Uncategorized

Conservative PM Stephen Harper could shake enviros into action, Matt Price argues

While American environmentalists have been pondering their alleged demise and/or plotting their resurrection, Canadian activists are confronting a whole 'nother set of challenges. Matt Price of Conservation Voters of B.C. tackles many of them in a new paper, "Greening the Beaver: Power, Profit, and the Canadian Dream" [PDF].

He starts off by arguing that Canada's new conservative PM Stephen Harper could be just what the nation's green movement needs to shake it into action. He also says eco-activists need to get over their ambivalence about power, learn to make markets work for the betterment of the environment, and ensure that environmental values are a key component of Canadian values. Lots more good stuff too. Check out the full PDF, Canadians.

(Hat tip to ONE/Northwest's Jon Stahl.)

Environmental ethics II: The humanist strikes back

The environmental-ethics post below obviously raises more questions than it answers, but I was trying to keep it short, since I'm not sure how interested normal people are in such esoteric matters.

However, in comments both yankee and birdboy raise similar questions, so I thought I'd take a stab at addressing them here.

A common assumption is that anthropocentric environmental ethics leads inexorably to rape and pillage of ecosystems. After all, if non-human nature has only what value we assign it, why can't we just use up all the resources, pave all the wilderness, pollute all the water, and so on? More for us!

I think this assumption is badly wrong, in two overlapping ways:

Back that grass up

I've been waiting a while for someone (else) to do the work analyzing the real energy payoff of switchgrass and other proposed cellulosic sources of ethanol.

Today on Oil Drum, guest poster Kyle steps up and runs the numbers, yielding the delightfully named "Living in a grass house."

Conclusion? The hype about switchgrass is mostly ... hype. Sigh.

How do you define “environmentalism”?

Dave's environmental ethics post addressed an issue that has become more and more apparent here in Gristmill: the term "environmentalism" means something different to each one of us.

This is exemplified in today's Soapbox by Oliver Bernstein on environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border:

What Mexican activists can teach the U.S. about poverty and the planet

As an organizer working for the Sierra Club along the U.S.-Mexico border, Oliver Bernstein sees firsthand the messy interplay between poverty and the environment. In Mexico, activists and residents struggling with booming industrialization are fighting for cleaner air and water, but also for a decent standard of living in their low-income communities. Meanwhile, their American neighbors seem to be focused mainly on protecting natural areas. Bernstein weighs in on the U.S. movement's oversights.

The AIA and BuildingGreen team up

If only life was like Monopoly. A straightforward path to follow ... unexpected money windfalls ... all those little green houses ...

Well, I can't bring you a definitive life path, or bestow a pot of money on you for landing on Go, but I can report on a potential step toward a greener housing market. A new agreement between the American Institute of Architects and indie publishing company BuildingGreen, Inc. allows the AIA's 77,000 members to quickly and easily access sustainable design information through BuildingGreen Suite.

This online resource features comprehensive, practical information on a wide range of topics related to sustainable building -- from energy efficiency and recycled-content materials to land-use planning and indoor air quality.

It's subscription only, and is accessible to the layperson for only $199 a year. Sigh. However, if you're an architect in the American Institute you get a 30 percent discount.

You’re Looking Swell, Dalai

Dalai Lama’s admonition may be cooling illegal tiger-skin trade in Tibet What’s it like to have a leader with genuine moral authority? To find out, we take you to Tibet, where the Dalai Lama’s exhortations are leading many Tibetans to forswear the multimillion-dollar trade in wild animal skins. Heavy Tibetan demand has fueled a spike […]

We Ain’t Sayin’ They’re Gold Diggers … Oh Wait, Yes We Are

Mining industry tries to clean up its reputation This may surprise you, but the mining industry has an image problem. It’s awash in record profits, but as it exhausts easy-to-reach mineral deposits and moves into more remote areas, it is under increased pressure to work in an environmentally and socially conscious way. (Also at stake […]

Environmental ethics

I'm still a bit hung over from yesterday's Oscar party. (Yes, Crash's upset victory for Best Picture is a farcical insult to all that is just and decent). But let me venture a semi-coherent observation about the clash of values that keeps breaking out here.

Environmental ethics, as a subfield of philosophy, has been around for over three decades. (See our interview with environmental ethicist [and, full disclosure, former professor of mine] Andrew Light). The most fundamental division within it is between those who argue that nature has intrinsic value -- that is, value in and of itself -- and those who argue that its value is instrumental to human ends. Biocentrism vs. anthropocentrism. Deep ecology vs. shallow ecology. Gaiaism vs. humanism. (My apologies to actual practitioners of environmental ethics, who know the full story is far more complicated.)

It's probably no secret at this point that I'm squarely in the latter camp. It's not even clear to me what it would mean for something to be valuable apart from beings capable of valuing.

But I don't want to argue the philosophy here. I have a purely practical point to make.

Setting aside what I suspect is an extremely small core of radical biocentrists who want humans removed from earth, the goals of biocentric and anthropocentric environmentalists overlap more than they diverge. We all want restoration of water tables, reduction of CO2 emissions, more renewable energy, political accountability, stabilized population, major efforts to preserve biodiversity, green architecture, and all the rest of it. There are plenty of battles to fight together on behalf of both humans and the rest of nature. These are practical challenges, and it is in the interests of all environmentalists to help meet them.

We could walk together for 90% of the road. Perhaps we'd diverge on the last 10%, but if we got that far we'd all have cause to celebrate.

It's just not important to settle the philosophical question any time soon.

What's important, in the face of global environmental problems, is concerted action. We will be judged by how quickly we generate sustained motion, not by our motives or metaphysics.

Pretty much what you’d expect

The current issue of Consumer Reports -- the annual car issue -- has a long, close look at hybrids. It comes to familiar conclusions: Hybrids save gas, emit less pollution and CO2 (which "many believe" leads to global warming), are a signal of good intentions, and have extremely high user-satisfaction ratings. However, they won't save you money relative to other vehicles in the same class. I know some greens find this story obnoxious, and I usually do too, but CR is pretty scrupulous about it and there's no arguing with their facts. They don't address the moral good of buying a hybrid, or the less tangible benefits of ownership (identity, etc.), but then, that's not the kind of magazine they are.

I am glad to see them paying more attention to fuel economy generally.

An amusing side note: In their short, blurby review of the Hummer H3, the magazine comes as close to editorializing as I've ever seen: