Kristof conflicted

In a New York Times op-ed, Nicholas Kristof bemoans the environmental movement's alarmism:

In the 1970's, the environmental movement was convinced that the Alaska oil pipeline would devastate the Central Arctic caribou herd. Since then, it has quintupled.

But, he also condemns the movements supposed impotence:

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. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may be approved soon, and there's been no progress whatsoever in the U.S. on what may be the single most important issue to Earth in the long run: climate change.

He later adds, "When I first began to worry about climate change, global cooling and nuclear winter seemed the main risks."

He finally concludes, "So it's critical to have a credible, nuanced, highly respected environmental movement. And right now, I'm afraid we don't have one."

So long as the environmental movement is dominated by liberals, its credibility will be open to question. It's not just the message, it's the delivery.