"Environmentalism" What is this "Environmentalism" you speak of?

[hatrack]

"Thirty-five years after the first Earth Day galvanized environmentalists, the movement is suffering a national identity crisis.

Local environmentalists say San Diego County is cultivating a vibrant environmental community interested in preserving open spaces, cleaning up beaches and pressing for cleaner air. But the green establishment can't seem to get its way in Washington, D.C., the cause of much soul-searching in the run-up to Earth Day festivities that will span the globe tomorrow.

Critics contend that environmentalists lack a compelling vision and say the movement has become just another special interest. Even though environmental groups' coffers are fat and people of all ages profess interest in ecological issues, the movement arguably has lost its way in partisan politics, seemingly incessant fundraising and a lack of personal connection to ecological threats such as global warming.

EDIT

"We need to have another coming-together of environmentalists to figure out who we are what we stand for," said Denis Hayes, organizer of the first Earth Day in 1970 and chairman of the organizing network for the worldwide event. The future of environmentalism is especially important in San Diego County, a major center of biodiversity in the United States, home to about four dozen federally protected species and host to one of the nation's banner Earth Day festivals. "I am forlorn and discouraged," said Carolyn Chase, founder of San Diego EarthWorks, which puts on the annual EarthFair in Balboa Park. "I am not discouraged about conservation activism and the interest that people have in the environment around them," she said. "But somehow we haven't been able to transfer that into effective political power."
Environmentalists said they are playing defense against a presidential administration and Congress they often view as hostile. On Capitol Hill, they have lost battles over oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, government support for nuclear energy and the United States' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change."

EDIT

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050421-9999-1n21earthday.html

[IrateCitizen]

1. This one statement sums it up more for me than any other:

... the movement arguably has lost its way in partisan politics....

The reason this is negative, IMHO, is twofold. First, every major movement in history that has been sucked into partisan politics has lost itself, primarily due to a capitulation of the old fighting spirit that it was founded upon and instead a process of "moderation" to better appeal to "mainstream" politicians. The history of the labor movement, I believe, provides an excellent example.

Second, the environmental movement suffers from the same kind of atomization that affects us in every aspect of our daily lives. When neighbors don't even really know each other anymore -- let alone talk on a near-daily basis -- it is extremely difficult to organize people around local issues that should be of importance to them. Between working 50 hours a week at a job that takes a 75-minute commute each way, shuttling the kids to and from a myriad of events, and just keeping up with the yardwork, people just don't have the TIME to establish the kind of connections necessary for the environmental movement to grow. I experienced this first-hand in working with my local Sierra Club for a couple of years.

The troubles of the environmental movement are really just another symptom of the cognitive dissonance in our general way of life.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. The movement also has problems relating to urban concerns/people

as in the inner cities and among minorities.

I cam across an excellent retort to the question "Is Environmentalism Dead?" recently aired out in Grist Magazine:

www.grist.org

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/15/brown/

(snip)
For a lot of young people right now, the environment is an issue for the privileged or the issueless. People who feel they are becoming extinct care less about the extinction of owls and oak trees. We sit on buses that pump nasty black smoke into our air, dreaming of owning SUVs. Many of us don't see real, unfenced trees anymore. We don't see stars -- the blue of our skies is unreal. The natural world is becoming a place to visit or dream of, a privilege for those who can find work outside cities, or a trap for those in the migrant worker population who lack fair wages and work situations.
(snip)
(snip)
...I offer three transition steps for the leadership of the environmental movement:

1. Change your framework...

2. Be easy and appealing...

3. Stop the environmental evangelism...
(snip)
(snip)
How this discussion can move forward into worthwhile proposals and actions -- that is the question. Stepping back and thinking about a vision for a movement is absolutely necessary. Dramatizing its slow and agonizing death borders on indulgent. Too often, people rush to say something is dying when it's merely in a period of transition. Be less presumptuous. Shedding an old skin is not death but renewal, and those who follow the life of the planet should grasp that better than anyone else.
(snip)


BTW, the author is a founding member of the League of Pissed-Off Voters: www.indyvoter.org


:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

3. I think the movement has bigger concerns among rural people

While I was working with the Sierra Club (I know you know the players as well), I encountered attitudes that simply blew me away. As a person who grew up in a rural environment and has lived urban and suburban, I like to think I have a pretty broad perspective on things. I remember a conversation with a fellow SCer on the need to reach out to hunters and fishermen, because they are concerned about many of our issues as well.

Her response was telling in its rigidity. She said, "I don't want to reach out to hunters. I hate guns, and I think they all should be outlawed."

I was stunned. I mean, why on earth would someone take such a stance that would alienate one of the groups that environmentalists should be most seeking to establish ties with? Sadly, I saw this as a common behavior among urban/suburban environmentalists. For those of us living in urban/suburban environments, the idea of pristine wilderness hundreds of miles away is something that appeals to us. But for many in rural environments, those "wilderness" areas and "open space" are actually depended upon for their livelihoods.

Now I'm not talking about buying into the "wise use" claptrap or anything -- but there has to be an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, people who live in rural areas and own small businesses that depend upon the land (like independent farmers and ranchers, for instance) might just have an interest in conserving it. And instead of widening gulfs between our groups, we should be seeking out areas of common ground, and then turning our opposition toward corporate interests seeking to simply exploit those resources for short-term profit, walking away when irreparable damage is done.

[amazona]

4. me too

I take the concerns of the hunter or the fisher who actually knows the land a lot more seriously than an essay by some young person who wants me to shut up ("Stop the environmental evangelism") and who clearly doesn't know what she is talking about because she thinks losing our "wild" is OK because all the young people in her crowd live in the city!

There have been and always will be those who try to pit saving the environment against saving the inner city or what-have-you. It's the familiar game of divide-and-conquer. I don't think we need take seriously the opinion of someone who thinks that the environment is just a "quality of life" issue for the, wtf, issueless.

I do think we need to take seriously the opinion of those who are actually trying to feed and house us from the land.

And instead of widening gulfs between our groups, we should be seeking out areas of common ground, and then turning our opposition toward corporate interests seeking to simply exploit those resources for short-term profit, walking away when irreparable damage is done

Yes, yes, yes! Many birders and environmentalists in my state (Louisiana) try to make a point to recognize hunters and others who have worked to protect habitat with their time and dollar. But, because we're a poor state, too often we bend over backward to corporate interests. This is what we need to be looking at.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[DinahMoeHum]

5. "young person who wants me to shut up" ???. . . I wonder

whether you even bothered to read the article in its entirety:

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/15/brown/

(snip)
"...Stop the environmental evangelism.

"...I say this as a loving criticism of the people who are at the forefront of this work: you often get so caught up in the sky-is-falling mentality of environmental work that you can only see the urgency of your own issue. That's not how to approach folks."

"...Fiscally conservative people of color vote in their economic interest, not because someone approaches them on the street apoplectic about mercury in the water. Mercury in the water is a completely relevant topic for black folks, but not if we can't see our faces on and in that movement, and see our interests as clearly part of the platform."

"...You've got to talk to folks about the things that will move them -- which means you've got to identify how your work relates to the issues that matter to other people."

"...As a young woman of color who doesn't do environmental work for a living, I believe environmentalism needs to become something that the masses can integrate into how we live our lives. It's nothing personal. Every issue-based movement needs to think in terms of solidarity and collaboration right now."
(snip)
(snip)
"...That is the context for the next stage of environmentalism. You have an oppressed, depressed, furious mass waiting to be mobilized. And sure, some of us eat at McDonald's and wear leather shoes -- but we feel it is possible to demand better from our government and from ourselves for our environment. We feel it is imperative to connect the different survival struggles we are engaged in if we truly hope to sustain a viable movement for change. You will not die if you try to link hands with us in this struggle, if you try to meet us halfway."
(snip)


Prime example: the proverbial smokestack plant that not only endangers workers inside, but endangers the surrounding community (all too often poor/minority) thru pollution, and also endangers the nearby rural area by poisoning/killing the birds and fish.

Which means EVERYBODY has a stake here - it's not a matter of urban vs rural.

:shrug:

[hunter]

6. Suburban environmentalists are often disruptive.

Their takes on both urban and rural issues can be very divisive, simply because they have chosen to isolate themselves from the middle grounds most rural and urban people live in.

From the suburban point of view, rural areas are either parklands or wastelands. Almost any human activity is a potential danger to the parkland.

From the suburban point of view, urban areas are either centers of sophisticated society, or crime-infested hell holes. The suburban environmentalist rarely recognizes that person for person, the person who lives in the city causes less damage to the world environment than the person who lives in the suburb. (For example, I don't use pesticides on my lawn. Good for me. But the rural or urban person who doesn't have a lawn gets a better environmental score on that than I do.)

This is all a gross generalization, but in my experience people from urban areas are much more accepting of rural points of view and rural people are much more accepting of urban points of view, than suburban people are accepting of either point of view. In some ways the urban and rural sides are able to say "that's not my turf" and accept the outlooks of the locals.

Unfortunately, much of the support for various environmental groups comes from people with very suburban points of views, and this has clouded our perceptions about what an environmentalist actually is.

On last thought -- have you ever noticed how suburbs are rarely a vacation destination? How many tourists fly to Southern California just to marvel at the vast suburban developments that were made possible by our sophisticated water and highway projects?

[IrateCitizen]

7. Suburbanites in general are often deluded...

WRT rural lawns, having grown up rural I can tell you that we had lawns. But they were far from suburban lawns. They could be more accurately described as "yards", and my parents' yard faded into the woods behind their house. We never used chemicals of any sort on it, to my best knowledge. Plenty of clover, crabgrass and the like in addition to more traditional "lawn grasses".

I believe the suburban lifestyle consumes about twice as much energy, per person, as the city lifestyle. Rural folks usually consume more than urban, but I would say it is still less than suburban.

On last thought -- have you ever noticed how suburbs are rarely a vacation destination? How many tourists fly to Southern California just to marvel at the vast suburban developments that were made possible by our sophisticated water and highway projects?

Yeah, no kidding. Everybody apparently wants to live there, but once they're there, they're trying to escape at every opportunity....

[cprise]

8. I read those Grist essays too

And I mostly disagree with this one. I have lived in both urban and suburban settings (always racially diverse) and I have to say that suburbanites are most of the problem.

There are 3 kinds of suburbanite, who are there to:

* ESCAPE. (other people, social responsibility)
* TAKE. (i need more... like yesterday!)
* All of the above

The ruals and suburbanites vote for TAKE. Urbanites and minorities vote for SHARE.

What are (American) evironmentalists doing wrong? I agree with others that say enviros provide data, but no consistent references to an ethical/moral FRAME(work) that values social responsibility and stewardship. Of course, the moment enviros address this problem, we will once again be derided as hippies, utopians, etc. (But those are just names... funny how enviros were more powerful when people could call us names, and when we weren't afraid of that.)

So we have this FRAMEing problem with suburbantites. They are presented with evidence of their destructive way of life, given no insight into organizing principles (values) needed to address it, and when Rev. Billybob Bighair comes along telling them they are SUPPOSED to use-up the Earth (whew, someone likes the way I live!), our suburbanite will remember it and reflexively use the Billybobs to keep us enviros from trashing their conscience. They will even give these opportunistic pricks money and public office. There is a lucrative market for the assuaging of consumer guilt. Hence we get at best schitzoid politics like blue secular/Catholic states electing imported Mormon Republican activist governors.

Environmentalism has been trying to forget that it is a product of the Left, and even of the Enlightenment. It should be using the incredible strength of its insights to preach the gospel of human potential. We CAN be essentialy good and do the right thing. We are all connected and must work together. Human rights go hand-in-hand with human responsibilities. Keep repeating this to establish a rapport and positive feedback with other movements. Use the bracing (if dire) environmental facts and developments to remind people that another world is possible.

And 2 small details: Eliminate the system's ability to over-up. That means taking-on mass media and computerized voting. No message will help humanity if these anti-institutions continue their abuses.

[blindpig]

9. too late

Too fucking late.

35 years ago we had a chance if we had gotten on the stick. Now everything is much worse, the best we can do is triage. Pop a brew and sit back as our planetary fauna and flora relaxes to equilibrum.

Not to say that we should roll over and quit, there's always the Good Fight. Any bit or piece to be saved is sacred. But the big game is lost: elephants, rhinos, 2/3 of all turtles, almost all nonhuman primates and so much more will be gone forever before some of the members of this board are.

As for the urban\suburban\rural issue; we're all maladapted monkeys.