Has Kristof ever BEEN to Washington?

In his March 12 NYT column, Nicholas Kristof , inspired by "The Death of Environmentalism," writes that "The U.S. environmental movement is unable to win on even its very top priorities, even though it has the advantage of mostly being right." Kristof is absolutely right that there are changes to be made within the environmental movement. But he's dead wrong when he claims that the fundamental problem here "is that environmental groups are too often alarmists." Agreed, we need to refine our messaging, but that's not the central issue here.

The fundamental problem, the reason that enviros have always had to work their fingers to the bone to win small victories, is that the minority of people who stand to benefit from profitable but environmentally disastrous policies are the same people who are able to buy access and influence with our decision makers. You know these people. Their names are Exxon-Mobil, DuPont, and International Paper, just to name a few.

Kristof's argument assumes that the political landscape in America is a level playing field in which victory only comes down to winning the hearts and souls of the voting public by presenting the merits of one's case in a compelling way. I am shocked that a man of such erudition could possibly assume such a thing, and I wonder if he has ever spent any time on the Hill. For example, has he never seen the American Petroleum Institute's hundreds* of lobbyists swarming around the Senate the day before a vote on drilling in the Arctic Refuge?

What we actually need to win is not more "reasonable environmentalists,"** as Kristof argues, but a) true campaign finance and electoral reform b) more money, 'cause we don't run a profit like the other guys do c) lots more people on the ground d) a little bit better framing of our message.

*Literally.
**There are plenty of actual reasonable environmentalists, but what he means is "sellouts"