Articles by David Roberts

Deathy death death

There's a little story in the Berkeleyan on a panel discussion of the "Death of Environmentalism." Shellenberger was there to defend it -- sounds like he got a pretty hard time:

Harte, who conducts research into the ecological impacts of climate change, objected primarily to the first half of the essay, "Environmentalism as a Special Interest." That section, in Harte's assessment, was "deficient in its logic" and "laden with what I would call postmodern gibberish" and "overly broad generalizations" about environmentalists. The authors, he added, provided "no analysis" of why Europe is moving aggressively to address global warming, while the United States is dragging its heels.

Norgaard took a dimmer view. "I didn't like Part 1 or Part 2," he said, adding that he found the entire critique "quite shallow." Norgaard, an "ecological economist," faulted the paper's authors for, among other things, bemoaning the movement's alleged failure to frame the issue in moral terms while relying heavily on polling data and focus groups in support of their arguments.

Gelobter was a bit more charitable, observing that "as a movement-building piece," at least, "the report has a lot going for it." Nonetheless, he was sharply critical of the authors' "denial" of activists who have gone before, and their refusal to build on earlier movement successes. "They are obsessed in their piece with ancestors," he said, "the better to kill them, I think."

Gelobter also took issue with the authors' methodology, which focused on interviews with some two dozen environmentalists from large, mainstream organizations. But those leaders, he said, do not reflect the full spectrum of environmental activists.

Update [2005-2-28 15:19:13 by Dave Roberts]: By the way, I take great umbrage to Grist being referred to as "the backwoods of the online." At five years and counting, I think we qualify as the old growth of the online!

Confirmation bias

Via Dave Pollard, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from author/cognitive scientist/philosopher/my hero Daniel Dennett, which every blogger, activist, or hell, reader of words should have tattooed on back of their typing hands:

Law of Needy Readers: On any important topic, we tend to have a rough idea of what we believe to be true, and when an author writes the words we want to read, we tend to fall for it, no matter how shoddy the arguments.

Pombo and mercury

So, last week, the GOP leadership of the House Resources Committee -- in particular, Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) -- released a report (PDF) claiming that mercury has not been linked to deleterious effects on human health, and that most mercury in the U.S. environment comes from natural sources.

The science overwhelmingly contradicts Pombo. Amanda touched on this in the latest Muckraker. Today, Chris Mooney delves further into the details, in this column and this follow-up on his blog. To summarize: A substantial portion of the mercury load in the U.S. environment comes from coal-fired power plants, and mercury stunts children's neurological development. (Mooney also points to a new study (PDF) claiming that mercury-driven diminishment of child IQ costs the U.S. some $8.7 billion in lost productivity every year.) Fetuses are particularly at risk, which is why dozens of states advise pregnant mothers to avoid several kinds of fish. To claim otherwise, Pombo has to distort research by the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences and draw heavily from industry and conservative think tanks.

It's hard to know what to say about this. It isn't a "values" issue like, say, stem cells or family planning. The modern right has distorted science on those topics plenty, but at least in those cases they are defending deeply held religious or moral views. At least there's some sort of principle involved, however risible the methods.

But there's no principle here. No principle, and no legitimate scientific doubt. It's simply an attempt by national legislators to cloud public debate on behalf of one of America's biggest polluters (and GOP contributors) -- at the expense of unborn children. I don't really go in for the overstatement that characterizes many public environmental campaigns, but this does seem a pretty clear case of choosing money over children's health. It isn't the first time, but it is particularly brazen and transparent.

WC stuff

Another week, another Sustainability Sunday on Worldchanging. Joel Makower brings intriguing news of the Solar High-Impact National Energy (SHINE) Project, "an ambitious and aggressive, three-pronged initiative to make solar both cost-competitive and a significant part of America's energy mix within 10 years." SHINE will be officially released tomorrow, and I'll blog more on it then, but Makower offers a nice preview. Green Car Congress' Mike Millikin brings word that the auto companies realize that the enormous growth of the global automobile market is unsustainable with current technology, and provides a nice, concise roundup of the alternatives on offer (hydrogen, hybrids, etc.).

Speaking of WC, sounds like they got some new funding, new partners, and new plans. Congrats!