Five greenreads to savor on your break from this weekend's various religious and/or atheistic family gatherings.

The Economist on the connections between climate change beliefs, personality, and nationality: Do conservatives have personality traits that give them tendencies "to build alternate universes of fact that close off the possibility of debate?” With climate change skepticism as an example, some argue the answer is no, citing conservative in Europe who largely do believe the world is warming. The article, however, points out that climate change disbelief is not purely an American phenomenon but thrives as a result of our two-party political system, concluding, “While attitudes and character don't entirely determine political beliefs or allegiances, they strongly influence the kinds of arguments you're going to find appealing.”

Gardiner Harris in the New York Times on the government’s internal power struggles over public health: Internal clashes between the White House and the FDA have become increasingly commonplace under the last two administrations. The FDA evaluated the nation’s medicines and foods relatively independently for decades but has been made more aware by top officials that “the politics of regulation do not always mesh with ideological or scientific judgment.” Decisions concerning anything from movie popcorn to the morning after pill are under heightened scrutiny by the White House. Harris writes that the administration “views the agency’s hostility to its oversight as hopelessly naïve, given a 24-hour news cycle and a ferocious political environment that punishes any misstep.”

Mark Hertsgaard in Mother Jones on how grassroots activism has clobbered Big Coal: While air pollution legislation has struggled in the upper tiers of government, environmentalists with local and state targets are basking in a string of victories over the coal industry. So far, the Beyond Coal campaign has helped stop the construction of 166 new coal-fire plants. Lower electricity demand resulting from the recession and cheap natural gas may have primed Big Coal for trouble, but “it was grassroots activism that leveraged vulnerability into outright defeat.” Next up for the activists? Going after power plants that already exist.

Jeff Turrentine at OnEarth speaks to Van Jones: Obama’s former special adviser thinks environmentalists can learn a thing or two from the Tea Party about storytelling. “Liberals have the idea that if you just tell people the facts, people will be rational and reach the right conclusions. The facts will set you free. They won’t!” Instead, he suggests aiming arguments at peoples’ hearts and has confidence that such emotional messages are as powerful as those that industry is paying big bucks for. “What’s surprising is the persistence of environmental consciousness, the persistence of a clean-energy demand in the face of this massive, overwhelming propaganda to shut it down.”

Steve Coll in The New Yorker on ExxonMobil’s political influence (subscription required): Despite calls for more domestic drilling, Obama is facing off against Big Oil this election year. Coll examines how ExxonMobil, the country’s most profitable oil corporation, became a finance arm of the Republican Party. Functioning on a timescale that's outlasted a century’s worth of governments, the company says it bases its maneuvers on business, not politics. But while ExxonMobil considers itself “a non-ideological corporation,” Coll writes, it spends money and lobbies in Washington in “ways Democrats could hardly see as anything but antagonistic.”

Tired of reading yet? Watch this:

Spencer Michael for PBS NewHour on powering hospitals in the developing world: Bad things can happen when the lights go out during surgery. Around the world, an estimated 300,000 health facilities lack reliable electricity sources. Starting in Nigeria, one California couple is providing small solar installations to prevent power outages and improve care in operating rooms and maternity wards.

Image: Joakim Wahlander