Articles by Tom Philpott

How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration.

Nothing exemplifies the neoliberal policy consensus that dominates U.S. politics quite like NAFTA. The trade pact germinated under Bush I and flowered under Clinton/Gore. Bush II tends it like a conscientious gardener; he is even trying to harvest its seeds and plant them in Central America, hybridized as CAFTA. (There goes my garden-metaphor quota for the month.)

Nativist NAFTA critics like Pat Buchanan and anti-corporate opponents like Ralph Nader operate outside the mainstream. Rebuked as apostates by the major parties, they prove the rule: As divided as they are over the war, environmental policy, and other issues, political elites believe on faith that global trade must be promoted by public policy. Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush may not agree on much, but they converge on this point. (On the war, HRC's major beef with GWB hinges on troop levels, but that's another story.)

The heated debate in Congress over immigration, which gained new life last week when a bipartisan Senate deal collapsed, has touched very little on NAFTA -- just as the question of God's existence probably doesn't figure much in Vatican fights over papal succession.

But the two issues are intimately related, for NAFTA stipulates that capital and goods must flow freely across the U.S.-Mexico border, while leaving policy about labor -- i.e., people -- to the pleasure of the respective national governments.

Environmentalists could intervene in the immigration battle by altering the terms of debate. But so far, they've been silent.

Why crude is flirting with its post-Katrina high.

If crude-oil production has peaked or is approaching a peak -- an idea that has risen to the status of religious faith at Gristmill and other greenie blogs -- one would expect the "smart money" (i.e., the speculator class) to snap up oil futures.

And that is precisely what's happening, according to today's Wall Street Journal.

What’s really disturbing about the new coal-fired ethanol plants.

David's post about ethanol and coal inspired me to do a bit of research on just how much coal goes into producing G.W. Bush's favorite "renewable," "clean-burning" fuel source.

What I found is ... disturbing.

A food-politics writer expresses angst at the obscurity of his topic

The other day, a prominent Canadian journalist paid me a visit to interview me for his book on building a sustainable future. At one point, I expounded on the closed-nutrient cycle of old-school organic farming, contrasting it with what writer Michael Pollan deemed the "industrial-organic" way. In the old-school organic style, which relies on animals, farm wastes are recycled into the soil, providing all the nutrients necessary for the next harvest. The industrial-organic farmer, by contrast, imports his or her soil fertility -- just like the conventional farmer. The difference is that the organic farmer is likely shipping in composted manure from far-flung places, while the conventional grower is hauling in a processed petroleum product.

"The problem," I continued -- my interlocutor's eyes may well have been glazing over -- "is that most small vegetable farms these days, including my own, don't have enough animals to produce the nitrogen we need. So our transition to real organic farming is ongoing."

The journalist then asked me a question that stopped me short: "Do you think real organic farming could feed the world?" I stammered something like "I hope so," and had him jot down a couple of books to look up. It wasn't until after he left that I realized why his question made me so uneasy.