Peter Viola’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great, but as usual they could still catch up...

  My work happens to take me to Capitol Hill most days, and when I go to the Longworth cafeteria I'm constantly shocked that EVERYTHING is disposable paper or plastic - it's a genial cafeteria that I doubt people would take things from, so it baffles me that they wouldn't provide some real plates and cups. Very ridiculous, but I know my friend working for Greening the Capitol is on it...On House of Representatives' food service goes sustainable posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The idea of any real "center" is BS.

  Hi justlou, all due respect, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said anything like "the best hope for earth resides in wild nature" - not sure where you got that.

  I happen to think hope resides in lots of places, from wild nature to progressive policy. I'm not so much agreeing or disagreeing with S&N's statement about the meaning of the earth as I'm saying to my mind it just doesn't get us anywhere.

  I also think you're falling into the same trap about this "center" business. To say that the worldview of "most people" falls into the "center" is what I think is bogus - and to their credit, one thing S&N do well is to deconstruct that very point.

  We don't need to ride the center, man. We need to consider what works and works accountably from any given angle, left, right, or center be damned.On NYT's Andy Revkin pens another stinker on the so-called 'center' of the climate debate posted 1 year, 12 months ago 42 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  And just to make sure I'm being fair...

  I do think Andy is doing good work, and I don't want to dismiss his coverage of climate impacts on developing countries, the poor, etc. on Dot Earth and elsewhere.

  Perhaps it is news that Lomborg calls for a carbon tax, or that Gingrich embraces the precautionary principle. However, aside from any judgments we may make on how slow their learning curves are, in my opinion presenting them as urging a move to some actual "pragmatic center" between "left" and "right" because of those little tidbits seems wildly problematic at best.On NYT's Andy Revkin pens another stinker on the so-called 'center' of the climate debate posted 1 year, 12 months ago 42 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  David's right, and Revkin is missing so much more.

  David, I don't think your response could have been more dead-on. But what saddens me even more than Andy Revkin's "reporting" on an imaginary substantive center is how it takes away from everything that really does matter about this issue - the plight of the climate itself and the questions of opportunity and fairness it raises for people.

  That demands real reporting, not an artsy talking-head sketch accompanying some silly piece of wonky shop dribble-drabble. And for all my criticisms of any of them, lumping S&N in with Lomborg and Gingrich is an amazingly crappy comparison. It really is just awful. I want to give Revkin credit for the hard reporting he's done, but I'm extremely frustrated by these attention-grabbing misadventures.

  If Revkin wants to get into some more purposeful debate-framing "reporting," then I'd ask him to consider not only how quickly we're sliding from substance to tone as the debate moves from problems to solutions, but how that's happening in a way that marginalizes who is being left behind and left out of the discussion. I'm 23, white, and I may not be able to tread wonkery water forever in a debate like this myself, but what scares me most is that we white boys writing books, articles, and op-eds continue to debate ourselves and our intentions till we're blue while those affected most by climate change die in the shadow of our posturing.

  If we're already hitting a wall with empty existential statements like "humans have become the meaning of the earth," then we're in serious trouble.

  And if we want to talk about what "one of the most polarizing forces in politics," "the bad boys of environmentalism," and a lousy researcher with screwed up priorities all have in common, then could we at least discuss how whatever policy proposals they may have might actually impact the public, according to what we already do know about what that public is facing? That would take some reporting, right?On NYT's Andy Revkin pens another stinker on the so-called 'center' of the climate debate posted 1 year, 12 months ago 42 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Triage

  Hmm. I only have as much info as you Wiscidea, but now that I see what you're saying, I'm not sure describing it as "species triage" is entirely helpful. Triage, at any rate, is one of the most humane practices possible given very inhumane (or in this case wildlife-unfriendly) circumstances. I share your sense of sadness and can understand how disturbing it seems, but that's the problem - if we don't act to prevent harm to all bird species by means that may or may not affect certain species in the short term, then we risk seeing all species suffer, because the nature of global climate change is, well, global.

  And in fact, that's what makes this so complex. What we're trying to save is not even just the patients most likely to survive if treated (that would be triage, strictly speaking), but the whole planet that all future patients, sick or not, directly at risk or not, will inhabit.

  In that sense, the kinds of actions McKibben and others are proposing qualify not so much as triage but as the ultimate precaution: "Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities" (Earth Charter II-6-c). There are few easy decisions - but still, I think the nature of the problem trumps even our standard notion of "triage." On On a new McKibben editorial posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses