Permanent Daylight? How about permanent derision? M. Brand’s critique of the Northeast Climate Conference amounted to little more than a tirade and an exercise in personal vendetta. Perhaps tofu pups have left a sour taste in Ms. Brand’s mouth.

Maybe the environmental movement is disorganized, and maybe environmentalists can be militant and opinionated, but I have a hard time grasping how denigration will produce any positive results. By discrediting and cheapening the efforts of devoted people, the author has done nothing to aid a movement to which she claims to support. It’s almost as if she specifically attended the conference to scrutinize and finger-point. While Ms. Brand seems to feel insulted at being perceived as an “evil urbanite city dweller” she casts her own nasty stereotypes, sketching a large, diverse group of people as nappy-haired “tree-huggers.” With her own brand of negativism, she criticizes the conference attendees for negativity. Such sweeping statements discourage those who do not fit the “hippie” stereotype from joining a cause they might feel strongly about.

The movement may not be perfect, but it’s encouraging to know that people are concerned about the planet beyond the fact that its destruction might ruin their vacation to Fiji. Indeed, there are gaps in the approach-it’s true that sometimes the cause consumes the activist, and perhaps environmentalism use a dose of diversity. But constructive criticism is far more potent than mockery.

J. Luke Ryder COM ’04 802-318-1297