Here’s a tip I received from a reader about some serious heavy duty shop talk. Click here and read this letter that 12 (!) green groups sent to the editor of the Madison Capital Times in Wisconsin. Then drop a note into the comments and share what you think they are trying to say.

If you ever wonder how we come up with this incomprehensible spew, there’s a scientific term that explains it, which is: Too many cooks in the kitchen. Here’s a academic take on the phenomenon:

Although it has received little attention in law and political theory, group polarization is one of the robust findings in social psychology. The central point here is that the outcome of a group deliberation tends to be a more extreme version of the initial predisposition of group members. Deliberating groups thus move not toward the middle, but toward within-group extremes. For example, a group of people who tend to oppose affirmative action is likely, after discussion, to oppose affirmative action with more vehemence than before

Source: Under the Radar and Over the Top, Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet

It’s my experience that the “group extremes” the authors refer to includes the amount of shop talk, not just the relative intensity of the views expressed. And the moral of the story is that the more of your expert peers get involved in writing something, the more challenging it becomes to produce something that someone who is not your peer might understand.

Like words? Like the web? Then you might like this job at the Natural Resources Defense Council as a content editor for their website. Good luck!

I hate the name, but I love the email list. It’s Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Doug MacKenzie Mohr, the dean of “social marketing,” established this list and describes it thus:

The “Fostering Sustainable Behavior” listserv provides the opportunity for over 5000 environmental program managers to easily dialogue with one another regarding a wide range of behavior change programs that support sustainability (e.g., waste reduction, energy and water efficiency, watershed and habitat protection, modal transportation shifts, etc.).

Doug’s running a subscriber recruitment campaign right now, so: Click here to learn more and sign up.

Why do I love this list? It’s just flat out helpful. I have learned a lot from the other members and I hope they appreciate my own periodic contributions.

So why do I hate the name? It’s that pesky word “sustainable.” I have fresh ammunition that I will use to take potshots at this particular term. According to the study “Family Forest Owners: Insights into Land-Related Stewardship, Values, and Intentions,” published by the Sustaining Family Forests Initiative, private landowners react to the term like this:

Negatively, ’sustainable’ and ’sustainability’ are ‘buzzwords/spin,’ vague or pretentious jargon. Several respondents said they didn’t know what the term means. More highly educated owners are familiar with the terms, but a number find them distinctly annoying.

‘Annoying?’ ‘Annoying?’ Getting off on the wrong foot with somebody is a high price to pay for linguistic laziness. So next time you set out to foster some sustainable behavior, I’d suggest you find some different words to explain your intentions to your audience.

Here’s a recommended resource: Check out Jay Babcock’s Nature Trumps. Over the past year or so, it has quietly marched to the top of my favorite blogs list. It’s an online chronicle of the life and times along one of America’s most polluted and unhealthy bodies of water — the Los Angeles River. In its own way, the blog reveals as much about about humans’ relationship to nature as the polls and focus group reports I cite here so often.

Jay shares stories and photographs of everyday Angelinos enjoying the river — risking arrest to fish for invasive carp, getting baptized in pools of polluted runoff, and spraypainting beautiful murals along the concrete walls that pass for riverbanks out there. Jay’s people love the river despite the abuse it’s received. In their stories, I find a comforting affirmation that humans have an inherent need to experience nature and want to provide that experience to their children.

But I also experience a sobering realization that these citizens’ vision for the river is all about today and tomorrow. The characters who appear in Nature Trumps spend little time reminiscing or regretting some bygone era when the river was pristine. For them, that’s water under the bridge.

When I look at the faces in the photographs on Nature Trumps, I see people who want straight talk from you about what’s important to them. Use words that work like nature protection, pollution control, family, children, safe, healthy, and future generations. I do not see faces that seem eager to embrace highbrow rhetoric like heritage, stewardship, and legacy. 

Jay tells real stories about real people who love a river that’s hard to love. And that’s why I read Nature Trumps.