Latest Articles

Beetle Bailiwick

Warmer B.C. ravaged by beetles, haunted by dead birds The flora and fauna of British Columbia, Canada, are having a rough go of global warming. B.C. forests are suffering through a massive insect infestation that’s ravaging an area three times the size of Maryland. The mountain pine beetle can’t survive severe cold, but milder winters […]

Eco-friendly furniture meets the cubicle culture

The email query came not from you, dear reader, but from a staffer at the Mothership: “Grist is moving offices this spring, and we’re looking into environmentally friendly office furniture,” it read. “I’ve been tasked with researching some companies, and it was suggested you might be able to identify good places to look into. Any […]

A guest essay by Arthur Coulston

Posted below is an essay from guest author Arthur Coulston. He is the co-founder of Energy Action, a coalition of over 30 leading youth climate, energy, and environmental organizations.

(The essay represents Coulston's opinion alone, and does not constitute an official statement from Energy Action.)

-----

For over a year now, various rabble-rousers have been ringing the death knell for environmentalism, creating an uproar and prompting a series of rebuttals and hallelujahs that taken together raise the important question: "What were we talking about?"

But just in case the water was not muddy enough, I offer my own contribution. This is not a riposte to either the initial "Death of Environmentalism" or any of the specific responses made since. Rather, it is my own answer to what I believe is the central question in this important debate: "Why has environmentalism struggled to address the issue of climate change, and how might we become more effective?"

Our posterity: An open letter to environmentalists

It is self-evident that in a democratic political system the short-term interests of the present generation can pose a threat to the long-term interests of their posterity. Without a systematic or constitutional means of balancing these potentially conflicting interests, posterity is represented only as a tenuous secondary interest of a handful of citizens who must balance and blend their representation of future interests with their own present interests.

great illustration

This is a powerful and effective use of a graphic image to make an extremely important point. Congratulations to Keri.

The perception I have -- and correct me please if I am wrong -- is that the great majority of us North American environmentalists are rather well off, comparatively, with more wealth and education and leisure and comfort than the majority of our fellow citizens. That is certainly the impression given by such mainline environmental organizations as Sierra Club and Audubon (which I admire greatly, and of which I am a member). Is it not logical to assume therefore that we are somewhat out of touch with our underprivileged brothers and sisters?

I am very grateful for this Grist series on poverty, because it suggests important ethical questions: Are our environmental goals meant to help the poor and underprivileged as well as ourselves? Have we truly taken their particular interests into account? Is well-intentioned environmental activism frustrated by the lack of cooperation from low-income people, who feel that their interests have not been addressed?

Fast Company piece

I forgot to mention this:

If you happen to be a subscriber to Fast Company, you can read a piece that Chip and I wrote for the March 2006 issue online. Then again, if you're a subscriber, you have it on paper, so why would you want to read it online?

If you're not a subscriber, well then, just trust me that it's the single greatest essay ever written. And please don't talk to any subscribers about it.

It's about business picking up on (and making money from) sustainability. Lots of stuff Gristies will be familiar with, but hopefully new (and galvanizing!) to a broader business audience.

Update [2006-3-1 19:58:42 by David Roberts]: Ah. My sources tell me we have a PDF copy of the article -- it's right here (uh, PDF), should you desire to read it.

Update [2006-3-2 19:0:40 by David Roberts]: Oops. Turns out the Fast Company folks don't want us reprinting their piece. Guess y'all will have to wait two weeks until it's out from behind their subscription wall.

While the wealthy may strive for “simple living,” the poor try simply surviving

In the early 1990s, I knew a 10-year-old boy named Davy who had never been to Toys “R” Us. When I told his story, people would often respond to this part of his life with a sort of sentimental longing. “How wonderful that he has never been to that awful place,” they’d say. Davy’s lack […]

Pine beetle outbreak devastates BC forests

From the Washington Post, an article worth reading on a subject that's depressingly well-known to Canadians, but probably unfamiliar to most Americans: the mountain pine beetle outbreak devastating forests in British Columbia. The damage has been colossal:

Arizona passes renewable energy portfolio

On Monday, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted 3-1 to proceed with a plan to require Arizona utilities to procure 15% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2025. A couple of things to note:

1. 30% of the required renewable energy must come from distributed generation resources -- that is, energy generated on the customer side of the meter. This could provide support for up to 2,000 MW of solar, which is more, on a per-capita basis, then California's groundbreaking $3.2 billion, 3,000 MW solar initiative passed earlier this year.

2. The commissioners are all Republican.

There are still several procedural steps to get through before the proposed rule becomes final, but this was a significant hurdle. I've said it before and I will say it again: The most significant leadership on renewable energy and global warming issues is coming from the states, not the feds.

Press here and here.

The evolutionary reason for humans?

This post over at WorldChanging got me thinking.

For those who liken the human species to a virus, feeling the planet would be better off without us ...

For those who poo-poo technology ...

Pop quiz: What do you do when an asteroid is hurtling toward the Earth and the impact will likely cause mass extinction?

Maybe send some pesky humans into space to knock the rock off its course? By employing some fancy technology?

But wait ... are extinction-level events "natural"? Cause if so I assume we humans should not prevent them.

Maybe I'm just a confused "libertarian." Take the poll (click "Link and Discuss") and tell me what to think.

Umbra on love

Dear Umbra, I long to have a partner join in (or be excited and supportive) when I participate in an environmental event, or write a well-researched and poignant letter about a pressing environmental issue. I have broken off three serious relationships in the past few years because I decided the men were not environmentally sensitive […]