Gristmill
-
Response to “Death”: Part II
Today we present Part II of Ken Ward's response to "The Death of Environmentalism," in which he argues that greens should reject the political position embedded in Lakoff's framing analysis -- namely, that environmentalism is just one more single-issue liberal group. Rather, the green movement should preserve its ability to speak across the left/right divide and focus on mobilizing and energizing its core supporters.
Don't forget to read Part I, and Part III, Part IV, and Part V.
-
Low-energy indoor composter
Thanks to frequent Gristmill commentor Mike Capone, I came across this very cool product on Treehugger: Naturemill Low-energy Indoor Composter. While I'll stick with my green cone, since I have a yard, this would have been awesome while living in an apartment building in New York City.
Unfortunately, there is a waiting list.
-
Nothing but flowers
Behold, I bring you sunny tidings: Thanks to all the freakish weather in California this winter, Death Valley is now a riot of color. Giddy botanists and park rangers -- relishing the sight of the 156-mile long stretch of desert bursting with wildflower blooms -- say it's a once-in-a-lifetime event.
Of course, the overdose of rain has had nastier effects on the state's other crops, including almonds and strawberries. Then there's the sad fate of mudslide victims, and the millions of dollars in damages to houses and roads.
But flowers. Are pretty. And we'll take what we can get.
-
More Marburger
I'd highly recommend this public presentation by and interview with White House science advisor John Marburger. Roger Pielke Jr.'s got some excerpts. Marburger's a bit of an enigma to me -- the interview is alternately thoughtful, thought-provoking, and maddening. Here's one excerpt:
-
Upcoming mercury policy
When the history of the Bush administration environmental record is written, there will be plenty of dark chapters. With the exception of its inaction on climate change, however, none will be so dark as its treatment of mercury.
We know that its handmaidens in Congress have distorted the science on mercury emissions. But there has also been a steady trickle of stories about its attempts to bias the policy-making process in favor of industry. In short: the Bushies favor a weak cap-and-trade program over the more traditional "maximum achievable control technology" approach. In endeavoring to justify this preference -- that is, to give it some justification other than "industry contributors favor it" -- they have done economic assessments that both the GAO and the EPA's own inspector general have found wanting.
Chris Mooney sums up the sordid episode. Go read it.
Let's be clear about what's happening. Later this week the Bush administration will announce a new cap-and-trade program to limit mercury emissions. That program will be based on economic analyses that have been publicly exposed as fraudulent. Power plants will save some money in the short-term; the economy as a whole will lose money in the long-term.
But more to the point: children will suffer unnecessarily.
So tell me -- I don't want to be "alarmist" -- what is the "reasonable" thing to say about this?
-
-
Oh yes, he’ll be back
Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (whose name, bizarrely, I now know how to spell from memory) has his first challenger in the 2006 gubernatorial race.
This is so naive it's cute:
But some political observers say the question of whether Angelides, or any Democrat, can unseat Schwarzenegger in 2006 will turn on the events of the rest of this year.
Yes, if there's one thing the 2004 election showed, it's that "events" make or break a candidate!First 2006 political prediction: Arnold is a lock.
-
Response to “Death”: Part I
We're going to try a little experiment here. Recently we received a response to "The Death of Environmentalism" from longtime green activist Ken Ward. We're going to publish it here in the blog, in sections -- one section a day, throughout the week.
In today's introduction, Ken agrees with The Reapers about the problems facing the green movement, but calls their proposed solution "foolishness." Your responses are welcome in comments.
Don't forget to read Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.
-
Norton and the 1002 — I mean the Arctic Refuge
In her New York Times op-ed ballyhooing the Bushies' plans to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Gale Norton uses an interesting new tactic.
I'm not talking about arguing that the drilling footprint would be small. (Though she's quite crafty about making that claim, noting that "the world of Arctic energy exploration in the 21st century ... is as different from what oil exploration used to be as the compact supercomputers of today are different from the huge vacuum tube computers of the 1950s. Through the use of advanced technology, we have learned not only to get access to oil and gas reserves in Arctic environments but also to protect their ecosystems and wildlife.")
Rather, I mean her repeated reference to the "1002 area," which she describes as "a sliver" of the refuge. Some enviros get pissed when the refuge is referred to as ANWR, believing that the acronym depersonalizes it and strips it of evocative power. (If you can't manage to get out all four words, they say, shorten it to Arctic Refuge.) The administration, in referring to the tract where drilling would take place as the "1002 area," sucks even more life from it. Really, how riled up are the masses going to get about protecting a four-digit sliver?
Norton manages to squeeze five mentions of "1002" into a brief 650-word op-ed. This is just the beginning of a new admin framing strategy. Expect lots more 1002 in the future.
(Media Matters for America, in a post from earlier this month, refutes some of the refuge-related arguments put forth by Norton, other admin officials, and their cronies at Fox News.)
