How Do We Suck? You Counted the Ways

Dear Editor:

The notion that the environmental community has no peer-reviewed research journal, as you and Shellenberger and Nordhaus allege, is just plain silly. There are dozens. Conservation Biology, Environmental Biology, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution are just three that pop into mind. And more specific subjects, such as climate-change research, have their own, more specialized journals.

These journals address the science of conservation, and anyone who keeps up on, say, the leading three or four such journals will be quite well informed about "what works and what doesn't" when it comes to wilderness preservation, pollution remediation, biodiversity, population studies, and so forth. One could argue that it's tough enough keeping up with the mountains of research being conducted and reported on, and most scientists I know would only groan at the appearance of yet another journal to add to their reading lists.

James Hrynyshyn
Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Dear Editor:

"The paper -- based on interviews with 25 leaders in the mainstream environmental movement (nearly all of them, like S&N, white men) ... "

I can't believe your reporter was able to write that without pausing to think for a moment, and that your editors would let it pass. Regardless of whether they were "nearly all" white men, isn't it their arguments that are important and not their racial origin? Was there any real evidence of racial bias in the paper, or is this just your reporter's casual bigotry (against "white men" in this case) on show?

Tom Metcalfe
London, U.K.

Dear Editor:

What a gratuitous slam on the new secretary of energy. Let's see, the resume reads Ph.D. in chemical engineering at MIT, founder of Fidelity Investments, deputy secretary of commerce and deputy secretary of treasury, and your barb is that the man has no qualifications. Did your scribe happen to see or read the transcript of his confirmation hearing?

You know, I have a sense that if the president had appointed someone with experience in the energy field, you would have cried that the "oilmen" were going to skew things toward the energy industry.

Brian O'Connell
Washington, D.C.

Dear Editor:

You write, "Neither the industry nor the White House seems to have considered whether, when the people's representatives in the legislative branch reject a goal, the proper response might be to stop trying to 'get there' at all." This is hypocritical. If Bush were trying to implement, on his own, drastic improvements in fuel economy, you would be thrilled, despite the fact that this initiative is another one which isn't supported by the "people's representatives." If you want to preach to more than just the choir, and to attract people who aren't 100 percent green to your publication, you should try to be a bit more objective.

Richard J. Sullivan

Dear Editor:

[Umbra's] recent response to a question about opponents of wind farms painted all opponents with the same NIMBY brush and overlooked a number of environmental impacts that are germane to this issue.

You point out that, yes, there may be a new road to the new wind tower, but missed the fact that many other new roads will be needed to link power lines from tower to tower and to the existing grid.

More significant, however, is the trivialization of avian mortality. It is true that properly placed wind farms can have a minimal effect on birds, but the issue not discussed is how an improperly sited wind farm can have a devastating effect on migrating species, whose annual migratory routes transport thousands of birds.

Legitimate power companies understand this problem, put forth the effort for proper siting, and move this clean power source one step closer to mainstream. Unfortunately, too many wind farms will be placed where the most damage will be done to migrating birds, year after year.

Tim McGruder
Conservation Chair, East Lake Washington Audubon Society
Kirkland, Wash.

Dear Editor:

I greatly appreciated [Umbra's] column on wind turbines and their relative benefits and costs. I live in Massachusetts and I have been paying a little bit of attention to the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound, which has attracted opposition similar to that described in the column.

I hope that more articles will point out that the environmental damage caused by wind farms pales in comparison to the damage caused by coal mining, oil drilling, oil shipping, gas extraction, uranium mining, etc. In my evaluation, more wind farms and less fossil-fuel extraction means more birds.

Karl Arruda
Norwood, Mass.

Dear Editor:

I thoroughly enjoy [Umbra's] columns, which I read as soon as they are announced. Unfortunately, someone got the picture wrong in the "cleaners" column. Instead of the busty blonde multinational advertisement stereotype, you could have used any number of males, preferably middle-aged or students.

Stephen Schuck
Bellingham, Wash.

Dear Editor:

Why did you make composting sound like such a scientific and difficult process? Mother Nature does it all the time, with no regard to knowing the difference between aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. You put organic stuff in a pile, make sure that it gets some water, turn it once or twice a year -- or never, for that matter -- and wait until Mother Nature does her magic. Don't make novice composters afraid. It's easy! No meat or dairy, no plastic or metal. If it is carbon-based and grew in the ground at some time, it is potential compost. I learned the intricacies of composting as I did it, and it is much easier than you make it out to be.

Consuelo Murray
Dallas, Texas

Dear Editor:

I was surprised to read your answer about the golden kiwi. It was clear that you had to reassure the person who asked the question about no genetic modification. However, from the environmental point of view, I would have used this opportunity to mention the concept of food miles and how important it is to try and make an effort to buy food that is produced locally, both to support local economies and to preserve the environment.

Local food is sometimes more expensive, but we should be aware that when we buy, for instance, kiwis from New Zealand, there is an added cost that we are not paying for: pollution and neglect of our local producers.

Eva Riera
Brussels, Belgium

Dear Editor:

I am writing in regard to your commentary on the U.S. Navy's initiative to use wind power as an energy source.

You repeatedly espouse the use of alternative means for generating power that do not harm the environment. The U.S. Navy has created such a project. Yet what do I read but the smug, holier-than-thou "lest it sully its, ahem, moral purity by paying for resources from its communist Cuban neighbors." It is a no-win position for the military. If they don't act in what you see as the correct environmental manner, they are evil; if they do act in a manner consistent with your beliefs, it is mocked.

I usually find your email journal informative and worthwhile. Yet in terms of balance, you are wanting.

Bob Wilkinson

Dear Editor:

Amanda Griscom Little's article on Greenpeace's "softer" tactics seems to imply that this makes them more Gandhi-like.

Indeed, a study of Gandhi's tactics over the years of his development of the methods of Satyagraha (soul force) reveals that he was ready to use tactics that covered the spectrum from direct action to long-range awareness building.

For example, in Champaran in Bihar in the '20s where British landlords were strangling local indigo growers through punitive rents, he started a systematic campaign of documenting evidence which eventually led to the reversal of these practices by the landlords. The Salt March was an example of deliberately breaking prevailing law (salt was controlled by government monopoly and no private manufacture was permitted). And finally, there are examples of direct action: The burning of "race passes" in Johannesburg and the Quit India movement.

Through all of these tactics ran a counterbalancing thread -- that of constructive engagement. That is to say, wherever possible the objective of the specific tactic was to nonviolently resist unfair and unjust laws or practices, whilst simultaneously changing the hearts and minds of antagonists so that the end game was really a win-win for all.

I encourage Greenpeace to keep in mind that nonviolent campaigning needs to employ any of the above tactics as appropriate for the time.

Satish Kappagantula
Davis, Calif.