Archive for the ‘Enough Water’ Category
Environmental Writer Appears on The Daily Show
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Robert Glennon | ||||
|
||||
Environmental writer Robert Glennon chronicles America’s water problems in a thoughtful way, and his presentations are both humerous and powerful, so it’s shame his interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart about his new book, Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What To Do About It was such a lost opportunity.
As he often does, Stewart plays the devil’s advocate, and along the way he reveals a lot about the real reason everyday citizens often fail to act on their pro-environmental sentiments: self doubt, despair that solutions will never work, and a sense of being overwhelmed at the scale of the problem. And Glennon makes a common mistake that we make in our environmental communications — mistaking self-doubt for complacency and trying to shock people past those objections by piling on more bad news.
I wish Mr. Glennon had found a way to steer a portion of the interview in this direction:
The point of my book is that water trends are disturbing, and there won’t be enough clean water for future generations. But there are solutions out there. If we plan ahead, act responsibly, and work together, we can achieve them. Let me cite an example of a community that is doing it’s part to make to use water responsibly…blah blah blah…
After all the tagline of his book is “what to do about it.” Mr. Glennon should have made sure to talk about that, too.
But that said, I’m acquainted with Robert Glennon — so this makes me just two degrees of separation from John Stewart! Whoo Hoo!
Hat tip to J.S. and J.S. for sending this clip my way.
How About “Permanent Drought?”
I’ll be honest that I haven’t yet read the advance company of Heart of Dryness: How the Last Bushmen Can Help Us Endure the Coming Age of Permanent Drought, that the publisher was so kind to send me. But that won’t stop me from blogging about it! I’m intrigued by this phrase on the cover: “permanent drought.”
We desperately need a word that conveys to everyday citizens that we just don’t have enough water to waste like we do. It’s a struggle. I often see nature protection and pollution control people using the phrase “running out of water,” but researchers find that it strikes the everyday citizen as apocalyptic and far fetched…
Running out of water is something that most people have not considered and do not believe — communicating something that is unbelievable is ineffective.
Source: Texas Water Development Board Focus Group Report, 2004
And when I’ve sat in on focus groups myself, I’ve noticed that many attendees actually can’t distinguish between water pollution and water supply issues. They tend to see that the consequence of “too much pollution” is “not enough clean water.” And they see water everywhere, but wonder if enough of it is clean to meet human’s and nature’s needs.
But that there’s just flat out not enough water at all? Even in places like Arizona, Colorado and Texas, that strikes many as preposterous.
Reflecting that, I’ve put the phrase “enough clean water” on the Words That Work list, but I recognize it’s a bit clunky, somehow.
So what do you think of “permanent drought?” Did the author nail it? How about “artificial drought?” or “man made drought?”
Heart of Dryness: How the Last Bushmen Can Help Us Endure the Coming Age of Permanent Drought was written by a Jamie Workman, a former Interior Department colleague of mine and all around good egg. Given the way he used to edit some of my earlier environmental writing, I’m sure this will be worth the time. I’ll get around to reading it soon, I promise!
Poll: Water is Important and “Sustainable” Requires Definition
Source: Editor B via Flickr
Harris Interactive and BBC American have released their latest environmental poll. The poll contains a few noteworthy nuggets, but the top finding is a rerun: Enough clean water is a big deal, no matter how you ask it.
But here’s something I haven’t seen before: The pollsters asked poll participants about their “sustainable” behavior, and felt compelled to define the term before asking about it. Here’s my bottom line advice on that: If you have to explain a term before you can use it, you should try to avoid it.
All in all, no real breakthroughs with this environmental poll, but it’s solid, credible, fresh and has a large sample (2,100+) so it’s worth taking a minute to read.
Thanks J.S. for sending this my way!
Dick Cheney Knows Something You Don’t

Our outgoing vice president, Dick Cheney, once famously remarked:
…conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy…
Mr. Cheney’s remarks pissed some people off in the conservation community, but research suggests that he was using the term “conservation” the way that most everyday citizens understand it: referring to personal behaviors like turning off lights, turning off the water while brushing teeth, carpooling, cutting back on lawn watering, etc…
Whether referring to energy or water, there is no term that Americans generally understand to mean comprehensive social programs and policies to encourage efficiency and reduce waste. In a 2001 study conducted for the League of Conservation Voters, researchers reported:
While voters think of conservation efforts as a personal endeavor, thinking about improving efficiency on a large scale does not readily occur to them.
I mention this now, because down in drought-stricken Florida, leaders from government, agriculture, and nonprofit organizations have negotiated such a large scale water efficiency plan, and they are gearing up to sell it to the governor, state legislature, and voting citizens.
So here’s the conundrum:
- If the authors call their plan a “water conservation plan,” many Florida voters will have an incomplete understanding of what that means — they won’t recognize that industry and agriculture are supposed to do their part. They’ll think the burden is on individual families.
- If the authors call the plan a “water efficiency plan,” some voters just won’t have any idea what it refers to.
- If the authors call the plan a “comprehensive drought response plan,” many voters will think it’s temporary.
There don’t seem to be any great options here. Anybody got a suggestion on what the best one might be?


