Uncategorized

What do we stand for that our opponents don’t?

So remember that whole "Elevator Pitch" thing that American Prospect started and I basically copied?

Well, Markos over at Daily Kos took a swing at it. Ezra Klein decried his attempt as pabulum. Matt Yglesias agreed, and went on to say that he was pretty disappointed in the results of the Prospect's contest (as you may recall, I felt more or less the same way about ours):

Largely, as with the example Ezra takes down, the problem was that people didn't even seem to understand the right kind of thing to be doing. What makes the conservative pitch work is that while it's general enough to be broadly appealing, it's specific enough that liberals will have to reject it. The submissions we got tended to either operate at an overly-broad level ("we're for good things happening and against bad ones") or else to just be policy laundry-lists.

Kevin Drum agrees, and takes the bold step of actually trying to do better, trying to put concrete form to a few principles that are specific enough to have policy content, but broad enough to be appealing and serve as a jumping-off point or frame for future efforts.

Looking back in light of this discussion, the problem with most of the elevator pitches we got is that they were hopelessly broad and mushy. We can say we're for "clean air and water" or "future generations," but then, who exactly is against those things? Nobody. What policies follow from them? It's wide open.

Where's the beef (er, tofu)? What will happen if environmentalists gain the political power to implement an agenda? Why should your elevator-mate work to make that happen?

Phrased that way, it occurs to me that it might be hopeless trying to find one pitch for "environmentalism," since there are so many different kinds, pushing for such different things. Perhaps "environmentalism" is a meaningless generalization and we should stop talking about it.

But I would prefer that it mean something -- in particular, I would prefer that it mean what I mean by it. I would like to get rid of some of the old stereotypes about environmentalists and define a new sort.

So with that, I'll bite the bullet and offer my own pitch:

Clean, renewable energy in abundance; prosperity without waste; equitable distribution of our shared resources; and preservation of our remaining natural heritage.

It ain't perfect ... but it's only 21 words!

I'm not going to start another contest, but for those who have read through the discussion: Would you care to offer one of your own? Or thoughts on the matter?

Okay, maybe not, but they’re showing signs of progressivity.

Today in Daily Grist we pointed to a story by Joan Lowy on the momentum building in the U.S. business community toward taking global warming seriously. And Monday, we noted a Joel Makower post making the case for environmental optimism based on action in the business world.

Via Gil Friend, an article in MarketWatch (protected behind a stupid registration wall, but there's always this) makes a broader point:

Oil Wednesday

Macroeconomic analyst Barry Ritholtz is blogging about oil and markets over at The Big Picture. And he's got investment advice: cancer treatment in China is going to be big business sometime in the near future. He's got a lot of charts and posts, so be sure to look around.

The Air Force is the country’s biggest purchaser of green power.

Sitting atop the EPA's "Top 25 Green Power Partners" is ...

Ceci N’est Pas une Wipe

Disposable wipes not just for baby bums anymore The season of spring cleaning is upon us, and for many Americans that means taking to dirty surfaces with a few — […]

Indoor ski slopes are the desert’s hot new thing

A while back, I wrote about indoor ski slopes blooming in countries including Japan, England, and the U.S. of A. Seems it's an upward trend: The United Arab Emirates has just joined the herringboning hordes. Yes, that's right, the world will soon have its first desert skiing area, thanks to enterprising developers in Dubai.

Will we end up in a world where all the snow and ice is gone, and the only way to ski is indoors, in the desert? Will the desert still be the desert? And in the meantime, how much power does it waste to run these mounds of gluttony?

Suddenly I feel like Andy Rooney.

The military base loophole?

Via the Oil Drum, I see that President Bush is "encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases."

Speaking to small business leaders on Wednesday, Bush will call on federal agencies to encourage construction of new oil refineries at the sites of former military bases closed in recent years.

The agencies would work with states, local communities and potential investors to encourage the use of the sites, the administration officials said.

The lack of adequate refining capacity is frequently cited by experts as one reason why gasoline prices have surged dramatically in recent years. No new refineries have been built in recent years even though the demand for gasoline has risen.

Hmmm.

UPDATE: The Pentagon press release is out now, which indicates that this wasn't just some off-the-cuff remark.

Bring back freon?

Smokey Joe might try.

Blocking Johnson’s confirmation is, indeed, just politics.

I agree with pretty much everything in this National Review Online column (words I never thought I'd say) by Jonathan Adler. Democratic efforts to grandstand around Johnson's confirmation are, in fact, "nothing personal ... just politics."

Thing is, as I alluded to here, politics is not "just" anything. Particularly in our media-saturated environment, politics -- symbolism, optics, strategy, maneuvering-- is vital. What we need is for concerns about good ecological stewardship to gain political weight and cachet. Weakening environmental protections needs to have a political cost, if nothing else in public shaming. This is what helps us win significant individual battles.

The stalling of Johnson's confirmation is not significant on the substance, but it is an effective political gesture. Adler says Democrats are trying to "capitalize on the Bush administration's poor reputation on environmental policy," but I'd submit that such attempts wouldn't be very successful if that reputation were not, in fact, accurate. While the CHEERS study might not be that big a deal, it is true that the Bush EPA is terrible on pesticides. While Carper's legislation might not warrant a full study of its own, it is true that the studies the EPA has conducted on behalf of Bush's air regulations are heavily biased in favor of industry.

By stalling Johnson's (inevitable) confirmation, Democrats are drawing attention to legitimate areas of concern on the Bush EPA's record, and they're doing it in a flashy, high-profile way. They are trying to seize control of the news cycle, to cut through the clutter. Good for them.

Author of Rolling Stone piece gets all bloggy.

Speaking of great stuff on blogs:

Yesterday in Daily Grist, we pointed to a story in Rolling Stone about Bush's effort (hidden in his massive budget bill) to create a "Sunset Commission" that would have the power to eliminate government programs and whole agencies (say, the EPA) that were deemed "non-productive" (by the standards of the industry lobbyists that would populate the commission). It's a pretty brazen effort to accomplish by fiat what the right can't accomplish through public persuasion and legislation.

Anyway, the story was summarized, along with some supplemental material from OMBWatch and elsewhere, in a diary at DailyKos, which was followed -- as usual on DKos -- by a lively discussion. The author of the piece, Osha Gray Davidson, responded to lots of those comments on a blog called Booman Tribune, which in turn was reprinted and further discussed in another DKos diary.

So, if you found the story interesting, read all that stuff for some great follow-up. Vive les blogs!