Latest Articles

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

As the border organizer for Sierra Club’s Environmental Justice program, I bounce back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border supporting grassroots environmental activists. More than the food, language, or currency, the biggest difference from one side to the other is what issues are considered “environmental.” Perhaps nowhere else on earth is there such a long […]

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:

Umbra on college Earth Day fests

Dear Umbra, With Earth Day coming up, our environmental group at Purdue, Campus Greens, is trying to plan some events. Last year we had 15 groups handing out information and we provided free veggie burgers plus other food. This year we were hoping to expand on that success and include some activities like having people […]

An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute

There are few titans remaining in the environmental world — figures that command respect not only inside the movement but in the larger global political milieu as well. Lester Brown is one of them. In 1974, he founded the Worldwatch Institute, one of the first think tanks to focus on the global environmental situation (its […]

Clean Edge Energy Trends 2006

Clean Edge just published their annual report on clean energy trends. The trends are upward:

According to Clean Edge research, biofuels (global manufacturing and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) will grow from $15.7 billion in 2005 to $52.5 billion by 2015. Wind power (new installation capital costs) will expand from $11.8 billion in 2005 to $48.5 billion in 2015. Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) will grow from an $11.2 billion industry in 2005 to $51.1 billion by 2015. And the fuel cell and distributed hydrogen market will grow from $1.2 billion (primarily for research contracts and demonstration and test units) last year to $15.1 billion by 2015.

In total, we project these four clean-energy technologies, which equaled $40 billion in 2005, to grow fourfold to $167 billion within the coming decade.

In which I stumble upon one of the most happenin’ environmental conferences in the country

Last weekend I abandoned my cot in the supply closet at the Grist office to get out of Seattle for a spell and see the world. Specifically, I went to help celebrate a friend's birthday down in Eugene, Oregon, and go to a Clumsy Lovers show in Corvallis.  Sadly, the band's bass player had strep, but I did discover that Corvallis' Sunnyside Up bakery makes a tasty and cleverly-named treat called the "you're doin' a heckuva job brownie (with raspberries)." Hopefully a portion of its hefty $2.25 price tag goes towards ameliorating the heckuva disaster response that continues in New Orleans today ...

The even more exciting part of last weekend's adventure, though, was the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference going on at the University of Oregon campus in Eugene.  Though my emergence from the dark grey raincloud known as Seattle had me sporting the classic President-Bush-squinting-into-the-sun look all weekend, I somehow managed to spot a flyer for the conference and showed up just in time to see excellent keynote addresses by two figures that Grist readers are familiar with:

The things people do

Did you know that New York Times reporter Andy Revkin has a band that plays Americana and bluegrass? Me neither.

Paradigms of poverty

When I read this bit of George Will's recent column --

The 1930s paradigm [of poverty] has been refuted by four decades of experience. The new paradigm is of behavior-driven poverty that results from individuals' nonmaterial deficits. It results from a scarcity of certain habits and mores -- punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification, etc. -- that are not developed in disorganized homes.

-- I had to choke back a little vomit. And then I started composing an appropriately caustic, dismissive post in my head.

As Kevin Drum too-gently points out, the notion that the poor are poor because they're lazy and shiftless is hardly a new paradigm. It's very, very old.

But rather than heaping scorn on Will's head, I just refer you to Ezra Klein's substantive dismantling of the claim -- and, while you're at it, Klein's longer piece on poverty.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me…

I photographed this little guy in a small village in Costa Rica. He spent much of his day, ball in hand, staring wistfully out the front window of his tiny home, which also served as a used clothing store. Most homes in this village did double or even triple duty. Our friends stayed with another family in their guestroom, which was above their living room, which also served as the village motorcycle repair shop.

David Horsey wrote a refreshing and hopeful piece yesterday titled Liberating women from macho culture frees all. In it, he describes how the women of an impoverished village in Mexico have improved their lives and the lives of their children.