Latest Articles
-
Is a consumer choice necessarily the best choice?
Jim Manzi, climate change voice of non-denialist conservatives, writes: But consider this at a common-sense level: you are forcing people, through rationing, to use something like 80% less of a substance that they choose to use because they believe that it creates net economic utility (prior to externalities) as compared to any available alternative. There […]
-
-
Don’t be afraid to claim the term ‘environmentalist’
A number of Grist contributors have grumpily said things along the lines of, "I'm not an environmentalist," or "I'm not sure I'm an environmentalist."
Environmentalism comes in all flavors. Wanting to protect natural environments because they benefit humans is a perfectly valid form of environmentalism -- in fact, I'd argue more valid than the "humans are evil, tapeworms are virtuous" variety. If you want to protect our world against the worst consequences of global warming, if you want clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and yes, some wilderness and wild left for the sake of your sanity, then you are an environmentalist.
Every now and then I will run into someone who says, "yes, I think women are fully human and should be treated as such. I believe in equal pay for equal work, anti-discrimination laws, anti-harassment laws. I think there are important ways in which women are not treated as fully human that have to be changed. But I'm not a feminist." If you believe those things, you are a feminist. You are just buying into an anti-feminist stereotype. And not calling yourself a feminist won't stop all mini-Limbaughs who dominate talk radio from calling you whatever the latest version of "feminazi" is. Similarly, if want to protect the environment, even for the most anthropocentric reasons in the world, claiming not to be environmentalist won't protect you against being called names by those who think the ideal breakfast is fried spotted owl cooked over an open flame fueled by old-growth timber. So own the term "environmentalist." Claim it proudly. Don't let hate-mongers define it, or purity trolls monopolize it.
[Updated title to take out the damn 60s reference the editor put in.] -
-
-
Economist says biofuels have pushed up global food prices by 75 percent
The “Republican war on science” has evidently opened a new front: economics, a discipline often fetishized by the right. In a startling article published July 4, the Guardian reports that in a "secret" study, a World Bank senior economist concluded that the recent explosion in biofuels use has driven global food prices up by 75 […]
-
What people cling to when the going gets tough
Things are getting rough here in the land of cheap food. Corn and soy — building blocks of the industrial-food system — are trading at or near all-time highs. And that’s rippling through the food chain, from feedlots and food factories to the supermarket shelf. Here’s the latest: [B]y next year, the price of a […]
-
Greening the city
They’re making green videos over at The New Republic — here’s the first one, from Dayo Olopade:
-
-
Should we question the patriotism of deniers?
Independence Day may be the best day to ask ourselves -- what is the greatest preventable threat to Americans' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (LLPH). The answer is simple: human-caused global warming. Certainly there are other major threats to LLPH, the gravest of which is probably terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapon, in this country.
Between Homeland Security and the Pentagon, we spend billions of dollars every month to try to prevent terrorism. Indeed, President Bush and John McCain say Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. If so, the government spends more than $20 billion a month just to fight terrorism -- of which more than half is new money we weren't spending before 9/11 (and we spend more than $50 billion a month total on military and homeland security). Those who oppose such spending are routinely labeled unpatriotic or even appeasers.
But unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions are by far the greatest preventable threat to Americans' LLPH. Yet the government spends virtually nothing to fight global warming -- certainly no significant amount of new money has been allocated for this major threat (the Clinton administration tried, but the Gingrich Congress reversed that effort, reducing or zeroing out every program aimed at climate mitigation or even adaptation).
Indeed, most conservatives, including John McCain, oppose even continuing existing incentives for carbon-mitigating strategies like solar and wind power. Conservatives in Congress seem likely to strongly oppose any major effort at a legislative solution (see "Anti-science conservatives must be stopped").
Hmm. What should we call people who actively oppose efforts to save America from the horrors posed by the greatest threat to Americans' LLPH? Deniers? Delayers? Worse?
The main reason I bring this up today is that conservative columnist Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary, questioned the patriotism of environmentalists on the Diane Rehm show yesterday:
