"We've Got Issues": What is the future of environmentalism?

[Viking12]

Grist Magazine has published a series of articles and editorials exploring the issues raised by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus's essay "The Death of Environmentalism" and Adam Werbach's speech "Is Environmentalism Dead?"

Grist poses a series of questions that would be intersting to discuss here.

Questions: Has the green movement relied too much on fear and guilt and too little on inspiration? If a compelling vision is lacking, what should that vision be, and how can greens communicate it more effectively?

Questions: Are environmental leaders putting enough effort into making common cause with other factions within (or even outside of) the progressive movement? Will stronger ties with other factions suffice, or should environmentalism be merged into the broader progressive movement? Is the progressive movement any stronger or better off than the green movement anyway?

Questions (this raises quite a few): Should greens jettison the veil of bipartisanship and hitch their wagon to the Democratic Party? To what extent is there such a veil? What would it look like to abandon the already-wan efforts at reaching out to conservatives, and what would be gained by it? Is the Republican Party a lost cause -- and if so how did we lose it, given the conservative roots of conservationism stretching from Theodore Roosevelt to Richard Nixon, who signed into law our landmark environmental statutes?

Question: What can environmentalism do to connect with the "kitchen-table issues" of ordinary folk?

http://www.grist.org/comments/gist/2005/01/13/doe/

Comments??

[elemnopee]

1. comments

First off, Nixon signed into law the various environmental protections because of continual public outcry, not because he was actually concerned about the environment. An oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara desecrated the California coastline and the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught on fire. How could the American people watch a river burn and not become concerned?

I think its real easy to find a "kitchen-table issue." The levels of mercury in fish makes them extremely toxic, I can not think of a more "kitchen-table issue." A study conducted by Congress has found half a million children are born with unsafe levels of mercury which can cause birth defects and possibly autism.

[FormerDittoHead]

2. Health care takes priority, but I sense a lot of support out here...

We know someone who can't afford vaccine shots for their kids (like $250, but why the HELL shouldn't they be FREE???).

I think that the enviornment is close behind, however, in the minds of people who don't think that the world's end is near and would like to leave the world a *better* place...

Another problem is that "The Enviornment" also now means "Global Warming" and even "Genetic Engineering" (from what little I've seen on it, scares the "Pee-Jezuts" out of me) so it's not as simple as the days of billowing smokestacks...

[rfkrfk]

3. Washington DC, is not the whole world

Somebody tell the Greens.
There are other countries, there are US states.
For example, California and Maine, have begun to address
the issue of CO2, other states have discussed the issue.
.
Somebody tell {Japanese car company} Honda,
that the US is not the only country in the world...
when Honda built an electric car {EV}, the a+++++++s
tried to lease the thing to people in the US {failed},
as opposed to successfully selling the car to Japanese.
.
Why do Greens think it is OK for the non-USA
to overfish and stripmine the oceans.
.
If a German car company wants to build a nice diesel car
that doesn't pollute, they don't need shrub's permission.
.
International jet fuel tax is zero, but the Greens think that
a person who pushes a lawn mower for a living is undertaxed.

[Wilms]

4. I was wondering if the planet mattered.

I like the notion of the Environmental Cause folding into the progressive movement on the assumption that the progressive movement would embrace those values in an effective campaign.

But why can't Conservatives be drawn out, too. Assuming, as the author does, both can't be done simultaneously seems unnecessarily divisive. Pro-environment republicans could pressure their reps. to support legislation, even if they don't vote for Dems.

The Us/Them split is often illusory.

Another challenge is addressing consumption in a way that doesn't offend most Americans who, indeed, consume too much.

That's a tough one.

[sorechasm]

5. Hello Viking12. Let's fill the gap between People vs. Environment

We're starting a letter writing campaign to media and politicians, both local and national, to build on some momentum and encouragement of Sen. Barbara Boxer (the Senator with a spine). One of the seven topics so far is, as should be, the environment.

See
Barbara Boxer Told DU - You're doing the right thing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=293412

As your post and the Grist article indicates, something's deeply missing in the Greenies debate: the majority of the folks who live on earth and don't understand it's fragile state.

I like some of the replies to the Grist article, namely:

aharvard, you wrote: "I think that the ultimate goal of the environmental movement should not just be clean water, clean air, less logging, etc. Rather, it should be to bridge the disconnect between the human experience and nature, to help people see themselves as a part of nature/the environment, rather than the two being detachable units."

Our twist on the environmental debate and accompanying letters would be about building some foundations under that bridge which needs some structural (average Joe) support to avoid falling into the sea of despair.

Could use any help available, since I am about the least qualified Average Joe to make this happen, by comparison to everyone else in the Environmental forum.

[blindpig]

6. part of the problem is the media

not so long ago there was a lot more environmental coverage in the media. NPR in particular comes to mind. Hate to say it but the American people have an attention span considerably shorter than the average freeper's penis. If the horrible shit isn't in their face on tv or in magazines then it can't be too bad. Compound that with generous greenwashing passing as environmental news and you've got an non issue.

My LCV newsletter constantly said that 86% of Americans consider themselves environmentalist, perhaps they are in a conditional sort of way, like when they can see it. I was constantly frustrated that Kerry didn't take the environment and beat bu$h upside the head with it. I can only suppose that Kerry's corporate masters didn't want Kerry stepping on their meat.

I guess something so bad that it cannot be ignored will have to happen in order to get people's attention. Seeing as people effectively ignored 9/11 and its implications I shudder to think what it will take.

[XemaSab]

7. People are environmentalists

when they know the issues and can see how the issues affect them.

The problem is that the radical left totally dominates the discussion on the left and frequently picks the wrong battles, alienating many would-be supporters. There's a mentality among some that unless you ride a bike, eat only organic foods, and recycle or compost all your waste you're an eco-villain. This is totally the wrong approach. The strategy is to reward people for what they do right, and not condemn them for what they do wrong.

[blindpig]

8. radical left?

Could you explain in more detail? I think you're confusing chicken with egg. The lifestyle that you refer to is a result of and response to science, the work of many folks of a variety of disciplines. The fact is that in the past two decades environmental science has been increasingly ignored, obstructed and purposefully confused by the media acting as agent of corporate interest and now even by our government. The problem is not the "radical leftist" you so resent but rather the message sent by the likes of the Union of Concerned Scientist and E O Wilson is not reaching its audience. And to be honest it is an uncomfortable message that people don't want to here but ignore at great peril.

[XemaSab]

10. Sorry, wrong term

I should have said "radical activist environmentalist," not "radical left."

I don't despise them, but my experience with them is that there's a lot of "casting the first stone" against people who aren't a part of that community.

On edit:

Furthermore, I'm not sure there's too much science there either, frankly.

[blindpig]

11. where do you perceive a lack of science?

with the "radical activist environmentalist" or the Union Of Concerned Scientist?

Or are you fighting O'really's Kultur Krieg?

[IrateCitizen]

9. The environmental movement is riddled with problems...

I've been an active member of my local Sierra Club in the past, and have grown increasingly frustrated by it over time. I have largely come to the conclusion that it is essentially an upper-middle to upper-class organization that is primarily involved with NIMBY issues. I've also seen times where we have come down on the wrong side of housing issues, simply because members with means would rather maintain their "historical" neighborhoods in New York City than to OK housing development.

Of course, the biggest hurdle we face is that we live in a culture that is outwardly hostile to the environment, despite any guilt that individuals might feel to the contrary. Take my wife as an example -- she likes to think she's environmentally conscious. She's a science teacher with a biology degree. But she disdains public transit, preferring to drive rather than take any opportunity to take the train. When I propose to her things in our lifestyle I want to change in order to make us more eco-friendly, she resists if it results in the slightest inconvenience.

And she's a left-of-center person who would probably say that she places a priority on the environment. Don't even get me started on the rest of her family, who more typify the norm

The fact is that modern society is extremely hostile to the environment, because we have succeeded in making it appear as something outside of ourselves, a resource simply to be exploited, as opposed to the actual source of all of our lives here on earth. Until we are able to alter this paradigm, even slightly, the environmental movement will continue to run into the same brick walls.

[BeFree]

12. No wonder you are Irate

Environmentalism is dead, or at least damn near dead. We who enviromentalize the coming consequences are too few to make a difference, and we are the last torch bearers.

Too many people who know better, and therefore, should be acting better, don't. They still use up far more than they contribute, thereby tipping the balance towards complete and utter destruction of sound environmental systems. Slowly the tipping has begun to show its' ugly consequences. These pages are full of the examples of that tipping.

I used to argue for the environment, now all I can do is make excuses for what's now here (dirty air and water) and what's to come. Sad excuses are all I can muster because otherwise I would have to revolt completely. Keeps me out of trouble, too.

I'm just gonna sit back and watch, meanwhile picking a few local issues to play with, and even then don't expect to get much, if any support. That's the way it is.

Peace.