Naturegal’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Precendent

  When talking about the Arctic Refuge drilling, Tom DeLay said it's "all about the precedent."

  The Tom DeLay's of the GOP don't care about job growth in Alaska. They care about getting access to off-limits, pristine wilderness. Because they know once they are in that Refuge, no place in America can be considered undrillable.

  And yes, I agree that there is an effort to kill environmentalism. The Right sees it as a liberal, lefty, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate movement that does nothing but keep them from raping for profit. We get in the way of the Halliburton's of the world.

  But I think it's unfair to say progessives have just given up the Arctic Refuge fight. We've been fighting a long time to keep that Refuge safe. And if not for election fraud, Al Gore would now be telling the GOP that the Arctic Refuge is not open for business.  On Liberal opposition to drilling is reason enough to support it for some folks posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Very refreshing

  In a Christian Science Monitor article I read not long ago, another Christian leader dismissed working with environmentalists altogether, and it really put me off.

  But now that I've read Mr. Cizik's explanation, I get it. As long as they're not closing the door on us, I can respect the need for them to work out their environmental platform for themselves.

  I also understand that no matter how much we want to join forces, there are issues we will never agree on, like population control. But that's okay, if we can work together on other issues like global warming and mercury pollution, then that's what matters. I think both the evangelicals and the environmentalists need all the help they can get in this monumental task of protecting the earth.

  And if I might, I'd like to remind Mr. Civik and his associates that protecting fish and animals is often a direct way of protecting people. I heard Dr. Dobson also express reservations about protecting wildlife, and I think Christians fall into the same trap that the rest of us do, in forgetting that the health of the animal world often directly relates to the health of our own world.

  Besides, if God took the time to create all these amazing creatures, I think it meant he valued them, and so should we.On An interview with green evangelical leader Richard Cizik posted 4 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Need more info

  While I'm not dogmatic about DDT, I feel this article was simplistic in its evaluation of the impact of DDT. Only using the bald eagle -- a raptor that does not leave North America -- as the sole example of how DDT affects wildlife is shallow at best. DDT affected many other species, including fish, shellfish, and song birds; and even when banned in the U.S., it can certainly affect birds that migrate to South America where they will be exposed to DDT.

  As for human exposure, DDT was included as one of the "dirty dozen" chemicals in the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, where signatories to the "POPs Treaty" agreed to ban all uses of DDT except as a last resort against disease-bearing mosquitoes.

  In America, DDT has remained a banned pesticide for over three decades, but the chemical can still be found in the environment. The Rachel Carson Council reports that DDT residues can remain in nature from 20-50 years, depending on the temperature, and soil samples from many areas in the U.S. still show lingering signs of the pesticide. The World Wildlife Fund reports that an Oregon orchard still had 40% of the original DDT that had been used on it 20 years earlier.

  The National Cancer Institute has found associations between DDT and "increased leukemia, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer." And the EPA has classified DDT as a "probable human carcinogen" that "damages the liver, temporarily damages the nervous system, reduces reproductive success, can cause liver cancer, and damages the reproductive system."

  Physicians for Social Responsibility (an organization representing more than 20,000 physicians, nurses, health care professionals, and concerned citizens devoted to nuclear disarmament, violence prevention and environmental health) has publicly stated that, "We believe that DDT is no longer an appropriate tool in the fight against malaria. This extremely persistent pesticide poses a threat to the environment and, potentially, to public health globally."

  Also, in July 2001, scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reported that they have discovered a strong link between DDT exposure and the likelihood of pre-term birth, which increases the risks of infant mortality. Dr. Matthew Longnecker, the lead author of the report, estimated that based on their studies, DDT use in the United States could have been responsible for as much as 15% of infant deaths during the 1960s.

  Is DDT a quick fix for killing mosquitoes? Yes. But I'd like to see more information about the long-term affects on areas that have persistent DDT usage.On The North knows best? posted 4 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's not about facts

  But that's the trap that Lakoff is warning about - assuming that facts will win the day. They don't, and the longer we believe that the worse it will be.

  The funny thing about the Arctic Refuge is that it affects almost no one in the lower 48, yet polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are against drilling. And that support has kept the oil companies out for a decade. Of course, drilling will probably occur now, but what was motivating Americans to support protection for this long when it meant nothing to them personally?

  Wilderness values speak to their hearts. They can appreciate the concept of protecting a pristine place, even when it has nothing to do with their bank account or their next meal.

  The voters in Montana and Colorado elected pro-environment politicians this election, and people are starting to ask why. It's because these politicians did something the enviros seemingly won't do - they bridged the gap between the tree-huggers and the fishing/hunting crowd. We need to start reframing our debate and reaching out to those that we have turned away from.

  The first step is finding a new way to communicate with the world, and then reach out to those we often treat as enemies but who have a lot more in common with us than we often give them credit for.On Whither the environmental movement? III posted 4 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Get Framed

  The fact that no one is listening is the reason why new frames are needed. They've tuned us out because we've stopped speaking to their hearts.

  Beating them over the head isn't going to make them listen any better.

  Lakoff is right - most voters think of  the "environment" as a place we take care of when we have the time and money, and a place we can ignore when it's too much trouble.

  When "healthy environment" becomes synonymous with "family" and "security" then we're winning the framing game.
  On Whither the environmental movement? III posted 4 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses