Uncategorized

Ay, Chihuahua!

New drilling approved for New Mexico’s Otero Mesa The Bureau of Land Management yesterday made the final decision to open nearly 2 million acres of Chihuahuan desert grassland in southern New Mexico to oil and gas drilling. The Bush administration insists that drilling in the area, known as Otero Mesa, won’t be a “free-for-all,” as […]

An elevator pitch for environmentalism

Update [2005-3-14 9:31:34 by Dave Roberts]: The Elevator Pitch contest is over! (You can continue suggesting ideas, but they won't be entered in the contest.)

The American Prospect is running a contest: develop an "elevator pitch" for liberalism. An elevator pitch -- familiar to folks desperate to raise money (hi) -- refers to a short, pithy summary of the benefits of one's project. Conservatives, the Prospectors say, have a familiar elevator pitch (strong defense, lower taxes, fewer gay people, etc.), but people are constantly baffled as to what liberalism "stands for." (You can read a few Prospect readers' attempts here.)

"Hm," I thought. "What does environmentalism stand for? Aside from this or that piece of legislation, what is environmentalism's elevator pitch?"

So, with apologies/thanks to the Prospect, I'm ripping off their idea and starting a contest of my own.

Submit an elevator pitch for environmentalism in comments. It must be no more than 30 words. Pitches longer than that will be disqualified. Imagine yourself in an elevator with a skeptical but open-minded Average Citizen. You have seven floors to make your pitch. What does environmentalism offer them? What does it ask of them? What are its core values, its core vision?  Try to limit your comment to a pitch -- if you want to discourse on the larger issue of environmentalism's future, you can do so over on this post.

The winner -- as determined by the Contest Dictator, i.e., me -- will win a highly coveted, fashion-forward, limited-edition, organic-cotton, still-have-a-few-lying-around-the-office, Very First Official Grist T-shirt (VGOFT) (this is on the front; this is on the back).

I'll announce the winner in a couple of weeks. Go to it!

Landsea

Enviros are in a fairly massive worldwide fight right now, trying to convince governments and average citizens alike that global warming is real and that its effects could be devastating. Vested interests of various sorts are trying to paint this as alarmism and hype.

That picture is flattering to enviros, but of course there's more to it than that

45th

The U.S. is the world's 45th greenest country. Finland, Norway, and Uruguay are the top three.

Details below the fold.

Jordi Honey-Rosés, WWF butterfly protector, answers questions

Jordi Honey-Rosés. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? Currently I serve as program officer in the Mexican Forest Program for World Wildlife Fund, working to protect the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in central Mexico. The pine and fir forest region where I work is the winter habitat for the migratory North American monarch butterfly. […]

Sustainability sunday

If you're not already, I highly recommend stopping by WorldChanging every week for Sustainability Sundays, where the finest minds of our generation blogosphere convene to review the week's developments. Check out the week in sustainable transportation from Mike Millikin of Green Car Congress, the week in green building from Gil Friend of Natural Logic, and the week in green design from Justin Thomas of Metaefficient.

The Daily Show barometer

I finally got around to watching Thursday's edition of the Daily Show. The inauguration coverage was predictably funny, but something else jumped out at me.

Joe Lieberman was the guest (pretty funny guy, as it happens). Jon Stewart asked him, among other things, what his top three priorities would be at the beginning of Bush's second term.

First, Lieberman said, he would stop Bush from messing with Social Security. The crowd roared their approval. Second, he said, he would work with John McCain to persuade Congress and the president to do something about global warming.

The crowd's reaction? Dead silence.

You can watch the interview here.

Recapturing the red flag

Ed Kilgore of NewDonkey has a thoughtful post up on how the Dems might regain ground in the South. One tidbit jumped out at me. When listing the tactics used by successful Dems in the South -- "Mark Warner of Virginia (elected in 2001), Phil Bredesen of Tennessee (elected in 2002), and Mike Easley of North Carolina (elected in 2000 and re-elected easily in 2004)" -- he finishes with this:

...and most important, (d) convinced conservative rural voters that public sector activism and new technologies could create economic opportunity in regions left for dead by conventional Republican economic development strategies.

This is vital to understand clearly. Dems are always going on about "populism," wondering (a la What's the Matter With Kansas?) why the very people getting screwed by scorched-earth Republican economic policy keep voting those same Republicans back into office. But what do these pundits offer as an alternative? Too often a return to the early-20th-century populism of trade protectionism and social programs.

What Kilgore's describing is something else, not a populism of resentment (against "fat cats") but a populism of hope -- the idea that there are ways to revitalize rural areas with cutting edge industries, with helpful partnership ("activism") rather than hand-outs from government.

What does this have to do with environmentalism?

Readers talk back about the Christian-right take on environmentalism

  “The Godly Must Be Crazy,” Glenn Scherer’s article on right-wing Christian evangelical politicians and their hostility toward environmental protections, elicited a mighty flood of mail. Here we print a sampling of letters, followed by a response from Scherer.   Dear Editor: I am a former Republican, former Christian (go figure that one), and have […]

Dear Patricia J. Sadowski of Whitefish Bay, Wis.,

I don't know whether to shake your hand or smack you upside the head (ahem, metaphorically).

On the one hand, your letter to Newsweek (third one down) introduces a very large audience to the vital environmental issues related to the tsunami, namely that poor land-use decisions, deforestation, and heedless development removed many of the natural barriers that might have helped protect the coastlines. Kudos.

But then you pin the blame as follows: "It seems our endless desire for 'progress' bears responsibility."

First of all, must you put "progress" in scare quotes? Are you trying to play into the stereotypes that bedevil the environmental movement and provide its enemies cover?

Second, "our endless desire for progress" is not at fault. Presumably you wouldn't condemn the poor coastal peoples of Sri Lanka for wanting a measure of the health and comfort you enjoy? What's at fault is an irrational, poorly planned process of development driven by the short-term greed of small, corrupt government and business elites. The answer to this problem is not to renounce progress but to open up and reform governments, enforce the rule of law, develop more intelligently and sustainably, and seek prosperity in a way that distributes the benefits to those in need as well as those who already possess wealth.

Better progress. Smarter development. That's what enviros should be pushing for.

Love,
DR