Articles by David Roberts

The Barton letter

One of the controversies I missed while I was gone was a threatening letter (PDF) sent by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to the heads of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Science Foundation, along with three respected climate scientists who produced the fabled "hockey stick" study. (For background on the hockey stick controversy, see here.)

Chris Mooney led the brigade, as he tends to on these matters. He reported the letter on his blog. Everyone and their cousin then linked to his blog. Tim Lambert rounds up blogospheric reaction here and here. Over at Prometheus, Kevin Vranes had some insightful thoughts on what he found reasonable and unreasonable about the letter. Mooney also has a couple of follow-ups (the latter on a challenge to Barton from Rep. Henry Waxman), and Michael Dumiak has more good stuff at ScienceG8 (a new science blog tracking developments at the Gleneagle G8 meeting -- check it out).

I don't have much to add to what's been said. This is just yet another case of a modern-day movement Republican taking a perfectly legitimate process -- in this case, Congressional inquiry into the use of public research funds -- and using it as a political bludgeon. It hardly registers any more.

Update [2005-7-6 8:27:41 by Dave Roberts]: Oh, good grief. I forgot the most important link: Mooney's American Prospect column, which summarizes the whole brouhaha.

Update [2005-7-6 10:7:31 by Dave Roberts]: See also this ES&T summary.

There are worse things than hypocrisy

A reader sent along a link to this George Monbiot piece with the somewhat accusatory question:

In a recent column, George Monbiot excoriates environmental superstars for not walking the talk. So what about the Grist luminaries? How do you live in reality?

One often sees this sort of thing, and ... well, I wish one wouldn't.

At least once a week we get a letter from some fruitcake saying: "You [or some celebrity or writer] can't support [some environmental change or policy] until you give up your car, grow your own food, and live by candlelight." Otherwise -- gasp -- hypocrisy!

This is, in fact, a favorite right-wing talking point on the environment -- it's all part of the modern-day conservative attempt to reduce everything to "personal responsibility," thereby freeing the centers of financial and political power from any structural restraints. When well-meaning greens echo the line, they do themselves a disservice.

Let me be clear: Of course there's nothing wrong with living an environmentally exemplary life. It would be better to live that way than to not. It would be better to devote oneself to charity, too, or go to Africa and work on poverty relief. For any given individual, he or she could be living a more virtuous life.

But that's more or less a distraction.

Gaylord Nelson, R.I.P.

Gaylord Nelson, co-founder of Earth Day, former state senator, governor, and U.S. senator from Wisconsin, and recipient of a 1995 Presidential Medal of Freedom for his environmental work, died on Sunday at the age of 89. His own words are a fitting epitaph:

The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.

Nelson passed the test with flying colors. Let's all hope we can do the same.

Just a Little bit

Though she wrote a substantially similar story for us a few weeks ago (cause she hearts us the most), I would be remiss if I did not point out that our very own Amanda Griscom Little has a feature story in The New York Times Magazine on Destiny U.S.A., the "green mall" that's going to save America, etc. etc.

(Gristmillers expressed their mixed feelings about Destiny here.)