Gristmill

Michael Shellenberger for the prosecution

So I'm reading this American Prospect essay by Michael Shellenberger (yes, he of Death fame/infamy) -- which is quite good, but not about anything environmental -- when I stumble across this other essay he did for the same pub, in 2002. It's about Cradle to Cradle author Bill McDonough, and how his politics aren't quite as sophisticated as his design ideas.

I flag it only because it -- particularly the latter half -- makes some good points that serve as a counterbalance to my recent corporate whoredom.

For the seeds of the next industrial revolution to survive and thrive, positive incentives won't be enough. For McDonough's innovations to be broadly adopted by industry he will need to start seeing government regulators and campaigning NGOs as useful allies to prepare the terrain.

Distributed generation

Next American City has an informative piece about what cities like San Francisco and Chicago are doing to encourage distributed generation and solar power. I'm a little more skeptical than author Jeff Perlman about whether photovoltaics are indeed ready for prime time, but that's no reason not to experiment.

This is what counts as tangible these days?

Another essay on the Death Stuff, by Mike Lee of the San Diego Union-Tribune. It's a reasonable summation, without much new. This bit is amusing, though:

But Grist.org recently reported one of the most tangible results of all the questions. The online magazine said several national environmental groups are paying for a high-level political strategist to help them rethink their message and methods.

If Mike had read the piece itself, I'm not sure he would have used the phrase "tangible results."

Two articles on Slate, one substantive, one funny — read the funny one.

Slate is running a piece by Paul Sabin on the Death Stuff. There's not much new there, but it links to us, so I'm linkin' back.

Much juicier is their hilarious article up about the celeb/green/media stuff we covered here, particularly Cameron Diaz's Trippin'. I must say, mocking celebrities is cheap and easy and kind of pointless.

But it's still pretty fun:

Indigenous British Columbia activists battle Weyerhaeuser

A note from Gristmill reader Japhet has prodded me to write about something that's been on my to-do list for weeks: There's a pretty amazing fight going down in a far-off corner of British Columbia. On the north coast, native residents of Haida Gwaii have been battling the provincial government over the old-growth forests on the islands -- blockading roads, seizing wood, and the like. It is, as Japhet says, a "collision of big business [namely Weyerhaeuser], indigenous people and government. Not much space left in that room." Indeed.

For background, read this story and this story. For the latest details, check the Rainforest Action Network blog (which Japhet runs), and also read these three posts by Eric on the Cascadia Scorecard blog. And there's always the Queen Charlotte Islands Observer, which is covering this quite a bit.

From the Center for American Progress

The House may vote on the Energy Bill today. As I keep saying, the bill is a real monstrosity, one that encapsulates, as the Center for American Progress puts it, "Everything That's Wrong with Congress in One Bill." Read their wrap-up. And weep.

(Also, don't miss this site.)

Op-ed by editor Chip Giller debunks

Looky here: Grist editor Chip Giller has an op-ed in today's Boston Globe.

The piece approaches the "Death of Environmentalism" debate from a new, hopeful angle. It argues that environmentalism as a narrowly focused D.C. lobby might be struggling, but across the country, a conviction that sustainability is integral to our quality of life and our economic competitiveness is very much on the rise.

OK, that sounds kinda dense, but the piece is actually quite snappy. Really!

Government scientists now forced to raise money.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility have a new press release:

Washington, D.C.-- Federal scientists working for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have been ordered to raise funds to support their research projects or face unfavorable performance evaluations, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The scientists are tasked with finding private, state and other federal sponsors to buy the scientists' time. [...]

These new "marketing performance standards" apply so far to approximately 30 scientists working within the Bureau's Ecological Planning & Assessment and Ecological Research & Investigations units located in Denver, Colorado. Similar entrepreneurial standards are being proposed for other units in the Bureau of Reclamation as well as other agencies within the Interior Department.

Now, the Bureau of Reclamation isn't exactly what it sounds like -- it's the federal agency responsible for managing dams, water, hydroelectric power in the American West. I'm sure there are some mixed feelings about the agency among Grist readers, but requiring the group that does the NEPA legwork to raise outside money strikes me as pernicious. The Ecological Research & Investigations unit already thinks in terms of outside "clients," however, so it may be a different case. But the main problem that PEER is trying to highlight seems to be that scientists shouldn't have to do fundraising in order to be considered in good standing as federal employees.

Thanks to Chris Mooney for the heads-up.

An interview with the author of three-part New Yorker series

The New Yorker will be running a three-part series on climate change by Elizabeth Kolbert, starting in this week's issue. It's not available online (yet?), but don't miss this interview with Kolbert. A choice bit: