakes, alleging that the federal government has suppressed a study linking exposures to contaminants such as PCBs, dioxins and mercury to increased rates of cancer and infant mortality. As is typical in these cases, the rhetoric gets overheated, causing us to focus on the wrong things."
In his ceaseless effort to persuade Kossacks that nuclear energy is the answer to global warming, NNadir wrote Solution Seen To Terrible Uranium Mine Tailings Contamination of Drinking Water, noting that leaking radioactive uranium tailings into drinking are no big deal because the levels of radiation are so small compared with radiation in seawater.
GLOBAL WARMING
JohnnyRook noted that a presidential candidate who offers a plan to fix the greatest crisis in human history is going to lose the election in Why candidates can't talk more about global warming: "No candidate, even if he or she truly understands the urgency of dealing with the climate crisis, is going to say what really needs to be said about global warming until after they are elected. The reason: if they do they won't get elected. (FDR didn't start talking about the New Deal until his inauguration speech.) The simple truth is that the people who understand the magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the required solutions are a small minority. Why just from Mike Huckabee's poll numbers one can extrapolate that at least 30% of the US population still doesn't even believe that it's real. Talking bluntly about the true nature of the problem that we face and the size of the commitment that it's going to take to solve it would be the kiss of death for any presidential candidate because the expense, discomfort and dislocation involved in solving it are just too big for most people to grasp and accept on their own without much larger "natural" disasters than we've had so far."
A Siegel, who for months has been informing us of the serious problems contained in the Lieberman-Warner Act, had three Diaries last week on the subject: Global Warming Legislation: What matters?: "When it comes to Global Warming, ever more of the Globe is aware. As some say, Katrina opened the door, Al Gore strode purposefully throught it, and now people realize that we need to do ‘something.’ But, defining that something becomes the next and, perhaps, even harder challenge. Part of that ‘something’ must include Global Warming/Climate Change legislation. But not just any old legislation should do, we must have meaningful legislation that meets core principles."
And Smart Politics! Reason 327 to Fix or Ditch Lieberman-Warner: "Barbara Boxer has been a real leader on Global Warming issues in the US Senate. A leader who suffered for far too long under the 'tutelage' of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon). Sadly, for whichever set of reasons, Senator Boxer has being working hard to corral votes in support of the fatally flawed Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act and reacting strongly against those who have the audacity to question the bill and her approach to it. The bill, however, is getting growing notice and the questioning of Senator Boxer's approach to it is spreading.
And, finally, a lament that the founder of the blog on which he has written his ongoing analysis of Lieberman-Warner hadn’t been aware of the subject he’s been addressing so long: Politico covers DKos and L-W Coal Subsidy Act: "The Politico has a front-page article today entitled Friends of the Earth Kicks Up Dirt. This article covers FoE's ad buy (Fix-or-Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill) in the blogosphere about the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act and the ads' impact. The impact seems strong. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga says he wouldn’t have known about the bill had it not been for Friends of the Earth’s ads. Evidently advertising can matter more than content, since the issue had been repeatedly on the Daily Kos ‘recommended’ diary list in the months prior to the ad buy."
The Cunctator asked (and answered) his own question in Do Global Warming Targets Really Matter?: "The National Wildlife Federation's blogger says Lieberman-Warner is ‘a really strong bill’ that ‘falls just short’ of their goal ‘of an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.’ When I point out that L-W only achieves about a 60% cut, NWF responds: 80% cuts in carbon emissions will save the planet. 60% cuts in carbon emissions will destroy the planet. How does that logic work? Notwithstanding the fact I never said anything of the sort, here for your reading pleasure is the difference between the targets in Lieberman-Warner and the targets recommended by the NWF itself. If the U.S. and other industrialized nations achieve reductions of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050, we have a good shot of limiting long-term warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. If, instead, the U.S. achieves only the L-W targets, we will be committing ourselves to long-term warming of at least 2-4°C, which will have many unavoidable catastrophic effects, such as widespread to mass extinction."
Target Global Warming explored the spectrum-cross aspects of the crisis in This is Not an Issue of Red or Blue or Green: Sportsmen Push for Climate Action: "Alaska, Arkansas and Missouri. They don't exactly rank with Haight Ashbury, the Village and Dupont Circle as hubs of liberalism. So why were sportsmen from those states gathered in the Dirksen Senate Office Building today to announce their groups were signing on to a letter to Congress calling for climate action? ‘Grandkids aren't Democrats or Republicans,’ said National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger. ‘They're just grandkids.’"
In his analysis of the sportsmen’s effort, Schoenke wondered Hunters unite to fight global warming. Where's the NRA?: "Earlier this week, over 670 hunting and fishing organizations – including my organization, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) – signed a letter urging Congress to take strong action on global warming. The letter speaks of ‘our moral responsibility to confront climate change in order to protect our outdoor heritage and our children’s future.’ Our hunting heritage is in danger. But you wouldn’t know that from the NRA."
Global Warming: What are the Biggest Threats? was ClimateLurker ’s exploration of a new scientific paper on the concept of "tipping elements," which describe "a large-scale Earth system that can be switched to an entirely new state by tiny changes in some control parameter. The tipping point of each element is the critical point at which the system switches to a new state. For example, frozen water switches states (solid to liquid) when its control parameter (temperature) reaches the critical point (water’s melting point, or 32 °F). The authors identified 15 large Earth systems that qualify as tipping elements. They then shortened the list to those they deemed most policy relevant. A tipping element made the short list if tipping it would affect many people and decisions made in the next 100 years could affect whether the element’s tipping point is reached. For the nine tipping elements that made the cut, the authors estimated the elements’ sensitivity to change and assessed scientists’ knowledge of each system.
The deniers simply will not be denied their chance to keep playing their game, as proved by nancyvideo in the Diary The Enviros Are Winning...Big Time: "If a disaster is caused by global warming then the focus is off, say, government screw-ups. The added advantage is the 'guilt by proxy' that Americans are made to feel for not having 'invested' enough to halt this crisis. What a beautiful setup. Screw up, (levees in New Orleans, for example) blame it on something else and get tons of cash to boot. Lest I forget, did you know your tax dollars are now being used by politicians to reduce their ‘carbon footprints?’ (This is called 'virtue on the cheap.') Global warming is rapidly gaining the status of a religion. Northwestern University just published an article entitled God and Global Warming: Religion and Science Unite. The article stated that some religions have conceded that global warming and religion are similar because ‘both have moral components.’ This was followed by the Church of England urging people to cut down on carbon, rather than chocolate, for Lent. The implications of global warming as religion are dangerous. Religion is based faith. If global warming is associated with religion, the result will be increasing acceptance of this disputed premise on 'faith.' In other words, blindly and without question." (Yawn)
In a book review, ShawnGBR suggested that Climate confusion is for the confused.: "It’s not often you'll see someone on DK hawking a book that says that says global warming is hysteria. And that it hurts the poor people, so that's reason to keep importing the oil. And you're not going to see it now, either. To understand what this book is, you have to understand what the author is doing. And to understand that, you need to know what he has previously done."
trill challenged the "cap and trade" approach to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the Diary A Fee on Carbon Use: the right CO2 reduction solution: "Most of the candidates (Dodd was one notable exception) support the more corporate palatable idea promulgated by Kyoto and other multi-state/country agreements of ‘cap and trade.’ California and its neighboring states are pushing for this policy also. Yet the most efficient and easiest solution is to have a tax or fee on the use of carbon. So how do we shift the political landscape to make this the correct policy to implement? We need to get the public to recognize the efficiencies and transparency of a carbon fee rather than the ‘cap & trade’ scheme. Consumers of a resource can easily change their habits if they are given an incentive and can "see" results when they change their habits. And as consumers change their habits to use a resource more efficiently, savings will occur to them directly."
POLITICOS
gmoke took a poke at the presumptive Republican nominee for President in McCain and Climate Change: "Joseph Romm examines John McCain's climate change stance at Salon. Unlike most every other major figure in the Republican party, McCain does believe that climate change is happening, human-made emissions are causing it, and we should do something about it. So far so good. Unfortunately, He lives up to his ‘maverick’ and ‘straight talk’ labels only just that far. The only technological solution to global warming that McCain consistently advocates is nuclear power. In his signature environmental legislation, the 2007 Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, written with Joe Lieberman, McCain wants to devote a remarkable $3.7 billion in federal subsidies to nuclear power plants."
Then SolveClimate landed an uppercut in McCain Staff Lying to Callers About His Clean Energy Vote: "Last week it was widely reported that John McCain's decision to skip a crucial Senate vote doomed a much-needed clean energy measure to failure by a single vote - his. His Senate office was besieged with calls, thanks to a Sierra Club campaign. McCain's staffers responded to callers by lying about McCain's vote, saying he had voted ‘yes.’ The vote took place the day after Super Tuesday. Senators Clinton and Obama were there, and voted "yes". McCain -- the supposedly Green Republican -- was in Washington, but decided to skip the vote. It was the second time in two months that his missing vote has doomed support for clean energy in Congress."
And A Siegel struck with a roundhouse kick to the head in McCain's Dirty Energy Twisted Action Delay Machine: "John McCain gets much credit for his Straight Talk when it comes to Global Warming, speaking tough even in the face of a Republican Party that seems determine to reject reality. The Republican Base seems to trust their hatred of Al Gore more than what the data, science, and the weather all around us (US) say to those focused on reality-based policy-making. McCain is on the record as to the need to invest in renewable power to deal with Global Warming, even in face of special-interest opposition. Yet ... yet ... repeatedly ... when given the opportunity to take action to go along with his Green Straight Talk Express, John McCain has boarded the Dirty Twisted Action Delay Machine and help inhibit (rather than help) a move toward an Energy Smart future. And, when called on it, John McCain (or his staff director or ???) instructed his Senate Staff to lie about the issue."
caseynm wrote about Obama and Nuclear Power (with poll!): "Apparently there has been a bit of a tiff over Obama's position on nuclear power; indeed I understand there was quite a flame war. Glad I missed it, but from what I read, some clatch of Obama supporters were royally pissed that some Hillary supporter(s?) suggested that Obama is in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry. I don't know that he's in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry, and I don't know what kind of money he does or doesn't get from them, but I do know that he is at best on the fence about nuclear power and at worst a semi-closeted supporter of nuclear power."
Lipo evaluated the The politicians’ role in environmental strategy: "Politicians generally don’t like to talk about the environment. That’s a fact that almost any environmentalist knows. They all support the environment, and claim to be doing things to help the environment (even when those claims are outright lies like those of the Bush Administration), but for the most part they don’t want to talk about it. This has always bothered me. For a long time I thought it was because of the way environmentalists have been labeled as extremists, and in some right-wing circles terrorists. In fact, I don’t think a day goes by where right-wing talk radio doesn’t try to equate the environmental movement with the likes of Al Qaeda or 9/11 attackers in one way or another."
Congressional candidate Ethan Strimling , campaigning to win Maine’s First District, weighed in with ME-01: Ban the Bulb: "We all know that incandescent light bulbs are a waste of energy and contribute to the production of greenhouse gases, and the federal government has finally realized the need to phase them out of public use. But while replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs will immediately reduce energy consumption (a CFL bulb uses approximately 25% of the energy of an incandescent one, and lasts up to five years), federal regulations will take the next 12 years to remove incandescent from the market. That’s simply too long to wait for a step that will immediately reduce greenhouse emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources."
LAND, FORESTS & SUSTAINABILITY
seaturtles gave us a couple of updates in his series More debate about the future of Jekyll Island GA: "I have been writing about this issue on Kos because it's a perfect example of what I consider the greed of developers, the over-development of this country and the complete disregard of public input and wholesale give away of public land by politicians. It's all showcased in the fight over a particular development in a state park proposed by a company with close ties to the Governor, approved by an Authority entirely appointed by the Governor. It's also an example of a politician who actually listens to and acts on behalf his constituents, a grassroots movement that has given the public a voice and the people of the state demanding that their voice be heard." And Jekyll Island State Park and a Senate hearing
Putting The Bang Back Into The National Parks was boran2’s lament over: "A campaign by the National Rifle Association to repeal National Park Service rules relating to firearms is based upon misconceptions, according to an analysis released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). If the NRA is successful, it would mark the first time Congress would have enacted a statute to repeal a regulation governing the national park system – in this case, rules that date back to the origin of national parks. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has prepared legislation forbidding the Interior Secretary from enforcing ‘any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System...’ On December 14, 2007, a group of 47 senators wrote to Interior Secretary Kempthorne urging repeal of these regulations because they are ‘confusing, burdensome and unnecessary.’ The NRA claims credit for both the letter and the Coburn amendment. A Senate vote on the Coburn amendment may occur as early as this week. The legislation is aimed at controlling the hotbeds of crime that are our national parks, no doubt. You just can't be too careful."
GREEN PHILOSOPHY & MISCELLANY
DemFromCT gave us some insight into Demise Of A Political Narrative: "This story from Science, also covered by Effect Measure, is an important turning point for the Bush administration's approach to science. David Schwartz, the embattled director of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH’s) environmental health institute, resigned today after a stormy 3-year tenure to head a research program in Colorado. He explained that he could not serve as an effective leader of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) after "disenfranchising" some scientists. ... There have been two major problems with the Bush approach to science. One has been the placement of political minders in various positions to influence the science reporting. The other has been a philosophical acceptance that private industry should have a role in regulating the regulators. It's hard to say which has been the biggest disaster. The end result is an erosion of both morale and excellence in the science community.
markthshark looked at the possibilities of Wielding Planet Earth as a Weapon... Literally: "Without doubt or dissenting position, Planet Earth is the most powerful entity [in and of itself] known to man. Given that fact, and it may sound like science fiction, but it’s only a matter of time before the worlds militaries learn to wield the planet itself as a weapon. Geoengineering is the application of technology for the purpose of influencing the global properties of a planet. Until recently, the goal of this theoretical task has usually centered on making other worlds habitable for life. But the potential power of our own planet, which is limited only by what its inhabitants are capable of harnessing, could conceivably be directed in a number of alternative directions.
He followed up with Our New Role as Dominant Geophysical Force on Earth: "Geologists have been bandying about the term, ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ for nearly half a century, but all the while reluctant to officially attach the newly-coined term to the era in which we live. The term refers to the era in which human beings ostensibly assume the role of the apex geological force on Earth. Geologists are no longer reluctant."
Daryn Glassbrook inquired about Are digital media better for the environment? "One of the arguments made in support of the wholesale transition from print and analog electronic media to digital media is that this transition would benefit the environment by reducing the amount of paper products, precious metals, et. al. that we all consume. However, this may not be the case. In order to determine the overall environmental impact of any commodity, whether it be an energy source like ethanol or a wireless device like the iPod, you need to factor in all of the stages of production as well as consumption."
NBBooks highlighted the work of another blogger in Wall Street Journal: Let Poor Freeze to Stop Global WarmingI like the way Toby Rogers summarized the WSJ position on the RFK Action Front: The Wall Street Journal editorial board is a leading global warming denier and has consistently opposed the Kyoto Protocol and any other efforts to mitigate this potentially apocalyptic problem. But with their editorial on February 8th, it seems they've found a plan to combat global warming that they actually like -- namely, letting the poor freeze to death. So, according to the WSJ -- investing in green energy technologies = bad, regulating power plants = bad, allowing the poor to freeze to death (especially those freaks in the Northeast who heat their homes during the winter) = good for the environment and a plan they can really get behind. "
In her weekly series, Frugal Fridays: Reading is FUNdamental, sarahnity wrote: "I don't know about the rest of you, but a non-negligible portion of my disposable income seems to go to books, so I thought I'd turn my attention this week to looking at some of the ways to save money on this addiction so many of us endure. Before I start with the money saving tips though, I want to make the case that sometimes the cheapest option is not always the best. Authors need book sales in order to make a living and to continue churning out those tomes we love to read. So, if you can afford it, consider buying new hardback books whenever possible. These are the ones that provide them the most royalties. If you really can't afford to buy all the books you want yourself, at least request that your local library buy copies. Also, when shopping, consider buying from locally owned retailers to help your local economy and from retailers who treat their workers fairly, to help your neighbors. OK, enough with altruism, let's get on with the self-interest portion of today's diary."