Comments wallrock has made

The Ecover tablets work very well - I've never had a problem.  The plastic wraps are a bit annoying, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I thought the plastic was the biodegradable corn version. Not perfect, but what is.  Plus these are the only ones I've seen at my local store.

As for regular liquid soap, I ususally get either the Ecover or Seventh Gen dish soap for the non-dishwasher safe things.

Well put Bill.  "The Man from Clear Lake" is an excellent biography as well.  I'm quite proud to claim to have learned much of what I now know from the Institute that bears Sen. Nelson's name at UW-Madison.

Maybe I'm reading something different

I don't see the cause for the vitriol here.  Granted, it comes off as a bit fluffy for the eco-hardcore, but I think that's the point.  I know that I have a hard enough time talking with friends and relatives, trying to convince them on the merits of green arguments alone.  People don't necessarily care when you toss a bunch of stats or scare scenarios at them.  It's a lot easier when you can relate it to something they're already interested in, whether that's personal fitness or quality of life or whatever.  

A lot of people on here seem to think the Sierra Club's role is to convince the environmentalists on the issues, but we really don't need that much prodding.  It's the large majority of the public that don't necessarily think about these issues that do need it.  If a marketing tactic like BLUE brings a few people on board, more power to 'em.On Adam Werbach follows up 'Death of Environmentalism' with 'Birth of Blue' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 46 Responses

That would be his job

They see how thing are turning, so they will do what they can to work it to there advantage.

That's pretty much the definition of a CEO.  I don't necessarily think that all of GE's ideas are great, but I'm happy to see such a big firm looking to the future instead of the head-in-the-sand approach of Strassel, Smith, and Anderson et al.On GE CEO explains practical realities to free marketeers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

Agreed

Glenda - I think you're absolutely right.  There's a lot of ill-will towards Nader, some of it deserved.  But he's human, just like the rest of us.  I've always believed that Nader had the chance in 2000 to really change things, both for the Green Party and the country.  He didn't play his hand though, and it seemed he chose to go down as a martyr for the cause rather than risk excoriation from the True Believers on the left.  I think this could have been forgiveable if he'd stuck with the Green Party and tried to build something from the grassroots.  But he didn't, and he lost a lot of points in my book for that.  As it happened many of his great ideas have been co-opted to an extent by the Democrats.  I've always seen Nader in the same light as Kucinich - the change they bring is by pushing the Party from the fringes.  But this time around Nader isn't in a position to do this, so it really does seem to be an exercise in ego.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

Tower Kills

Jeff,

There have been many studies done with respect to tower kill rates in the United States.  The FWS estimates the annual level of kills at 4-5 million (http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/communicationtowers.htm).  The vast majority of the kills come from nocturnal migratory birds.  When these birds come upon a tall lighted guyed tower in overcast conditions, the birds become drawn to the tower lights in the absence of starlight and will circle the tower until striking a guy wire.  Poorly placed towers, such as on ridgetops in migratory flyways (the large towers along the bluffs in Duluth MN are a good example), are a serious problem.  However, shorter (< 200') self-support or pole towers have a much smaller effect on migratory birds.

The FWS currently has a voluntary set of tower guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/towers/comtow.html)and is in the process of looking into further regulations based upon the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.  

Not to diminish the role of towers in avian mortality, but free-ranging domestic cats kill many more birds (http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm) than towers.  Maybe instead of ditching cell phones people should get rid of Fluffy?On Umbra on cell phones vs. land lines posted 3 years, 10 months ago 12 Responses

excellent piece

Franzen's article is truly captivating.  It alternates between mirth and depression, and I found real parallels between his descriptions of birding and its greater connotations and my personal philosophy.  I think most people on this site would really connect to this piece.  Plus, it will help explain to all the non-birders out there (like myself) why birders act so weird sometimes.On Franzen in The New Yorker posted 4 years, 3 months ago 5 Responses

Exxon must have seen

that they were never going to catch up to BPAmoco in terms of being a "green" petroleum company.  Hedging your bets on the Flat Earthers might give Exxon a short-term bump in stock price (I'm sure the bravado will too) but in time the market will see it with CowsEatGrass there.On Going down with the ship posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

electric slide

I have to say I had not given much thought to the subject, but for me electric is the only way I will go.  I used to always use the standard replaceable three-blade razor, and would change blades about once a month, but my main problem stemmed more from my sleeping habits.  I don't get up well in the morning, and unfortunately have a job where I must be up and running in the wee hours.  Therefore time in the morning is at a premium.  I am always running late and shaving with a blade gave me the worst razorburn.  I tried shaving before bed, but then I started getting that five o'clock shadow around eleven in the morning.  I pretty  much resigned myself to a life of little bloody pieces of kleenex until my grandmother unexpectedly bought me one of those top-of-the-line Braun electrics for X-mas.  I am well aware of the concerns regarding the Ni-Cd batteries and I can't imagine the alcohol solution it uses to clean itself is all that sustainable (with the packaging and disposal and all), but I am not exaggerating when I say it is pretty close to the best thing that has happened to me all year!  On Umbra on shaving posted 4 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses

I Love Makower's Outlook

Especially this:

Cynics may cavil that all of this is too little, too late. And I know they can point to ten things that are "wrong" for everything that is "right." It's very easy to be cynical and discouraged.

But I'm not. As I take a few steps back to view the broad business landscape, I see many positive developments and accelerating changes. Not that far into the distance, I can see a few bellwether companies taking what not very long ago would have seemed a radically progressive stance on energy, the environment, and the fate of the earth. And not far behind them are their competitors.

I can see this too.  What I don't see in the near future is some form of Ectopia where the population is low, there are no cars, everyone uses solar power, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I really, really, really would like the world to be this way (provided, of course, I get to be a part of that lower population), but I just don't see it realistically happening in my lifetime.  As Makower says, it is easy to be cynical.  I would add that it is also easy to be idealistic, though it is much harder to be practical. On Optimism posted 4 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

Confession

1. I drive - a lot.  My job has me driving all throughout the Midwest, and when I am not travelling there is the 20 mile one way commute.  My only saving grace is unlike every other person I know in my field, I don't drive around in a 4x4.
   
2. I don't buy organic as much as I should.  I live just outside Madison WI, so there is no excuse for that one.
   
3. I smoke - and I don't always properly dispose of the butts.  
   
4. I use a lot of paper printing reports for my job.  I'm talking reams here.

A perfect example of the problem

...I seriously question whether you are an environmentalist, because that label is reserved for those of us who give priority to the environment.

This is exactly the kind of thing we environmentalists (if I am allowed to use that term) need to avoid if we ever want to be anything other than a small core of dedicated but irrelevant activists.  Being an environmentalist isn't some equivalent of a 32nd level Shriner.  There's not a test you have to pass.  Jeff, I understand that you are a committed deep ecologist, and I applaud you for the veracity of your beliefs, but how do you believe your cause will prevail if you insist on discrediting anyone who doesn't live up to your level of piety?On Dramatizing the "death" of environmentalism doesn't help urban people of color, or anyone else posted 4 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses

Divide And Be Conquered

Your Nader example in itself provides the rationale for a rebuttal.  Yes, I voted for Nader in 2000.  I knew he wouldn't win, but I thought it would lead to building a viable third party.  I was thinking of long-term results, like you say.  I don't regret my choice in the least, but I enthusiastically supported Kerry in November.  Not because I agreed with him any more than I agreed with Nader, but because a consensus majority is ALWAYS preferable to a die-hard minority.  Look at Nader now.  He won't have any impact, short-term or long.  

Don't think that groups on the far left have made it out there on their own.  Nader wouldn't have even made the local news if Clinton hadn't won in '92 or '96.  And the CBD, while they do a lot of good, wouldn't even be around without the likes of the Sierra Club to lay down the groundwork.  It's not like they could sue under the ESA if there was no Act to begin with.

I can't guarantee that what we mainstream progressives are doing isn't "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."  However, going for broke like you suggest doesn't realistically stand a chance.  It's an ugly choice, I agree.  We are going to have to sacrifice species to extinction and habitat to development in the short-term to ensure the type of solutions you advocate are realized in the long-term.On Political pragmatism posted 4 years, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Misinterpretation of my position

jdhlax,

First off, I was not trying to come from a societal position on the subject of global overpopulation.  My position is that any carping from rich countries about the population of poor countries is counter-productive to actual change and provides ammunition to those in opposition.  And I apologize for claiming that you were referring to poor countries; the subject of the thread started in SE Asia.  My claim is that it endemic in our society to blame someone else.  Truth be told, I would love to see a lesser global population.  But I have heard the standard counter-argument (abridged version goes: OK, we'll reduce the population starting with you, your friends and family) enough to know that this just isn't a feasible position.  People may agree that the population of this planet is too high, but it is in our nature to adopt the "if only other people weren't having so many babies" line of thought.  If you have a solution to this, I'd like to hear it.  Otherwise, the only solution I see to population levels is through changing mindsets throughout the world and letting them decline naturally (i.e. demographics in Europe).

Here's where I don't agree with your argument:

If the population were less than before, the environmental condition would by definition be better, because there would at least be that much more room for wildlife.

I don't want to dismiss the population problem here.  I certainly agree with you that it does excacerbate every other environmental problem.  However, it behooves us to focus on the problems that have actual attainable solutions.On Dear Patricia J. Sadowski of Whitefish Bay, Wis., posted 4 years, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Not the biggest environmental problem

Overpopulation is a problem, but it is not the problem.  

It's an inherent problem of the environmental movement in developed, high mass consumption societies to heap blame upon the Third World developing countries.  While the overcrowded slums of Sao Paolo and Calcutta are easy targets, what about the suburbs of any American city?  Complaining about Third World population while the ecological footprint of the average American is multiple times larger than that of the average citizen of a developing nation smacks of hypocrisy.  This hypocrisy certainly does not go unnoticed amongst our opponents here in the developed world, as well as in the developing countries.  Political correctness aside, forcing people to do what goes against their wishes won't even work in the short-term.

China has slowed its population growth dramatically with its various compulsory reproductive laws.  Yet, no one can make the claim that the environmental state of China is better now than it was before.  Population reduction coupled with rising consumption doesn't make for an improved situation.

I am not advocating the end of "our endless desire for 'progress'" that my fellow Wisconsinite in Whitefish Bay seems to, because that would be pointless.  Anyone can voluntarily be a Luddite, but an attempt to impose that on a society is doomed to fail.  Pragmatically, the only solution that I see is based on progress.  Dave Roberts is right: better progress and smarter development are what we should be advocating.  Nothing else will be viable in our current society.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that we should not give developing countries a pass on environmental issues.  But instead of looking at the situation paternalistically, we ought to view it as educating others from our mistakes, as well as trying to fix our problems at home.On Dear Patricia J. Sadowski of Whitefish Bay, Wis., posted 4 years, 10 months ago 8 Responses