Grist has a fantastic series of emails in which four emerging environmentla leaders banter about the ideas raise (and overlooked) by the authors of “The Death of Environmentalism.” It’s a great exchange, spread over four days worth of emails, and it’s ably summed up by Tom Smith:

First, we need to seize this moment in the movement’s history to make use of, and nurture, the energy and diversity all around us. What is crucial is the process by which we go about redefining the movement and plotting our strategy. Swati and I both seem to be imagining intensive regional meetings around the country that would engage as many people and as many diverse voices as possible. It would be crucial that the meetings be conducted under the aegis of a broad umbrella coalition with credibility in many sectors, and have skilled facilitators who draw usable, concrete results from them.

Second, we seem to be in general agreement about the need (and DOE’s failure) to recognize the existing diversity of the whole movement, in addition to the need for broadening diversity within the bigger mainstream groups. We need to redefine — in the movement’s consciousness, as well as public consciousness — what the environmental movement is. When someone says “environmental movement,” WE ACT or Just Growth should come to mind just as readily as the Sierra Club.

Third, as part of that redefinition and part of a more effective political strategy on global warming, we need to pour considerable resources into the strengthening of alliances between: a) different sectors of the environmental movement; b) various local groups; c) local enviro groups and national/international groups; and d) these myriad enviro groups and other social-justice, economic, and civil-rights groups — especially the labor movement.

Fourth, as part of that last effort, we need to develop and refine our vision for the future, based on a deeper understanding of the roots of the current problems we face. We need to articulate more clearly and powerfully the interconnections between environmental problems and socioeconomic problems, between the exploitation of the earth and the exploitation of human beings. We need to offer a positive vision of what we’re working toward and what could actually, realistically answer the threat of global warming.

Fifth, we (that is, an umbrella alliance) need to develop a more effective communication/public-education/advertising strategy, engaging experts in “strategic messaging” to develop one-, three-, five-, and 10-year campaigns.

Sixth, with the help of those experts, we need to boil it all down to the most basic of values and aspirations.

Seventh, we need punchy, meaty, rigorously developed educational materials well suited for specific appeals to a diverse array of audiences: kids, union members, business leaders, students, agricultural communities, urban communities, etc.

Eighth, we need to do all this with a recognition that we still vitally need effective and powerful traditional groups like the Sierra Club with expertise in lobbying, policy issues, etc. We need to add to the eco-wonks, not get rid of them.

Ninth, we need to keep a historicized consciousness about everything we do.

Looks like Alex and his merry band of WorldChangers are really starting to get some momentum. Way to go, y’all.

Kristin Dizon has two great articles about biodiesel in today’s P-I.

Seattle (and Washington State) are leading the transition to this clean, carbon-netural, renewable, domestic fuel — which runs in ordinary unmodified diesel cars.

Bruce Sterling summarizes and reposts a great (if wonky) background piece on the Kyoto Accords from the Gallon Environment Letter. This looks like a definitive primer on Kyoto.