Don’t cry for me, Sierra Club

Gov. Mark Sanford’s sex scandal has become a Sierra Club marketing pitch.

“Dear Friend,” an e-mail letter to members of the organization begins.”We heard the governor of South Carolina had some trouble finding the Appalachian Trail last week.”

As you no doubt know Sanford — not known, by the way, as a big defender of the environment — told his wife and staff he was hiking on the trail, when he actually was in Argentina with his mistress.

The letter continues: Read more

Monsanto’s image takes a beating

It’s been a rough few months for Monsanto’s efforts to brand itself an environmentally responsible company.

But last week the St. Louis-based chemical giant suffered a blow that’s potentially bigger than the bad PR it’s gotten all month from the documentary film Food Inc.: A U.S. Appeals Court ruling gives momentum to farmers and environmentalists who are trying to block the company’s genetically engineered takeover of global seed stocks.

Monsanto never exactly has been an enviro-darling. While it refers to itself nowadays as an “agricultural company,” it’s still perceived for its Big Chem roots and is best known for Astroturf, Roundup and genetically modified seeds. But few companies have suffered as bad a spate of environmental headlines as Monsanto has since April.

As best I can tell, the bad publicity started on April Fool’s Day (appropriately enough). Read more

‘Clean’ coal group considers environment optional?

An industry group created to push for continued reliance of coal — despite the fact that it generates more carbon than does any other form of fossil fuel — suggests on its home page that a “clean environment” is optional:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is committed to the idea that America can have the affordable, reliable electricity we need … with the clean environment we want.

The not-so-subtle point is that electricity should take precedence over the environment, which is a luxury. I’d go way out on a limb (not) and say that this isn’t just a case of an unintentional message being sent by poorly chosen wording. The coal and power guys want to send a message their industry is more important than the quality of the air we breath, the water we drink, and the climate that civilization depends upon. Read more

Gore statement on climate bill’s passage

Just ’cause I got it (the bill just passed the House, 219-212):

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Leadership of the House, and Chairmen Waxman and Markey have, through their leadership, secured an important bipartisan victory for the American people.

The American Clean Energy Security (ACES) Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will ever pass. This comprehensive legislation will make meaningful reductions in global warming pollution, spur investment in clean energy technology, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The next step is passage of this legislation by the Senate to help restore America’s leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to put in place a truly global solution to the climate crisis.

We are at an extraordinary moment, with an historic opportunity to confront one of the world’s most serious challenges. Our actions now will be remembered by this generation and all those to follow – in our own nation and others around the world.

Most in U.S. want greenhouse limits (WaPo poll)

Who’s winning the popular debate over climate change?

For months, the do-nothing crowd has heralded a couple of polls that hinted at increasing skepticism among the masses. But a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this morning shows overwhelming support among Americans for reducing greenhouse gases.

Three-fourths of respondents answered “yes” to the question, “Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?” Support was overwhelming among Democrats, independents and Republicans. More than two-thirds of people who said “yes” felt “strongly” about it. Read more

Climate contest — $175 reality vs. $3,100 fiction

In a rational world, the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the Waxman-Markey climate bill will cost the average American family only $175 a year by 2020 would deflate arguments that the legislation is horribly expensive.

Well, better late than never for the CBO, I suppose. Last week’s study did get coverage in major news sources — except, of course, in Fox.

But I’m skeptical that the actual estimate of $175 will become the accepted number in popular culture.

For weeks, industry groups, anti-solution politicians and professional crisis deniers have been throwing around two numbers — $1,600 per year and $3,100 per year — as scare tactics. Read more

Al Gore texts me about his finances

Al Gore seems to have a target on his back. The former vice president is the symbol of “global warming alarmism” to those who want to block the U.S. from taking effective action on climate change.

Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly or the Heartland Institute or a backbench Republican congresswoman or a blog run by a guy who cut his teeth by swift-boating John Kerry, Gore is the bogeyman. They want answers, I tell you! Yeah, we know — he’s a private citizen. But what has he got to hide?

OK, then. I sent him some questions — mostly questions that the right-wing journal Human Events said somebody ought to ask him. I think he was about as candid as one could expect from a private citizen. What do you think?

(For a fuller discussion bogeyman/hero status, check out this week’s Media Mayhem column, by yours truly, on the Mother Nature Network.)

Ken Edelstein: You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.
Al Gore: As a supporter of “sustainable capitalism” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584367114799137.html) I have made long-term investments in “sustainable” companies in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, the vast majority of which are not directly involved with efforts to solve the climate crisis. I have also invested in some companies that have attempted and will continue to help solve the climate crisis.

Ken Edelstein: In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures? Read more

Heartland ads a last gasp for climate deniers?

This week’s newspaper ad campaign by the Heartland Institute is a last gasp in the losing efforts of climate-change skeptics, argues Mitchell Anderson of DeSmogBlog.

Let’s hope so, but I’ll only believe it when I see it.

Heartland is among the most prominent in a herd of “free-market” think tanks — often funded by the fossil fuel industry — that’s peddled the argument that there’s no scientific consensus on climate change.

Today, the organization wraps up three straight days of full page ads in the Washington Post in which it claims, among other things, that “politicians, environmental advocacy groups, and the media routinely ignore and silence the scientists, economists, and other experts who say global warming isn’t a crisis.”

The ads are designed to influence debate while Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. If they were all you read this week, you’d think that recent studies had poked holes in climate change science. Read more

Big Food’s parallels to Big Tobacco

Civil Eats’ Paula Crossfileld isn’t the first person to see similarities between Big Tobacco’s half-century stonewall against regulation and Big Food digging its own heals. But Crossfield draws the parallels quite neatly:

Instead of taking a seat at the table, Big Food has renounced as “junk science” peer-reviewed studies showing the correlation to obesity with the approximation to a fast food restaurant. It has actively denied the science proving the relationship between soda consumption and weight problems and diabetes. Big Tobacco spent years insisting that there wasn’t enough evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. The results were that millions of people had to die before the government acted.

Crossfield points to a study by a pair of Yale and University of Michigan psychologists that points to similarities between the two industries. And she argues Read more

OK. This is my last ‘Apocalypse Now’ headline

Next Page »