Gristmill

Pump it up

Thomas Friedman is back at The New York Times after a two-month hiatus. I don't always agree with his stands (and enjoyed the alternative voices that appeared in The Times during his absence), but find it heartening that his second op-ed upon returning has an environmental bent:

Of all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have [Editor's Note:  Grist editors would not have let slip this misuse of have] been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia -- where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance -- that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.

Interesting perspective -- and certainly not one we've heard from the Kerry campaign.

Trees for peace

Wangari Maathai, Kenyan woman and founder of the Green Belt Movement, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In a year dominated by the grisly war in Iraq, this is a welcome reminder that disorder and destruction, not just war, are the opposite of peace. See this story for details on the awarding of the 2004 prize.

The Green Belt Movement that Maathai founded has organized rural Kenyan women to plant and maintain twenty million trees; it has also inspired similar movements in other East African countries. Maathai drew world attention to the fact that rural African women, who spend hours each day gathering fuel wood, are disproportionately affected by deforestation. Her Green Belt Movement has been credited with creating job opportunities for thousands of rural women, as well as countering Kenya's alarming rates of deforestation. For a good summary of the Green Belt Movement's work, see this article, written by a Kenyan woman.

What eco-questions would you pose at Friday’s debate?

The Sierra Club has crafted eight queries it would like to see Bush and Kerry hit with during Friday's town-hall-style debate, and it's asking you to vote on the best.  Currently top in the running:  "The Russian government recently announced that it will put the international global-warming treaty into effect by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The current administration has pulled the United States out of the agreement, even though this country accounts for 25 percent of the world's global warming pollution. How will the United States do their part to curb global warming and stabilize the global climate?"

Meanwhile, a whole gaggle of earth-loving folks -- from reverends and union types to bigwig scientists and a former head of the CIA -- are petitioning [PDF] the Commission on Presidential Debates and the moderators of the two upcoming debates to "include questions about the candidates' plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy and clean vehicle technologies as urgent matters of both domestic and foreign policy."

Climate change in the mainstream press

National Geographic last month became the latest national magazine to place climate change on its cover, publishing one of the strongest series of pieces on the topic yet to appear in a mainstream publication. You can view free excerpts here, but will have to pay a visit to your trusty library to read the whole issue. Be sure to check out the note from the magazine's editor in chief, Bill Allen, in which he explains why he felt compelled to run the stories even though he anticipates a lot of angry reaction to them. "Some readers will even terminate their memberships," Allen predicts.  

Consider sending a letter to the editor commending the fella for his stiff spine. (The instructions say to include your name, address, and daytime phone.) Skeptic types like Patrick Michaels have been quick to lash back at Allen and the magazine.

When I first received notice of the 74-page series, I wondered whether National Geographic would lead with the term global warming or with climate change, the phrase now in vogue in many political and scientific circles. The magazine has it both ways. Allen goes with global climate change, but Tim Appenzeller, the publication's senior editor for science, and Dennis R. Dimick, its senior editor for environment and technology, begin their introduction to the series with the very words global warming. The magazine fronts the headline "Global Warning:  Bulletins from a Warmer World" over a fiery picture of an Alaskan forest aflame.

Bring in da noise, bring in debunk

Tim Lambert has made debunking pseudo-science into an art form.  Observe, as he practices his craft on a pair of climate change skeptics.  That's gotta sting.

Vice Presidential candidates discuss the environment during their debate

Cheney: "..."

Edwards: "..."

UPDATE: In fairness, it should be noted that environmental issues (and jobs, wages, education, immigration, health care, etc.) didn't get their due in large part due to the fatuous and at times genuinely befuddling questions chosen by moderator Gwen Ifill. "What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?" Are you serious?

Presidential candidates on science

It would be an exaggeration to say that science is a top issue in this election ... or ever, really.  But the scientific community itself is far more involved and engaged than usual.  There was the Union of Concerned Scientists open letter accusing the Bush administration of distorting science for political ends.  And just recently, a group of science-types formed a group called Scientists and Engineers for Change, explicitly devoted to booting Bush from the Big House.

These developments, combined with the drip-drip of science-related miniscandals coming out of the White House -- on salmon hatcheries, peer review, global warming, etc. ad nauseum -- have raised the profile of science somewhat.  

All of which is by way of saying that tens of ... tens of people will be interested to read the flurry of science-related interviews with the candidates that have come out recently.

Disunderstandism

A new poll from the Program on International Policy Attitudes indicates that, despite all the incumbent's vaunted straight talk and the "core principles" in his "heart of hearts," Bush supporters don't fully understand what they are supporting.  

The environment and foreign policy

No presidential debate has ever provided much succor for environmentalists, but last night's was literally devoid of any mention of environmental issues, save one:  In a discussion of Bush's tendency to be "certain but wrong," Kerry wedged "global warming" into a list of subjects about which the president is ignoring facts.

What's significant is not just that green issues were passed over, but that they were passed over in a debate focused on foreign policy.  In the U.S., environmentalism is still considered a matter of domestic politics, a "special interest."  It is frequently portrayed as a lifestyle quirk, a preoccupation of the leisure class -- as when Dick Cheney notoriously dismissed energy conservation as a "sign of personal virtue."

But in years to come, environmental problems will likely manifest primarily as foreign policy issues.  Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief science advisor, got an avalanche of press recently for baldly asserting that climate change is a greater danger to the world than terrorism.  

It was an artless way of making a perfectly legitimate point.