Uncategorized

Whither the environmental movement? II

If the U.S. environmental movement was unwise enough to ask me my advice, I could summarize it in two words: Go local.

At the moment, several things stand in the way of environmentalism coalescing as a coherent, effective national movement.

Whither the environmental movement?

This post, and this one, and this discussion are part of a larger conversation going on among left-leaning types about how to react to the recent electoral ass-whooping we received.  Initially, a lot of the talk focused on the "moral values" voters who came out to prevent the cosmic apocalypse that is gay marriage.  Least that's what the exit polls seemed to show. However, this article, and several like it, cast substantial doubt on that theory.  In fact, there doesn't seem to be much of a rational pattern.  Bush gained among Hispanics and women, actually went down among rural voters and up among urban voters, lost among self-described moderates, increased the turnout of rich people, won on terrorism despite majorities who said he was screwing Iraq up ... in short, there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet theory to explain the loss (more on all this here). It was a hotly fought ground war, a game of inches, and Bush's team got lots of things right, pardon the pun.

Nonetheless, the question of where the environmental movement goes from here is still relevant.  I think we can all agree that, regardless of this election, environmentalism is not where it should be. Nobody, after all, cites the environment as a reason that any candidate won or lost.  Nobody much cites it at all as a player in electoral politics, aside from a few extremely narrow issues like Yucca Mountain, which is more of a "don't dump radioactive crap in my back yard" issue than a strictly environmental one.

So, I've got some thoughts on the matter.  I'll do my best to get them down in a series of posts, starting with the next one. I hope it sparks some pragmatic discussion, because I gotta tell you, whatever this is, most of it isn't particularly pragmatic.

Meet the Newmont, Same As the Oldmont

Mining company looks bad in report on pollution of Indonesian bay The saga of Newmont Mining Corp.’s mine in Buyat Bay in Indonesia is long and full of drama, like a soap opera, only with more dead and disfigured Indonesian children. The company has been accused by local villagers of polluting the bay, and the […]

EPA Denies Poor Families Camcorders

Controversial EPA pesticide study put on hold A proposed study of pesticide exposure in children to be run by the U.S. EPA has been suspended in response to growing controversy inside and outside the agency. In exchange for participating in the study — i.e., allowing their children to be exposed to pesticides — families in […]

Save the Roadless Rule

Monday (Nov. 15) is the last day to comment on the Bush administration's unbelievably awful proposal to overturn the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. You can send comments directly to the feds here. Or, you can submit a comment through the Wilderness Society, who will cc your governor, here.  If you're not yet convinced that scrapping the Roadless Rule is a manifestly bad idea, the Wilderness Society has the top ten reasons. They've also got a fact sheet on roadless areas in various states. They've also got a handy chronology of the rule's history.  Come to think of it, the Wilderness Society is all over it. You should be too.

Al Gore launches an investment firm focused on sustainability

After the whole endorsing-Howard-Dean thing didn't work out, Al Gore is hoping his new venture is more successful: It's an investment firm called Generation Investment Management that will focus on socially and environmentally conscious companies. The firm's approach "is designed to serve people who want to integrate sustainable returns with traditional equity analysis," said the former VP with his typical fiery charisma. David Blood, formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, will serve as managing partner of the firm, while Gore will act as chair, shaping its overall strategy but not choosing investments. "I'm not a stock picker," he emphasized (again, see: Howard Dean). He said the firm will meet a rising demand for long-term analysis that takes into account the "carbon intensity" of companies' profits.

Topic of Cancer

Scientists seek environmental causes of breast cancer Scientists currently know enough about breast cancer “to explain about half the causes,” says Aaron Blair of the National Cancer Institute. To fill in the gaps, researchers are increasingly focusing on possible environmental causes like exposure to radiation or toxic chemicals in air, water, and food. Traditionally, studies […]

Pandas versus people?

In the current issue of World Watch Magazine, Mac Chapin throws down the gauntlet to the biggest of the bigs in the conservation world -- The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the World Wildlife Fund. This piece is bound to stir up a heated debate about conservation organizations taking private sector and government funding and about how they are using it. The abstract reads:

As corporate and government money flow into the big three international organizations that dominate the world's conservation agenda, their programs have been marked by growing conflicts of interest--and by a disturbing neglect of the indigenous people whose land they are in the business to protect.

Four more years of rhymes with “yell”

Interesting (and by interesting, I mean depressing) article in Salon on what the Bush victory may mean for the environment and for enviros.

War and Environment Day … yesterday

Gristmill contributor Geoff Dabelko, who's having a little trouble with the posting widget, sent this to me, and I'm passing it along to you.  Enjoy:

A couple years back the U.N. General Assembly declared today [ed.: yesterday], November 6, to be International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.  

In resolution 56/4 [PDF], the U.N. called attention to the often long-lasting damage done to the natural environment done in times of conflict.

Having a special day for an issue is great, but what is the U.N. really doing about environmental security links on the ground?