Climate Culture
All Stories
-
From Knut to Kowabunga
Knut overload Much ado has been made about Al Gordo. But who’s the latest green celeb to pork up? Knut, the polar bear chub. Who would have thought the cuddly li’l guy would grow up? It’s like he’s a wild animal or something. Photo: iStockphoto Compost and get it When we first fell for worm-poop […]
-
Technoscientific and … not
I’ve been musing a bit on two different sorts of environmentalism, and I’ve recently come across two good exemplars. First, in Orion, Curtis White argues that environmentalists are involved in a futile enterprise as long as they fight from within the system — as long as they use technoscientific, rationalist, bureaucratic language to fight problems […]
-
We’ve got it figured out
It's a big problem, but I've been thinking hard about it and I think I've got it figured out:
-
Uh, literally
An Inconvenient Truth replaces the Gideon Bible in fancy new hotel. Dirt-worshiping hippies rejoice.
-
Paul Hawken on the remaking of the world
Paul Hawken's new book Blessed Unrest is a much-needed analysis of the movement that's poised to change the world as we know it. It's a must read, (excerpted here in Orion magazine) even if you're not a self-described grassroots activist. In it, he states that "the movement to restore people and planet is now composed of over one million organizations" working toward ecological sustainability and social justice. Maybe two million. And that:
By conventional definition, this is not a movement. Movements have leaders and ideologies. You join movements, study tracts, and identify yourself with a group. You read the biography of the founder(s) or listen to them perorate on tape or in person. Movements have followers, but this movement doesn't work that way. It is dispersed, inchoate, and fiercely independent. There is no manifesto or doctrine, no authority to check with.
Like we witnessed with the success of Step It Up 2007, the movement can't be divided because it is composed of many small pieces, forming, gathering, and disbanding quickly as need be. The media and politicians may dismiss it as powerless, but "it has been known to bring down governments, companies, and leaders through witnessing, informing, and massing."
This is one of his main conclusions:
-
Sawing off the limbs we’ve climbed up to see
From the article "Holiday at the End of the Earth: Tourists Paying to See Global Warming in Action," posted on Common Dreams:
"The idea of global-warming tourism is full of ironies," he said. "If enough people expend enough fossil fuels to visit one Warming Island, they will ensure that there will be many more."
-
-
Manufacturing a schism
Carbon offsets, which let you pay some money to help fund climate-friendly projects, got the love-hate treatment in Monday's New York Times.
At issue: are they for real, or just some sort of gimmick? By contributing money to an offset program, are you really expiating your climate sins, or are you just buying meaningless indulgences?
The article finds lots of quotes from people who are skeptical about offsets. But to me, this is mostly a manufactured controversy -- an attempt to find a green schism where none really exists.
As far as I can tell, there's a middle ground on the issue that most people already agree on: namely, that carbon offsets are simultaneously worthwhile and a gimmick. A worthwhile gimmick, if you will.
-
Realizing that freeways are not free
Every once in a while there's a truth that everybody knows, but that no one will acknowledge. And when someone finally says it aloud, it sounds shocking. Like this:
... what we're doing now isn't working. Not for drivers, taxpayers or the environment. We can't tax and build our way out of this.
That's Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat in his column this week, talking about what most people in Seattle already know: the area's freeway system is flat broke and busted. Even the biggest package ever to go before voters -- this fall's $16 billion roads-and-transit measure -- won't pay for the toughest infrastructure problems, like rebuilding the 520 floating bridge, and is only a fraction of the estimated $40 billion needed over the next few decades. Moreover, even that full $40 billion isn't expected to reduce congestion much. So what can we do?
Enter the occasion for Westneat's column: King County executive Ron Sims, who has stepped up (big PDF), yet again, with a remarkably visionary plan: region-wide congestion pricing. Wow. Without getting into the details here, Sims is proposing what is perhaps the only thing that could simultaneously generate the money, reduce congestion, and ease environmental impacts -- all without raising taxes. (In fact, that's why Sightline Institute has been preaching congestion pricing for years.)
If it all sounds too good to be true, it is.
-
Spitzer and Polish
New York governor’s mansion gets an eco-facelift You know, we’ve been thinking about eco-remodeling our 39-room mansion, and now New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his wife Silda Wall Spitzer are providing inspiration. The couple plans to green the governor’s residence in Albany, which was built in 1875 and has housed such luminaries as Franklin […]
