Latest Articles

Ban of the Cave Bug

High court to decide whether to hear challenge to Endangered Species Act The fate of the Endangered Species Act may rest in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, if they decide in coming weeks to hear a case from a Texas man hoping to remove development restrictions on his land. Revoking the ESA protection […]

Oil Together Now

Bipartisan coalition presses Bush to get behind oil-use reduction Lambasting U.S. oil addiction: It’s not just for America-hating radical homosexual vegetarian Schiavo-killing eco-terrorists anymore! A growing bipartisan coalition is arguing that U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a serious national security threat. Today, a letter signed by 26 former national-security officials from both Republican and […]

A first: Black man to head up NWF board

Jerome Ringo will officially take the helm of the National Wildlife Federation board this week, making him "the first-ever African-American to hold such a leadership position with any national conservation organization," according to the group.  

Congrats to Ringo and kudos to NWF, but damn, what does it say about the green movement that we're only just now marking this milestone? No wonder activists lament the lack of non-white faces in environmental circles.

Ringo told Lester Graham of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium that times are changing: "We're not where we want to be with respect to minority involvement in conservation, but I can guarantee you we're not where we were. Years ago when I got into the environmental movement, there were very, very few minorities involved."

As Graham explains it, Ringo "says he first got involved in environmental activism because he knew of chemical releases that were being emitted from a refinery, and some of those chemicals could cause health problems for the people who live nearby -- most of them low-income African-Americans."

Ringo in his own words again: "We have to readjust our priorities from just quality of life issues like where next month's rent is coming from, how do we feed our family. Environmental issues have to be within our top priorities because, as I tell the people in 'Cancer Alley,' Louisiana, what good is next month's rent if you're dying of cancer? So, we've got to be more involved in those quality of life issues and make environmental/conservation issues one of those key issues in our lives."

Energy and security bedfellows

The latest broadside on energy and security has been fired, with the bipartisan Energy Future Coalition organizing a March 24 letter to President Bush with 25 security heavy-weight signatories. The letter (PDF) details their demands for a combination of investment in efficiency and alternative energy development, all couched in national security terms.

Read earlier Grist coverage of the Energy Future Coalition here.

Four environmental funders join the debate over the movement’s future

When Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus delivered the talk that has everyone talking, they chose an influential audience: environmental grantmakers. Although the now (in)famous pair focused on mainstream advocacy organizations in their discussion of the death of environmentalism, others have contended that new thinking by the folks who write the checks is key to revitalizing […]

Robyn Griggs Lawrence, editor of Natural Home & Garden magazine, answers questions

Robyn Griggs Lawrence. What’s your job title? Editor in chief, Natural Home & Garden magazine. How does it relate to the environment? Working under the tagline “Living Green, Living Well,” our magazine’s mission is to show mainstream America that living lightly doesn’t mean giving up a thing — that they don’t have to go live […]

So Peaceful

NYT-fest

My home computer is completely on the fritz, so I can't do my usual slavish weekend work (darn it). However, let me echo ironmanbretta's comment that everyone should browse the New York Times op-ed page. There's this piece by Beyond Oil author Ken Deffeyes, which points out that the debate over the Arctic Refuge is somewhat beside the point, since global oil production is going to start declining soon anyway, regardless. There's this piece by Thomas Homer-Dixon and Julio Friedmann, which urges exploration of "a combination of gasified coal plants and geologic storage." There's this piece by Oliver Sacks on how much he hearts his hybrid (mentioned by Chris the other day). And of course, as mentioned by Geoff below, there's this piece by Tom Friedman, revisiting his "geo-green" schtick. (Watch for an interview with Friedman in the pages of Grist in coming weeks.)

What should we take from all these? If nothing else, it appears that conventional wisdom is finally coming around to the notion that the age of oil is ending. Bush's short-sighted energy policy -- which is hurting this country's security, its economy, and its reputation -- is finally penetrating the Beltway Bubble's consciousness. Despite my occasional contempt for the cozy Beltway politico-media scene, this is an unambiguously good thing. Now it remains for the green movement to be smart about this, positioning themselves as ahead of the curve rather than on the sidelines shouting "not enough! not enough!" More on that later.

Geo-green, geo-green, geo-green

Tom Friedman wrote another geo-green column this weekend, presumably hoping that repetition begets action. The piece does not cover new ground for Friedman or the argument but is useful for keeping the issue on the front burner. It is both fitting but also a bit concerning that he twice quotes Peter Schwartz, the scenario writer (and occasional Hollywood script consultant) behind the Pentagon climate change report that got so much attention after mentioned in Fortune.

Clean-car dominoes

Clean-car dominoes keep falling. This week, it's Canada, with Oregon next.

On Wednesday, word came that the Canadian government and the big automakers have signed an agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new vehicles. The previously announced target of a 25 percent reduction in new-car emissions by 2010 has apparently been nixed. In its place is a specified number of tons of gases that automakers must keep out of the atmosphere through improvements to new cars, as MacLeans reports.

The number of tons, according to one report, is roughly equal to the old 25-percent target. Unfortunately, that's a hard claim to assess, because the details of the agreement are still secret.

The 25-percent target has always been important, and ambitious--more ambitious than the 30-percent emissions reduction written into California's clean-car standards because the latter standard has a deadline of 2016. The year 2010 is just around the corner in a gigantic industry that takes many months to usher new technologies into mass production. So even if this agreement turns out to be watered down, it's likely that it at least matches the California standard.