Uncategorized

Sustainability is best served by empirical research, not dogma

I am constitutionally averse to orthodoxies. I don't like it when means become ends in themselves. I don't like it when solutions to problems become holy writ even after the problems are solved. I don't like it when objections to a practice become dogma even when the practice has changed.

In some areas -- religion, for instance -- orthodoxy is built in, and of course many movements become de facto religions as methods harden into unquestioned dogma. (See: early 20th century communism.) But in a secular, democratic society, orthodoxy has no place in public policy. The raison d'etre of a democratic government is to pursue the mutually agreed-upon goals of its citizenry using the methods empirically demonstrated to be effective, within the bounds of the law. This is a bit idealized, of course, but you get what I mean.

Environmentalism has, in many people's eyes, become a religion. I don't think this is quite true, but I certainly know of greens who behave more like priests than scientists, forever condemning any dissent from the straight-and-narrow and excommunicating those who stray. I find this kind of stuff obnoxious -- aesthetically, morally, but most important, pragmatically. The question of how best to protect our natural resources and put human civilization on a sustainable course is empirical, involving a smart synthesis of scientific data, political savvy, and a sense of the possible. To that end, there should bo no verboten topics, no discussion or argument that's out of bounds. No one should feel any "shame" for bringing up sensitive topics.

This was meant to be a prelude to a post, but it's gotten too long, so I'll split it in two. More shortly.

Natural Logic CEO Gil Friend lays out the basics of sustainable business

Gil Friend, CEO of Natural Logic, sustainable business guru, blogger, and future Grist InterActivist, gave a talk this week at San Fran's Commonweath Club called "Business and Sustainability: Risk, Fiduciary Responsibility, and the Laws of Nature." Joel, Jamais, and Gil himself have already blogged about it. But let me echo all of them and encourage you to read "Sustainable Business: A Delcaration of Leadership" (PDF). It's a simple, compact, and forceful presentation of the basic tenets of sustainable business. With pretty colors!

Want to do a good deed today? Print a bunch of these out and leave them at businesses in your community.

(Gil says to check back on the Nat Logic site soon for audio of the talk and a poster-sized version of the declaration.)

Readers talk back about Lakoff, immature humor, homeschoolers, and more

  Re: Don’t Think of the Environment Dear Editor: First, full disclosure: I am a former grad student of George Lakoff’s and was a research associate at the Rockridge Institute for several months. That should make my biases obvious. Amanda Griscom Little’s March 29 piece about Lakoff’s work with the Green Group provides some interesting […]

The cultural profile of environmentalism has drifted free of reality

John and Jamais make a great point. Media reaction to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment focused, almost without exception, on gloom and doom -- the grim catalogue of what is currently wrong and the most apocalyptic scenario of where things could go from here. But the MEA contained much more than that, including several scenarios in which things change and improve in various ways. Read their posts for specifics on those scenarios.

I meant to address this way back when I was bitching at Nicholas Kristof, who complained about the "alarmism and extremism" of the green movement.

The cultural profile of environmentalism seems to have taken on a life of its own. "Environmentalism" means shouting about how the world's going to hell and condemning everyone who doesn't agree to live like a monk. When an environmental issue is covered in the media, that's how it gets covered -- if it doesn't fit that template, it's either forced in or ignored. When the public sees that kind of story, its eyes glaze. It all becomes -- for the green groups, those who consider them enemies, the groups' individual members, and the public at large -- incredibly predictable, and like anything predictable, it becomes background noise.

For a look at a particularly undiluted, flat-footed presentation of that stereotype ...

We can’t make this stuff up

Funny thing: We thought about writing something like this and slipping it in as one of our April Fool's stories. But we knew no one would buy it.

Spare the Rod, Foil the Riled

Spent nuclear fuel vulnerable to terrorist attacks, experts warn Despite its renewed popularity (even Umbra’s giving it a second look!), nuclear power makes the eggheads at the National Academy of Sciences nervous. Specifically, a new NAS report raises red flags about the dangers posed by possible terrorist attacks on the pools of spent fuel rods […]

Comment on the new Grist ads

You may notice that Gristmill has just now joined Grist proper in being graced with advertisements.

If you have any thoughts on the matter -- umbrage, kudos, thumbs up or down -- this is the place to express them.

Photos of Iceland reveal a land of extremes

Photos: © Layne Kennedy In case you haven’t heard, we’re giving away a trip to Iceland. As a result, this photo essay is a bit of a divergence from our usual tough-as-nails coverage, wherein the prettiest pictures we run are of, well, politicians. But we’re not just shilling here — Iceland is a hotbed of […]

Hunting Irony

Alaskan wolves, bears hunted for hunting what the hunters want to hunt These are not the best of times for Alaska’s wolves and bears. A well-studied family of wolves in Denali National Park recently lost two senior females when they wandered outside park borders and were killed by trappers; a similar fate may befall the […]

Good stuff on anti-enviro Supreme Court justices and more

We're having a long meeting today to discuss editorial strategy, so there will be no more blogging. (Horrors!)

To keep yourselves occupied, check out two pieces in the Atlantic Monthly. First and most importantly, Benjamin Wittes argues persuasively that the biggest danger posed by the possibility of a majority-conservative Supreme Court is not to abortion or civil rights, but to environmental protections. It's a thoughtful, nuanced piece with some interesting details I wasn't aware of. You should stop reading this and go read that instead.

While you're over there, read Joshua Green's Lakoff-bashing. Green obviously has a pretty shallow understanding of what Lakoff is about, but he is right about one thing: Progressives need new institutions and new ideas, not just new glosses on the old ideas.

And speaking of Lakoff-bashing, check out this priceless Ezra Klein post, wherein he makes the same point I made here (after, it turns out, Klein had already made it), which is that Lakoff himself is pretty damn bad at framing. It's amusing. Here's a funny bit:

After the election, I read Lakoff's book for a review I was doing. I was stunned. The guy's recommendations seemed completely ignorant of everything else he said. Frames, for instance, bring to mind a host of contexts and other information. So the strict father frame the Republicans use immediately paints Democrats as mommy. And while mom is awesome, it's dad you call when you hear noises downstairs late at night. That's how Republicans win elections, they basically mount the stage and say "did you hear that, America? I think I heard someone jiggling the door downstairs! Now would you rather have George Bush and his bat go check it out, or should we send John Kerry and his baguette?" So Lakoff responds to this by suggesting that Democrats become a gender neutral nurturing parent, which simply doesn't exist, and would actually just mean mom.

Read it all.