Gristmill

Rhymes with “ditty” too

The radio program "Living On Earth" had some hack from the Wall Street Journal editorial page on, along with Grist contributor Bill McKibben, to discuss what Bush's victory means for the environment.  It's interesting (and like Shalini, what I mean by interesting is "makes me reach for a noose").  You can read the transcript here.

Four more years of rhymes with “yell”

Interesting (and by interesting, I mean depressing) article in Salon on what the Bush victory may mean for the environment and for enviros.

War and Environment Day … yesterday

Gristmill contributor Geoff Dabelko, who's having a little trouble with the posting widget, sent this to me, and I'm passing it along to you.  Enjoy:

A couple years back the U.N. General Assembly declared today [ed.: yesterday], November 6, to be International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.  

In resolution 56/4 [PDF], the U.N. called attention to the often long-lasting damage done to the natural environment done in times of conflict.

Having a special day for an issue is great, but what is the U.N. really doing about environmental security links on the ground?

You forgot Colorado!

Reader (and Colorado resident) Gary Wockner writes to remind us that not all the news is bad:

Making environmentalism palatable to social conservatives

There is much food for thought in the discussion here.

Reader Keith F. Saylor, an avowed conservative and Bush voter (no, Keith, that doesn't disqualify your comments -- you are welcome here, please hang around) left this comment, which got me thinking. He says environmentalism "is crippled by its marriage with the Democratic Party and its policies."  (Da silva, who I assume is not a Bush voter, agrees here.) Further downthread, Tina Rhea, an avowed atheist (yup, you're welcome here too, Tina -- Grist is all about the big tent!) says environmentalists "could do more to reach out and make common cause" with Christians. These two suggestions are related, and I think they both have merit.

Now, here are two premises I assume are not controversial:

Moral values

Perhaps the most galling thing about last night's catastrophe was the news that higher turnout ultimately benefited the right, and what drove the turnout, the top issue for a majority of Bush voters polled, was "moral values."

In this context, "moral values" is code for "being freaked out about gay people getting married," though most in the media don't have the balls to say it.  Nearly a dozen states had initiatives banning gay marriage on the ballot, and the social conservatives turned out in force.

In our current political world, "moral values" has come to mean homosexuality, abortion, and professions of religious faith.  In other words, when we talk about morality we talk almost exclusively about private behavior.  How did this happen?

Bogus “balance” in science reporting

Many environmental issues rest crucially on science, so it's unfortunate that so much mainstream scientific journalism sucks.  It sucks for much the same reason that so much mainstream political journalism sucks: the quest for "balance," regardless of where the truth lies.  Chris Mooney, the go-to guy for writing on the overlap of science and policy, has a longish piece in Columbia Journalism Review on just this issue, and it's a must-read.

Vote

At this point, nothing remains to be said.  The arguments have been made.  The evidence has been presented.  Just go vote.

If the environment matters to you, and you're still not sure, well heck, you might stop by here or here for some spin.  Just don't bother going here.  If you want to read fairy tales, try your local library.

Who knew David Brooks was a greenie?

Caught me offguard that in his ambivalent Election Day nonendorsement (New York Times policy) endorsement of George Bush for reelection, conservative columnist David Brooks cites the president's environmental record as a primary reason to be frustrated with the current administration:

[Bush] came to power with good ideas on how to move the G.O.P. beyond the Gingrich stall. But time and again, he abandoned his reformist strategy to give spoils to the G.O.P. donor base.

To take one small example: on environmental policy, he showed interest in moving to a flexible, market-based system that would have cleaned the environment better than the current system. But too often rules were written to please key industries. Voters who could have been turned on by new, effective approaches were instead appalled at unseemly self-dealing.