Dear Editor:

OK, John Edwards seems to have a really good plan, so why cast doubt on his sincerity? ("What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know...") We can't be sure what any candidate has in his or her heart, so we can only judge by what the candidate says he will do and hope that he follows through with it. Grist seems to be buying the mainstream media's "Edwards story." Why? Perhaps you feel that the cynicism makes you appear more intelligent? Please don't do this. You could be helping to sink the best candidate we have out there!

MizLee

Re: How Green Is Your Candidate?

Dear Editor:

The analysis should have mentioned that on June 19, 2007, Clinton and Obama both voted for a coal-to-liquids amendment.

Clinton's position is directly opposite that of every major environmental group. Obama's and Clinton's votes are opposite that of at least 61 [members] of the Senate. And it's opposite the vote of the most reliable environmental votes in the Senate (Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Wyden, Whitehouse, etc.). In fact, even the Senate's leading global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe, voted the same way Boxer did on this amendment! This vote is very telling of how Clinton and Obama would be on global warming, i.e., very weak.

stk

Editor's note: Our fact sheet on Clinton did note her vote on the coal-to-liquids amendment, and our fact sheet on Obama described his position on coal-to-liquids as well.

Re: How Green Is Your Candidate?

Dear Editor:

I usually have strong views on candidates, but this time around I don't know. Edwards talks the enviro talk, but can he walk the walk? I'm glad that he understands that coal equals bad, even when liquefied, but the corn thing still bothers me. And why won't anyone address Big Agribiz in the same way as Big Oil? They amount to about the same and have similarly destructive tendencies.

Also, how will Africa grow crops for biofuels when much of it is gasping for enough water to keep its populace alive, much less prospering? Desertification is another issue that needs to be addressed. How about a freeze on building new golf courses and fountains in desert areas and Florida until wetlands to refill the aquifers can be restored?

SnoDragon

Re: Edwards on the Record

Dear Editor:

The root cause of the environmental problems we have today is overpopulation. No matter how efficient we become and no matter how much we reduce the amount of resources we use, without a reduction in the growth of our planet's population, and ultimately a reduction in the population itself, there will be no solution.

To interview a leading candidate for president on his environmental platform and not ask about population is unconscionable.

Paul Scott
Santa Monica, Calif.

Re: Obama on the Record

Dear Editor:

I find it interesting that even our greenest of candidates doesn't mention the one environmental problem that affects, and has caused, all the others: overpopulation. The next time you interview any of the candidates, could you ask them their position on this most fundamental of all issues?

Kucinich wants us to embrace sustainable practices and technologies, but nothing is sustainable in the face of an ever-increasing human population. The carrying capacity of our planet is finite and cannot be overcome with windmills and solar panels.

Marian Ashe
Sacramento, Calif.

Re: Kucinich on the Record

Dear Editor:

You guys need to do your homework if you are going to maintain any sort of credibility. I suggest looking at the emissions results of Stephane Dion's reign as environment minister for the former Liberal government. Then decide whether vague promises as part of his new "repackaging" actually allow this fraud to be placed on a list with some truly visionary leaders. Dion talks a lot, but does nothing. If Dion gets in power, the only thing "Kyoto" in Canada will be his dog.

Matt Chantry
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: 15 Green Politicians

Dear Editor:

Stephane Dion should not be on your list of green politicians. While he talks about the issue, he accomplishes nothing. Dion simply follows the polls and the wind to determine his policy. Dion was environment minister in Canada's previous government and he did little to comply with any Kyoto requirements. It is Dion who neglected to honor his obligations to Kyoto. In Canada, Kyoto is dead. It is not possible for us to meet Kyoto obligations unless we decide to pay out tens of millions in credits. I am very surprised that all one needs to do to make your list is to wave a green flag around. The facts do not support Dion as a green politician. You have failed in your obligation to do adequate research when writing this list.

P.S. Dion renamed his dog Kyoto as a stunt, and now Dion has a very confused dog.

Andy Shaw

Re: 15 Green Politicians

Dear Editor:

The "15 Green Movies List" is a joke! I thought I was going to see a list of movies whose producers actually produced a "green" movie (leaving a smaller ecological footprint, such as Evan Almighty), rather than just a two-hour bitch session about how evil corporations and capitalists are. How about a list of films that reflects some restraint in use of resources to create the film?

Show us a real list of "green" films! I'd pay $20 a show to support those kinds of films!

Jane Cowles

Re: 15 Green Movies

Dear Editor:

I found this list very enlightening. Well done, Grist, for giving some good press to those who see the environmental crisis as a spiritual one and as of great importance to the religious community. The work of these people needs much more exposure and support.

But I'm wondering why length of service wasn't a chief consideration in placements, as there can be no one with a longer, stronger voice in this area than that of Thomas Berry who, rather than being No. 1 was No. 15. While I applaud those who finally see the whole picture, Berry was here talking about The Great Work we need to do before there was any concern in the religious community about global warming or any sense of responsibility for what's happening.

Sherry Boyd
Charlottesville, Va.

Re: 15 Green Religious Leaders

Dear Editor:

Hi folks. I just read a batch of letters you've received lately, including one complaining about your puns. Please don't ever let such complaints change your style. I love that you have your way with words. It's who you are. Please keep it up, and sorry I can't include something witty here to show my gratitude. Maybe next time.

Jackie Jablonski
Port Huron, Mich.

Re: Writing Our Wrongs

Dear Editor:

I love Grist, I really do. And I have for quite a long time. Generally I appreciate your humorous spin on the environmental issues I deal with every day. I do urge editors, however, to exercise a little more careful judgment as to what is funny and what is just outright vulgar. I'm an environmentalist, but I am also a feminist, and I am turned off by statements where anyone is being told to "suck it," as was done in one of the blurbs in your Daily Grist. Save it for the e-news digest that goes out to the chauvinist/homophobic former frat-boys, OK? Many thanks.

Jessica Dexter

Re: Yeah, Right, and Pluto's Not a Planet

Dear Editor:

You've been my hands-down favorite source for environmental news for well over a year, but lately I'm finding myself not bothering to read the Daily Grist. The headline puns are still OK, but the copy has gotten too long and seems to have lost most of the snide humor I loved so much. There's more gloom and doom than ever. Bring back your sense of humor!

Pam Worner

Dear Editor:

The thing I love about what Leo is doing is just this: a couple of months ago, Greensburg, Kan., was a town we felt sorry for, something to be pitied and be sad about [due to the tornado that hit it recently]. Now it has turned into something to be admired and inspired by! What a wonderful turn of emotions for this town, for this state, and for everyone that just wants to make a difference.

Kristin Larson-Jantzi
Newton, Kan.

Re: Leo, I've Got a Feeling We're Not in Hollywood Anymore

Dear Editor:

You failed to mention the No. 1 reason Americans have large fridges: suburbia. They have to drive to get to a grocery store, so they stock up! It may not be an issue in New York City, but it certainly is in most sprawling communities. Not to mention the other biggest reasons: huge appetites and large portions, the love of leftovers, larger families, no little cafes within walking distance, and few healthy choices for inexpensive places to eat out as a family.

Having a smaller fridge would command more frequent and special trips to the Food Lion, which might diminish the return on saving a little energy on a smaller fridge. Too bad, but probably true.

Charle-pan Dawson
Troy, N.Y.

Related Links:

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Readers write in about lucky bastards, “clean coal,” disparaging veggie burgers, and more

Dear Editor:

How significant is the difference between one idiot burning a building full of rare plant tissues, research, writing, curricula, slides, and books all regarding the worthy goal of a better understanding of the natural world and the idiot who burns a church because it is occupied by a group of people they don't like?

The terrorists who burned Center for Urban Horticulture didn't know the difference between genetically modified organisms and hybridizing poplars in order to rely less on the few stands of old growth forests for paper products.

No one killed? Well, it really was just luck. The likelihood of a graduate student or an organic garden instructor like me working into the night on a grant or an experiment was not low.

No one injured? Bullshit. All of us were injured. All of us lost something. All of us had dedicated our professional career to making a lighter footprint on this planet and a better understanding of its systems. Under the name of -- well -- what? In the name of making a statement against science?

sasadler

Re: Or Are You Just Happy to Sue Me?

Dear Editor:

If you're destroying property or putting others in danger because you think your cause (be it segregation or saving the planet) is so terribly important, then you have crossed the line from activist to criminal.

The only difference between firebombing a minority church, abortion clinic, or a Hummer dealership is the political motive. Otherwise, they're all the same stupid, unthinking acts of violence carried out in the name of The Cause. These so-called "eco-terrorists" are criminals who deserve prison time. They only make the job of real activists far more difficult.

dpr

Re: Or Are You Just Happy to Sue Me?

Dear Editor:

While I generally like (and agree) with your observations and asides in the environmental stories you publish, I wonder if I am the only one who has a problem with your quasi defense of "10 eco-activists" (your description) who are about to be sentenced for "arson and conspiracy in connection with 20 fires from 1996 to 2001, including a mega-blaze at a Vail ski resort." Your story tried to make it appear as if setting fires is not an act of violence and should not net longer sentences.

Would you write the same way about other types of activists who set fires (which, I should point out have the potential to kill) to advance their political views about other issues? It is the act (setting the fires), not the viewpoint the act was taken to support (whether environmental, social, or whatever) that must be condemned. Surely you understand that to judge a violent act based on whether you support the political agenda of the actor is untenable, unethical, and indefensible -- even when done by the U.S. government -- or by Grist.

Please do not defend violent acts when the political hue of the actors is green. Setting fires is wrong, exposes people to uncontrolled risks (how could these actors know that someone wasn't inside or that a firefighter would not be hurt or killed), and it is even bad for the environment (think about the pollution from the fires). It is selfish because it places the actors' views of right and wrong above our (relatively) democratic society's views, and it is counterproductive to the activists' own goals, as it simply turns people off.

Dan Dozier

Bethesda, Md.

Dear Editor:

I am so thankful for the articles put forward by Tom Philpott. Our congregation has a focus on food justice. We recently celebrated 25 families who are buying local and organic community-supported agriculture shares.

We are also working hard to build a more humane immigration policy. I wrote a resolution for a more humane immigration policy that will be presented to our national denomination (United Church of Christ) in Hartford, Conn., this month. Tom's articles help me connect all the dots for my congregation. How key food justice is to care for the earth, immigration, and so many other justice issues!

Please encourage Tom to compile the information into book form. I would buy the book in an instant. Tom's voice and practice are so important to forging a personal and structural ethos that may save us, if we are willing to listen. I am a huge fan. My presentations on justice in Latin America are rife with footnotes from Tom Philpott.

Rev. Mike Mulberry

Hartford, Conn.

Re: Keep Your Eyes on the Size

Dear Editor:

The author describes as the "key issue" that Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers are causing some portion of the increase in total driving in the U.S. because they create a retail distribution structure with fewer stores that are therefore farther away, on average, from people's homes. There is something to this argument, but it is one side of a trade-off, and it is not clear whether Wal-Mart increases or decreases total driving.

One of the features of Wal-Mart is that it allows consumers to combine several trips that would otherwise be separate drives into one trip. A typical Wal-Mart Supercenter (almost entirely what they are building these days) combines a large grocery store, gas station, clothing store, electronics and appliance store, pharmacy, health clinic, and other features in one location. So, while I may now have to go 10 miles to Wal-Mart instead of three miles to my local grocery store, I don't have to do a separate three-mile trip (or added 1.5 mile segment) to a Kmart and another 0.5 mile segment to my favorite gas station and so on. It's not totally unlike the idea of a mall.

Obviously, if my alternative was to drive one mile to a downtown area where I would then walk between stores, it clearly increases net driving. If, on the other hand, I lived exactly at the mid-point of a square eight miles on a side with the nearest grocery store, clothing store, gas station and electronics store at the four corners, then replacing one of these with a Wal-Mart would definitely reduce total driving.

It's actually complicated, and would take a lot more analysis of the spatial distribution of shopping trips with vs. without Wal-Mart, rather than your simple assertion, to answer the question as to the net impact of Wal-Mart on total U.S. driving.

Jim Manzi

Re: Ready to Barack

Dear Editor:

One of your statements, undoubtedly meant to be comical, is unfortunately not true. Coal is not the enemy of the human race, as you have expressed it. If anything, the human race is its own greatest enemy. One of the main reasons is the oversimplification of thinking to which it repeatedly falls prey.

Coal was the ecological fuel of choice in the 19th century. Without it, modern-day Europe would look like Northern Africa after deforestation. As with anything else, however, the use of coal can be perverted.

I am certainly no friend of the coal industry in its present form. I live in a German village about to be destroyed by a U.S.-owned lignite mining company. The fact remains, however, that despite all the protests, the majority of people still accept the bills of the utility companies at face value for conventional electricity sold at immense profits, which in turn are redistributed to shareholders. It is very rare to experience a community that wants to generate its own power using sustainable resources.

Jeffrey Michel

Regis-Breitingen, Germany

Re: 15 Green Actors

Dear Editor:

It's nice that you've acknowledged mostly younger, attractive, and hot "current" stars but you left out, even as a runner-up, Olivia Newton-John. You may not be familiar with all of the things Olivia has been involved in for over 20 years to help our planet but here are a few examples: helping the environment, wild animals, the rainforests, and cancer research for adults and children, just to name a few. Just because a celebrity is "hot" right now does not mean other celebrities are not doing their part to help our planet, and hopefully your next list will reflect this.

William Sanseverino

Las Vegas, Nev.

Re: 15 Green Actors

Dear Editor:

I just read your list of "Top 15 Green Celebrities" and wanted to laud you on this piece, as well as your dedication to environmental issues, which I feel strongly about. The only concern I have is the lack of attention placed on vegetarianism and veganism. In fact, in your "Green Celebrities" list, there are at least two vegans present (Ed Begley Jr. and Daryl Hannah), and yet this is not mentioned, despite the profound benefits these diets have on the earth. I question why this topic is not given the same weight as the more conventional ways to be eco-friendly.

Alex

Re: 15 Green Actors

Dear Editor:

I want to thank you for publicizing and recognizing celebrities that are making a difference with their environmental habits and campaigns. This kind of celebrity worship is far more interesting to me than say, reading up on who is going out with whom, or who just got busted for drugs, etc. I am so happy to hear that electric vehicles are making such a comeback -- big props! One thing I think was lacking, however, was a failure to mention or recognize whether any of these celebrities were vegetarians or vegans. Going veg is a great way to positively impact our environment, as I'm sure you know, and I think you should also recognize people who are making this lifestyle choice.

Annabelle

Re: The Grist List, 27 Apr 2007

Dear Editor:

I love Grist and look forward to everything you send. But this sarcastic take on Tom Cruise's efforts with the 9/11 responders only perpetuates the myth that Big Pharma wants us to believe: that nothing natural could possibly work. Go ahead and talk to some of the responders who have been through the program in New York City and they'll tell you they don't care if Genghis Khan invented it, it works. In fact, it's the only thing that is working for them. Check it out!

Rocket

Re: Why Does Bill Richardson Hate America?

Dear Editor:

First off, I'd like to make it clear that I love Grist, and I appreciate your humor and irony. However, I was not very pleased by the Daily Grist snippet on Bill Richardson. While you might be complaining that Richardson doesn't have the name recognition and support in the polls that Obama and Clinton enjoy, I think that commentary such as this in Daily Grist is part of the problem, not part of the solution. People who really care about their vote and trust your word read your daily email and are affected by what the "liberal" media says. If you make Richardson's climbing recognition seem futile, who's going to vote for him?

And maybe I don't get it, but what is there that Richardson says that might make anybody think he hates America? The press becomes part of the problem when it "rushes to point out" every little (often insignificant, in the long run) flaw in each pro-environmental candidate.

Lee Walsh

Albuquerque, N.M.

Dear Editor:

Grist should not be too excited to be featured in Outside. Starting in May or June of 2005, Outside began taking advertising monies from Hummer and running full and two-page ads. I wrote them immediately asking for a change and pointing out the obviously hypocritical nature of taking money from Hummer. I was ignored and have tried to get them to cancel my subscription, which I'd had for three years. They have ignored that plea a few times as well.

I flipped through the magazine at a library to see if a Hummer advertisement was present in their "environmental issue." It wasn't, for the first time in a long time. However, strangely enough the environmental hero was Arnold, who despite doing some very positive things is the one that approached GM about starting a civilian line of the military Hummer and started that whole thing. Big deal if he changed two of the seven he owns? What about the other thousands on the road polluting our air?

I think Outside magazine should be boycotted until they make a public apology. I do not understand why Patagonia, 1% for the Planet, Jack Johnson, and now Grist among many others would allow themselves to be a part of something like that.

Jason Schmidt

Sun Valley, Idaho

Dear Editor:

Greetings. Longtime reader, first-time caller. Just a quick note to say how much I appreciate the good stuff you guys and gals do at Grist. I enjoy chuckling over the headline puns every day, they give me endless encouragement to be punny in my own life. After all, dry writing just seems to come alive with a headline like "Vote Surly, Vote Often." I just read the profile in Outside last night, Big ups to you guys for a great article, and for running with the big dogs. Outside interviews Grist ... yeeha!

Steve Young-Burns

Minneapolis, Minn.

Re: One Fight In Bangkok

Dear Editor:

Once again, Grist gives us half a report, I assume because it makes for better sarcasm. In addition to the nuclear power, genetically modified crops, and carbon burial, the BBC article referenced talks about "shifting to renewable forms of energy" and "making buildings more energy-efficient."

The Guardian story says the plan includes "energy efficiency and renewable energy from wind and wave farms, and more futuristic ideas for hydrogen car fleets and 'intelligent' buildings which can control energy use."

C'mon, Grist. You act like the little girl that runs to mommy yelling, "Johnny broke the window!" but neglects to tell mommy that she pushed him through it. Grow up. Either tell the whole story, or stop wasting our time.

GaGa

Re: What's Produced Here Stays Here

Dear Editor:

The article you wrote has a belittling attitude about the efforts of Nellis AFB and Nevada to use solar power and cut our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. The Air Force should be saluted for its project, not smirked at by people who are not "doers." Writing the tripe that Grist is famous for requires no productive, beneficial efforts, it only requires the mind-set of the same type of idiots who told the Wright brothers that "if God had intended man to fly He would have given him wings." It is a shame that that type of mentality prevails in some quarters.

Some beings can write productively and effect positive outcomes for the good of society, but you poor "gene-deficients" never will achieve that level of intellect. You'll go right on belittling and whining and carping about anything you can exploit to show how "superior" you aren't.

Donald Schimpff

Re: His Soul Goes Marching On

Dear Editor:

Big, big difference between these two resignations, in my humble opinion.

[John] Browne [of BP] resigned over a personal matter.

[Julie] MacDonald was a public servant, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the deliverance of her official duties, who was found (not just charged) by her department's own inspector general to have violated federal law by giving privileged information to the Pacific Legal Foundation, a so-called "wise use" anti-environment litigator. This, along with her Endangered Species Act report alterations (she's not a scientist), is my business! I paid her salary. Her malfeasance affected two Department of Interior bureaus (Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service) that she oversaw -- bureaus that are critical to environmental protection. She betrayed the public trust, as did Stephen Griles, who emerged from the same Bush-Cheney muck to mess up DOI. I hope my government throws the book at her and her slimy associates. She deserves prison for leaking official documents for political gain.

Next time, Grist writers, please put the emphasis where it belongs! I don't think most of your readers respond to the homophobic insinuation about Browne that the rest of the press is titillating us with, either.

rivergal

Re: Moonshine Lullaby

Dear Editor:

I still wish I could see photos of Umbra. She is a great writer, very funny while giving great advice. I always look forward to reading her column.

The whole team is great, but Umbra, (he? she?) is my favorite.

Mark Jones

Fremont, Calif.

Dear Editor:

I love getting the Daily Grist, but am finding it harder and harder to read. The articles' titles are simply painful. Examples:

There's also another annoying habit I see regularly: I'll call it the "parenthetical, plural, editorial idiot." Here's the example from today's mailing:

(If we ever tire of green journalism, we're gonna become gorilla-poop analysts.)

Har har. My brother-in-law gets Stuff Magazine, a soft porn fashion magazine for "men," and I swear the writing is very similar. Check it out; it's true. Of course I think it's important that your message reach drunk frat boys, but is it at the cost of losing a much larger group of intelligent over 25s?

Andrew Haas

Re: Look At Me, I'm Cassandra Dee

Dear Editor:

I read the Daily Grist during the maximum two hours a day my health will allow me before the computer screen. I enjoy every minute of it. Thank you a hundred times for this worldwide and world-class media coverage in defense of the natural environment.

Jean-Paul Bourque

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Readers write in about lucky bastards, “clean coal,” disparaging veggie burgers, and more

Re: Cover Story

Dear Editor:

To my astonishment, the story about the proliferation of "green" issues of magazines like Glamour, Sports Illustrated, and Town & Country made no mention of the paper these magazines use. Where is the cynicism, irony, and humor in the face of outrageous hypocrisy? With only the exception of Outside, which is printed on some, unstated (read: low) percentage of recycled fiber, these "green" issues give publishers a chance to cash in on the green craze and line their pockets with, well, green, without addressing the destructive impact of their magazines, which are likely printed on paper that comes from clear-cut forests.

North America's boreal forest is being destroyed at a rate of two acres per minute to make things like catalogs, junk mail, toilet paper, and, you guessed it, magazines. Every year, the magazine industry destroys an area the size of Rocky Mountain National Park -- that's an average of one tree per second.

Cutting down a tree is the same as firing up your gas-guzzling SUV as far as climate change is concerned. Forest destruction emits more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector, and the magazine sector alone accounts for nearly 7 million tons of greenhouse gases per year.

At ForestEthics, we have been working to transform the catalog industry. Williams-Sonoma, Victoria's Secret, and Dell computers have worked with us to create strong paper policies, including using post-consumer recycled paper and Forest Stewardship Council-certified paper.

As far as we can tell, when it comes to going green, most magazines aren't worth the paper they're printed on -- and the industry needs to be called on it.

Todd Paglia

Executive Director

ForestEthics

Re: Cover Story

Dear Editor:

I think that it is great that more and more glossy magazines are doing "green" issues to raise awareness among their readers. However, at times it can be as disconcerting as a "Stop Global Warming" bumper sticker on an SUV.

With the possible exception of Outside magazine, none of the magazines that you highlighted use any recycled content at all. Probably the largest circulation mainstream magazine to use recycled paper is Shape, and they get no mention at all.

Out of about 18,000 magazine titles in the U.S., only slightly more than 100 publications -- and growing -- are using recycled paper. You can see a complete list at Co-op America.

I'm all for promoting environmental awareness, but I think that there should be special mention made of those magazines that are producing a quality publication and doing so in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.

Frank Locantore

Re: A Van With a Plan

Dear Editor:

Thanks for the interview with Van Jones. He provides a perspective that I think we need to keep front and center. Making sure we include the health benefits of stopping pollution and the job benefits of renewable energy in our discussions and our plans will broaden our coalition and greatly improve our chances of winning.

To win, we are going to have to offer hope and unity. That means listening to people who we may not have listened to before. Making sure young people of color get listened to and are included as a central part of the movement to a new energy future will change everything for the better. I don't think any of us can really have the kind of society we want without thinking well about everyone who is in it.

Roberta Paro

Norwich, Conn.

Re: Food and Punishment

Dear Editor:

Thank you, thank you, thank you Tom Philpott for writing about this. We've pretty much always exploited someone to make our food cheap -- whether it was slaves, sharecroppers, Chinese immigrants, or Mexican or Central American undocumented migrants. The prison scheme simply takes this to an obvious extreme, as Philpott so nicely points out.

In recent research, I've been thinking and writing about why the organic movement was so successful -- and I think part of it has to do with the fact that it pretty deliberately chose not to address the labor issue. Now that organic has gone large, that decision has become more obvious.

If we paid laborers what they were really worth, food would be a lot more expensive. And this includes migrant workers, but also the hardworking farmer on a two acre organic plot working seven days but barely breaking even without paying herself. And since organic requires, usually, even more labor per unit of yield than industrial farming, organic may rely even more on the exploitation of labor -- prices would have to rise astronomically for that small-scale farmer to actually pay herself a fair wage.

Either the price of food needs to go up or we need to decide to compensate farmers in a different way for the service they provide. No one can make a good living selling lettuce at $4/head without exploiting someone.

Stephanie Paige Ogburn

Re: Hogwarts and All

Dear Editor:

I'm sure Harry Potter fans and lovers of the earth across the globe were thrilled to hear the good news. But alas, my feelings of joy were followed by a familiar thought: "great, but that's not enough!"

So I emailed Scholastic about two hours ago and challenged them to repeat this idea across all their production practices. I was happy to receive a prompt response detailing their plans for future partnership with the Rainforest Alliance and efforts to green up the company.

While it is not happening at the pace we'd all like (does it ever?), it's reassuring to see these changes in global producer and consumer culture.

BunsenHoneydew

Re: Keep Your Eyes on the Size

Dear Editor:

I am no real fan of Wal-Mart and I miss the small mom and pop stores. However, I feel that Wal-Mart often gets slammed as "the cause of all things bad" simply because they developed a business plan that works. While I am sure that Wal-Mart has a negative effect on the environment, it may not be as bad when compared to small businesses. When I shop at Wal-Mart, I buy food, household supplies, clothes, etc. under one roof. I usually only shop there on my way home from work so that I add very little to my travel.

We can complain about Wal-Mart all we want, but as long as we want to dress fashionably, eat a variety of foods, and have electronic gadgets, we are going to cause environmental damage. I don't foresee North American people buying into living with one pair of shoes, one shirt, one pair of pants, no air conditioning, and walking everywhere like my grandparents did.

While I agree that we need to keep pushing for greener businesses, I think we should at least give a nod of approval to the meager efforts that are put into place.

dscrogg954

Re: Keep Your Eyes on the Size

Dear Editor:

Wal-Mart has become the world's largest retailer because they give average consumers just what they want: cheaper prices and more selection under one roof. No amount of editorializing is going to change that.

Wal-Mart has the largest amount of buying power in the universe. If they used that to urge their suppliers to green up, it would make a huge difference. Using smaller boxes for products like cereal and soap would be felt along the whole supply chain through less paper used to make the boxes, more product shipped per semi, etc.

So, you can either whiz in the wind, or make a real difference. I say, work to get them to use their force for good.

DeCapeJack

Re: Trash Course

Dear Editor:

I couldn't help but notice a significant amount of incorrect information in your advice about whether landfilling or incineration is the preferred waste-management solution.

The U.S. EPA's solid waste hierarchy lists energy-from-waste as a preferred method of disposal above landfills. The hierarchy lists source reduction (including reuse) as the most preferred method, followed by recycling and composting, disposal in combustion facilities, and then lastly, landfills.

While landfills do not capture all of the methane they create, releasing the rest into the air, energy-from-waste incineration facilities create electricity out of all the trash that they process and no methane is created. On average, every ton of waste processed at an incinerator facility making energy from it produces 28 times more electricity than the same amount of waste when it is landfilled. EFW is a sought-after method of renewable energy generation.

We excavate coal and oil from the earth for energy and bury trash that can be used to create clean, renewable electricity. That simply does not make sense. Why waste waste?

Derek Porter

Director of Corporate Communications, Covanta Energy

Fairfield, N.J.

Dear Editor:

It's my first time on your site. Just wanted to say, best live-blogging I've ever seen anywhere. So vivid -- a week or so from now, somebody will mention the hearing, and I'm going to remember having been there in person. Don't know how you do it.

Thank you!

Judy Stein

Re: Drown and Out

Dear Editor:

It gets a little old and wearisome to hear you wailing about the seal hunt in Canada. The Brigitte Bardot's and the Paul McCartney's need to mind their own business and go home. They need to stop the emotional tirades they carry on with. They fly in, get the media to take their pictures on the ice, and then leave. If Paul McCartney is such a peace-loving soul, then why does he support the Americans' wars? If the seal hunt is so horrible, then perhaps we should stop eating beef and pork and chicken because those animals have to be killed and hit over the head too. Perhaps they should ban sport hunting in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world because they don't always have a "clean" kill either. You need to come up with some actual facts and figures (like the government departments do).

Ernie Engbrecht

Alberta, Canada

Dear Editor:

Don't get me wrong. I love my Grist. You guys/gals rock. But the graphic ad of the seal clubbing is too much. As soon as I see it appear, I decrease the size of my browser window so I don't have to see it. And if it appears in the middle of the screen, I scroll by it super quick, letting my eyes blur as it passes. I would think that would be counterproductive to your goal, as I'm not going to take action on something that I can't even read. Honestly, I can't even tell you what specifically the ad is for. Just my two cents.

S. Tynes

Georgia

Dear Editor:

This is the second year I've fallen prey to your April Fools' issue! My husband and I had been discussing Wal-Mart's green initiatives recently, and we fell into your trap after reading the fake story on Wal-Mart. I don't know whether that's a testament to my gullibility or your writing style, but I should start reading my Daily Grist after I have my coffee!

Bellenova Barkett

Columbia, Md.

Dear Editor:

Oh, you got me this year, and good! I still have the hook firmly impaled in my cheek.

I guess I could blame it on my late Sunday waffle-gorging haze, being distracted by the kids, or any other such excuse, but the reality is, I fell for it. Kudos, applause, and congrats to you. I am one who usually never falls victim to this yearly day of pranks.

It's a shame, though, that you couldn't witness me sitting here with my Sunday bedhead, muttering about "those Wal-Mart bastards" and "Ann Coulter?! That oughta be interesting." And we cannot forget my quizzical look of distaste as I read about the Tuvalu shoe and TerraTots. But the true money shot had to be when I got to the last line and realized I was solidly April Fooled.

OK, now I gotta conjure up something for my kids ...

Tom Donnelly

Creswell, Ore.

Dear Editor:

With the good Bushies regularly fooling the public with practical jokes, one would think that Grist's adult staffers would see the importance of refraining from gags so readers could rely on Grist for straight shooting and not waste their valuable time on tee-hee gotcha "humor" intellectually appropriate for elementary school playground hijinks.

How disappointing.

Pat Murphy

Ketchum, Idaho

Dear Editor:

This wasn't funny. I don't always have time to read the entire newsletter, nor do I always have time to read the primary sources to which you link. If you think it's funny that I had an entire conversation with people about breaking news I had just read that Wal-Mart is changing their greening policy because I had five minutes to catch up on my Grist reading, then great, laughs for you. But certainly not for me. I'm rather upset and it's upsetting that you weren't clear from the beginning, or more outrageous with your headline story.

Julie Mierwa

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about lucky bastards, “clean coal,” disparaging veggie burgers, and more

Re: Somewhere, Stalin Is Chuckling

Dear Editor:

I am sorely disappointed and disgusted by Grist's use of "humor" to report the mine explosion in Siberia. Yes, coal is dirty and coal-mining practices are terrible. But neither of those facts gives you the right to blatantly minimize the value of the 106 lives lost. It's no "chuckling" matter that most of those workers probably had little choice but to work for the mine if they wanted to support their families.

Show some respect for the people who lose their lives as a result of environmental destruction, or you can consider yourselves the "lucky bastards" if we keep reading.

Kim Wolske

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Editor's note: Our indignation was aimed at the coal industry, not the workers who toil in the mines. The survivors truly were lucky, and we didn't mean to imply anything about their mothers. A poor choice of words on our part. Our hearts go out to all involved in the accident.

Re: Intent of a Woman

Dear Editor:

Thanks for interviewing Anika Rahman. I found her responses intelligent and inspiring. But weren't there any better reader-submitted questions? Several of them (namely, from "Carol" in Dallas) weren't even questions, but appeared to be merely scathing anti-abortion criticism. These comments weren't even apropos to the interview, since Ms. Rahman's organization does not promote abortions. Rather, the kind of work she is doing is helping prevent abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

I feel saddened that Americans can't stop bickering about the abortion issue when we have a full-blown, global crisis in women's health and human rights.

Evelyn Goss

Austin, Texas

Re: Let's Call the Coal Thing Off

Dear Editor:

It is abundantly clear that so-called new technology coal plants are a chimera to rival the dragons living at the North Pole. There is no such thing as "clean coal." As George Lakoff points out, the argument is made by reframing the terms. If you can shift the discussion from coal vs. no coal to new coal vs. old coal, you can put it over on most Americans that there is such a thing as new coal that is more acceptable and that is the opening wedge to allowing such plants.

A gigantic program to reforest the globe might work but will never be embraced by the energy mafia. It's much easier and cheaper to turn to baseless propaganda than to actually solve environmental problems.

Paul Palmer

Re: Trash Course

Dear Editor:

Your response [on the landfill vs. incinerator debate] was fair. But you left out a major reason why incinerators are an environmental disaster in the making: financing them.

Incinerators are usually private, for-profit enterprises. When an incinerator is built, the locale promises to "put or pay," so when an education program or simply a growing consciousness helps people to reduce, reuse, recycle, the "put," i.e., trash, produced is less. The for-profit corporation invokes its right to demand increased payments. Twenty-five years ago, some locales in New York state were bankrupted due to building incinerators.

It's a terrible idea, and I'm sorry to see you say it's more or less a trade off.

Julia Willebrand

New York, N.Y.

Re: Trash Course

Dear Editor:

Umbra, I was going to send your March 7 column to someone but won't because of your crack about veggie burgers. As you well know, eating veggie burgers -- which can be scrumptious -- is much more environmentally responsible than eating ground-up dead cattle, not to mention incomparably more humane. You should do all you can to promote them, not compare them to rat-chewed garbage. I mean really, what were you thinking? Were you thinking? Please be more conscientious (and conscious) when writing your columns -- which are usually very good and which I often relay to others.

Mary Finelli

Silver Spring, Md.

Re: Dishing It Out

Dear Editor:

My thanks to Tom Philpott for his interesting, no, inspiring and informative article. For me, this was like the missing link in all the material that I've been reading on managing my life environmentally. If he ever has time to write a book, I'd like to be informed of it. People like him, with practical living and working experience should be the ones in charge of the U.S.A.'s agricultural planning.

Tom Byrne

arty

Re: Gritty Woman

Dear Editor:

Just a brief letter to state my surprise when I recently clicked on a link in an article about Hollywood feminine eco-heroes to find out more information about one of the real-life heroes profiled and I found myself transported to an Amazon.com link selling the DVD being discussed.

It seems a bit odd to me that Grist includes the following copy in its request for donations: "Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism." Yet also regularly includes links to mega-monolithic media outlets such as Amazon.com.

Like most folks, I appreciate a bargain on my books. But as the owner of a progressive, independent neighborhood bookstore, I take such actions personally. While Amazon may offer the occasional discounted media, it is certainly not worth the environmental and social cost of ignoring our local and independent businesses in favor of the Wal-Marts, Amazons, and other mega-chains and mega-outlets that populate the internet.

I would hope Grist would consider changing this policy and its readers would consider the real costs of supporting local businesses instead of the mega-chains.

John Lippmann

Stockbridge, Mass.

Editor's note: We've thought about this issue a lot, but with our readers all spread out willy-nilly across the country and around the world, it's hard to link everyone up with their neighborhood bookstore. We decided that as an online publication, we want to provide easy, online info about the movies and books we mention. We often link to Powell's for books -- a respected, independent bookseller based in Portland, Ore. Still, we do end up linking to Amazon for some media products, and the small percentage of resulting sales we get helps us fund our work. It's a compromise, but we think it's a reasonable one. That said, please, dear readers: Support your local, independent bookstore!

Dear Editor:

I'm a longtime reader and a fan of your readable and fun attitude toward presenting the news. Except (you knew it was coming) lately I feel like there's less and less news in your pages and more consumerism. That is, more advice on how to be a green consumer.

Now that's helpful too, but I miss reading the dwindling articles that also cover interesting bits of national (and what about international?) news with an environmental bent. Surely Grist readers have a little more depth than what "green" car or laundry detergent to buy. What about more coverage on neat initiatives in local-level government? What about what Germany and Japan are doing in improving energy efficiency and green architecture? What about that really neat community group in Peru or Kenya that's planting trees and educating children about their ecosystems?

There must be more.

Megan Liddle

Washington, D.C.

Re: Blowing It

Dear Editor:

Is it Umbra on the picture that is posted next to the "On insulation, again" article?

She's pretty cute. Just wanted to mention it.

Simon Milton

Budapest, Hungary

Editor's note: Nope. But for those dying to see real, actual, truly true pics of Ms. Fisk, we did find these lying around. By the way, even though that particular fundraiser is over, we can always use some tax-deductible reader love. We're just begging saying.

Dear Editor:

Just a note to let you know how much my husband and I enjoy Grist. Your irreverent coverage of all things environmental is always good for a chuckle, in addition to the important information you provide. I'm one of the 1,000+ people who participated in the Climate Project ("Al Gore's messengers"). There is many a day when I find it nigh unto impossible to get in any billable hours because of you guys! I become so immersed in reading Grist and everything else having to do with the issue of global climate change (to work into my presentations) that I lose track of the time. For instance, I'd been unaware of Sports Illustrated's cover on sports and global warming until I came across it recently in Grist. I incorporated it into a presentation I made last night, to the surprise of everyone in the group (none of whom subscribe to SI, evidently). Their first response was "Does this mean that SI will have to find new locations for the bathing suit edition photo shoots?" Ha!

Many thanks for all of the good work you do.

Carol Moncrieff Rose

Hillman, Mich.

Re: Rotten to the Corps

Dear Editor:

As a displaced Katrina person who lived at the foot of one of these rotten Corps levees in New Orleans, I was surprised to find this article on the Levees.org site, and I must say it is the best overview of the issues I've seen on the issue of the Corps' liability (or even the liability of the government as a whole). Note that the mainstream media won't touch this issue of the Corps' or government's liability with a 10-foot pole, though the city has just slapped a $77 billion damages claim on the Army Corps of Engineers.

This author has analyzed the situation correctly. If the citizens of New Orleans had been informed that our levees were engineered to be only suitable for cows, then forced to sign a waiver before purchasing property within the levee system, only then would I say that this is not a liability issue.

Though some of you passionately say the blame ultimately lies at Congress' feet, the truth is that Congress only knows what the Corps tells them, and like any organism, the Corps is primarily interested in self-preservation. It is the entire pork-barrel funded system that is "Rotten to the Corps," as the article is so aptly titled.

Thank you for the well-written article!

by nolagal

Re: The Grist List, 02 Mar 2007

Dear Editor:

I am a UFO researcher, and this field has many top-notch, brilliant people in it who are studying the reports and the impressions left by crafts and trying to find the truth about UFO crashes. They should be supported rather than ridiculed.

UFOs are real, crashes are real, and the question is, why did these crashes happen, for what purpose? Were they accidents or planned opportunities? Were they intended for earth governments and people to take in as a Trojan horse, or to allow us to create new technology from that which is found in these crashes?

We cannot forget a time when "green" was seen as laughable, but those in the movement saw it as necessity to save the human race.

UFOs and the study and research of them exist for the same reason.

by Penblace

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: It's Official: He Rocks

Dear Editor:

So Cameron Diaz is more luscious as a blonde than a brunette? Since when does Grist publish this type of sexist garbage and then not remove it from its website, despite the protests of readers?

Our family has supported Grist in the past but will no longer do so. From now on, I'll rely on environmental news sources that don't denigrate women.

Courtenay Dusenbury

Atlanta, Ga.

Re: It's Official: He Rocks

Dear Editor:

"[S]lightly less luscious now that she's a brunette"? Treating women like sex objects is wrong. I am a woman who reads your column every week, and I am sick of seeing articles, especially in Grist List, that glorify the objectification of women. If next week's column doesn't contain a humongous apology and a vow to never again publish such sexist material, I quit reading your list. I don't suffer sexist pigs.

Sara Jund

Re: It's Official: He Rocks

Dear Editor:

Hey, your blonde vs. brunette Cameron Diaz comment is out of place here. I'm a brunette, myself, you see, and though I don't lack for comments that I look like Sonia Braga -- another brunette -- even by personal friends of hers, and therefore am not coming from a place of insecurity, there are many other brunettes out there who might well be offended and alienated, for their own reasons. The loyalty of Grist readers who might help make a difference in this world is, I think, more important to maintain than indulging in such divisive and self-indulgent comments.

Marcela Cruz

Editor's Note: The author of the piece in question is a total babe brunette herself, and intended only to note that Diaz -- like most people -- looks better with her natural hair color. So don't go getting all hysterical.

Re: It's Official: He Rocks

Dear Editor:

Live8 was a scam. So [are these Live Earth concerts]. Rich people make themselves richer, pretending to care. Famous people make themselves famouser by pretending to care. And a bunch of overfed middle-class gluttons get to see another concert, pretending to care. And still nothing changes. Give me a break. Now that it's hip to "care" about climate change, every Tom, Dick, and Harry can drive their car to these electrified shows. For what? Grist was once funny, even incisively witty (although never very deep). Now, you're becoming part of the problem. Can someone please tell me why this is environmental news? Or why Grist editors waste their time promoting it? Seriously? Is there a carefully observant mind in residence over there in your Seattle hip shop? Or is everyone of you vying for top billing on the "too cool to be careful/thoughtful/helpful" slate?

Ick, ugh, puh-lease! Open them eyes, stop surfing the web, and get back to the earth.

EcoReason

Re: Darjeeling Companion

Dear Editor:

I think you're mistaken about microwaved tea losing its heat faster than water heated in other ways. There's no physical reason why the molecular excitation caused by microwaves would be any different from that caused by a flame or electric element. Heat's heat, in other words.

The reason it may seem like microwaved foods and tea don't keep their heat is that they're not evenly heated. If you taste a cup of tea right after you take it out of the microwave, you're tasting the hottest part, but it'll even out quickly to a cooler temperature.

Solid or semi-solid foods have to sit for a while for the temperature to equalize after they've been heated in a microwave. That's why microwaved food in an insulated container doesn't seem to stay warm as long.

Virginia Downs

Lubbock, Texas

Re: Darjeeling Companion

Dear Editor:

Umbra, I'm usually a fan of your well-informed responses, but your comment that, "in my opinion, microwaved water doesn't hold heat long enough to make decent tea" just doesn't hold water. The heat capacity of water is unrelated to the method used to heat it; water of a certain temperature doesn't "care" how it got there.

I challenge you to a blindfold taste test of tea made with water heated in the microwave vs. water heated in an electric kettle.

The microwave is clearly the most efficient method to heat water for any purpose. Not to mention that an electric kettle is an appliance that is only good for one purpose (heating water) while a microwave can serve many functions (heating anything) making it superior from the manufacturing and durable goods standpoint as well.

river2sea72

Re: Swedening the Pot

Dear Editor:

While I applaud IKEA's wonderful environmental initiatives, please remember the human cost of keeping prices so low. Over half of Ikea's products are manufactured in developing countries, where workers are not (or are barely) paid a livable wage, are required to work overtime for little or no extra pay, and are prevented from engaging in collective bargaining.

Erin

Re: What's Good for the Goose

Dear Editor:

Sorry, folks, but David Feld was way off base with his comments. First, there are a number of species of Canada geese. The one Mr. Feld refers to is the giant Canada goose, which is non-migratory and almost became extinct by the middle of the last century. Wildlife biologists in several states decided to introduce resident populations on a broader scale and thus reduce the possibilities of the entire species dying out if something catastrophic happened to the remaining population found only in Missouri.

Over the decades following the initial transplant effort, the population expanded, then exploded. Remember, this species was never migratory -- they've always nested and remained in one place. At first the geese were relocated around various lakes that also served as wildlife areas. Then, over the years, as the population grew, the birds spread out to colonize places offering food, nesting habitat, and safety. Unfortunately for the geese, these were water features at golf courses, city parks, and other small lakes within urban areas.

Today the once-endangered giant Canada goose is a fixture in a number of communities, and often cursed by city dwellers who despise the mess they make around their tidy city lakes. Most criticize the amount of goose poop, especially golfers who don't want it on their shoes and (golf) balls. As you might imagine, there is no natural predation in cities to keep numbers in check, and as it stands, the geese may soon outnumber the golfers.

Basically, the saga of the giant Canada goose is simply one of a biological effort to save a diminishing species that succeeded all too well. To date, some states now allow hunting seasons, but that doesn't make much of an impact around the country club. I have them on a pond near my urban residence, and find they're a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. As for goose poop, I long ago learned how to keep my shoes clean.

Gary Lantz

Norman, Okla.

Re: We're Just a Lincoln Your Chain

Dear Editor:

I absolutely love your style of punnery and humor! What prompted me to write this was "Barack in the saddle" on Feb. 16. You guys are great -- keep up the great work.

Joyce Jordan-Peek

Related Links:

Cameron Diaz films eco-documentary, takes on role as planet’s publicist

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Cameron Diaz hooks up with a hottie enviro

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

I read your interview with GOP uber-flack Frank Luntz last week and thought, "Poor Frank. Losing on all fronts, rejected by his party and outsmarted by his opponents." Luntz was dis-invited from the GOP's cool-kids caucus after the election because, in a comprehensive, post-November report, he basically told the whole party that they completely suck [PDF].

More importantly, he's almost universally wrong. Environmental initiatives won across the board and around the country in November. Four hundred U.S. cities, representing 65 percent of the U.S. population, have embraced climate action in the past two years (dating back to before the Gore movie) -- prodded by the likes of NRDC, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, and local environmental groups. Thirty-five states have renewable-energy standards of some kind. Gov. Schwarzenegger turned to global warming as his best hope to stay in office. Pombo lost -- to a wind-power developer -- in large part because the green groups had thousands of boots on the ground in his district.

The interior West is slipping from the GOP's grip, in no small part due to conservation issues. And who's doing the hard work at the grassroots to make all this happen? Hint: It's not the Chamber of Commerce.

While I think we can all agree that the environmental movement needs help on communications and messaging, I think Luntz is playing the role of what the bloggers call a "concern troll" -- an enemy operative who recognizes that he's been beat, and tries one last bout of linguistic jujitsu to try to get his opponent to abandon their successful tactics. He shows his hand when he claims that he won't work with environmentalists because they're "mean." As someone who is working with a top GOP pollster right now on energy issues, I can tell you, those are not the words of a man who cares more about his country, his job, and the environment than his party. He is a GOP die-hard, flacking for his masters.

So long, Frank. We hardly knew ye.

Matthew Lewis

San Francisco, Calif.

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

An excellent interview with Frank Luntz -- one of the best things I've read on your site. That this amount of frank insight and seasoned counsel was pulled from Mr. Luntz is a minor miracle, or perhaps more accurately, an indication of excellent reporting.

Which leaves me perplexed with the lead, and the tone of the introduction. Why just prove his point and take a superior tone by teeing off on the guy? The real story here is his candor and the many great thoughts he has for how the environmental (conservation?) story is most effectively told -- not that he's a bad guy for working for The Man.

The more we understand from people like Luntz -- a master at what he does, like it or not -- the more effective we can be for our cause.

Colin Kennedy

Naperville, Ill.

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

I agree with [Luntz's] point that environmentalists need to improve the way they get their ideas across to the general public. But I also know that it has been hard for environmentalists to get their message out because of this current administration. Inspectors general from two different agencies have started a new investigation that is expected to show that the current administration has suppressed scientific research that did not fit with the administration's skewed point of view -- that of ExxonMobil scientists. Scientists all over the country have been trying to get important research results to the public, to no avail.

The only reason the environment has not been at the forefront of any of the past elections is because the Republican Party has done such a good job of suppressing the information from getting to the public, as well as misleading the public with their deceptive word games.

lvchavez

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

[Luntz is] right. Environmentalists are a bunch of stubborn, self-righteous whiners. But guess what? Everybody's like that. Ever watched Bill O'Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? Ever read the comments on conservative blogs about climate change? What about George Bush himself?

What Frank Luntz forgets to mention is that it's not just environmentalists who do it to themselves. They're constantly stereotyped and vilified by many right-wingers in the U.S. -- not least of all George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney -- to the point where the last thing that people want to be identified with is environmentalism. The coup de grace is that Luntz was able to perpetuate the stereotype in this interview.

Personally, I hate it when people think in stereotypes rather than the objective truth. People are individuals, regardless of what "category" they happen to fall into. And I hate it when people allow themselves to be led around by their self-image, rather than the facts.

But that's what Luntz is selling. Nothing can take away the fact that he advised the president to obscure the facts and shut down rational discourse on an issue with serious security implications -- facts he now blithely accepts.

He gambled with the nation's security to sell his product. That's not mean. That's evil.

Jones

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

Thank you for this interview. This clarifies exactly what I have been thinking is the core of the problem for the environmental cause. I work for a government environmental agency (I can't say where). Even within my own organization, the front-line scientific workers like myself sometimes have a hard time getting our important issues across to our managers and to our elected political masters. I think the problem has been that our attitude toward others has been too self-righteous and too negative. It's so easy to quickly lay blame on everyone else that they're the cause of the problem, but it's not so easy to offer feasible solutions in a way that they can easily understand and make them feel like they can be part of the solution.

Environmental activists appear to be too far left, too radical, and very negative. My government often has to deflect criticism from them. We need to work together, not against each other. The status quo is that we criticize each other, make ourselves enemies to the other, and in the end, nothing positive gets done to actually protect the environment, which is the same goal we each have.

I think that all environmentally minded people need to follow Al Gore's model of communication. We need to have a friendly, open dialog, not beat each other over the heads with blame and criticism. Blaming corporations, blaming governments, blaming ordinary citizens only causes those people to put up their defenses and then they don't hear your message at all. No matter how right you are, if you keep using the stick, no one will listen to you. You need to start offering the carrot. We all need to start "selling" the benefits of living more environmentally friendly lives, and we need to show how easy it is to start making some small changes that can make a difference.

I agree that the majority of people do care about the environment. That majority however, doesn't have a scientific background and needs to be visually shown how to change their behavior and consumer patterns to be more eco-friendly and how they can actually save money in the long run, and that it can be as easy as changing a light bulb. If we can educate people rather than brow-beating them, then we can build on this new momentum of environmental consciousness so that we can start making some real, dramatic changes to improve the global environment.

jennx3989

Re: Sending Out an SOS

Dear Editor:

The story about the clash between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whalers has a small but significant error that was not in the source article. To wit, the Grist piece says the hunt "was OK'd by the International Whaling Commission as a scientific pursuit," which isn't quite right. As the Guardian rightly put it, the hunt is part of a "scientific whaling program, conducted within the rules of the International Whaling Commission." The IWC's rules allow member countries to conduct "scientific" whaling on their own; individual hunts are not approved by the commission. If there were a vote on the permits Japan has awarded herself, it would likely fail to be approved.

Tom Turner

Re: Sending Out an SOS

Dear Editor:

I know Grist reports on nice 'n' legal activism, patiently working through political channels while the world burns, and I love how you do it. And I know Sea Shepherd can be a bit strident and alienating, so I don't mind poking some fun at them. But to ridicule a group of activists while portraying whalers in a sympathetic light -- who operate under the same guise of "legality" that permits all order of insane atrocities on and against this planet -- is baffling, infuriating, deserving of a good excoriating! Grist, what were you thinking?

Revbluesky

Re: Sending Out an SOS

Dear Editor:

I appreciate the difficulty of trying to provide humor as a vehicle to interest readers otherwise lost to environmental news. However, Grist missed both the nuance of the International Whaling Commission scientific whaling permits (self-issued by the whaling country) and the heart of what is happening at sea to humans and whales alike.

The IWC allows for scientific whaling as an exemption to the overall ban on whaling. Japan's self-issued permit is criticized every year both within that regulatory body and from without. Thousands of whales, some endangered, are killed under the scientific permit but then sold on the commercial market. The proceeds are used to keep the whaling ships and the industry going in the hopes that commercial whaling will eventually, be "approved" by the IWC. By the way, many IWC members were recruited by both pro- and anti-whaling factions to affect the vote despite the fact that said members are land-locked or never had active whaling industries.

The really funny part is that you ignore what the volunteer crews of the protest vessels are experiencing in the Antarctic, maritime environment trying to overcome the full weight of international norms of doing business as usual. More hilarious is you never acknowledge what it must be like to have a spear thrust inside you with a bomb on the tip that explodes quickly thereafter. Given their body mass, whales do not often die instantly. They suffer immensely.

Please, always, always evaluate your stories with the question: is there pain and suffering to human or non-human? Compassion is essential to consciousness because it considers "other." Then make a funny.

Will Anderson

Seattle, Wash.

Re: Open Mouth, Insert Soot

Dear Editor:

Umbra says, "You don't want to regularly burn more fuel in the home just to get some atmosphere." I think that's exactly what Brona wants to do. If Umbra lived in Ontario, she might want the same thing. Let's leave off the guilt-trip and recognize that each of us makes choices, every day, about how we impact the earth, not to mention the people around us.

I'm sure there are things in Umbra's life that would make other environmentalists cringe, just as there are in mine. I "waste" electricity keeping up my fish tank. Watching fish (like watching a fire?) soothes my soul. If you ever saw me "un-soothed," you'd tell me to keep the fish tank, environment be damned.

I refuse to call myself an "environmentalist" because of this holier-than-thou attitude.

GaGa

Re: Are You Kind?

Dear Editor:

Thank you for Umbra's column today! I've been advocating dorky love and appreciation for years, and in return people call me names ("Pollyanna" is a perpetual favorite). Now that I know it's good for the environment, I'm going to shoulder on and disregard such un-green sentiment.

And, incidentally, I love Umbra's column. I think I've gotten all my classmates in the science writing program at UC Santa Cruz reading it. It's great for conversation, and it gets the brain juices flowing on things we might not otherwise think about. Also, it's just plain fun to read.

Thanks again.

Brittany Grayson

Santa Cruz, Calif.

Re: Are You Kind?

Dear Editor:

Yes, what I'm trying to say is, "I love you." That's a Groucho Marx quote, but it could have come from anybody. I know Umbra is probably a strange human-animal hybrid, living a Quasimodo existence underground. But, we, royally speaking, love her.

We wish we could see a photograph of her so that we could consider whether she were sustainable or not. We wish so many things.

Hoping against hope, whatever that means, we simply endure ... knowing against knowing (that definitely doesn't mean anything) that we will never smell tofu with Bragg's Liquid Aminos on her warm breath as she leans in close for another kiss. Besides, what would my wife say?

Bill Womack

Free Union, Va.

Re: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

Dear Editor:

Oh, Grist, you know we love you, but it's "homed in"!

Robin Alper

Editor's note: We love you more! And you're not the only one to write in arguing that we should have used "homed in" instead of "honed in" in our subtitle. But according to the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, "honed in" is just fine. That said, Merriam-Webster does warn in a usage note that "honed in" is likely to be perceived as an error, so perhaps we'll use "homed in" next time. Clearly, amongst the astute grammarians in our audience, "homed" is where the heart is.

Dear Editor:

Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that it seems to this humble reader that you're over-using the whole crossed-out-word gimmick a little bit. Just a heads up. Keep fighting the good fight!

Karla Mummery

Editor's note: We're oh so aware of that sorry. It's just that it's so addictive appropriate sometimes. Besides, it completes the lowest-form-of-humor triad: sarcasm, puns, and deletion jokes. They're classic.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Whereof They Speak

Dear Editor:

Umbra, thanks for the discussion of the scientific process. It seems a good portion of the general public does not understand the rigor of science; progress in the field relies acutely on peer review. An idea won't make it far unless it: a) has substantial quantitative support and b) is supported by independent efforts by other scientists. However, a confused understanding of science is perpetuated by the mainstream media, which thrives on generating the illusion of controversy (e.g., both sides of a scientific issue are given equal weight even if 99 percent of scientists accept a theory and the 1 percent of dissenters are not even trained in the relevant field).

For those interested, Realclimate.org is a site run by climate scientists aimed at disseminating climate science, not politics, to the general public. That is more than NOAA can do under the current administration.

antgirl

Re: Whereof They Speak

Dear Editor:

Having seen the report in question on NBC News, I have to respectfully disagree with Umbra and the NOAA rep as I do not believe what the NOAA scientist said was scientifically accurate. NBC actually did a follow-up piece on this that contradicted their earlier story and did not rule out the role of global warming.

The problem: NOAA's website doesn't rule out a link and their leadership has been very reluctant to even acknowledge the debate over global warming and El Niño as well as hurricane strength.

rsmith02

Re: Whereof They Speak

Dear Editor:

"As a greenie/leftie I got angry." Why are statements like this tolerated? Comments such as this one are upsetting, and I thank Umbra for setting "Warm and Worried" straight. Far, far too often, liberals that I interact with have nothing more sophisticated than knee-jerk reactions to current events and modern issues. Again and again, I hear Bush, Republicans, business, etc. are bad, end of story, while anything anti-Bush, Democratic, or "green" is praised and there is no actual consideration of the facts or background story. Debate is a necessity of our civil society, and those who vociferously jump to conclusions without being informed interfere with rational decision making. Ignorant, extremist rhetoric on the left is no more palatable than it is on the right.

So, rather than whining about imagined right-wing conspiracies in the media, educate yourself about the issues so you don't waste your time on non-starters and are ready to speak up when your knowledgeable voice is really necessary. And leave the science to the scientists.

Tim Bartholomaus

Boulder, Colo.

Re: Paying the Farm Bill

Dear Editor:

I don't know how you wrote this article without touching my primary objection to agricultural subsidies, which is that they strongly favor animal slaughter and meat-eating. In addition to the harm done to animals, the subsidies give a competitive disadvantage to farmers in developing countries.

Based on my understanding of ecology and on a few books on the subject, I know that the costs associated with meat production are much higher than vegetable or grain production. Yet one can buy a hamburger for less than a bell pepper. I understand that this is mainly due to agricultural subsidies.

To briefly quote a recent U.N. report, "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

From my perspective, it seems that the primary goal of agricultural subsidies in the U.S.A. is to provide cheap meat to Americans. Ending such subsidies is by far my most important political objective.

Pandu

Re: The Problem of the Root

Dear Editor:

I perceive an emerging conflict between, for lack of a better term, impulsive and informed environmentalism. Tree planting is one example. I'd swear I've been indoctrinated for almost my entire life -- via the education system and mass media -- that planting trees is always a good idea. Folks dreamed of covering the landscape with trees. Fire was an enemy. Reforest the barren land. Tree planting is almost synonymous with being a steward of the Earth. Cutting down a tree is considered evil.

Then I moved to southwest Wisconsin and learned about the pre-settlement landscape: savanna. And I learned about endangered grassland birds, about ancient trout streams overgrown by tangles of vegetation, about how the settlers suppressed natural fires and changed the ecology.

For several years, I've worked toward liberating my tiny bit of grassland from invasive trees. The first reaction of one of my friends was something like ... "Oh my God! How can you cut down those boxelder trees and set fire to the grass! What about the poor animals?" I had to explain it was for the greater good. There are insects, birds, and mammals that prefer grassland over shaded dirt.

I've also volunteered to help The Nature Conservancy a few times and learned that their activities are not always welcomed by the community. Many people don't understand that removing the red cedars from a hillside and burning the area is good for wildlife, a net gain for biodiversity. They think the trees are "normal" and that bare land -- otherwise known as prairie -- is bad.

This is a public relations problem that must be addressed.

wiscidea

Re: And Now, a Word From Our Detractor

Dear Editor:

One of the biggest upsets [of the 2006 election] was Jerry McNerney's (D-Calif.) victory over Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), the only sitting head of a House committee to lose his job. The McNerney vote was largely fueled by backlash against Pombo's career on the House Resources Committee, his war on endangered species, his chainsaw-hugging, and his love affair with oil and gas drilling on public lands.

If Luntz hasn't digested the environmental reality of what happened in [Pombo's] district in the last election, his advice to anyone about political strategy is suspect. I think he is just angling for a new job with the emerging environmental majority. He's quite a political streetwalker.

Good luck with the job search, Frank. We have a copy of your CV and it's not very green.

carfree

Re: Embrace Me, You Irreplaceable You

Dear Editor:

I am surprised at the characterization of the union of hunters and conservationists as "progress," without any acknowledgement of the former's motivation for seeking this end. For the sportsmen, it is, at heart, an endeavor rooted in bloodthirsty selfishness -- namely, to protect animals long enough that they can enjoy the pleasure of killing them. There is nothing priceless about this sort of "progress," and to declare so belittles the altruistic aims of the true conservationists -- those who seek to protect the natural environment for its own sake, including the animals that are of its very essence.

evanvoo

Re: Dude, You're Gettin' a Conscience

Dear Editor:

Why is offering the customers the option of offsetting their carbon considered such a huge step? For the tiny percentage of Dell's customers that will choose that option, it's valid, but for the rest of the customers, it is still the rest of the planet that will be the cost of the carbon emitted, and Dell that will make the profit.

For Dell to claim to be an environmental leader, it needs to make a commitment to offset all, or at least a gradually increasing amount, of its emissions. In that case, it would also have an incentive to reduce those emissions significantly.

mitra

Re: The Grist List, 26 Jan 2007

Dear Editor:

Hey there! I love your magazine. It's a ton of fun. I was a little surprised, though, by the writing style of the [fourth] item on the Jan. 26 Grist List. It seemed crass -- especially if those kids hear that they're on the internet and want to check it out! Witty, punny, smart, informative, and entertaining -- what I consider normal Grist fare -- is good. That article wasn't.

Amy Hettinger

Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Audio Weekly Grist, 16 Jan 2007

Dear Editor:

I haven't been enjoying the podcasts nearly as much as the weekly emails I've been reading for years. The jokes and 'tude just didn't seem to come off nearly as well in audio as they do in writing.

That is, until the Schwarzenegger impression and the rest of that podcast. Superb! Keep up the great work!

Evan

Chicago, Ill.

Re: Even Stevens?

Dear Editor:

I often read your Muckraker column with interest, but I have some concerns. First, there are more than three environmentalists out there to quote. Carl Pope has not led the movement well. David Doniger has been great, but it has been interesting to see the Natural Resources Defense Council follow the almighty dollar and do a 180 on biofuels. They used to crush biofuels for many years. Nothing has really changed, except they woke up at the urging of their millionaire funders that want to make money there. Frank O'Donnell is a blowhard that sits around trying to get his name in the paper. He does little intensive watchdogging, and really has no hand in solutions to the environmental crisis we face.

On a separate note, Grist has been totally boondoggled by some folks. Your blasting of corn-based ethanol is simply misleading in its inaccuracies. Because you think you've got it figured out, you are doing exactly what you probably detest. In the climate world, it is well known that about 98 of 100 scientists support the notion, yet writers seeking "balance" go find one of the 2 percent and quote them, leaving the impression that there is no consensus on global warming. It's a writer's fear and folly that leads us here, and of course they go home thinking they are muckrakers.

Well, you've done the same thing with ethanol. Ninety-eight percent confirm the positive energy balance and the GHG benefits, and in your haste you overlook the fact that corn ethanol producers are the ones underwriting R&D for cellulosic ethanol (which everyone likes). Yet you all pan corn ethanol.

Grist is OK at times, but be careful to get your facts straight. People actually believe you.

Robert

No location provided

Re: Plus, Only Teams With Animal Names Can Play

Dear Editor:

I've been reading your Weekly Grist for a while, and I always find it informative and humorous. I felt the need to let you guys know that your summary on the Super Bowl this week was hilarious. I think I might chuckle about it all day. Maybe I'm a dork, but that was funny. Keep up the good work.

Lesa Glick

Albany, Calif.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: One Nation, Under Terry

Dear Editor:

I read Terry Tamminen's book, and overall I think it's a very credible effort by a very good guy. He does a bang-up job laying out the case against petroleum. But he's guilty of a serious (possibly fatal, given his position and influence) error in saying that petroleum is the enemy rather than coal. Coal, as is often noted on Gristmill, is the enemy of humanity.

The problem with oil is that it is such a good fuel and there's too little of it; the problem with coal is that it's such a horrible fuel and there's so much of it. Therefore, environmentally, coal is far more disastrous as a result.

JMG

via Gristmill

Re: One Nation, Under Terry

Dear Editor:

I am insulted and outraged by Terry Tamminen's statements that the destruction of oil is so far beyond other destructions that others are not worth mentioning. I live in coal-extracting areas and I am insulted by his statement.

Tamminen should do some research before he makes such an insensitive statement. How dare he suggest that we Appalachians are not worth mentioning? Where does he think he and others that read his book get their electricity from, the electricity fairy?

Since Tamminen is far removed from the destruction and the poisoning of our babies here in Appalachia or in the Native lands of the Navajo, it is easy for him to dismiss. Currently, the coal industry uses over 3 million pounds of explosives per day, just in West Virginia. Kentucky is just a little below that. Add the other coal-producing states and the numbers are staggering.

The coal industry has murdered over 100,000 men, women, and children just in West Virginia in its sordid history of coal extraction. It is currently poisoning children in Appalachia and all over the world with mercury and coal waste. Coal is the biggest single contributor to global warming. Global warming will make planes [crashed into] buildings seem like a picnic.

Julia Bonds

Rock Creek, W.Va.

Terry Tamminen responds:

Dear Ms. Bonds:

Thanks for your note and please believe me, I know how destructive coal mining is. As a founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance and colleague of Bobby Kennedy Jr., I have supported his outspoken criticism of mountaintop mining. Here in the West, I funded the work of Hopi elder Vernon Masayesva against the Peabody coal company, which led to the closure of a massive coal-fired power plant. The interview was about my book, which focuses on oil, so of course I tend to see things through that lens; however, I do not mean to minimize the impact of coal mining or its current uses. By the way, I hear very good things about your work and please feel free to call on me if I can be of help.

Re: Poor Taste

Dear Editor:

I have not read The Economist yet, and may not get to it for a while, but it seems to me that Tom Philpott is unwilling to listen to other viewpoints. Just reading the bits and pieces he quoted, it is clear that The Economist made good points about the difficulty of returning to local food sources, as well as reasonable points on the higher costs of that approach. All Tom can do is take potshots at the presentation style and fail to even give a modicum of credit to the researchers who wrote the piece.

I live in the suburbs of Denver, Colo. I can grow my own food on my small suburban plot, but the variety of foods I need to eat a healthy diet are just not accessible in this climate. Does that mean I have to move?

Likewise, I can go to the farmers' market, as they have excellent green beans, but at the same time my garden is overflowing with green beans, my wife is saying "I refuse to eat one more bean, give me some peas."

Is local a good idea? Yes, I am all for it, but it is shortsighted to believe local, or sustainable, or organic can feed the millions now needing food for a healthy diet. The infrastructure, the social constrictions, and climate all make it impractical. Therefore, accept that commercial, industrialized foodstuffs have to remain a part of the puzzle, and recognize that "local" is only one small part of a worldwide food answer.

farmerjon

via Gristmill

Re: Poor Taste

Dear Editor:

Tom Philpott's article was an incisive critique, getting to the heart of the matter. He was not simply taking "potshots," but questioning the underlying premise of the article: why does The Economist advocate leaving the free market in the hands of government and minimizing the role of the consumer? Tom also made the point that food choice is inherently political -- it's not simply that buying will change the world but thinking about what we buy can change it. That's how change happens. It's grassroots political change.

Agriculture's apologists always fall back on the line: We've fed the world, so what we're doing is right. What that argument does not consider are the larger costs of the approach and the inability to consider alternatives (because of the entrenched interests at stake).

Conventional ag points to grain yields and output to say how well it's been doing. Ninety percent of grain feeds livestock, which in turn is sold to people who can afford to buy meat. But the most food-scarce people in the world cannot afford to buy grain, let alone meat. So boosting yields and output without considering crop choice and distribution is not a solution.

Samuel Fromartz

via Gristmill

Re: In Cities Is the Preservation of the Word

Dear Editor:

Thanks for this call to celebrate and study nature in the settings of our daily lives. That's essential if we're going to understand how we are all part of the natural systems that sustain us.

It isn't about nature in cities, but a fascinating book, Wilderness and Razor Wire, explores nature in a prison. Author Ken Lamberton records his experience of nature as an inmate inside a medium-security prison. From his cell, he keeps close track of the changing seasons, the insect life, the migrating birds, and the blooming plants. He writes, "Nature is here as much as it is in any national park or forest or monument."

Whether in prison, the sprawling 'burbs, or urban slums, there is much to discover about our intimate engagement with the cycles and processes of nature.

Peter Sawtell

via Gristmill

Re: My Personal Power Play

Dear Editor:

I'm sorry, but when I got to the part where Vanessa McGrady "managed to scrape together a down payment on a $25,000 piece of property," I just quit reading. Most of us, especially here in Southern California, can barely hope to "scrape together" money for rent and groceries with two full-time incomes, let alone buy ourselves a patch of land out of desperation. The ongoing problem of access to the "environmental path" for those not born with a golden spoon or raised with a soft place to land, like an expensive education, is a serious barrier to the healing of the planet.

angrydakinis

via Gristmill

Re: Dingell Minded

Dear Editor:

It would have been nice if Amanda Griscom Little had asked Dingell what would "destitute" American society more: global warming or reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. He obviously still doesn't get the magnitude of the problem. That said, I am not sure Amanda understands it fully: Driving hybrid cars and using fluorescent light bulbs is not going to address this challenge. And what's up with blaming China and other countries? The U.S. is by far the biggest producer of greenhouse-gas emissions. How about cleaning up our act first and offering an example to all the other countries around the world that pollute less than we do?

Finally, there is no need for hearings on climate change. The science has been in for about 20 years.

In the future, let's be more aggressive in interviewing people like that. They are much too comfortable with being in power. Let's hold them accountable as if they were truly elected instead of treating them as if they have lifetime appointments during which they ruin my children's chance at a decent quality of life.

Claudia Friedetzky

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Re: It's All Sarovar

Dear Editor:

I admire Grist, so it's with mixed feelings that I point out that the story "It's All Sarovar" is flat-out wrong. To the contrary, Sardar Sarovar Dam, one of the world's largest dams and the subject of a third of my book, is not completed. While work on the dam wall is apparently finished, 16-meter-high (52-foot-high) gates must still be installed atop it, bringing the dam to its planned height of 139 meters (456 feet) and inundating many more villages in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Altogether, the dam will force the desultory and largely unplanned relocation of at least 300,000 people. In the process it will shatter numerous indigenous cultures.

Whoever wrote the story that Grist carried has succumbed to the propaganda of the Indian state of Gujarat, where the dam is located. Because of long delays that have plagued the dam's construction, the state has been anxious to proclaim that both the dam and the irrigation canal connected to it are complete, but this assertion, like many others carried by Indian newspapers in the last few days about the dam, is far from true. Indeed, completion of the dam alone may take another two years.

Jacques Leslie

via Gristmill

Re: Poison Penn

Dear Editor:

Thank you to Grist for covering the Pennsylvania mercury-rule saga. This critical state rule will of course go well beyond the ineffective industry-loving federal rule, protecting public health and wildlife from toxic mercury pollution. Grist's coverage gets it mostly right, but it was slightly inaccurate, however.

You mentioned that the Legislative Reference Bureau was siding with the state Senate. In fact, the position of the majority of the Senate has changed radically since they voted in June 2006 on the matter, and this move by the LRB was unsanctioned by them. It was specifically requested by two state senators -- Sen. Mary Jo White (R) and Sen. Robert Jubelirer (R) -- and is being challenged by the governor's office as being well beyond the LRB's authority. The Senate had the opportunity to challenge the mercury rule at the end of the legislative session and did not; the additional time for review is under dispute and is being pushed by (again) Sen. White. So, there is not really harmony between the entire Senate and the LRB on this matter.

Between June and December 2006, many senators changed their positions as modifications were made to the state rule, and as nearly 11,000 Pennsylvanians submitted comments in support of the rule (only 37 were against!). This, by the way, was a state record (next highest was about 5,000 comments).

Thanks for your fantastic coverage, as always! Just wanted to clarify what I think is an important point.

Heather Sage, Director of Outreach

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture)

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Re: A Different Angle

Dear Editor:

Umbra's well-worded column in response to the sushi rebuff was fantastic! The harder I push my friends and coworkers, the more they tend to resist all of my ideas.

The solution is about alternatives, not abstinence. Heck, even priests have a problem with that!

Love the column. Please keep up the great work!

Chris Heuman

Elburn, Ill.

Dear Editor:

Thank you for your refreshing, insightful, and downright funny Ask Umbra column. I get tremendous enjoyment, lots of handy facts, and a great resource to refer friends to when preaching the green way of life. I've had several friends interested in global climate change and I've sent them your way to research more information. Without fail, they let me know that they started out reading one or two columns, then spent hours trolling the archives. Thank you for the work you do.

Kara Fitzpatrick

Palo Alto, Calif.

Dear Editor:

I am continually pleased with Grist -- great stories, quality writing, and humor on top of it. I love that Grist takes pains to give credit where it's due and is not as cynical as other environmental groups. When some corporate giant says it's going green, Grist gives them credit for trying, points out what's good about it, and interviews an executive, all the while encouraging them to do more, rather than just label it "greenwashing" and never give them a positive word of encouragement. I know this is a simplistic description, and of course, if it were that simple, it wouldn't be as good. But Grist seems to find the good news everywhere, without minimizing the bad. Grist is simply my favorite source of environmental news, and one of the few e-newsletters that I actually read every week, and look forward to! It is well worth my time.

Maggie Wolfe

Pasadena, Calif.

Re: The Grist List, 05 Jan 2007

Dear Editor:

When are you going to have "sexy eco-geek" personals as part of the site? At the very least, you ought to be able to do some fundraising by auctioning off dates with the staff and/or associated hot, mindful, lusty earth-savers.

They could even involve some sort of shameless do-gooderism. Hell, you could start a trend of going dutch on a coastal garbage pickup or a paper products protest, like one of those abstinence pledges for teens, except you get to do it as soon as you've done your good deed(s).

Dan Auerbach

New York, N.Y.

Editor's note: My, how we love good deeds. Especially shameless good deeds. And we support readers doing as many of them as possible. There probably won't be a personals section any time soon (though we are considering starting one), but you've got our email address if you want to come, ahem, plant some seeds with us.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: The Great White Hopeless

Dear Editor:

The closing line ("The baiji thus receives the dubious posthumous award for being the first large aquatic mammal to be killed off by human activity") in your recently published story on the baiji is incorrect.

Ever heard of the Steller's sea cow?

Thanks,

Bob Grant

New York, N.Y.

Editor's note: This reader and others who wrote in to alert us of the same mistake are correct. The incorrect information came from the cited article in the Independent, and it has now been corrected on our site. We're sorry we passed it on. How could we forget thee, ye olde Steller's sea cow?

Re: Don't Have a Cow

Dear Editor:

I think you may be confusing species of farm animals with breeds in your article. There is a big difference between a species and a breed. Different species cannot be bred with each other and still produce viable offspring. Different breeds of the same animal species can be bred with each other to produce viable offspring. The genetic diversity between species is very large compared to the genetic diversity between breeds of the same species.

This is not to say that losing breeds to extinction is of no concern -- the central point of your piece -- because it is. But it's not comparable to losing an entire species.

Thought you'd appreciate the clarification.

Gerry Stratelak

Editor's note: We did indeed confuse species and breeds in this news summary. Hopefully we haven't bred resentment among our readers for our specious claim. It has since been corrected on our website.

Re: Wake Up, Little Sushi

Dear Editor:

The idea that eating less fish (or driving your car less) is the solution is actually the problem. We need to take revolutionary action and actually live our values. If we don't get our butts out of cars and onto trains and bikes, the public transportation and bikeways will never happen. The same thing applies to eating fish. Fisheries are about to collapse because sea animals are viewed as a "resource" to be exploited. It's the exploitation mind-set that must be eliminated -- not modified to become "sustainable" exploitation.

"Conscientious meat-eater" is like "compassionate conservative." Adding one word cannot override the enormous, devastating environmental consequences that are inherent to animal agriculture.

It requires far less discipline to simply remove all fish from your diet. What could be easier than simply ordering the vegan sushi?

Noah

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Umbra addresses this very issue in her latest column. Check it out.

Re: Naughty by Nature

Dear Editor:

An old column from December 2005 by Emily Gertz, "Naughty by Nature," was just shared with me. I wanted to congratulate you for writing about the last huge industry to be held accountable in our cultural shift toward organic and sustainable products. As the owner and founder of Good Clean Love, it is continuously surprising that people have no idea what kinds of ingredients make up their intimacy products. We spend a lot of time educating our customers about the side effects of these products.

Thank you for providing real facts on a subject that needs more attention.

Wendy Strgar

Eugene, Ore.

Re: A Loom With a View

Dear Editor:

Umbra says in a recent column that it's better to keep eco-incorrect clothing you already own than to throw them out and buy new eco-correct ones, and there's definitely something to be said for that.

On the other hand, according to the Main Dish story "A Loom With a View," the U.S. organic cotton industry needs all the support it can get. So I'd say that there's a case to be made for buying organic-fiber clothing in addition to whatever you already have. And if you can donate the synthetic ones to a thrift shop or a program like Dress for Success, they won't be wasted. Not everyone can afford it, of course, but for those who can, I don't think the additional consumption is so harmful in this case.

Amy Fass

New York, N.Y.

Re: Live and Let Give

Dear Editor:

I am an avid Grist reader and enjoyed reading your holiday gift guide, since the commercialism of the holidays has always turned me off. I applaud the creativity and range of ideas featured, but you left a huge one out.

This year, instead of buying yet another thing that will gather dust or get taken back to a store, give the gift that keeps on giving, or shining. Give a pack of compact fluorescent light bulbs (cost: about $3 per bulb) with a fact sheet explaining the positive economic and environmental benefits of using them (average use would save the user approximately $30 per bulb over six to eight years). You could even give "bulb baskets" by placing a few CFLs and some botanical bulbs (tulips, gladiolas, daffodils, etc.) in small baskets from thrift shops with the tag line "Let these bulbs help you reduce your carbon impact!"

Jennifer Rennicks, Southeast Federal Coordinator

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Asheville, N.C.

Re: Do Not Giggle

Dear Editor:

You got this one a little wrong. Methane from livestock primarily comes from burping (the technical term is eructation), not from the other end.

Michael Gillenwater

via Gristmill

Dear Editor:

Happy holidays! With all of the crap on the web nowadays, it's a pleasure to have your email come in, as it is refreshing and intelligent.

Carlos Bocanegra

Dear Editor:

I've been reading Grist for quite some time now and have found it enlightening as well as entertaining. I am based in Greece and, along with a few others, I have started blogging about environmental issues, seeing as we are living in a country that has not addressed such issues in the manner that they require. I cannot help but think how wonderful it would be to get a European version of Grist. Have you guys ever thought about setting something like that up? I'm sure there would be many people interested in contributing.

Keep up the great work.

Daphne Mavrogiorgos

Athens, Greece

Dear Editor:

Your notice about donations stumped me. I like reading Grist, but I object to donating on the grounds that Grist is so "Americentric," if that's a word. Could I just remind you all that everyone does not live in the U.S.A.?

I wanted to read about sustainable fish-eating, and there were web addresses outside the U.S., but the one for Australia had absolutely nothing useful on it. When I contacted the person in charge with my questions, she said something to the effect of "Yes, we do concentrate on the U.S."

While there are news stories from around the world and I do like reading these, all of the "homegrown" advice, so to speak, is quite parochial. That may be all you are able to do given your location, but it does have a teeny weeny whiff of arrogance about it, and I am very frustrated about not being able to find out what I need to know.

Jan Dash

China

Editor's Note: We've received several letters in the past few weeks from foreign, or at least foreign-dwelling, friends pleading for a global Grist, or chastising us for the current lack of one. For now, our resources only allow for valiant, thorough, pun-laden coverage on a largely domestic scale. Speaking of those resources, and donations, and shameless self-promotion, you could help build up the Grist empire by donating to Grist. We're just sayin'.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Fill 'er Up

Dear Editor:

With all the talk about biofuels, the single most efficient and productive plant is always left out of the equation: hemp! Henry Ford built and fueled a car with it, one acre of it equals four of timber, and you harvest it every year.

Before its demonization during the 1930s, it was the single most useful plant known to humans -- there are over 25,000 known uses. Fuel, food, shelter, medicine, pleasure, spirituality -- there is nothing like it. The reason it remains illegal has never had anything to do with how it affects our minds and bodies; it is illegal because of the damage it could do to the oil, timber, cotton, dairy, alcohol, textile, tobacco, and other industries.

Garry Minor

Columbus, Ind.

Re: Give Green, Go Yellow

Dear Editor:

While I admire Tom Philpott's work in general, a 2,800-word opinion piece on the evil giant that is Archer Daniels Midland was not what I expected when I set out to read this article.

I'd love to think ADM was a corporate evildoer -- I basically already think that -- but this story didn't expand my horizons on that front, because I'm not sure I can trust it. As a journalist, Philpott's job is to conduct interviews, get multiple angles on the story, and craft a narrative out of that. This story read as though he spent a long time reading leftist books on corporate scandals and then wrote a piece on ADM and ethanol. I don't doubt most of it is true, but I'd like to see the opinions of historians, policy analysts, and, of course, the company itself -- then I could actually trust the story.

I'd love to see good quality muckraking journalism on ADM, but this isn't it.

Stephanie

via Gristmill

Re: Give Green, Go Yellow

Dear Editor:

I have to disagree with Stephanie: "As a journalist, Philpott's job is to conduct interviews, get multiple angles on the story, and craft a narrative out of that."

That format you describe is what you will find in newspapers and on television -- short, watered down, inaccurate, "balanced" entertainment for the masses tailored not to offend subscribers or advertisers. If it is entertainment you are after, stick to your newspapers. If you are looking for tons of data presented in an extensive, well-written format (including six internet links), complete with intelligent, well-defended critique from a writer who knows the subject intimately, well, you're here.

Interviews are certainly not necessary in today's data-rich (internet-accessible) world. An interview is a really inefficient place to mine for data and certainty; such data carries no guarantee of validity. What value does the opinion of an interviewee have, especially one of a corporate representative?

You lost me when you said you are not sure you can trust the article. What exactly do you mean? A list of citations at the end of the article isn't usually done here, but I'm sure one could be provided. When was the last time you read a newspaper article with citations and footnotes? Tom's opinions are easy to parse out from facts, and agreeing with all of them is not a prerequisite for reading the article.

By the way, ADM isn't evil. It is just a very successful business that has maximized profit at the expense of the environment and has plans in place to continue to utilize government subsidies to further a game plan that has proved immensely profitable in the past. Tom's "clearly" biased articles do a fantastic job of educating us on this topic and he does so without trying to convince the reader that he has no strong opinion on the subject. You know exactly where he stands and why.

biodiversivist

via Gristmill

Editor's note: What do you think? Share your two cents on Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: What About the Land?

Dear Editor:

Thank you to Julia Olmstead for the introduction to the concept of energy balance in biofuels. I suggest not focusing too strongly on this, though.

Whether or not a biofuel uses slightly more or slightly less fossil energy to grow, process, and distribute than just burning the fossil fuel in the first place is certainly interesting. However, as an energy engineer, the larger question for me is: if we're not even sure if its impact is positive or negative, then how much of our time and money is it worth? If going to all the trouble of making corn-based ethanol yields only a 10 percent reduction in fossil-fuel use (and concomitant environmental, political, and economic risks), then why not throw our weight behind something else? We could be spending our scarce dollars on supply options that pay back the fossil energy used to make them many times over, rather than only coming out ahead by a few percentage points.

With the same amount of investment (especially counting the vast subsidies to corn farming) we could be getting much more efficient vehicles and reducing carbon emissions and oil imports without using up sizeable portions of our land, water, soil, and other valuable resources.

Geosynchronous

via Gristmill

Re: What About the Land?

Dear Editor:

Fine, Julia, but you only wrote half the article. You didn't mention jatropha, castor bean, algae, and so forth -- in other words, the oil-producing crops that don't use up valuable cropland and fossil-fuel-based chemicals. Even if you don't feel they are the answer, you show that you didn't research this subject very well when you leave them out entirely and instead go after crops like corn and soybeans that are obviously entirely unsuited for biofuel production.

Roy Lent

Escazu, Costa Rica

Re: Something Ventured, Something Gained

Dear Editor:

I was about to respond to your fundraiser when I read your starry-eyed, worshipful pieces about biofuels capitalists and realized you're in denial about climate change and peak oil. My small contributions will better serve elsewhere. I'm sure folks like Vinod Khosla will keep you online.

Jerry Silberman

Re: The Big Three

Dear Editor:

Maywa Montenegro's article is useful, but misses a major point -- there is no free lunch.

If you use switchgrass or any other plant matter to create fuel, especially if you use the residual lignin for combustion, you are depleting the soil at an incredible rate. Yields will shortly fall dramatically unless tremendous energy inputs are used to maintain soil fertility, so you're back to square one -- or zero.

Second, when she talks of 93 percent more energy out than in, that's an energy return of less than 2:1. Petroleum yields 20:1, even now on the cusp of peak oil. If we restructured society to use perhaps 5 percent of the fuel we do now for vehicles, and none for heating or industrial processes, biofuel sources might make sense.

JerryPBO

via Gristmill

Re: The Big Three

Dear Editor:

The biodiesel part of the article was internally inconsistent:

"Over its lifetime, pure biodiesel emits about 78 percent less CO2 than conventional diesel. Burning biodiesel also reduces emissions of smog-forming hydrocarbons and particulate matter by about 50 percent, and emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates by 100 percent."

And later:

"That said, researchers at the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College recently found that biodiesel production is highly efficient, generating 93 percent more energy than is required to make it. They also found that biodiesel reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 41 percent compared with fossil fuels. When Tier 2 emissions standards bring biodiesel up to par with gasoline and ethanol for air pollutants, biodiesel seems like it should be a no-brainer for green energy."

You are using two different CO2 numbers, and the 78 percent one wasn't a realistic lifetime estimate. Secondly, what are you comparing biodiesel to? The particulate-matter numbers are for 100 percent biodiesel (which voids engine warranties), and they are compared to the old sulfur diesel, not today's ultra-low-sulfur diesel. Studies show no significant difference between diesel and biodiesel when an emissions control device like a diesel particulate filter is used. Such filters will be required for all new on-road diesels in 2007.

We need to think a bit more about the diesel lifecycle. Biodiesel production is not climate neutral if there are significant land-use changes. Here's a study that helped me ask more realistic questions about the full costs and benefits of switching to biofuels and what dramatically changing the corn and soy markets could mean for emissions: "Incorporating the Effect of Price Changes on CO2-Equivalent Emissions From Alternative-Fuel Lifecycles" [PDF].

Roger Smith

Clean Water Action

Hartford, Conn.

Editor's note: Maywa Montenegro responds to this and other reader feedback in Gristmill.

Re: Biofuel Skeptic Extraordinaire

Dear Editor:

Pimentel is wrong in his analysis because he does not apply it equally when he evaluates the petroleum industry -- the energy it takes to make tankers, pipelines, drilling rigs, trucks to explore new regions for oil, cleanup costs, etc. The reason you leave out the energy to make the combines, vehicles, and other equipment in ethanol production is because they are preexisting structures that would be used to produce other crops and are not single-use items. For example, if a farmer were not producing corn for ethanol, he would still own all the same equipment so that he could produce food crops. I doubt the petroleum industry would stand up to the same magnifying glass of energy usage that Pimentel applies to the ethanol industry if he were to tally up what it takes to get a gallon of gas to the pumps.

Ethanoloverload

via Gristmill

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: How Green Was My Election?

Dear Editor:

Things are clearly not as bad now as they were before Election Day. However, we should temper our celebratory mood by considering:

1. Nancy Pelosi, the next likely Speaker of the House, supported the war until her constituents in San Francisco made it politically impossible for her to continue doing so. As we say in Earth First!, war is bad for all species, and for the land, air, and water. This is a huge environmental issue, and if the Dems don't withdraw the troops from Iraq very soon, the reason for the victory Tuesday will have been drowned in a sea of political baloney.

2. Using wind and solar as sources of energy is much less harmful than using fuels that must be extracted from the earth, but unless Americans and others who consume way too much reduce their consumption, this is all rearranging the deck chairs, so to speak. For example, I haven't heard any Dems talking about creating communities where people don't drive private motor vehicles, or getting Americans to consume less fuel (and everything else).

3. Many of the newly elected Dems are right-wingers, not progressives. We must work very hard to push the party toward progressive policies and away from business as usual.

So, let's celebrate our election victories, especially the ones we personally worked on. But we still have our work cut out for us. There are no magical, technological solutions to overconsumption. We simply have to consume a lot less.

Jeff Hoffman

San Francisco, Calif.

Re: The Grist List, 03 Nov 2006

Dear Editor:

Normally, I love all things Grist -- there's just something too fabulous about smartass environmentalism that an inveterate smartass like myself finds hard to resist. But the comment in a recent Grist List regarding virgin eyes and linking to a photo of an older couple was a little rude. I don't know, maybe I'm way off base and you were being ironic about the phallic design on the T-shirt and not the condition of the lady's legs, for example. If so, I apologize. If not, phooey on you all. Age happens and it ain't always graceful. It is, however, always interesting and, in its own way, quite beautiful. Kudos to both the lady and the gentleman for having the courage to be pictured in their undies for all the world to see.

Risa S.

Denver, Colo.

Dear Editor:

I must know who writes those chirpy, pop-culture-laden headlines for the Daily Grist. Is it a single person channeling a lifetime of slogans, songs, and bad puns into pithy, all-caps zingers? Or is it a panel of Gristonians sitting around a conference table SNL-style trying to come up with the ultimate groaners? Do tell. The green world wonders.

Jason Stevenson

Emmaus, Pa.

Editor's Note: Our pun-dit this week is Benny Andersson, the keyboardist from ABBA, and next week we'll be channeling the pop-culture knowledge of that girl who played Vicki on Small Wonder.

Re: Ethanomics 101

Dear Editor:

Unfortunately, you have been sucked into the "sham" of Big Oil's propaganda on ethanol!

Your citation for energy balance information is a year old. Since then, the journal Science has shown -- beyond any doubt -- that ethanol is much better on energy balance than gasoline. Tad Patzek is a former Shell Oil executive and David Pimentel is a radical anti-growth guy who is an entomologist by training -- their study you cite is horribly flawed and not one other researcher has ever come to their conclusion! Not one ...

Corn farming is much more environmentally friendly than it was even five years ago. Yields are dramatically higher and conservation practices have reduced soil erosion by a factor of 100! Nitrogen applications have been cut by two-thirds. It's still not prairie grass, but once the corn-ethanol industry infrastructure is in place, it becomes a lot easier to develop cellulosic ethanol, which is the environmental nirvana -- sustainable, low-carbon energy.

Bob Welch

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association

Redgranite, Wis.

Re: Home Is Best

Dear Editor:

Thanks for including this well-written review of Unbowed. I was contemplating getting the book and am now eager to purchase it.

Michelle Jesperson

San Francisco, Calif.

Re: Still Giddy After All These Hours

Dear Editor:

Phoenix may not be Seattle, but we have a very active sustainability movement, several embryonic eco-hoods, and quite a few people who are very active in the environmental and sustainability movements. I may not want more people to move here, and I may not like the summers, but please don't write us off as doomed! Check out the Phoenix Permaculture Guild's active listserv and I think you might change your opinion.

Patty Hutton

Phoenix, Ariz.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Give and Takings

Dear Editor:

I'm glad you took up the story of the extreme private-property initiatives put on Western states' ballots, but was taken aback by the tenor of the story. I rely on Grist for news that understands the environmental impact of policies, but this story seemed to swallow almost whole the story the proponents of these measures are putting out.

The purpose of these measures is to make it so costly for governments to regulate land use that they simply can no longer do it. They are being paid for by adherents to Grover Norquist's goal of "making government so small he can drown it in the bathtub."

This is not about eminent domain. And it's not really even about "regulatory takings," a questionable and loaded phrase in itself (like the "death tax" or "Clear Skies initiative"). None of these measures suggest ways to pay for the massive costs they'll entail. This is not an attempt to set up a better system.

This is about ending the ability of government to make laws about how land should be used -- a basic function of government. And government, let us remind ourselves here, is not some amorphous entity -- ultimately, it's us. It's the people voting on urban growth boundaries to control development and protect green space, or deciding to keep land in farming, or keeping liquor stores away from schools.

And by the way, voting for houses to have one acre of land each is emphatically not smart growth. Smart growth is about keeping neighborhoods compact and walkable, building up, not out, so people don't have to drive to get everywhere. It's not about subdividing working farms to build big houses.

Elizabeth Stampe

San Francisco, Calif.

Re: Engine Block

Dear Editor:

I grew up way out in the boonies, seven miles of mountainous and bike-path-free highway from the nearest town. I can tell you that our household emissions decreased a whole lot when I got my driver's license. Why? Because instead of two round trips, one to take me to school (or wherever I was going) and one to pick me up, one round trip did the job. Sure, some days my mom had errands to do that she could have done when she dropped me off at school, but she often managed to avoid going into town at all, so there truly was a savings of a whole trip on a number of days. Even if she did go, it was still a total of only two round trips, the same as if we only had one vehicle.

Also, we always had vehicles for different uses. Having horses (which itself uses resources, sure, but we can debate that some other time), we needed a truck to haul hay, pull the horse trailer, etc. We didn't need to drive it all the time, though, so having more than one car was the solution. We couldn't have gotten rid of the truck, so having only one vehicle would have forced us to drive it all the time, whereas having the truck and having other, more fuel-efficient vehicles for daily driving meant that the truck was only doing its damage occasionally. The 10 percent environmental cost of manufacturing another vehicle is well worth savings in the 90 percent if you can drive a vehicle that gets twice as good gas mileage and only drive the more polluting vehicle when it can do something the more efficient one can't, right?

Willa Bandler

Santa Fe, N.M.

Editor's note: Share your opinion on owning multiple cars in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Teach Your Children Well

Dear Editor:

Congratulations on Umbra's answer to the mom who was justifiably worried about the air quality at her daughter's new school. I've enjoyed Grist columns for a long time, but I had to write to commend you for your advice in this column.

It is rare to find someone who is wise and compassionate enough to advise parents not to send their children, especially those with asthma, into harm's way. Many parents are in an untenable position -- forced to choose between their children's safety and their education. They are often coerced or intimidated into tolerating unhealthy conditions. And unfortunately, in my experience, physicians are more likely to medicate instead of advocate. It is hard for them to believe that schools can be so unhealthy. State and federal education and environmental agencies have a host of voluntary programs and manuals that do little to protect children from hazards, even in persistently dangerous schools.

I am writing to offer the resources on my website, Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics. Parents often need a lot of support, not only to protect their children from environmental hazards but from the coercion and intimidation of school officials who do not understand the harm they cause when they create or ignore hazards at school.

Ellie Goldberg

Re: Shaky Reasoning

Dear Editor:

I love Umbra's column, but in a recent one, she wrote, "Tidal waves, as it happens, are caused by the many and varied gravitational interactions between the moon, the sun, and the earth." That's not true. Tides are caused by gravitational interactions, but "tidal wave" is just another (inaccurate) word for "tsunami."

Jane Shevtsov

Athens, Ga.

Re: God & the Environment

Dear Editor:

I am very pleased to see your series on God & the Environment. Thank you, thank you. The interviews with Wilson, McKibben, Moyers, Sleeth, and DeWitt are wonderful.

I cannot help noticing, however, that all the people you plan to interview for this series are white males. I hope you will broaden your scope to include women and people of color -- of which there are many religious leaders working on environmental issues.

As Grist continues to work on this important topic of religion and the environment I hope you expand to interview a more inclusive group of leaders. This is not meant to be a critique but rather a voice of encouragement.

Barbara R. Rossing

Leavenworth, Wash.

Re: God & the Environment

Dear Editor:

Is God green? It never occurred to me that this question would be at issue. I personally have never had a problem resolving my spirituality with my environmentalist views. Of course God is green! Otherwise, He would have created a universe of machines that dispensed whatever we needed rather than an intricately interwoven, perfectly balanced natural environment!

Kelly Fitzpatrick

Denver, Colo.

Editor's note: Share your opinion about God & the Environment in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Consumption Unction, What's Your Function?

Dear Editor:

In Umbra's meaty menu for the mind, she mentions that Canadians even have a fourth "R," to go along with the other three: that being "Recover." Heck, eh, being one of them myself, in fact from the Great White North (Whitehorse), I can tell you that we Canadians are way beyond that. We have incorporated perhaps the most important "R" of all: "Rethink." Speaks volumes don't it?

Morris Lamrock

Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada

Re: Walking the Cradle

Dear Editor:

Thank you, Grist, for the excellent article on our C2C Home project in Roanoke. The first C2C Home Competition entry is being built in the historic Gainsboro neighborhood by our partners at Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation. BRHDC has taken the initiative to build the first house and is using the services of Southern Heritage Homes to complete the modular part of the build.

We recognize at C2C Home that building a true cradle-to-cradle home is not possible at this time because many relevant materials are simply unavailable. However, we hope that by attempting to build such a house, we will generate the interest in others to work with us toward a true cradle-to-cradle structure.

Your article reflected so many of the reasons we feel this particular design was the right choice for the community. We thank you for your interest and attention, and look forward to updating you on the progress of our exciting project.

Nell Boyle

Roanoke, Va.

Re: Behind the Vail

Dear Editor:

Tim Sprinkle's article about the alleged greening of the town of Vail and Vail Resort shows in action the classic problem that climate-change activists presently face: We'll do something on climate disruption, and it will make us feel good, but it won't be sufficient to address the problem. And that will represent an enormous, and tragic, lost opportunity.

Some members of the ski industry have belatedly come to realize that climate disruption might actually be bad for business, and that their clients, who believe themselves to be environmentalists, want said resorts to appear green. And while it's good to run ski lifts and the lights in town hall on wind power, this accomplishment is dwarfed by the elephant in the room: the industrial-tourism model Vail and other major ski resorts have come to epitomize.

Vail Mountain alone, one of a half-dozen large ski mountains in central Colorado, can handle 20,000 skiers on its slopes at one time. The nearby Eagle Airport has, since its expansion in the mid-1990s, become one of Colorado's busiest, hosting a string of large commercial jets every day, all winter long (and summer, too). The four lanes of Interstate 70 leading from Denver to Vail aren't sufficient to handle the skier traffic -- multi-hour delays, each way, of streaming SUVs are common. In other words, the massive energy expenditure implicit in bringing hundreds of thousands of skiers and snowboarders from around the country and the world to Vail, Aspen, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Winter Park, and similar resorts (not to mention what it takes to support them while they're visiting) vastly outweighs the energy consumed by the municipality or the ski area. And nobody is talking about addressing this aspect of skiing and snowboarding.

What we are seeing at Vail and elsewhere in the ski industry is good intentions that fall far short of the mark. The science is clear: the developed world needs to reduce carbon output by 70 percent or more if we are to prevent catastrophic climate shifts. That level of change will happen in the ski industry only when there is a bold reimagining of what a successful ski business looks like, how it works, and where its customers come from. As a lifelong devotee of snow sports, I can only hope that this happens before there isn't any snow left in my beloved Colorado mountains.

Hal Clifford

Great Barrington, Mass.

Re: Born Again, Again

Dear Editor:

Bill McKibben is a fine writer, but I keep wishing his talents were used in a more aggressive call to action and in focusing more attention on the business solutions that need to be implemented.

A generation ago, the talk of global warming was confined to a bunch of nerdy scientists. A decade ago, nine tree-huggers and a spotted owl joined the conversation. Today discussions on the issue are everywhere and include everyone. But it has taken 35 years to have a level of public awareness that is significant -- and that awareness has yet to translate into responsible personal action.

Social and cultural change happen at the pace described above, but the pace of global warming demands a sense of urgency. The market for goods, services, and technologies to combat global warming is estimated at $3 trillion and growing -- and the rate of change in market-driven initiatives has been at speeds never before imagined. Global warming is most likely to be reversed not by good intentions but by savvy business decisions, based on realizing that environmental stewardship is the smartest approach to resource management and reasonable profit. Eventually society will catch up, but we humans have willing spirits and weak flesh, so businesses need to be created which give folks easy, painless ways to do the right thing.

I am consistently amazed and saddened by the level of talk vs. the level of action. My organization works hard to get to folks and educate them about the issues, provide them with a really easy first step in cleaning up their own carbon footprint, and engage them in real action in environmental stewardship. Carbon credits are not "the" answer; there is no silver bullet. But by financing a broad range of initiatives which might not be undertaken otherwise, carbon credits become at least a part of the plan which can work.

We must go at this problem from all sides, surround it, attack it, reverse it! Global warming is moving forward and it's up to us to stop it now! Our approach is market-based because that works best and fastest in America. All the philosophizing will raise the level of dialogue, but discussion cannot get us there fast enough. American business genius, ingenuity, technology, and love of profit can!

Virginia Simpson

Greenville, S.C.

Re: Bordering on Ridiculous

Dear Editor:

Oh, you youngsters. I love your sense of humor but some of your opinions are so, shall we say, young. The border fence (which should cover the entire border), which you say will be so hurtful to some species, can only help save whatever remaining environment we have in this country. Imagine the U.S. with another 100 million people. Sound like fun? Some of us remember this country with 170 million people, and believe me, it was a lot nicer, cleaner, safer, and you had a lot more freedom. Wildlife had a lot more space. You can talk about sprawl all you want, but 400 million people have to live somewhere, and it's going to be in habitat now being used by wildlife. Now should I go on to mention the 250 million tons of garbage left on the border by the illegals?

Claudia Bloom

Mesa, Ariz.

Re: Wake Up and Smell the Progress

Dear Editor:

There's a very good, and ridiculously obvious, reason why progressives are reluctant to embrace the so-called "latest signs of progress" (such as the sale of organics by Wal-Mart): we don't trust them!

How many times do we need to hear about yet another corporation that says one thing and does another in order to feed the bottom line? An entity whose sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders is Machiavellian by nature, and does not have either the interests of consumers or the welfare of the planet in mind when making decisions.

The only true solution to all of this is for communities to once again begin producing their own food and commodities, and to learn to live more simply. After all, when push comes to shove (and we're almost there), we don't really need to eat pineapples if we live in Maine, and we don't need to eat lettuce in February if we live in upstate New York.

The last thing I want to support is mega-corporations getting involved in the organic food business. I'll buy my vegetables from the farm down the road or the Saturday farmers' market or the regional farmers' market, thank you, and I will never give Wal-Mart or its ilk one dime of my money to support their evil empire.

choffman

via Gristmill

Editor's note: What do you think? Share your two cents on Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Rattling the Food Chain

Dear Editor:

Let's build on the momentum generated by these great books by creating an Eat Local Wiki, where we all research and document who is doing what to promote local food in our towns and on our campuses. Is your school doing enough to serve locally grown food? If so, add it to the wiki and tell everyone how the school does it. If not, write about that too. Do you know of restaurants that strive to serve locally grown food? List 'em! Is there a pod of "locavores" near you -- people who have challenged themselves to eat only locally grown food for a week, a month, three months, etc.? List 'em! I've got the very beginning of the wiki going at WikiForGood.org.

Rob

via Gristmill

Re: Rattling the Food Chain

Dear Editor:

Tom Philpott beat me to the punch with "Rattling the Food Chain," an idea I've had for an article ever since the review copies of books aimed at America's growing cadre of conscious eaters began piling up on my desk early this year. Tom missed one, though. Nina Planck's Real Food: What to Eat and Why traces the author's own personal and professional passion for substantive sustenance to her childhood farm near Washington, D.C., where her family played a leading role in the growing farmers' market scene.

Thank you, Grist, for continuing to hit on themes that matter. As Wendell Berry said: "Eating is an agricultural act." The closer we can connect plate to farmer -- circumventing the middlemen: fast-food giants, agriculture monopolies, and transportation costs -- the better off we all will be.

Dan Sullivan

Editor's note: Got food on your mind? Talk it over on Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: The Trouble With Normal

Dear Editor:

In the U.S., it is hard not to have a car. I'm from Portugal -- and in cities in Portugal there's lots of public transportation, and only nowadays are people all having their own cars. Not me.

It's been six years now without my own car. I'm a mom too. And most of the time a single mom. I've lived in the U.S. a few times, in North Carolina and also Florida, and though it was difficult to get everything done that I needed to sometimes, I didn't have a car.

Poverty sometimes is what is necessary to make us aware and drive us into environmentally friendly ways.

It is always a positive thing to help us overcome difficulties.

Thanks for your article. It's important that we change our standards and lifestyles into natural, eco-friendly ones, and get rid of ego-status patterns that have been leading us to destroy our environment, for the sake of money and status. Cheers to you and all the moms on the planet who care enough to make courageous choices and build a better, greener world, free and clean!

Rita A.P. Fonseca

Cascais, Portugal

Editor's note: Give your two cents about living without a car on Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Put a Plug in It

Dear Editor:

I don't think that Umbra made a fair conclusion that basically it is a toss-up over whether electric cars or plug-in hybrids are really a big benefit compared to gasoline cars.

She compared a Prius, the ultimate gas-sipper, to the Tesla Roadster, a high-powered electric car. A fairer comparison would have been the Tesla's efficiency to maybe a Corvette or Ferrari, cars with similar performance characteristics as far as acceleration and passenger capacity. The fact that even an electron-sucking, swanky sports car like the Tesla is more efficient than the Prius speaks volumes as to the dramatic efficiency differences between the two technologies for cars in the same class.

Nichols Brown

Redondo Beach, Calif.

Re: Put a Plug in It

Dear Editor:

It's hard to take anyone seriously who refers to an electric motor as an engine. And no matter how you try to compare the efficiency of electric motorized vehicles to internal-combustion-engine vehicles, they still win. I have been driving an EV since 1994, cannot even find the cost of fuel in my electric bill, and I love it.

Art Wehl

North Salt Lake City, Utah

Editor's note: Rant or rave about electric cars in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Up Against the Wal-Mart

Dear Editor:

First I gotta eat organic. Then I gotta fork over an arm and a leg to do so while I'm told to be patient because as organics penetrate the market, prices will drop. Then organics penetrate the market and I'm told that to be politically correct, I gotta keep paying (now artificially) high prices in order to help keep the little guy in business.

I am all in favor of the little guy. But you know what? The folks who shop at Wal-Mart because it's cheap and that's what they can afford, they're the little guy too. And because what they can afford right now is generally Twinkies and frozen dinners chock full of fat and sugar, they have a higher incidence of diabetes and weight problems than the rich people like me who read Grist (we're all rich compared to most of the country and you know it). Those folks should be able to afford to eat organically (and healthily) too.

It's not a perfect world and I don't want my co-op to be overrun with organic tomatoes from Chile, since being shipped by massive boats spewing diesel hardly conforms to my idea of organic or my political ideals. But the price of organics has to come down. If not for my pocketbook (which is hardly bottomless), then for the health of the industry in the long-term. And if the little, local guy can't do that, you've got to find another reason to charge the prices you feel you deserve and convince me and all the other people like me to do so.

Your bottom line isn't going to do it for me, since I need to look out for mine at some point.

Charles Redell

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Share your opinion about Wal-Mart's effect on small farmers in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Fight or Flight

Dear Editor:

In the late '60s I felt city living was a dead end and moved to a very rural area in New Mexico. I built my house with adobe I made myself, and cut and brought logs to a mill to be made into lumber.

No, you don't need to suffer to be green, but to "be green" you need to exert effort about taking care of yourself. To can food that you have grown. To obtain your own heat and to work very hard, as did our landed ancestors. The reward is that you live naturally and inexpensively. In years when I have over $8,000, I go traveling.

What I see is people who mistake discomfort for pain and the beauty of involvement as a form of suffering. Here's to all the fat and lazy, whatever their color!

LaMont Parker

Dixon, N.M.

Editor's note: Share your opinions about dropping out of society on Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Eatin' Good in the Neighborhood

Dear Editor:

Being a proponent of the eaters' power to change our current food system, I cringed at the subhead "Why 'the market' alone can't save local agriculture." It is because of the passion of the farmers, yes, but I would say in equal parts the dedication of eaters (who sometimes go to great lengths to seek out local foods) that we are seeing such a steady increase in the number of farmers' markets and CSAs.

Tom Philpott is right, though. Eaters can take this movement only so far. Infrastructure, particularly for processing pasture-raised meats, is desperately needed to attain the accessible, trustworthy food system for which real-food revivalists are working. Bravo, Tom, it's a point well made. Clearly, eaters want an alternative to industrially raised foods and there is a growing group of farmers who are willing to provide it. Now it's time some tax dollars get earmarked to connect the necessary dots.

Sherri Vinton

Norwalk, Conn.

Editor's note: Share your thoughts about the market's role in local agriculture in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Jason and the Laundronauts

Dear Editor:

This was just delightful to read! Renewed my faith in Grist and the view of "activism." It worries me when we think that technology can "save" us and when activism just means buying "green" and not reducing consumption patterns. I really liked what Jason Wentworth said about those perspectives leading us to not tackling larger issues, ones where we need to take a long look at our own behavior (and systems issues) and make changes.

karenc

via Gristmill

Re: High Fidelity

Dear Editor:

I am a bit mystified as to Ms. Gies' stellar opinion of Cuba's record. I don't believe she qualified her language enough in the article to demonstrate why Cuba has, only within the last 10 years or so, been able to make claims of being an organic and environmentally conscious society. Were it not for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Bay of Havana would most certainly have maintained its status as the most polluted body of water in the Western Hemisphere, as it was in the 1980s, and organic farming would be unheard of.

I would suggest rose-tinted glasses be removed and some research be looked into on the environmental record of communist countries in the last century, compared to those of capitalist or other societies. Cuba's current organic and environmental awakening has been born out of necessity.

You and I have the luxury of arguing whether or not that is a good thing. Unfortunately, the Cubans on the island don't even have the luxury to argue the point. Do you think an outfit like Grist would even be allowed to exist in Cuba? I am also grateful for people as dedicated as yourselves giving us such an incredible resource to use, learn from, debate, and cherish.

Bryan Dempsey

Miami, Fla.

Editor's note: Share your opinions on or experiences in Cuba in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Selling Exxon

Dear Editor:

Tyler Clements might want to remind his buddy, who yawned about An Inconvenient Truth before talking seriously about it, that Gore's slideshow was in fact produced in Keynote (on a Mac), not in PowerPoint. That's an important distinction because of the ease with which the slideshow was produced and woven through the movie. The crew was apparently thrilled. Not to mention all the great animations, transitions, and special effects, few of which are so easy to create in PowerPoint. Just thought you'd like to know.

Ben Rosenthal

Re: Selling Exxon

Dear Editor:

I applaud the article by Tyler Clements. I was a Mobil Oil employee for 11 years -- Exxon and Mobil recently merged. In the '80s and early '90s, I was proud to work for what I believed to be a morally responsible, outspoken organization with integrity. Since Exxon Valdez, I have felt very differently about how Exxon treats its customers and the environment. Their arrogance to those who are responsible for their financial success is intolerable. When Mobil merged with Exxon, I was sad to see a respectful, responsive, fair organization disappear. Due to the massive culture change, most of my "old" friends have since left.

Nonetheless, my stock has long since been sold off; I, too, responded dramatically to Gore's documentary, and am sick and tired of Exxon getting away with murder. Many thanks to Clements for making the big leap, especially at a time when the financial rewards are particularly attractive.

Renee Steiger

Washington, D.C.

Editor's note: Share your opinion about Tyler Clements' decision to sell his Exxon stock in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: From Sea to Declining Sea

Dear Editor:

Great article about the oceans, except that manatees do not live in the Pacific Ocean. Repeating biologically incorrect information just gives the sharp-eyed pseudo-scientists something to use against us.

Rob Barron

Warrenton, Va.

Re: The Priest and the Prophet

Dear Editor:

Star Trek vs. Mad Max vs. Ecotopia vs. Planet of the Apes. Which future vision do you subscribe to?

As usual, reality will most likely be some combination of the above, rather than one of the extreme visions.

It's unlikely that technology will solve everything, and just as likely that it will solve nothing. It will solve some problems, but our lifestyles will have to change and adapt. Civilization as we know it will end, but in its place will be a different kind of civilization. Life will go on, it will just be different, just as our life and civilization today are different than what people experienced 150 or 200 years ago.

adamsteven

via Gristmill

Re: Civic Doubty

Dear Editor:

Sorry, Umbra, but if someone has the money to buy a new car, it's almost always a better environmental choice than keeping your old one -- even a 1988 Honda Civic that gets 39 mpg. Environmental Working Group analyzed 2.5 million California Smog Check records to see which cars on the road are cleanest -- not just when they came off the showroom floor, but after years of use. The advances in pollution technology mean that today's cleanest small cars are an astounding 88 times cleaner than a 1988 Civic with manual transmission driven in urban California. Readers can rate their own cars, or one they're thinking of buying, here.

Bill Walker

Oakland, Calif.

Editor's note: Keep the old car or buy a new one? Share your opinion in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: The Grist List, 28 Jul 2006

Dear Editor:

I'm deeply disappointed by the snarky attack on a family I recently featured in Portland Ground, my photoblog. David Roberts and Sarah van Schagen apparently think that a family of four in a human-powered vehicle is a big joke. How can you or they reconcile that kind of small-minded mocking attack on a family that is actually using an alternative transportation vehicle in daily life?

Since when did the sight of a slightly overweight person out exercising and not destroying the planet become so amusing to your supposedly environmentally oriented magazine?

You could make fun of 40 million fat-assed SUV drivers, but you think it's time to have a little laugh at this one family in a million that is actually doing some good, and frankly driving around in a vehicle that is hell of a lot closer to the future of transport than any SUV.

I just can't believe you'd take that approach. My opinion of Grist just went through the floor. David Roberts and Sarah van Schagen should be ashamed of how they described this family, and you and they owe them a public apology.

Miles Hochstein

Portland, Ore.

Re: The Grist List, 28 Jul 2006

Dear Editor:

Just a thought about your wrinkles comment about Redford. It seems to buy into the national obsession that wrinkles are bad, aging is bad, and maybe even that a person who was once such a sex symbol should be particularly embarrassed that he is not hot and 30 anymore.

Hell, few of us are (or possibly a few of you still are). I am kissing 50 and don't have wrinkles yet, but I think that since part of environmentalism is understanding how consumer attitudes are created by advertising in order to increase consumption (and plenty of overconsumption), and that "aging is a terrible thing" is taught to the public by corporations in order to sell stupid stuff, it would be nice for you folks to still be funny without falling into some of the more stupid cultural attitudes created by advertising.

Laurel Phoenix

Re: Be Careful What You Don't Wish For

Dear Editor:

You got my attention with your blurb about Jim Bensman being labeled a terrorist. Jim and I met at a forest-activist gathering in the spring of 1989. All of these years, Jim has been a tireless defender of the forest ecosystem in my own neighborhood. Jim's time, energy, and skills have done more to preserve this little piece of the natural world than any other individual I know of.

The kicker is that he has accomplished it within the framework of the law, learning and using the processes set up by the federal agencies who administer these lands (a bewildering and daunting task). He has done this playing by their rules! Jim Bensman should be commended as a model citizen and stalwart patriot acting on behalf of public lands. He is surely one of my heroes in this world.

Yep. I saw him hug a tree once in Indiana -- watch out for this guy!

Becca Horton

Riverton, Mo.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: The Writing on the Wal-Mart

Dear Editor:

First let me say, I love Grist and appreciate the work you do and, mostly, enjoy the irreverent humor with which you do it. However, being a staunch liberal Protestant, a devoted environmentalist, and an ardent Democrat living in a deeply red state, I found your article on Al Gore's appearance at the Wal-Mart gathering not just personally insulting, but also a vivid example of precisely what environmental advocates should not be doing.

I wonder if it's possible for anyone to be a Christian and not be the target of snarky comments from you folks? Honestly, some of us are Christians out of a commitment to service and compassion. We don't give a rat's patoot about the wedge issues of abortion and homosexuality and all the other beside-the-point crap the cynical manipulators of the religious right are promoting to deliver their flock to the polls. Some of us work our butts off here in the trenches to let people know that our faith is about a great deal other than that -- like, maybe, poverty, the disenfranchised, and stewardship of the planet. Having ridicule-by-association heaped on our heads for the BS perpetrated in our names by Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and their ilk is bad enough. To have it reinforced in one of our favorite magazines really bites.

One a less personal level, don't you think we need to cut the Other Guys a break when they move even a centimeter in the right direction? The smarty-pants, hipper-than-thou attitude of the Gore-meets-Wal-Mart article might build in-crowd cred among a certain number of readers, but it profoundly diminishes the amount of actual difference that can be made in moving the environmentally tardy toward the green.

Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the blabocracy wouldn't stand a chance if the liberals, progressives, and greens hadn't worked so hard at making the working-class stiff feel stoopid for his lifestyle and his choices. Their movement gets its oomph from the proud working person's backlash against exactly the snarky attitude your article demonstrated.

If you want to keep appealing only to your core readership, carry on. But if your goal is to actually grow the environmental consciousness of this country and preserve a hospitable climate, you might want to take a look at your own prejudices and see what they're costing our planet. If we want the green movement to be embraced the world over, wouldn't it be a logical choice to encourage the most global of all global corporations rather than ridicule every step they try to take?

Kathryn Compton

Lawrence, Kan.

Re: The Death of Integrity

Dear Editor:

John Sellers' and Barbara Dudley's cynicism is disheartening, and their use of it to personally attack Adam Werbach is just plain mean-spirited.

There are many different perspectives on what are the best methods to use to achieve environmental goals, and they are often presented in opposition: work within the system (in this case a system the size of a small country), or oppose the system on principles compromising nothing. What if, instead of opposition, we allow each to work within their own framework and accomplish what they can within their own perspectives? In other words, work within the system, and continue to challenge the system from the outside. It's time for us to use the word "and" rather than "or." Every perspective has a piece of the truth, places of effectiveness and places of limitation. In the end, using many approaches, from many perspectives, working together will get us the environmental results we all want.

Roberta Vogel-Leutung

Kansas City, Mo.

Re: The Death of Integrity

Dear Editor:

To imagine a successful environmental movement without Wal-Mart is near impossible, absent an economic and political revolution. If we are to transform the market for consumer goods, using existing methods of delivery and outreach to consumers is essential.

Certainly the mission that is described for Wal-Mart employees is insufficient to move Wal-Mart. However, it is a necessary step. Why deride it? Are we to assume Wal-Mart will take more revolutionary, paradigm-busting actions without first moving incrementally?

Unfortunately, what this editorial did convey was a profound sense of self-righteousness that the authors are "doing environmentalism right."

Personally, I reject the professional purity test and salute those among us who recognize that environmentalism must grow and change to be successful.

Chris Cloutier

St. Paul, Minn.

Re: The Death of Integrity

Dear Editor:

I was dismayed to read John Sellers and Barbara Dudley's myopic critique of Adam Werbach. As a strong environmentalist, I applaud Adam's effort to engage Wal-Mart and other corporations in the environmental movement. Significant change will not occur if we continue to speak only to one another and shun the biggest players in the game --corporations.

I had the pleasure of working with Adam both in high school and college on environmental organizing, and I know he is a committed environmentalist who is comfortable enough with himself to risk such naive condemnations. I know if anyone can show Wal-Mart why a green company is a smart company, then Adam is the person to do it. Best of luck!

Hillary Gross

Los Angeles, Calif.

Re: The Death of Integrity

Dear Editor:

During the "Death of Environmentalism" debate, Adam made the correct point that "we" enviros should recognize that "environmentalism" isn't just protecting the birds and bunnies (something environmental-justice activists will certainly agree with), but that it connects to a variety of broader issues of livelihood. If I recall correctly, Adam made the call that those who wish to wrap themselves in green cannot simply shun the issues wrapped in blue (labor).

Wal-Mart has no love for giving its workers the type of voice that can only come through collective bargaining, so it's disheartening to see what appears to be an abandonment of a call made only a few years ago.

wideye

via Gristmill

Re: Vegetarians Are Ruining the Planet

Dear Editor:

OK, I love your clever titles, they make the bad news much easier to bear. However, you've touched off a pet peeve of mine. Amazonian destruction is being fueled by soy agriculture. However, tofu is not to blame. As your source indicates, over 80 percent of soy production goes to cattle, chicken, and pig feed. So meat consumption is ruining the Amazon.

Y'all have totally demonstrated your ability to be funny and accurate. Keep up the otherwise excellent work.

Alex Barron

Princeton, N.J.

Re: Vegetarians Are Ruining the Planet

Dear Editor:

As a daily reader of Grist, I know that pithy and funny article titles are part of the Grist style. However, this article headline is inaccurate and misleading. A better title may have been, "International Agribusiness and Their Flacks at Grist and 'Environmentalists' Who Consume Animal Flesh and Blood Are Ruining the Planet."

Kevin Connelly

San Francisco, Calif.

Editor's note: Numerous readers complained about that headline, and we responded to them in Gristmill. That response, in turn, prompted some praise for our stupid humor:

Dear Editor:

Just wanted to let you folks know that I almost fell out of my chair with that "Vegetarians Are Ruining the Planet" -- it was one of the funniest headlines I have seen in years of getting Daily Grist. I am a veggie and know the soy/Amazon connection, but can also laugh at myself sometimes. I would hope that people reading Grist are smart enough to take that anger out on Cargill and not your obviously joking and on-the-same-side writers. Thanks for making me laugh before I cry.

Brad Nahill

Beaverton, Ore.

Dear Editor:

I can't believe you got grief for that headline about vegetarians! Soy is a bad culprit in agribusiness here in the U.S., not to mention what's going on in Brazil. Are veggies that thin-skinned? Just get a frigging grip, people!

Meredith Watts

San Francisco, Calif.

Dear Editor:

Don't you dare cut back on the irony, sarcasm, puns, cynicism, or humor in your articles! If it weren't for Grist's irreverent yet accurate reporting, I would miss half the environmental news I need to know about. If any one group can't take a joke, then tough for them! If we can't laugh at ourselves, we'll soon be crying. Which would you prefer?

FourLocks

via Gristmill

Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- Well, One Out of Three Ain't Bad

Dear Editor:

As much as I love Grist, I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Happy Planet Index. It isn't ranking the happiest nations, but those nations that have decent life expectancy, life satisfaction, and low ecological footprint. It turns out that if you look at the individual scores, the top two "happiest countries," Vanuatu and Colombia, in fact have considerably shorter life expectancies with comparable happiness compared to the U.S. It is only the fact that the U.S. has such a large ecological footprint that the happiness of its citizens is discounted to such a low number: HPI = (life satisfaction x life expectancy)/(ecological footprint). If you just look at satisfaction and expectancy (or a weighted combination), you end up seeing all of the developed countries of the world reach the top of the list -- it just so happens that their relatively higher scores are at the expense of the rest of the world in terms of developed economies' ecological footprints.

However, your assertion that "money can't buy happiness" does seem true since developing countries have high happiness scores; but it does seem to buy life expectancy -- a good five to 10 years over many of the happy developing countries. Equal happiness over more years might argue that total happiness is much higher in developed countries.

The Wall Street Journal's "Numbers Guy" concurs with my comments.

Name not provided

Boulder, Colo.

Editor's note: You can find more discussion on the Happy Planet Index in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: When Push Comes to Guv

Dear Editor:

Gov. Schwarzenegger's support of a mandatory cap on global warming pollution has yet to be tested, especially in the face of powerful industry opposition. While deserved of much praise for his environmental initiatives, especially with regards to solar power, the governor has yet to endorse the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that would put teeth to the governor's own global-warming goals and test his resolve to stand up for true solutions to global warming. I look forward to dubbing him the "global cool-o-nator," but until then, the heat is on the governor, and the rest of Sacramento, to get tough on polluters by passing a cap on global-warming pollution.

Bernadette Del Chiaro

Environment California

Sacramento, Calif.

Re: Gotta Wear Shades

Dear Editor:

What a relief to hear a voice of optimism! If I didn't believe it was true, that there is hope for a healthy and happy environment for the next generations, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning to continue as an environmental planner. Doom and gloom are not inevitable; the reason so many of us work so hard is to ensure that Hurley's vision is the one we achieve. It is too easy to shrug and give up.

Alan Duncan

via Gristmill

Re: Gotta Wear Shades

Dear Editor:

I couldn't agree more! I'm already seeing people sounding defeatist about global warming, which is not at all what we need. "Well, it's too late, there's no way we can fix it, so why bother doing anything?" The attitude and message really need to be, "This is exciting! We have the opportunity to work together and save this planet. Let's do it." It's the only way we'll make this work.

JShepson

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Lots of readers dug this piece. Read their thoughts on keeping a positive outlook in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Lazy People Can Save the Planet

Dear Editor:

This article is typical of much of the simple minded "green" thinking going on, which zeros in on a couple of questionable statistics (hand-washing dishes "can" use "over 16 gallons" of water, a dishwasher only uses "between 3 and 4.5") and then recommends an anti-wholeistic "solution" (buy a dishwasher) which is actually worse than the "problem" (water shortage).

First of all, to use 16 gallons of water to wash a sink-load of dishes, you would have to run the water full blast the whole time. Who does that? I fill one sink with dirty dishes and soapy water, wash them all, place them in the other sink, and then rinse them all at once, using maybe 2 to 3 gallons of water total and no electricity other than for the hot water.

Second, mining the raw materials for, manufacturing, packaging, transporting, installing, powering and -- ultimately -- disposing of the damn dishwasher creates far more problems than it solves.

Third, yes, I'm a hypocrite. I have a dishwasher. I also have a wife, and not having a dishwasher would create more problems for me than it would solve. So I do a lot of dishes by hand so I don't have to do something else by hand.

Gary Duell

Happy Valley, Ore.

Re: Jam Session

Dear Editor:

While I am a Pearl Jam fan, I have a suggestion to make to the multi-millionaires that comprise the band in regards to their desire to reduce carbon output on their tours. Halve the amount of tour dates, or don't tour at all! They can certainly afford such a sacrifice.

Chris Karr

Avon, N.Y.

Re: Tape of Good Hope

Dear Editor:

I just read Umbra's advice on what to do with those unwanted video and cassette tapes. I also had a lot of unwanted video tapes -- there were programs on them and they could still be used to record, but I knew I would never need that much recording capacity and didn't want to view any of the programs again. I put them on my local Freecycle website, and a couple of days later, I had a taker! Actually, I had two takers -- one for my assorted videos and one for my (nearly complete) collection of Charlie's Angels episodes taped off of television. Yes, one woman's trash is another's treasure ...

Angellically yours,

Dawn Keller

Shell Rock, Iowa

Re: All Up in Your Grill

Dear Editor:

Aluminum cans? When was the last time you used a can that was made solely out of aluminum? Soft drink and beer cans are bimetal (aluminum all around except for the top which is steel). As far as I know, these are harder to recycle than any of pure aluminum and the result is either a lower quality metal or requires more energy to separate the metals.

Ben Rosenthal

Takoma Park, Md.

Re: Textile Messaging

Dear Editor:

Just read Umbra's column on what to do with old clothing, and I was shocked that you didn't bring up Nike's Reuse-a-Shoe. Did you not know about this? Seems like valuable information to pass on.

Katrina Krause

Happy Jack, Ariz.

Editor's note: Find more ideas on what to do with your ratty old clothes in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Something in the Way She Moves

Dear Editor:

One aspect that Umbra didn't mention about green moving is that some trucking companies, such as ABF, will let you use one of their tandem 28-foot "pup" trailers, with any unused space sold to small businesses for deliveries along the way. This makes shipping more fuel-efficient per cargo mile by ensuring all shipping space in the trailer is fully used.

It was also a way for me to save time and money -- no driving for 700 miles, no hotel stops, and no refills of the rental truck tank. The cost was less than half of that of an equivalent rental.

Pete Pasterz

Charlotte, N.C.

Re: Range of Notion

Dear Editor:

I wanted to clarify that your great summary of the New York Times article quoted me a bit out of context. While I am definitely critical of grass banks, I am also a supporter of these efforts. My primary concern is cost-effectiveness and effective conservation benefits. The summary reads like I don't promote the strategy at all, which is definitely not true. In the primary article, I also state, "Grass banks can be cost effective if there is a way to avoid the capital outlay for a ranch, through donation or another source."

Stephanie Gripne

Lander, Wyo.

Re: Take a Road Off, Arnie

Dear Editor:

I am writing to point out a potential misinterpretation of the roadless petition process. The article says that petitions to protect roadless national-forest areas have been approved for Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The use of the word "approved" here is misleading. For those three states, as well as New Mexico, the federal government has accepted the roadless petitions. This, however, only represents the first step in the petition process, meaning that these areas are not yet officially protected. What comes next is a formal, state-specific rulemaking process. The Forest Service will work with each state to develop and publish proposed rules that address the management requirements set forth in the petitions. This upcoming rulemaking process will include any required NEPA analysis and also invite public input through the standard notice-and-comment procedure. There is still plenty of opportunity for these petitions to be changed, and the USDA has the authority to accept final rules in this process.

Alan Zarychta

Chicago, Ill.

Re: At Least the Bugs Are Dead

Dear Editor:

I am highly offended by the tasteless headline that you've chosen for the story about pesticides and Parkinson's with news, by the way, that is very old. Your last sentence also leaves a lot to be desired. If you think for one moment that Parkinson's disease is a yuk, you'd better think again. I watched my mother's suffering from this horrible disease and it's a nightmare. Your editorial approach is in the worst possible taste.

Name not provided

Dear Editor:

I used to subscribe to and read numerous environmental and political email services every day. I got so bogged down in the awfulness of all of it -- all the constant negative news, especially considering the Bush administration -- that I was in a real "gloom and doom" reality tunnel. Honestly, it got so bad that I'd see an older person, say 65 or 70 (I'm 45), and actually be envious of them because I'd think, they won't be around for peak oil, survival mode, no more grocery stores stocked with food trucked in from 1,000 miles away, collapsed world financial markets ... you get the picture.

My poor husband finally sat me down and said, "You gotta stop this -- I can't take it any more!" So, I unsubscribed to every one of them, except Grist. I couldn't sever the ties completely with what's going on in the environment and politics, and my Daily Grist is the only news source that can make me smile while I read about the Bad Stuff Going On (and the occasional good stuff). I can read the linked articles for more info if I want, or just get the highlights from the daily email. As always, I hear from others or on NPR breaking news stories about the environment, and I've already learned about them from Grist.

You guys and gals are great. Thanks for helping me to stay connected to what's going on in the environment without losing my sanity!

Lisa Meacham

Austin, Texas

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: The Price Is Wrong

Dear Editor:

Umbra asserts that "organic food is more expensive because it costs more to produce." This is a dangerous generalization that is not supported by many scientific studies. The data argue that costs are generally comparable, only organics have a greater labor input while industrials have a greater capital input -- and this is true without factoring in the cost of environmental damage done by most industrial farming methods. For some crops, organics have shown better performance -- greater yields and profit. I imagine it may qualitatively seem that organic farming is more costly because it is a lot of work, but that is not supported by available data. Yes, short-term costs can be higher while the land is being rehabilitated, but after a few years the soil is healthy and costs drop, making organics equally or more profitable in the long term.

It would be nice if Umbra, of all people, didn't say things that prop up that old, unfounded argument that organic farming is not a viable alternative to industrial agriculture.

Terri Glass

Broadlands, Va.

Re: The Price Is Wrong

Dear Editor:

I have to take some umbrage at Umbra's answer to the question about organic food prices. She failed to point out that buying from farmers' markets and farmers who direct-market their produce, meat, eggs, etc., is a way to get a better price since the middleman is left out. Buying direct from the farmer, even if it is not strictly organic, is the best way to know how your food is produced, and a good way to help the local economy. Plus your food will be fresher and will have saved on fossil-fuel consumption, as the typical meal travels 1,500 miles to reach your plate.

Ricki Linnenkohl

Summer Shade, Ky.

Re: The Price Is Wrong

Dear Editor:

I have found that if you want to eat organic more cheaply you must be willing to prepare food from scratch. The less processed the food, the less expensive it becomes. Also, see if you cannot take advantage of discount pricing that is available through local natural/organic food stores or co-ops. If you buy in quantity and are willing to put more work into food prep, organic eating can be nearly as inexpensive as conventional diets.

MJ Graham

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find lots more discussion on the costs of organic food in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Chews Wisely

Dear Editor:

Fromartz places these two trends in opposition to each other, as if local and organic were somehow mutually exclusive. But this is not really the case, at least not in most regions. Depending on where you live, there's usually an abundance of locally grown organic produce, even throughout the winter. All in all, given this, his very trendy argument of local vs. organic is mostly one of false tension.

Caleb Ewing

via Gristmill

Editor's note: See more reader comments on the question of whether to buy local and/or organic food in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: A Cure for What Jails Ya

Dear Editor:

Thanks for the story on Jeffrey Luers. Great to see his viewpoints covered by your newsletter.

Sergio Moncada

Washington, D.C.

Re: A Cure for What Jails Ya

Dear Editor:

I'm not pleased with your choice of interviewee, Jeffrey Luers. I have hesitated to give certain friends and family a pitch for Grist because they tend to be defensive about environmental issues and have fallen too far to the right. And they're ones who could be "saved" in terms of environmental issues. Giving Luers a sympathetic ear -- and a voice -- does not do our cause net good, and is exactly the kind of thing I'd rather not ask those environmental agnostics to receive in their mailboxes.

Mike Kirchner

Editor's note: You'll find loads more reader commentary on jailed eco-saboteur Jeff Luers in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Whose 'Cide Are They On?

Dear Editor:

How can California have the "strictest ocean fish-farming regulations in the nation" when Alaska is the only state with an outright ban on ocean farming? We passed this legislation back in 1990 to protect our wild salmon stocks from disease and interbreeding and are now very concerned about proposals for fish farms in federal waters outside the state's three-mile limit.

Cassie Thomas

Anchorage, Alaska

Re: Kennedy You Hear Me Now?

Dear Editor:

Concerning numerous articles in Grist over the last couple of years supporting wind power: I appreciate that Grist takes an opinionated stand on various issues, but this one is one that has a lot of environmentalists coming down on different sides of the dilemma. The tone of many of your pieces seems to be that environmentalists are all for wind power. It's not that simple.

Many of us are just as concerned about viewsheds, historic preservation, noise pollution, harm to birds, bats, and sea creatures, and, simply put, harm to people who live near the turbines in exchange for the supposed benefit of energy consumers who do not. The environmental-justice movement is in part about the siting of large facilities in certain places. Shouldn't these concerns be contemplated by those who argue for wind power? I think that Grist's readers deserve to get at least a little of the other sides of this issue.

Ethan Yankowitz

Washington, D.C.

Re: Cape of Good Hope

Dear Editor:

I don't have an estate on Nantucket Sound and I do pay hearty energy bills for my inland home on Cape Cod. I also think the Cape Cod wind farm idea stinks. If you examine it carefully, you will see that it provides more of a windfall for the developers than for the everyday electric-bill payer. It is one of the few times that I agree with our governor. I also think you should give Ted Kennedy a break. I think if his estate sat on the other side of Cape Cod, he would still be against the wind farm.

Marie Stackpole-Hayes

Re: How I Didn't Spend My Summer Vacation

Dear Editor:

I want to thank Nathan for writing this. As someone who has been involved in starting up nonprofit organizations, I think that having the very people who may be the best source of new ideas and energy for your organization standing on a street corner essentially begging for change is borderline insanity. It shows an incredible lack of savvy on the part of environmental groups to send out students who are incredibly engaged on their own campuses out to arm-twist people who already get it. Why not have them really get to work on these issues instead of asking me to send the PIRGs a check each month? I've stopped and had conversations with these kids more than once and I can tell they're really engaged, but I walk away with the feeling that they want to get more from it.

rh

via Gristmill

Re: How I Didn't Spend My Summer Vacation

Dear Editor:

I think the real leaders that the canvass organizers are trying to find and cultivate aren't the folks at the door but the folks they recruit, train, and manage to canvass at the door. The skills they learn from a summer of asking "rich liberals" for money only make it easier for them to go back to their communities, campuses, etc., and do really great work at educating and mobilizing folks in the environmental movement. Nothing is more challenging than asking a stranger to provide money to fund your cause. If you can hack it, you can do almost anything.

It's too bad that Mr. Wyeth missed the training that canvass directors do for their canvassers during the summer: how to run a press conference, organize a phone bank, lobby your members of congress, run letter-writing campaigns, get your letters to the editor published by your local paper, etc. I was once a canvasser and a canvass director and I realized that the true beauty of what I did was to find a way to get "environmentally friendly" people trained and, at the same time, paid to learn how to make a difference in their community.

Kirpal Singh

Denver, Colo.

Editor's note: You can find many more opinions on canvassing in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Lightning in a Bottle

Dear Editor:

We're glad you highlighted this story and this particular struggle. However, we've been fighting that essentially meaningless 0.019 percent statistic for some time, and were sorry to see you reprint it. Here's our take on the story, and the statistic in particular.

Ian Hart

Pacific Institute

Oakland, Calif.

Re: It's the Economics, Stupid

Dear Editor:

Before we get too worried about how CSR [corporate social responsibility] is leaving the poor behind while it saves the environment and society, let's remember how limited CSR will be at achieving anything other than profit maximization.

Corporations are accountable to shareholders: the people who own them, the people whose investments and whose property they constitute. They are not accountable to the environment, society, the poor, or anyone else. And if corporate directors tried acting like they were, then they could get sued by their shareholders, as did Henry Ford.

Much as I (and many others) wish that large corporations were more broadly accountable, they just aren't. If we want change, we can't wait for corporations to deliver. We either have to change the structure of business corporations, or replace them with public-interest organizations, like cooperatives and publicly owned enterprises.

Dave

via Gristmill

Re: Eau de Bulb

Dear Editor:

It's worth mentioning residential LED lights. They use only a watt or two, compared to CFLs' 12 to 18 watts. The light they produce is far superior to any CFL or incandescent. They are dimmable and can go outside. Best of all, they contain zero mercury or heavy metals. They are expensive, but considering they basically last forever (100,000 hours), it's a low capital cost.

Nathaniel Martin

New York, N.Y.

Re: Fan-tastic

Dear Editor:

What Umbra failed to mention is that using fans saves a helluva lot of energy over using air-conditioning. Stressing over which fan to use is ridiculous. There was a recent article in Grist about the futility of arguing over local vs. organic foods. Same deal with the fans.

John Mlade

Atlanta, Ga.

Re: Weed 'Em and Reap

Dear Editor:

I have a few objections to Umbra's composting advice. First, you are using "invasive" to mean aggressive. Truly invasive plants should never be composted, especially in an untended spot in a corner -- they will escape and take over the natural habitat. They must be burned or thrown away. Second, I felt you should have clarified "food" better. Veggie scraps and fruit peelings are no problem with pests, even in the middle of the city or suburbs, if you put a little grass or leaves over them or have an enclosed composter. I have done this in both the city and suburbs of Boston for many years, with no rats or raccoons.

Aimee Powelka

Framingham, Mass.

Re: Deck Mate

Dear Editor:

I'm wondering why you didn't suggest, or even mention, the recycled-materials decking that's available. I have seen it used on private decks and even on national-park boardwalks that traverse bogs and other wet environments.

Leila Raim

Fairfax, Calif.

Re: In a Nutshell

Dear Editor:

Cashew nuts are very heavily sprayed in southern India. About 15 years ago there was a big scandal in Kerala, with crippled kids, blind folks, and all sorts of neurological diseases, all from the cashew plantations.

Anja Kollmuss

Medford, Mass.

Re: In a Nutshell

Dear Editor:

Looks like almonds are a better choice than other nuts.

Matt Brennan

San Francisco, Calif.

Re: Swimming With the Fishes

Dear Editor:

What a shame that you gave credibility to Drew Weiner of Reef Protection International. How can he possibly support home aquariums?

I can imagine how many idiots buy these poor fish and neglect to care for them properly. So, I guess we should all go out and buy all sorts of wild creatures, so that our children can "learn." What are we trying to teach them -- that animals are to be kept in captivity? Children can watch TV shows and read books to learn about wild animals. We're best off to just leave the animals alone!

Jill Jones

Tarzana, Calif.

Re: Al Revere

Dear Editor:

Gore for president!

Mary Beth Janssen

Palatine, Ill.

Re: Al Revere

Dear Editor:

No more Gore.

Name not provided

Editor's note: You can find all sorts of reactions to our interview with Al Gore in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Don't Discount Him

Dear Editor:

That's good news that Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. is taking his company down a greener path. But if he really wants to reduce his company's production of greenhouse gases, he's going to have to get his customers out of their cars.

Retooling the big box is just part of the equation; rethinking the big-parking-lot formula has to happen too. When Wal-Mart starts building smaller stores on infill lots within cities instead of on cheap land at their outskirts; looking for attachment to transit lines instead of adjacencies to major auto strips; adapting to pockets of existing local markets instead of drawing on larger regional ones; and encouraging shorter drives, fewer drives, and greater pedestrian activity, then greenhouse-gas production per customer -- not just per store building -- will be radically reduced. That's democratizing sustainability.

Hadley Arnold

Los Angeles, Calif.

Re: Don't Discount Him

Dear Editor:

It's not just emissions Wal-Mart should worry about. They must contribute trillions of pounds of junk to landfills. What about the toasters and the rest of the junk they sell that only lasts two years? Think of how much less junk would be in the landfills if they were required to sell products that would last for seven years.

Christine Ryan

Oneonta, N.Y.

Re: Don't Discount Him

Dear Editor:

The way in which Wal-Mart would introduce lower prices in the organic sector is not by using economies of scale, but rather by using its size to make demands of producers. In other words, when such a large customer says it will only pay so much a pound, then that's what you get. Organic farming is generally more labor-intensive than non-organic farming, and thus costs more. Paying organic farmers less means they get less profit, and their workers get less.

Before we get too excited by the idea of Wal-Mart turning the world green, we should look at their labor policies, which force their workers to get health care paid for by the state (since they can't afford anything else). This is hardly the act of an "enlightened" corporation. Their green activities are likely to be similar. Beware the hand behind the back!

Patrick

via Gristmill

Re: Don't Discount Him

Dear Editor:

Applause for your brief interview on Wal-Mart, and for its green-energy, CO2-reduction, organic-produce, and packaging-reduction plans.

So what kept your interviewer from asking the big questions: how can a "free market" company depend so much on public subsidies -- health care, food stamps, cheap fuel, social security, tax, and land "incentives" -- and call itself "successful" (in the classical economic sense)?

Martin Westerman

Seattle, Wash.

Editor's note: You can find lots more discussion on Wal-Mart in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Chafee Klatch

Dear Editor:

I am a liberal, progressive, longtime Sierra Club member and I totally agree with the group's support of Sen. Lincoln Chafee. These are the kind of Republicans we need in Congress. Support good candidates no matter what the party! Remember: Most Dems have been weak in their stands on the war and various Bush atrocities.

John Paul

Re: Chafee Klatch

Dear Editor:

When the Bush bill to get rid of the inheritance tax was coming up for consideration in Congress, I went with a group from United for a Fair Economy to call on senators to discuss this awful proposal. I visited Lincoln Chafee, who said, "Don't worry, the Senate will never vote for anything so stupid." He voted against it, but unfortunately his estimate of his colleagues was a little too high, and the inheritance tax is still under attack.

After this positive introduction, I've been following Chafee's record, and am generally impressed. He does not support the Republican majority on important things where he doesn't go along with the right-wing policy. That's why he's vulnerable. But that's a shame: a senator who votes his conscience, and has a good one, should be supported and encouraged, maybe even all the more when he belongs to a party that has been discouraging such independent thinking and action.

Neva Goodwin

Cambridge, Mass.

Re: Chafee Klatch

Dear Editor:

I agree absolutely with Carl Pope that the environment should not be a partisan issue. We need Republicans to tell their representatives that the environment is an important issue to them.

I've always had a problem with gatherings of environmentalists that assume everyone in the room is a Democrat. All this does is alienate the non-Dems.

There is nothing inherently partisan about the desire for clean air and clean water, or about any other of our environmental goals. The conflict is between responsibility and greed, both of which tend to be distributed pretty evenly across both parties.

acatamongus

via Gristmill

Re: Chafee Klatch

Dear Editor:

Endorsing Chafee is also endorsing Republican control of the Senate. And he votes with the party in power on many, many issues. That makes him a bad'un. The Sierra Club is still living in the 1950s. This ain't Eisenhower and Lincoln's Republican Party. Not even Nixon's! (He would probably be too liberal for them.)

Patrick

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Find more reader debate on the Sierra Club's endorsement of Lincoln Chafee here, here, and here.

Re: Cap of Good Hope

Dear Editor:

Hmmm, carbon emissions caps being championed by the likes of General Electric and the two largest owners of utilities in the U.S., Exelon and Duke Energy. Can you say nuclear?

cocopuffs

via Gristmill

Re: It's All in the List

Dear Editor:

In your Earth Day list you say the "least impressive way to demonstrate your eco-consciousness" is by "buying stuff."

True, purchasing one cute little hemp hat won't have much impact on the state of the earth. However, putting collective marketplace pressure on polluting corporations will. At a time when virtually no new environmental laws or regulations are being passed on Capitol Hill or in many statehouses around the country, the only pressures forcing manufacturers to reduce emissions and waste and protect habitat are coming from green consumers. Here's just one example: For years enviros tried without success to pass legislation that would raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars and light trucks. It wasn't until consumer demand for Japanese hybrid vehicles kicked in that Ford Motor Co. and other U.S. automakers finally began manufacturing more efficient vehicles themselves. Without marketplace demand, we'd never have seen those fuel-efficiency improvements.

It's a mistake to underestimate the potential of the marketplace to catalyze environmental protection. "Buying stuff" isn't the point, nor should it be. Using one's money to move manufacturers in greener directions, now that makes sense.

Diane MacEachern

Editor's note: Find more discussion of our Earth Day list in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: I'm the Train Wreck They Call the City of New Orleans

Dear Editor:

If you haven't been to New Orleans, you can't comment on [post-Katrina waste being landfilled instead of recycled]. Where would you find the personnel to sort through the tons upon tons of debris? Who would pay them? Where would they live? Who would insure them against the health hazards of digging through this trash, looking for cypress and cedar? You will only have the right to comment on the lack of recycling in N.O. when you are ready to propose a viable solution. The truth is, here in Louisiana, we really don't have the time.

Lois Riley

Re: It's Like We Peed in the Entire World's Snow

Dear Editor:

No kidding! Who's the National Park boob biologist who's surprised to find contaminants in high-peak snows?

Robert H. Boyle

Cooperstown, N.Y.

Re: Talk This Way

Dear Editor:

I read the piece about sunbathing and global warming, and I find it necessary to point out a distinction between weather and climate. Global warming does not mean that our days will be warmer. Realistically, nobody notices if it's 72 degrees or 74 degrees or even 76 degrees. Global warming does not mean you will be sunbathing more often, or at least not noticeably so. What it does mean is that with slightly higher global temperatures, unnoticeable to the average person, weather will have more energy and be less predictable.

Noah Bronstein

Re: Pack to the Future

Dear Editor:

I enjoyed your article on where to move [when climate change gets more serious]; good to see some frankness. There is, however, one other bit of research possible. The Hadley Climate Centre in England has developed Regional Climate Modeling. You can get the software on a DVD and run your own area on your computer.

Geoff Thomas

Australia

Dear Editor:

I love your website, but can't believe you're letting the Pacific Research Institute advertise in your space. I clicked over and now I'm having trouble choosing between their books on Jimmy Carter ("our worst ex-president"), various EPA blunders and waste, and how drug companies really won't benefit from prescription drug coverage.

Sure PRI is just an advertiser, but I'm sure most like me see an implied endorsement when they advertise with you. Please give them the boot.

Mike Jones

Editor's note: Grist has an open-door policy when it comes to accepting ads. As our advertising policy states, "We believe our readers are discerning enough to evaluate the claims made by ads. If they're capable of ignoring our bad puns, certainly they can ignore ads they don't like."

Re: Pussy Galore

Dear Editor:

I am a loyal reader and financial supporter of your work. I appreciate the humor you bring to these issues. I was, however, offended by your "Pussy Galore" headline. No one who's ever spent time in a boys' high-school locker room would not understand what this is referring to -- it's not just crude but sexist too.

Michael B. Smith

Ithaca, N.Y.

Re: The Grist List, 21 Apr 2006

Dear Editor:

I love Grist, but have to say that I'm a bit put off by the line "With an Italian hottie riding bitch" in the Grist List feature about hybrid Vespas. Please forgive me if I'm taking a tongue-in-cheek comment too seriously, but this comment (1) doesn't speak to me as a female reader, and (2) only goes to perpetuate the objectification of women. OK, yeah, so maybe the Italian hottie could be a man, but is that the image that's going to pop into anyone's mind?

Stacey Panek

Seattle, Wash.

Re: The Grist List, 21 Apr 2006

Dear Editor,

I love the environmental news you offer, but I could do with less male perspective. Like much of your copy, your anti-"banana hammock" Grist List entry reeks of your by-men, for-men bias. I, like many women, know that a well-sculpted man in tights is a beautiful thing.

Priya Narasimhan

Chicago, Ill.

Re: Solar Eclipsed

Dear Editor:

Don't you dummies know the difference between silicone and silicon? Have you become more enthusiastic about silly puns than basic science?

No name provided

Editor's note: Well, we are pretty enthusiastic about our puns ...

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: For Those About to Barack

Dear Editor:

I used to have a great deal of respect for Barack Obama, but no longer do. He voted for the egregious bankruptcy bill and Dick Cheney's hideous energy bill -- neither are even remotely progressive pieces of legislation.

Everyone is getting on the biofuels bandwagon, which is more than a bit self-serving for the junior senator from Illinois. Do the math, Barack: we do not have enough land mass to grow biofuel and food. Regardless of the alleged (and highly dubious) positive energy yield biofuel proponents profess, we'd need something on the order of three additional continents, each the size of the U.S., to seriously produce the amount of fuel we consume today, not to mention what we are likely to consume next year. At best, biofuels might have a limited utility as a boutique fuel, produced on farms to power farm machinery. I can only conclude that Senator Obama is either an innumerate fool or just another self-serving politician, perhaps both. Don't be deceived by his smile and posturing.

Alec Johnson

via Gristmill

Re: Labor Rattling

Dear Editor:

While I am not usually a Tony Blair fan, Britain making it to 15-18 percent emission reduction is fabulous and should not be pooh-poohed. It's way better than anything we're doing! And darn close to the 20 percent pledge. Also, trying hard to get Bush on board for Kyoto is worthy of kudos as well, since it's, well, so embarrassing that the effort needs to be made in the first place. I think you're way off base in attacking Tony Blair when it seems he's at least making an effort on several environmental fronts.

Mary Kaldunski

Re: Movement Shakers

Dear Editor:

Interesting conversation; great to see Grist doing this. Do more!

That said, I have one small problem. You label Eric Mann as a "radical." Imagine the difference people might feel if you labeled him as a conservative eco-justice organizer. Labels matter. The right has been successful in marginalizing "other" voices (such as the environmental movement) by applying labels seen as negative to their spokespeople.

Don't contribute to that. "Radical" is generally considered a negative label in American political circles. When you label Eric Mann as a radical, you imply (unintended, I am sure) that his message is to be discounted. Let the messages speak for themselves.

Patrick

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Find more discussion on the conversation between Eric Mann and Frances Beinecke in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: What the Left Hand's Doing

Dear Editor:

I very much respect many of Rabbi Michael Lerner's contentions about the failures of the dominant ethos of consumption, and I applaud him for his activism. However, I soundly reject the idea that social transformation and environmental activism need come wrapped in a pretty, religious bow. While progressives are accused of smugness, no less than that quality underpins the call to look upon God's left hand in order to find good in the universe. Why must all that is beneficent be ascribed to a god?

A paradigm of cooperation among humans for the intrinsic goodness of the act is much more sustainable than that done in the name of a third party, which, for many, is mere romantic imagery. To advocate something for the sake of a "higher purpose" is missing the point; environmental justice is a right for all beings for their own sakes -- not because they were created by a mysterious, omnipotent force.

In no way do I wish to offend anyone's religious/spiritual beliefs, and I gladly welcome the efforts of anyone who wants to change the world for the better. For some, that means working through a spiritual filter; for others, there is no god in the equation. If some on the left seem to balk at adopting religious or spiritual language to effect change, that is a choice. Beyond the simple fact of disbelief, one reason people refrain from religious dogma is to avoid being told they must believe in a certain god with various rites. Whether that conscription comes with a progressive or conservative message, the result is the same -- an imposition some choose to avoid altogether.

Another point is missed when some insist that the ecology movement assume a religious or spiritual stance: believers and non-believers can work together without pushing their (non)religious agendas to focus on the daunting task of cleaning up the planet.

Andrew Locatelli

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Editor's note: You can find more discussion on Rabbi Michael Lerner in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: What's Louv Got To Do With It?

Dear Editor:

I was mortified to read Naomi Schalit's appraisal of Richard Louv's inspiring interview with David Roberts. I find your comments affronting to my own experience as a mother of two and a grandmother of eight beautiful young people -- not to mention my own life experiences in my youth. Even now, the most rewarding and relaxing periods in my life are when I walk in the forest, or along the beach -- or admire the wallabies, goannas, and birds who visit our garden -- and reconnect with nature.

I have no doubt that Richard Louv's book will prove invaluable as an educational aid in dealing with the modern malaise of disconnected youth. He is spot-on, even to recognizing the problem of the litigious society we have created.

A bicycle helmet might very well be an essential investment in our physical health, but reconnecting with nature is an essential investment in our spiritual health too -- far more important, in my view. Much of my youth was spent in prayer and history classes, neither of which benefited my spirit to anywhere near the degree of reconnecting with nature.

I think your comments are very sad, and can but hope that they do not preclude too many children from the benefits of reconnecting with nature.

Lorraine Leach

Thora, Australia

Naomi Schalit responds:

I appreciate your comments, and am sorry that you were mortified by my appraisal, which was an appraisal of Louv's book, not his interview with Roberts. Like you, my most deeply spiritual and inspiring moments (other than those watching and being with my children) have been spent out in the natural world, and that is precisely why I have actively encouraged my children's engagement by living in rural Maine, sending them to school on a working farm, and signing them up for the last eight summers at a wilderness canoeing camp in northern Ontario.

The message of my review was simply that Louv didn't state his case very strongly, given the way that he chose to make it, which was his promotion of an almost medical diagnosis of psychological harm directly related to nature deprivation. As someone who has read the great masters who have been making the case for the nature-spirit connection for millennia, I felt that others had made it better, and had not felt compelled to phrase their arguments in the hip-pathology mode that has such strong currency in our culture today. The part of Louv's argument that I find most objectionable is that he was elitist in his notions of nature. Many thinkers these days are advancing a broader definition of nature that encompasses the human-made world, and in doing so, open up our perception of just what nature truly is. Louv's limiting of "the nature that is good for us" to a particularly narrow version of the natural world -- chaparral, pines, wildness -- limits the universe of those who would benefit from engagement with "nature."

I objected to the anthropocentrism, really, that Louv's utilitarian and almost consumerist approach to nature entails. To call experiences with nature "an essential investment in our children's health" puts us as the primary agents in the interaction between humans and nature -- which is precisely the underlying philosophy that has led our modern civilization down a destructive trail. As I said, what happens if we find a pill that can cure whatever problem is catalyzed by our disengagement with nature? Does nature have less meaning or value, then, because we no longer need it for our psychological health? And does this mean that hurricanes and tornadoes are somehow "bad" because they don't contribute to our health, at least in obvious ways? Nature simply is valuable because it exists -- it is not valuable because it does things for humans.

And finally, as a student of religion, admirer of art, and former girlfriend of a mathematician, I am profoundly aware that the very same kind of nature-invoked deep spiritual experience you refer to is available through other kinds of experiences -- religious chanting and meditation; the creation of a painting; the contemplation of a particularly elegant mathematical formula.

It's good for children to spend time in the natural world; it's not good for grown-ups to condemn those who expand their souls in other ways.

Naomi Schalit

Editor's note: You can find lots more discussion about Louv in Gristmill, here and here.

Re: Ag, You're It

Dear Editor:

25 x '25 is a small goal promoted by people with little vision. I support the 10 x 10 solution to the problem of dependence on foreign oil. Using existing off-the-shelf technology, we can reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by 10 percent per year for the next 10 years. What is lacking is the political will to start working in this direction.

Bob Lechtenberg

Philadelphia, Pa.

Editor's note: Find plenty more discussion on 25 x '25 in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Talk This Way

Dear Editor:

I'm disappointed. Umbra's advice is usually pretty darn pellucid.

When I want to bum out friends who could give a fry about global warming, I explain to them that there is likely going to be serious "desertification" from roughly Texas up through western Minnesota, that our major global "breadbasket" will be destroyed for thousands of years. I point out that the Sahara was productive temperate land not that many thousand years ago, and that global warming is compressing the process down considerably. That forested lands will be pushed farther and farther north, ultimately to places where the poor soil quality and other features make it prohibitive for trees to grow.

I tell them that near-term predictions already encompass possible "freezing" of the gulf stream and explosive changes to weather patterns in northern Europe and Britain. That the whole web of life in the sea will be disrupted, and probably to the point that fish populations will crash in much of the world. I also talk about how none-too-fully-understood changes in the atmosphere, some of them a product of this industrially wasteful era that is prompting global warming, are rapidly increasing the numbers of skin cancers and people's prone-ness to cataracts.

It sounds pretty misanthropic, but rather than not inconveniencing people with the truth, we need to deal with truth, much sooner rather than later.

Terry Lodge

Holland, Ohio

Re: Talk This Way

Dear Editor:

A fantastic resource is U.S. in the World, a guide to talking with Americans about global challenges. Rockefeller Brothers Fund is behind this and the global-warming section is great.

Aimee Christensen

Washington, D.C.

Re: Comic Re-Leaf

Dear Editor:

Umbra told readers that Arbor Day is on April 28. But Arbor Day actually changes depending on your state. This is due to taking into account the best time to plant trees in different parts of the country. Arbor Day for our friend in Missouri is actually April 7. My Arbor Day was on January 20.

Matt Rota

New Orleans, La.

Editor's note: While National Arbor Day is celebrated on the last Friday in April, many states do hold related events on different dates. See the National Arbor Day Foundation list for tree-planting opportunities near you.

Re: Rambled Eggs

Dear Editor:

Umbra's advice to the person asking about the free-range claim on eggs was well taken, up to the point where she said the only way to know you're buying a good egg (ahem) is to know your producer. I would have recommended certified organic. How many folks living in a city are going to know their producer?

Organic certification guarantees a consumer that chicken feed is certified organic, and that the chickens actually get to go outside. The National Organic Program requires inspections by third-party agents, providing a guarantee to consumers that the standards have been applied.

I work in the organic industry, so I'm well aware that the NOP and the industry have been struggling with definitions of how much is enough outdoor territory for chickens that get the organic label, but my belief about our food supply is that the organic label is absolutely the best guarantee of healthful food if you or your best friend didn't grow it yourself.

Susan Ulery

Moab, Utah

Re: Rambled Eggs

Dear Editor:

There are other options! Not all food comes in a pretty package from the grocery store. Make yourself a producer. Plant a little garden. Raise a couple of chickens in your backyard and let them range free. People have been doing it for millennia. Chickens don't ask a lot from humans and they give so much: eggs and meat (if you are so inclined), and they are born comedians.

Kate Meisfjord

Spokane, Wash.

Editor's note: Find more discussion on free-range chickens and eggs in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Cradle to Cradle

Dear Editor:

Just wanted to let you know that the Oregon Environmental Council has put together a pretty thorough guide on how to make homes safe and healthy for kids. There's a baby-shower kit and a website (complete with all sorts of links, an online forum for concerned parents, etc.).

Kathy Hyzy

Portland, Ore.

Dear Editor:

Your article may have been an April Fools story, but in fact, here in Australia, a local company collects used diapers (nappies here in Oz), converts the "soiled" stuff to fertilizer, and recycles the paper fill and plastic into paper products or plastic furniture.

Colin Gillam

Mt. Evelyn, Australia

Dear Editor:

You guys are "so funny, I forgot to laugh." I really wanted to read about Sen. Cantwell beatin' the holy crap outta Stevens.

Richard Hurni

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Poverty & the Environment

Dear Editor:

Thank you so much for your series on poverty and environmentalism! The intertwining of these issues is of ultimate importance to me, and I think that the connections aren't drawn often enough. When asked the question "What do you think is the greatest problem with the world/environment?" in geology class last semester, I raised my hand and responded, "Poverty." I was asked to defend my statement, but now I will have much more information and resources available to me to develop an argument.

Sarah Alibabaie

Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Editor's note: Share an opinion or start a conversation on poverty and the environment in our discussion forum.

Re: Moving Mountains

Dear Editor:

My undergraduate thesis was focused on this very subject: environmental justice in the coal fields. The most difficult question I found, and one that is at the core of most environmental-justice battles, is: how do we sacrifice jobs for the environment?

While coal mining has employed declining numbers of Appalachians for decades, it is still a major player in many eastern Kentucky communities. I believe that there are other opportunities for employment in the region that have yet to be fully explored (eco-tourism and recreation are at the top of the list), but that's not going to happen overnight. A common response I got from residents in these communities was, "The coal companies may be dirty bastards, but at least I got a job."

Coal mining can be done in less-destructive, more environmentally friendly ways, but the chances of coal companies using those methods without being forced to by the government are about as good as Bush joining Amnesty International.

toboggan

via Gristmill

Re: In the Line of Wildfire

Dear Editor:

Thank you for carrying Jeff Nachtigal's story on the effects of wildland fires on the rural poor. Rural poverty is a problem that receives too little attention, and with the Bush administration and Congress posed to increase funding for logging and decrease funding for other Forest Service programs, the problems will only get worse.

To be fair, however, it is important to note that most homes destroyed by fires are not in areas of rural poverty. According to an analysis conducted by the noted forest economist Randal O'Toole, 90 percent of homes destroyed by wildfire in the U.S. are destroyed in California, and most of those are destroyed in the chapparal-covered hillsides surrounding the Bay Area and Los Angeles. These homes -- in the Berkeley hills, in Malibu, in the Beverly Hills -- are owned by some of the wealthiest people in America.

Certainly, wildland fire affects the rural poor disproportionately. But does it disproportionately affect the rural poor? The evidence suggests that the people most affected by wildland fires are the wealthy people foolishly building their homes in our most flammable ecosystems -- the California chapparal.

Forrest Fleischman

Eugene, Ore.

Re: I Will Simply Survive

Dear Editor:

Elizabeth Chin's premise is excellent: We who are more affluent really do not understand the experiences of the poor. And she does a very good deed by drawing our attention to that disgraceful division in American society. But to blame rich people in the way that she does, all of them, and especially those who are trying to be environmentally conscientious, is simply unfair. And it is shallow. And it does not seem at all likely to be very helpful.

caniscandida

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find lots more discussion on simple living vs. simply surviving in our poverty series discussion forum.

Re: Down for the Count

Dear Editor:

I liked the facts and figures that you provided and would like to add the cost of full-time childcare. Ages up to 3 years seem to average $12,000 per year, at least in my city of Madison, Wis., which equals the cost of college for a year according to your figures. Parents talk a lot about saving up for their kids to go to college in the future, when they apparently already pay as much today to send their child to daycare or preschool.

Ulrika Muller

Madison, Wis.

Re: Down for the Count

Dear Editor:

Come on, guys -- the Republicans are not the only ones who spend money frivolously. You note the $19,000 spent by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's wife Columba during a five-day shopping spree in Paris in 1999. Be fair. I heard a story about John Kerry's wife dismantling and shipping a barn from England to their summer home in Idaho and having it rebuilt there.

Rachel Webb

Wooster, Ohio

Re: Greening the Cube

Dear Editor:

I find that folks who are looking to "green" their lives automatically choose the "purchase new green product" option. Your article is helpful in pointing out that there are newer eco-friendly products on the market, but you did not address the whole consumption issue. For instance, it is more environmentally friendly to keep functional furniture even if it is old than to buy new eco-furniture. The key is to assess what you need versus what you want. These can be two very different things.

Matthew Dance

Clean Air Strategic Alliance

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Re: The Forest Service Is Dead; Long Live the Forest Service!

Dear Editor:

Mitch Friedman's plea that conservationists generally abandon confrontation in favor of collaboration with the Forest Service admittedly has its charms. Who doesn't grow weary of adversarial dialogue, appeals, and litigation in response to shortsighted agency projects? It will be a happier world, indeed, when conservationists and the Forest Service can consistently sit down together at the table and arrive at something mutually agreeable. Yet, as Mr. Friedman essentially concedes, we aren't there yet.

The obvious take-home lesson is to utilize those carrots with the Forest Service whenever the opportunity presents itself -- but also keep that trusty stick close at hand. At minimum, any bureaucracy will get lazy and cut corners if not held accountable by an informed public. It's the nature of the beast.

More troubling, however, is Mr. Friedman's touting of increased thinning of wet second-growth forests west of the Cascades as a potential vehicle for the collaboration he urges. The dubious notion here is that such thinning "accelerates" or "restores" development of old-growth characteristics, but there is no scientific justification for such practices. Firsthand observation often indicates instead that thinning drastically homogenizes what had been a naturally diversifying second-growth forest. Mr. Friedman additionally suggests that our prior concerns with new road construction are all but outdated, yet clearly the bulldozers are still in full operation.

The Forest Service feels it has achieved a public-relations coup with its "restoration thinning" program, which unfortunately is given cover by a handful of conservationists who are apparently more interested in political deal-making than the resulting on-the-ground damage.

Jim Scarborough

Bainbridge Island, Wash.

Editor's note: Join a big discussion on collaboration with the Forest Service in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: The Sweets Hereafter

Dear Editor:

Umbra blew it! Hershey's refuses to use fairly traded chocolate. Thousands of children work on cocoa farms in Africa. Large companies like Hershey's and M&M/Mars have the power to see that all cocoa farmworkers are paid a fair wage, and they refuse.

Robin Koloms

Chicago, Ill.

Editor's note: Find more discussion on chocolate and other potential dorm snacks in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Give a Little Bit

Dear Editor:

I just read with interest Umbra's piece on ideas for wedding registries. I went through this myself two years ago and have two more tips for your readers.

One is to register for your honeymoon experience (and choose an environmentally sensitive honeymoon location, too). We worked with our travel agent to set up a website where people could "buy" us a snorkel trip, a candlelight dinner, a picnic on the beach, a sunset dinner cruise, etc. People loved giving us experiences as gifts, and we loved having a better honeymoon than we could have otherwise afforded.

The other tip is to register for table settings with a local potter or craft gallery. You get very unique place settings, you help the local economy, and the likelihood of getting better-quality stuff is much higher.

Tobin Freid

Durham, N.C.

Re: Politicked Off

Dear Editor:

In Umbra's response to the questioner who wondered how EPA information can support her conservative friend's claim that the Bushies are not anti-tree, I recommend that she check out some of the program evaluations on EPA's Office of Inspector General website. This independent EPA watchdog office spends all of its time and money really evaluating EPA programs to see if the claims made in public reports are true. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are more smokescreen than truth.

Anonymous government employee

Washington, D.C.

Re: Carpet Diem

Dear Editor:

I really like Umbra's astute advice and find it entertaining as well as informative. I thought you'd be interested to know that there is one growing element of wall-to-wall carpet that is environmentally beneficial.

A company called BioLucent makes something called the MammoPad breast cushion -- FDA cleared, invisible to x-ray, eases the discomfort of mammography. BioLucent has long provided a recycling program by which breast centers can return their used MammoPads, which for medical reasons are single-use. The company then recycles the pads for -- ta da! -- carpet padding.

More than 7 million MammoPads have been used, promoting more comfortable and more frequent life-saving mammography -- and a bit of environmentally beneficial softness underfoot as well.

Greg Dennis

Middlebury, Vt.

Re: Corn at the Right Time

Dear Editor:

There are no vehicles on the list of E85 compatibles [PDF] that anyone wishing to be environmentally responsible should want to buy. It's almost entirely a bunch of fuel-hogging pickup trucks and SUVs, and the few sedans or minivans appear to be big models and gas guzzlers too. What an obscene joke!

Ann Burruss

Greenacres, Fla.

Editor's note: You can find lots more discussion on ethanol in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: A Woman Needs a Fish Like a Bicycle Needs ... Oh, Never Mind

Dear Editor:

I read with interest the article about one in five American women having levels of mercury in their bodies that are higher than the recommended maximum level set by the EPA. I was one of the 2,834 women who were part of the mercury study done by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. I completed their lengthy questionnaire, sent in a hair sample, and waited for my results without too much concern. After all, I am pretty educated about mercury contamination and know which fish are likely to have high mercury levels and thus to avoid in my diet. I was shocked to get my results and find that my mercury level was 1.31 ug/g -- above the recommended upper limit of 1.0 ug/g.

If an educated person who knows which fish to avoid eating has a higher-than-recommended level of mercury in her body, what must be the case for thousands, if not millions, of other women who don't know as much about this issue? What about the countless folks, especially children, who eat a steady diet of tuna sandwiches?

Our government's stonewalling on this issue is simply unacceptable. For an administration that makes so much noise about the "value of life," it is mind-boggling that it continues to allow mercury-polluting industries to get by with dumping this toxic substance into our air and water.

Lisa Meacham

Austin, Texas

Re: The Grist List, 10 Feb 2006

Dear Editor:

I was shocked and disappointed to see the Grist List item "Girls. Crushing Cars." I have two words for you: Girls. Objectified. I have never seen such blatant sexism from a so-called progressive environmental magazine.

If I were looking for questionable links between automobiles and objectification of women, I would know where to go: my local convenience store, where various car magazines use scantily clad women to sell things on a regular basis. I expected more from Grist.

Anu Radha Verma

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Re: Friday, 24 Feb 2006

Dear Editor:

I love you guys. More to the point, I love your headlines. But in this issue of Daily Grist you've outdone yourself. Every headline a take on a Paul Simon song. Dammit. I always, always wanted to do that. Now you've beaten me to it.

Sigh. I'm hanging up my keyboard now.

Chris Halvorson

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: Kernel Ganders

Dear Editor:

Thanks for covering the ethanol issue and our paper in Science.

David Pimentel erroneously claims we didn't include energy for farm machinery in our analysis, and unfortunately his claim, though false, has been repeated several times in the media. Your article also attributes to our study the claim that "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol is energy-efficient." Actually, we go to pains to point out that conflating petroleum, coal, and natural gases to talk about "fossil fuels" is not helpful, and merely creates confusion. Our claims were about replacing gasoline with ethanol.

Grist is in good company, though, in these two areas. The National Public Radio show All Things Considered covered the study and committed the same two errors. Our letter to NPR addressing these two issues in more depth can be viewed here [PDF].

Again, thanks much for the coverage, and for providing links to other sources. You might add a link to our site, from which readers can download the Science article, the spreadsheet model, and a longer supporting document with greater detail.

Richard Plevin

Energy and Resources Group

University of California, Berkeley

Re: Cutting the Cord

Dear Editor:

I was surprised that Umbra didn't mention cell-phone towers. With more cell-phone users comes the need for a wider area of coverage on the part of the cell-phone companies. They are constantly expanding their ranges, with new towers going up on hills, ridges, and mountaintops. Clearing a nice big spot for a tower and a road to get to it are going to impact that environment by eliminating habitat, encouraging the growth of exotics, and increasing erosion and therefore increasing sediment in the local watershed -- not to mention becoming an eyesore.

Sarah Reynolds

Cumberland, Md.

Re: Cutting the Cord

Dear Editor:

Another environmental hazard of cell phones is that 80 percent of the world supply of coltan, an ore used in cell-phone transmitters, comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mining the ore has in the past been devastating to gorilla populations. Here is a recent article from National Geographic on the topic.

Steve Siegel

Portland, Ore.

Re: Cutting the Cord

Dear Editor:

I was disappointed to find that Umbra's normally thorough research about environmental issues was replaced by a rant about the evils of cell phones, which is totally unwarranted from an ecological standpoint. Obviously, your irritation with cell-phone users has hindered you from writing a balanced and informative article.

Cell-phone chargers consume just a few watts of power even when charging and represent an insignificant use of energy in the home. Cordless phones, which most people have, will use 10 to 20 watts of power (with the exception of the three brands that are Energy Star rated). While it is true that the old-fashioned corded phone uses no energy at all, who still uses those? Asking people to go back to those phones is a sure way to get them to ignore your advice altogether and to keep doing what they're doing. Might as well tell them to stop heating in the winter because that's the best environmental option.

Nik Kaestner

Cambridge, Mass.

Re: Cutting the Cord

Dear Editor:

If you're a slave to your cell but want a greener one, here's an anal-retentive chart that I made comparing plans from major carriers against those from Earth Tones and Working Assets.

elsamary

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find lots more debate on cell phones in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: I'm Floored

Dear Editor:

I was surprised that in her article about flooring Umbra did not mention ceramic tile with radiant heat, seeing as it is a cozy, comfortable, and more energy-efficient alternative.

Christa Lachenmayr

Madison, Wis.

Re: I'm Floored

Dear Editor:

For our new office flooring we chose Interface FLOR as an environmentally sustainable choice that was more affordable than cork or bamboo. The reasons we chose it were: 1) the company will take it back for recycling at the end of its lifecycle; 2) the tiles can be rotated for even wear and stained tiles can be replaced, making this a longer-lasting investment of resources; 3) it supports a company that is working to create an environmentally sustainable business model; 4) some of the styles are made from natural materials; 5) it's stylish as well as sustainable; 6) it can be installed by the homeowner; and 7) it can be moved from room to room or house to house, increasing its useful lifespan.

jka123

via Gristmill

Re: I'm Floored

Dear Editor:

I was surprised to read that Umbra promoted hardwood floors made from submerged logs as an eco-friendly choice. The practice of mining logs from Georgia's rivers is certainly not an eco-friendly practice, and the Georgia Water Coalition is working to keep it illegal here.

An excerpt from an action alert from the Georgia Environmental Action Network:

Editor's note: Find more discussion on flooring in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Rock the Coat

Dear Editor:

About a year ago I had to move, and wanted to paint the apartment with nontoxic paint. I found two companies that make safe paint. One is Bioshield and the other is American Pride Paint.

Anne Caputi

Newton Center, Mass.

Re: Rock the Coat

Dear Editor:

I just painted my bathroom with Benjamin Moore's low-VOC Eco-Spec paint. I have to say I was very impressed with the results. The walls were already white so I didn't have to prime, but I only had to do one coat to get good coverage. It's a bit more expensive than the non-eco-friendly paints, but in my mind it's well worth it.

flashgrl

via Gristmill

Re: Rock the Coat

Dear Editor:

Don't forget milk paint. I haven't seen an entire wall painted with it, but the samples I've seen are very nice indeed!

oryahk

via Gristmill

Re: Good Nintentions

Dear Editor:

Just brainstorming off the top of my head about sustainable video gaming:

Buy secondhand. A lot of gamers are rabid about upgrading, playing only the latest games, etc. You can get games secondhand as soon as a few weeks after they come out, and most major game stores have used sections for at least consoles.

Choose greener distribution methods. Many games these days have direct-download options. It's much less wasteful than buying a disc case, disc, box, and having it physically shipped either to you or to the store you bought it at.

Write to software companies about their packaging. Games sold in a jewel case are functionally identical to games sold in a big box with a jewel case in it, except that the box is waste. If you're writing to them anyway, request a direct-download option.

Play older games! New game software requires upgrades. But of the zillions of console games out there and the zillions of PC and Mac games out there, how many have you played? Instead of just buying the new hardware to buy the new software, try exploring other games for your existing hardware that you haven't played.

These options will also save you money.

Maize

via Gristmill

Re: Good Nintentions

Dear Editor:

Umbra's recent mention of video games made me think of Food Force, a free video game that has become extremely popular. It was developed by the United Nations and is completely nonviolent. To win, you must solve a food crisis. Another aspect of aligning gaming with green principles.

Peter Buck

Alexandria, Va.

Dear Editor:

Regarding a letter by Jeffrey Irving about the article Buenos Bios: I truly regret how muddled and confusing the debate about biomass fuels has become.

Jeffrey's letter and the study it cites are basically correct in saying that ethanol production does nothing to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and is essentially a waste. However, this is not because we get less energy from the combustion of ethanol than we put into producing it. The same thing could, in fact, be said about fossil fuels. We do not derive 100 percent of the solar energy that went into our oil in combustion, nor would it be possible to do so. So what makes ethanol inefficient is not that we derive less than 100 percent efficiency from it, but that we put more fossil energy into it than the total energy we derive from it, as demonstrated in the study.

This does not have to be the case! If the biomass crops were grown without fossil inputs, producing ethanol would be just as sustainable as producing the food we eat -- which, as it stands now, is unsustainable in the same way as ethanol. There is no such thing as a truly sustainable useful energy source, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, so when we say sustainable, we mean sustainable given constantly added solar energy. How much of the solar energy that goes into making ethanol will end up as mechanical energy in your car? Not much. But when Jeffrey says, "Turning corn, soybeans, and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates," it demonstrates a poor understanding of the concept of energy.

Ethanol and biodiesel do not "generate" energy at all; they contain it in the form of chemical energy, which was converted in a complex process from solar energy. The ethanol is then converted to mechanical energy in an engine. Each of these conversions is subject to entropy and results in less than 100 percent of the useful energy in the previous form. In this sense, ethanol is no different from any other energy source, be it fossil fuel, wind, solar, or whatever. The challenge we are now facing, given the imminent depletion of fossil fuel -- which is essentially a vast reserve of "free" energy -- is to use solar energy efficiently enough to sustain the global population at an acceptable standard of living. This is an extremely difficult or perhaps impossible task, given that over 100 years we have used about half of our oil reserves, which represent millions of years of solar energy.

Ethanol, if produced with less fossil inputs than are derived from its use, could be part of this solution.

Joe Scott

Iowa City, Iowa

Re: Book Your Guilt Trip Today!

Dear Editor:

It is surely in the U.S. where we have the greatest problem with overuse of air travel, with the concomitant excessive and unnecessary damage to the atmosphere. Here train travel is constantly under attack by politicians who are presumably under the influence or control of oil, auto, and/or aviation interests. Neglect of the railroad freight services means the interstate highways are increasingly crammed with overpowered 18-wheelers, making driving your car long distance less and less attractive.

So where is the U.S. equivalent of Flight Pledge?

Paul Piehler

New Smyrna Beach, Fla.

Re: Time to Bust Out the Scare Quotes

Dear Editor:

I thought it extremely irresponsible of you to write a tongue-in-cheek article about eco-terrorism. Whoever wrote the blurb was obviously mocking the feds for pursuing these groups at the rate that they are. Earth Liberation Front is a terrorist group, not an environmental group. Just because their behavior "caused no deaths" does not mean they did not cause terror. As an environmentalist, I am appalled to be even remotely associated with a group like this; you should be too.

We will never make progress in the complex environmental issues we face until we try to see each other's viewpoints. People who own a ski resort in Vail share many of the same environmental concerns as the rest of us, I bet. But they may be also motivated by other things. Dealing with them by burning their place of business isn't going to get them on our side. All it does is alienate and instill fear and hatred. The bottom line is that we're all human and we're all in this together. But, as environmentalists, if we continue to operate in hypocritical ways -- terrorism is not OK, but groups like the Earth Liberation Front have a point to make! -- we're going to continue to be seen as illegitimate.

Melissa Hopkins

Washington, D.C.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

While I think RFK Jr. has been a huge and important presence in the enviro community, I can't agree with him on this one. This project needs to be built, and built now.

He wants to send the windmills five miles farther out in the interests of the fishermen? Or is it because at five miles farther out he knows the windmills would be beyond the horizon and thus invisible from shore?

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these being built on a shoal precisely because it's shallow? What sort of commercial navigation is taking place on a shallow shoal? The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is grasping at straws.

C'mon, Bobby! Join us and support this project!

rh

via Gristmill

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

Robert Kennedy Jr. has done a disservice to the very interests he claims to protect. There is an important element missing in his commentary: a disclosure. Mr. Kennedy and other members of the Kennedy family own property that overlooks this area. The arguments they use against this project are the same as those used by opponents to action on global warming, whom Mr. Kennedy vigorously opposes. This glaring conflict weakens the political authority the Kennedy family has maintained over many years.

Mr. Kennedy makes many incorrect assertions. The first is that this area is a navigational danger. It is a shoal, which is shallow water and is marked as such on the navigational charts.

The second is that the fishing industry will face losses. Mr. Kennedy ignores the perilous condition of the fisheries, largely due to incompetent state and federal fisheries management, which has allowed the depletion of fish, dwindling numbers of species, and compromised habitat.

Mr. Kennedy uses data on tourism developed by the Beacon Hill Institute, known for developing positions for the special interests funding the study. Wind installations in Denmark actually increase tourism, which is directly attributable to people who include wind farms in their sightseeing plans.

The most important issue is that the nation's thirst for energy will demand oil exploration and production off the coast of New England. Allowing the construction of this facility creates a strong position from which to argue against any drilling. Interestingly, there are no regulations against oil platforms in this area.

Mr. Kennedy needs to examine the facts before staking his claim. Surely the view of numerous oil drilling platforms would not be as pleasant as a stand of graceful wind machines.

Dave D

via Gristmill

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

I recently traveled to Germany and was amazed at the number of wind turbines that are in use. They were everywhere, but never did they cause me anxiety over how they fit into the landscape. It was fascinating to watch them turn, to see how many you could spot as you looked farther and farther to the horizon. It took a concerted effort to pick the low hum out of any other background noise -- even in the countryside. I say: Bring on the turbines! They create clean energy and are so cool!

Crystal G. Gilchrist

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

There seems to be some feeling that looking out on the ocean and seeing windmills will spoil the perfect beauty of a natural paradise. Um, folks, turn around, stop looking at the ocean for a moment, and look at Cape Cod -- it may be a nice place to live, but it's no Yosemite National Park. I think the roads and houses, etc., sort of take away from that. So if you can put up with destroying what was probably a natural wonderland 400 years ago, why should these windmills make a difference? The word hypocrite comes to mind.

Maybe if you stop the windmills, your next project should be to reclaim Cape Cod's natural beauty. OK, whose house is first to come down?

pw

via Gristmill

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Kennedy. First, Americans use and waste astounding amounts of energy. If we became responsible consumers of energy, we could shut down coal-fired plants without expanding the energy grid. Second, solar and wind power are best generated at the residential or commercial site where power is used so that it is not lost to grid transmission inefficiencies. Third, several other industrial wind parks are slated for some of the most scenic viewsheds in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. These wind parks involve towers 300 to 400 feet high, transmission lines, and roads into sensitive areas, as well as other structures.

It's a damn shame that the environmental movement doesn't focus on the simple and immediate benefits of energy-efficient appliances, light bulbs, and automobiles. That would impact global warming immediately without the sacrifice of our precious viewsheds. I live in Appalachia and am not a person of wealth, but I treasure the scenic beauty in my backyard just like Mr. Kennedy does. Industrial wind parks may have a role in a comprehensive energy policy, but not at the expense of pristine viewsheds while America continues daily to recklessly squander power.

James Dentinger

Madison, Wis.

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

It's distressing to witness environmental activists bickering over wind generators off Cape Cod. Bill McKibben, Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus, and The New York Times find an easy target in Robert Kennedy Jr. -- who, according to them, doesn't want his view or sailing opportunities sullied by unsightly windmills. To me, the issue appears a little more complicated.

Cape Wind power generators are not "vitally important" in the fight against global warming, as these commentators claim. Cape Wind, "one of the biggest projects in the world," will at best supply electrical energy for a projected 70 percent of Nantucket, Cape Cod, and Martha's Vineyard. This is not even a drop in a barrel of oil compared to United States energy needs, and hardly the results that will allow us to stop worrying about global warming.

The simple truth is that we must cut our energy use. Rather than building noisy, ugly, bird-killing giant windmills for a billion dollars, we as a society with dwindling resources might well consider investing in mass rail transit and energy-saving technology. Merely lowering the speed limit to 55 mph would save more energy per year than could be produced in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Like drilling in ANWR, which is admittedly more about torturing the enviros and milking the taxpayers than solving our energy problems, I have to suspect that building a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod entails motives beyond satisfying our craving for energy. And the motives are not pretty.

fiver

via Gristmill

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

Thanks for this informative article. It is sad to see our community so divided.

The passing remark on the concerns of the Humane Society of the United States, Massachusetts Audubon, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare was of great interest to me, but you did not do much with it.

Inasmuch as we environmentalists can be divided into two groups -- physicists and chemists on the one hand, i.e., those more interested in energy production and pollution issues, and biologists and ecologists and ethicists on the other, i.e., those more interested in preserving biodiversity and defending animal rights -- Grist seems definitely on the side of the former. These two groups are by no means opposed to one another, of course. We are all worried about pollution; we are all worried about climate change. And we all (I hope!) recognize that we need to stick together. I only mean to point out that we who pay special attention to biodiversity-related issues are not receiving quite as much of your excellent journalistic attention as is fair.

Mark Stephen Caponigro

New York, N.Y.

Re: The Wind and the Willful

Dear Editor:

Ross Gelbspan stated that Cape Wind is a landmark project that "would offset approximately 880,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of keeping over 150,000 vehicles off the road."

According to the EPA, if every American household replaced five of their current light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, it would save as much energy as if we took 8 million cars off the roads. Perhaps Ross Gelbspan needs to go back to the basics, do the math, and advocate for conservation rather than the wind-power industry.

Dona

Re: No More Mr. Nice Guy

Dear Editor:

Terrific op-ed. The efforts of no environmentalist should be discounted, but global warming is a bigger, tougher, and more potentially devastating problem than any other in environmentalism. It is simply a difference of magnitude.

No issue needs to take a "back seat" because the fight against global warming is the struggle to save birds, plants, trees, ecosystems, and all the rest.

scott s

via Gristmill

Re: No More Mr. Nice Guy

Dear Editor:

I am enormously grateful for Bill McKibben's sightedness, and for his speaking out. As a person without name recognition, I have been fervently blowing this same horn at the NRDC for some time now. I am excited to see one of the trailblazers of eco-conscience doing so.

Jennifer Poser

Editor's note: You'll find plenty more debate on Cape Wind in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Comic Relief

Dear Editor:

I really enjoyed Umbra's Comic Relief article. She did a great job letting us chuckle at the topics without doing so at the expense of the letters' authors. I've been a subscriber to Ask Umbra for over a year now, and I enjoy the information it provides on far-reaching topics and the fact that it isn't too fanatical, but tries to look at the big picture. Thanks, Umbra!

Ben Klusman

Eugene, Ore.

Re: Comic Relief

Dear Editor:

Thanks to Umbra for her column about all the silly letters she receives. It made me realize something: You're silly. We're all silly. Everything's silly.

I used to think your column was meant to inform your readers about how their deeds affect the environment and what they can do in their everyday lives to help. I thought this was an important service, because even the greatest problems have to be solved one person, activity, concern, attitude, feeling, vote, purchase, letter, licked plate, calorie, and soiled tissue at a time.

But now I find out that you've drawn a line distinguishing the silly from the serious. And I see how silly that line is, how silly the whole endeavor is, how silly it is to write you a letter. I finally get it.

R.L. Blake

Albuquerque, N.M.

Re: Comic Relief

Dear Editor:

The accepted practice in France is to use one's bread to wipe up all that delicious sauce. My husband, a member of the Clean Plate Club since childhood, gives enthusiastic wipes of approval that are the delight of a number of French restaurant chefs.

Mary O'Keefe Kellogg

Prévessin-Moëns, France

Re: Matters of the Hearth

Dear Editor:

I'm afraid Umbra might have thrown the match out with the woodpile. Please check into masonry heaters. These beauties are an ancient solution to heating efficiently and cleanly and using a renewable resource. A good source of info is the Masonry Heater Association.

Sherry Rovig

Duluth, Minn.

Re: Matters of the Hearth

Dear Editor:

What about a pellet stove, Umbra? Benefits of using wood pellets: As a biomass fuel, pellets offer the advantages of sustainable-energy supplies through renewable raw materials; pellets are a byproduct, not a primary user, of these renewable materials; pellets reduce the use of dwindling fossil fuels, often imported from foreign countries; and pellets help reduce the costs and problems of waste disposal. As part of the tradition of the hearth, pellet burning offers the enjoyment of fire viewing and active participation in providing winter comfort in the home.

RichardinKRV

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find more discussion on heating and fireplaces in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Laptop Dance

Dear Editor:

I've seen Umbra's articles on responsible computer purchasing and recycling, but didn't actually see a link to the Pledge of True Stewardship and the recyclers nationwide who have been certified. This is the most comprehensive resource on guilt-free computer recycling.

Caroline Mitchell

Boulder, Colo.

Re: Laptop Dance

Dear Editor:

I recommend buying a machine that does double, triple, or quadruple duty. Your computer can take the place of your stereo, DVD player, slide projector, file cabinet, Tivo, and TV. It can even replace your shredder, since all good environmentalists pay their bills online and have opted out of paper junk-mail lists. I've outlined more hints on eco-electronics purchasing in a blog entry.

LauraC

via Gristmill

Dear Editor:

I feel compelled to make a comment on "It's Just Another MLK Monday." I'm assuming this was just another of your usual word plays. I'm positive, having been a subscriber for a long time, that you folks would never intentionally be so flip regarding the late Dr. King, but that's the way it sounded. Just another MLK Monday, like all the others? It concerns me that we not trivialize the importance of this day.

Although Grist's famed irreverence is great under most conditions, I feel it was not at all appropriate here.

Victoria Beach

Re: OK, We'll Just Drill Over Here Instead

Dear Editor:

I agree Bush's treatment of the Arctic wilderness is truly a rape. However, I think the cavalier use of "sloppy seconds" and "two-bit hookers" degrades the serious nature of sexual assault and prostitution. Words count.

Christine Mallette

Re: Dick's Tricks

Dear Editor:

After reading a batch of letters from other readers, it seems that more and more have comments along the lines of, "This is serious stuff that needs to be taken seriously, so stop making light of the issues, and stop making offensive remarks."

I hope that Grist continues to brush off the calls for seriousness and provide "gloom and doom with a sense of humor." I don't think Grist has ever made a truly offensive remark. The severity of your language toward conservatives has made me uncomfortable at times, and there have been some off-color remarks, but come on. Knock me out of my comfort zone! Rile me up and get me motivated to do something, to get involved and add my voice. Grist provides the most constructive motivation I've seen.

Walker Larsen

Arlington, Va.

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more

Re: OK, We'll Just Drill Over Here Instead

Dear Editor:

I thought your statement that Cheney and the energy task force treat ecosystems like a "two-bit hooker" was inappropriate, unseemly, slanderous, and entirely out of line. I'm sure those guys treat their hookers much better than that.

Laura K.

Oakland, Calif.

Re: Buenos Bios

Dear Editor:

Biofuels are demonstrably a dead end. Turning corn, soybeans, and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a recent study by David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell, and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley. They conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants.

What am I missing here? Is Edmundo Defferrari's process some sort of breakthrough that, miraculously, yields more energy than is consumed in the planting, fertilizing, harvest, and production?

Jeffrey Irving

Williamsville, Del.

Re: Buenos Bios

Dear Editor:

Running engines off of recycled cooking oil is great, but there's just not enough to run all our cars and trucks. And not only do biofuels release carbon, their monocrop cultivation tends to occur along with unsustainable agricultural practices and, especially in South America, massive deforestation to make room for the new crops -- which results in huge losses of biomass and oxygen production, erosion, habitat destruction, extinction of species and, oh yeah, the release of a huge amount of carbon. Someone remind me again why this is supposed to be environmentally beneficial?

cicatrix

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find more discussion on biofuels in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: Coal Reversal

Dear Editor:

Y'all are becoming embarrassing. In one week you laud nuclear, and now coal? Since when did you turn into pro-industry greenwashers? Pathetic. You are alienating your readers!

Olive Tree

Re: Coal Reversal

Dear Editor:

How long can we be self-righteous about coal? With the International Energy Agency predicting world energy need will increase by 60 percent over the next 25 to 30 years, it's clear that to balance legitimate development and environmental considerations, the world will need clean coal, safe and affordable nuclear, reliable and affordable renewables, and increased energy efficiency. With the possible exception of the last, which requires massive societal attitude shift across many cultures, none of these options is either cheap or easily achievable. We should be encouraging the coal people to come on board the climate-change battle, not slamming them because they're coal.

Mr. M

via Gristmill

Editor's note: You can find more discussion on coal in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: DEP Thoughts

Dear Editor:

It is wonderful to hear such forward thinking from Kathleen McGinty, head of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. However, actions speak louder than words. The "alternative energy" portfolio standard that McGinty praises is actually the first to include fossil fuels.

Pennsylvania's bill claims the state will have 18 percent "alternative" energy generation by 2020, but well under 8 percent will actually be clean (non-combustion) renewables such as low-impact hydro, solar, or wind. In fact, by simply purchasing out-of-state hydro, significant wind and solar development can be avoided altogether! The lion's share of "alternative" energy will be produced using waste coal and newly mined coal in gasification plants that will cause acid rain and increase atmospheric CO2.

Of course McGinty may not be in the position to leverage the politics in her state, where the coal industry has such strong influence. She should be applauded for her efforts on cutting mercury emissions, and it should be pointed out that she has signed on with attorney generals from four downwind states who are suing the owners of three antiquated coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania for violating the Clean Air Act and contributing to acid rain downwind.

Richard Brandt

Seattle, Wash.

Re: Get Richard or Die Tryin'

Dear Editor:

I'd like to clear up a big misconception about California's 11th district, which your article repeated: that the district is made up "largely of conservative ranching and agricultural communities." That was true 30 years ago. The district has changed over the years. It can now be more accurately described as a Bay Area exurb. Very little of the population depends on agriculture for their jobs, and a large and growing percentage of the working population are transplanted from the Bay Area counties.

If you want proof that these aren't automatic conservative areas, check the election returns for 2004. Barbara Boxer won a clear majority in Pombo's district. Not exactly knee-jerk conservative voters. The fact is that people in the district don't know much about Richard Pombo. Polls show that when they learn about him, they don't like him.

But the article got the most important fact right: If we are to protect our environment and open space and create the bright future of sustainable opportunity we all deserve, we need to defeat Richard Pombo in November.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was Jerry McNerney's second campaign manager in 2004, and I'm helping him raise money for his campaign in '06.

Gary Prost

Livermore, Calif.

Re: When the Rubber Hits the Road

Dear Editor:

I am an environmentalist who truly is trying to make the world a better place in many ways. I am unsubscribing to all of your lists because I am tired of the Bush bashing.

While I do not agree with much of what this administration is doing, I do not see anything positive coming out of the hate-filled speech I find on your site. When did we leave our core values and start being so mean and nasty? Why not engage in positive discussion of change and growth, rather than the hate speech we condemn them for? We can make this world better by not only cleaning the environment, but by cleaning our thoughts and minds of hate -- all hate, and all hate speech. Stop the hypocrisy.

Cynthia Posey

Austin, Texas

Re: When the Rubber Hits the Road

Dear Editor:

Please walk down to the dark basement that Umbra spends all her time in and give her a big hug for all the folks that end up dealing with condoms in the sewage treatment systems! Not only did her column make me snicker, it brings up a great point about the stuff people flush down toilets.

Condoms are actually one of the things that those in the wastewater business can do something about with screens and choppers. Unfortunately, the extra equipment required to fix these problems costs money -- money that comes from your taxes and sewer bills, to be specific. Maybe our bills would be smaller if we quit flushing trash?

While we're at it, let's also stop flushing expired and unwanted medications down the toilet. These things very often cannot be removed by wastewater systems and end up in the environment. See if your local pharmacy has a take-back program, and if not, the landfill is a better option than flushing.

Karen Angrisano

North Bend, Wash.

Re: When the Rubber Hits the Road

Dear Editor:

Umbra writes, "Every question I answer about recycling small consumer items -- including condoms -- simply encourages us all to keep worrying about recycling small consumer items. I know I'm not supposed to say this, but who cares? I mean, why spend energy on condom disposal when we could spend it on G. W. Bush disposal?"

Who cares? You should. When did Grist become big business? When did grassroots stop mattering to environmentalism? If people don't care about recycling small consumer items, why should they care about getting rid of Bush?

If you want to help the world by answering readers' questions, you really ought to be answering those "little important ones." They tend to have the most achievable solutions associated with them. That's where it starts. Actually, who cares about the big issues in this forum? Your readers already know where to put their vote.

In M.

Middletown, N.J.

Re: When the Rubber Hits the Road

Dear Editor:

Could you get serious? This is a waste of my time, which is not recyclable.

Elizabeth Reshower

Re: Coal Reversal

Dear Editor:

You describe technology that "filters carbon dioxide and smog-causing pollutants from the gas before burning it." Other pollutants can be removed before burning, but carbon dioxide is a product of burning and has to be removed from the flue gas after combustion.

Richard White

Durango, Colo.

Re: Drowning Myself in the Gene Pool

Dear Editor:

With a rant like that, no wonder John Kurmann doesn't have a wife. Jeesh.

John Spurrell

Raleigh, N.C.

Re: Going Down

Dear Editor:

One of the reasons that population is not discussed more often is that it usually is spoken of in terms of numbers. However, it's not just how many children one has, but how they (and you) live. The deeper issue is consumption. Someone who builds a huge mansion but has no children has a more negative effect on the planet than a peasant family with five children. The real problem in the developed countries is not just how many people there are, but the way we all live.

While population needs to stabilize and trend downward, it is more important that the consumption practices of the West are addressed. The houses full of unused stuff, the three cars per family, and the suburban lifestyle are a large part of what is killing the planet.

bookerly

via Gristmill

Editor's note: Find lots more discussion on population in Gristmill, Grist's blog.

Re: The Grist List, 16 Dec 2005

Dear Editor:

You have Hanukkah commemorated a couple times, but no real Christmas, which is not just a tree-hugging event. I'm really disappointed in you.

Mary A. Bodde

Re: It's a Floor Wax and a Dessert Topping!

Dear Editor:

Is Isaac Berzin married, and if not would he like to be (and subsequently produce children)? There has to be some sort of moral carbon credit to justify having kids if you've just implemented an algal-based filtration system.

Heart aflutter,

Name Not Provided

Honolulu, Hawaii

Related Links:

Readers write in about presidential candidates, green lists, and Grist’s “suck-it” chauvinism

Readers write in about violent fires, violently bad puns, and more

Readers write in about April Fools’ stories, ungreen magazines, seal clubbing, and more