What an interestingly ... historical . . . word choice.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

This won't surprise you, but we strongly disagree with Dave Roberts assessment of Fred Krupp.  But rather than believe either of us, look at the record.  Yes, when he thinks it might help push better environmental policy, Fred talks to the White House.  And when they do something outrageous, like block California's clean car rule, he publicly calls them on it, like this from the Environmental News Service story:

Environmentalists are angry. Fred Krupp, president of the nonprofit Environmental Defense, called the denial "outrageous."
"Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough - but going out of your way to block the leaders who are trying to solve this is an outrage," said Krupp, adding that he will be working "with the rest of the environmental community to explore all legal avenues to fight this decision." [end of excerpt]

And, in fact, Environmental Defense has just sued the Administration over the decision.  Just as we did to Duke Power over the Clean Air Act, recently beating them in the Supreme Court...even though we are also allies with Duke in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

The bottom line with Fred is the environment.  That means he'll meet with people he disagrees with, or criticize them in public -- partner with them or sue them --depending on what's likely to produce environmental results.  That may not make him popular on Grist, but it does lead to less acid rain, less DDT, and maybe a cooler planet.

Keith Gaby
Director of Communications, Climate Campaign
Environmental Defense
environmentaldefense.org

I knew people who worked with ED in the legal department. ED is as aggressive in litigation as any of the major environmental groups. Fred Krupp is playing the role of good cop in the good cop/bad cop show in the political arena.

We enviros should try to avoid public infighting. The right has been successful in no small part because they don't.