Uncategorized

It’s too late to stop climate change

"At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: It is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it sets off," writes environmental author and advocate Mark Hertsgaard in the San Francisco Chronicle.

A valentine

In keeping with the holiday, let me send a valentine out to my one true media love, Knight Ridder environmental correspondent Seth Borenstein, whose lucid, straightforward, BS-free prose -- a virtual miracle in the world of environmental reporting -- are on display in this story on the uncertain effects of Kyoto.

Brazilness as Usual

Amazon forests not doing well If Amazonian rainforests are, as the old saying goes, the lungs of the world, then our respiratory outlook is not good. The forests face a trio of threats. There are fire and logging, as poor farmers, cattle ranchers, and agribusinesses clear land for crops or cattle. Then there’s “dieback,” whereby […]

That’s Trawl, Folks

Bottom-trawling ban proposed for sensitive Alaskan waters Paving the way for the largest fishing ban of its kind, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council voted unanimously last Thursday to ban bottom trawling on more than half a million square miles of ocean near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands — an area more than twice the size of […]

Just plain “green” for me, thanks

Thomas Friedman is doing a public service by pushing his "geo-green" shtick. Any time someone outside the mainstream environmental community, particularly someone as high-profile as Friedman, pushes sensible energy policy, it becomes harder for its industry and administration opponents to dismiss. Frankly, if Paris Hilton wanted to come out and argue that alternative energy improves your sex life, I would praise her to the rafters. Whatever gets the job done.

It is worth, however, keeping our expectations realistic.

A whale of a debate

The longtime Northwest controversy (discussed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) over the Makah tribe's whaling is rooted, like so many contemporary Indian issues in the Northwest, in the treaties of 1855, now 150 years old.

I side with the Makah. The five or fewer gray whales they intend to hunt each year are from a now healthy population numbering in the tens of thousands. Aside from sentimentalism about marine mammals, I can't see a single compelling reason to effectively abrogate the Makah's treaty rights by denying their application to resume the hunt.

The notion that recognizing the Makah's right to hunt whales will create a precedent for a widespread return to commercial whaling seems preposterous. The Makah are the only group in North American with an explicit right to whale in their treaty. And they have a 1,500 year history of whaling responsibly.

It seems to me that the Makah whaling issue is controversial primarily because it is a wedge: It separates advocates for sustainability from animal rights activists.

What do you think about Makah whaling? I'm curious where Gristmill readers stand.

Invasion of the Body Polluters

Revisiting Red Hill Valley

And you haven't even had time to read the post on this from Friday. But several alert readers in Canada have, and they sent along a few updates. Supporters have filed a multi-part petition (number 82), now languishing at the federal level, that addresses damage the highway project will cause, including to the federally endangered spiny softshell turtle. To raise awareness of the issues, the more artistically inclined have released a CD called "Keepers of the Sacred Fire," which features 15 local artists, and a documentary too. And late last week, eight members of Hamilton Friends of Canada traveled to Toronto to apologize to the federal government for that whole "our city is suing the country" thing.

The bulldozers may be hard at work, but this battle isn't over.

Even more Verdopolis

The very bestest Verdopolis coverage in the whole galaxy is, of course, ours. However, should you want to sample what else the web has to offer, there's more over on Treehugger, covering a speech (delivered via DVD!?) by the justly legendary Bill McDonough.

Death commentary

Mark Schmitt, a brainy progressive policy analyst whose Decembrist blog is one of the best on the web, has a pair of posts up on the Death Stuff. The first is a fairly extensive analysis that ends by enthusiastically agreeing with the central point.

That's where I find the best argument for blowing up the whole "movement," along with the others. We can't possibly find ways to move society forward as long as everything is put neatly into boxes labeled "environment," "health care," "campaign finance reform," "low-income programs," "pro-choice," etc., and the coalitions that exist are made up of representatives from those movements. Trying to force environmentalists to think about health care doesn't solve the problem either. We need a whole new structure, built around a convincing narrative about society and the economy, and a new way to fit these pieces together.

Matt Yglesias chimes in, coming at the same conclusion from a different starting point (national security):

As Mark says, what's needed here is something beyond "meetings or traditional coalitions around particular shared interests," which we do already have. What's needed, in short, is a real ideology that, as such, has adherents. The adherents would, of course, specialize to some extent as people always do. But what we have right now is really a coalition of lots of micro-ideologies and micro-interests that happen to collaborate with one another from time to time on this or that.

I agree. What's needed is more than procedural coalitions, more than other mechanisms to interact and collaborate. What's needed is is a uniting vision of the kind of country and world we want.

Schmitt's second post is also interesting.