Kristof pissed off

...well, maybe just saddened, but that doesn't rhyme.

In his latest, NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof bemoans the state of the environmental movement. He notes it's "unable to win on even its very top priorities, even though it has the advantage of mostly being right." This doesn't fill me with confidence in Kristof's analysis since "environmentalists" (everyone is an environmentalist--I use quotation marks to identify the special interests groups self-designated as environmentalists) win often enough and don't seem to be right that much more than their opponents.

But why does Kristof think they're in trouble? Simple, they're "too often alarmist" and "have an awful track record" which has hurt their credibility. If this is true, then why does he insist on them "mostly being right?" (He says environmentalists are like neocons--"brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance." This is the kind of mindless, shrill contempt neocons have to put up with, but that's a different post.)

After recounting foolish statements made in the past few decades, he says we need "reasonable environmentalists - without alarmism or exaggerations." I certainly agree. He then goes on to say it's imperative we don't drill in Arctic wildlife refuge. But if this sort of trade-off isn't "reasonable"--drilling in a very small area of land no one ever visits for lots of oil--then what is? Kristof demands "a credible, nuanced, highly respected environmental movement," but if it ever came along I don't think he'd support it.