Far be it from me to criticize content on our very own site, but this piece makes no sense to me.

For one thing, the four cited cases — Pat Robertson accepting global warming, Frank Luntz accepting global warming, Wal-Mart greening its operations, and the Sierra Club endorsing Lincoln Chafee — have very little in common, politically, economically, or culturally. There’s no reason a position on one would imply a position on another.

Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. All donations DOUBLED for a limited time. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds

Stories like this don’t tell themselves.

Make others like it possible. Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds

For another, just who are these reactionary, progress-inhibiting progressives? It’s telling that not a single person or statement is cited.

For another, how is it possible that environmentalists are both losing miserably and failing to acknowledge their many victories? Which is it?

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist. Here's How

The whole thing reads like a bank-shot defense of the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Chafee. But if Renstrom and Perkowitz want to defend that, they should defend it directly, as Carl Pope does here and here. I don’t agree with it, but it’s worth discussing.

Simply lumping those who oppose the endorsement in with some vaguely defined set of anti-progress progressives doesn’t do much to advance that discussion.