Uncategorized

Topic of Cancer

Scientists seek environmental causes of breast cancer Scientists currently know enough about breast cancer “to explain about half the causes,” says Aaron Blair of the National Cancer Institute. To fill […]

Pandas versus people?

In the current issue of World Watch Magazine, Mac Chapin throws down the gauntlet to the biggest of the bigs in the conservation world -- The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the World Wildlife Fund. This piece is bound to stir up a heated debate about conservation organizations taking private sector and government funding and about how they are using it. The abstract reads:

As corporate and government money flow into the big three international organizations that dominate the world's conservation agenda, their programs have been marked by growing conflicts of interest--and by a disturbing neglect of the indigenous people whose land they are in the business to protect.

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:

Un-bear-able

Last known indigenous female brown bear in Pyrenees shot and killed The last known reproducing female brown bear in the Pyrenees along the French-Spanish border — known as Cannelle, French […]

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:

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.