Well has the Green Movement made any blunders?

[Anonymous]

http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/11/debating-what-the-green-movement-got-wrong/66162/

Are environmentalists too romantic? Idealogical?

Do they care about people? 

Are people a problem or a solution?

Is environmentalism too anti-technology?

[Thomas J. Johnson]

The “Grean Movements” biggest mistake has been a failure to connect conservation and sustainability to financial profitability. Historically, greens have been associated with wanting to put the brakes on “civilization” and “progress” in order to protect the environment from the destructive forces of human influence. This is a losing battle. Money drives the world, like it or not, and you’re not going to influence the environmental policy makers unless you can align your cause with their bottom line.

You can see the tides beginning to turn. Businesses are paying closer attention to their inputs and outputs, finding ways to use less energy and materials to create their goods while profiting from the sales of byproducts they once considered worthless. The public sector is also beginning to come around as they realize that open-space and healthy waterways are more profitable (inviting) than endless concrete and polluted rivers. Citizens value fluid transit systems and clean air and are willing to pay for that quality of life.

We no longer live with the “man vs nature” mentality that both sides shared. Capitalists viewed nature as a resource to be exploited, result be damned, in the name of profits. Environmentalists viewed humans as a cancer of the earth. Both perspectives are equally destructive to the development of real solutions and we’ve reached a point in time where both parties realize that we need to collaborate in order to move forward and that our goals are really not that different. We can learn from each other and progress.

Here are a few quotes I found particularly interesting and my reaction:

“After decades of work, after billions of dollars spent, the environmental movement has failed to achieve job one, which is to protect the planet.”
– The billions of dollars spent on environmental issues pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars spent on big business interests. As long as it’s environmental dollars vs corporate dollars, the environment will lose every time. I would also disagree with the sweeping generalization that the environmental movement has failed to protect the planet. Environmentalists have done a great deal to protect the planet. What they have failed to do is keep pace with the destructive forces generated by an exponentially expanding hunger for consumer goods. That would be impossible. Environmentalism is reactionary. It is not leading the charge. Company pollutes river, clear-cuts forests, dumps toxic waste, etc, etc, environmentalists work to pass legislation preventing that action. Another way of phrasing the authors statement would be to say that the environmental movement has been unsuccessful in protecting natural resources from human interests. But again, I would disagree, they just haven’t been able to keep pace.

“…nothing is more damaging than a legacy view among some greens that humans are locusts on a perfect earth, eating more than their fair share, and doomed to destroy our species while bringing down lions, tigers, and bears in the process.”
– The simple truth of the matter is that it is true. Humans are a locusts on a perfect planet and we will eat and consume our way out of house and home. One only need look at the facts related to pollution, air quality, global warming, and extinction of species since the industrial revolution. In the last 100 years we’ve hit the self-destruct “turbo-button”.

“If the environmental movement hopes to be relevant in the future it needs to build a plan for a planet with 8.9 billion people (the projected population in 2050), embrace innovation and technology, and engage corporations as partners in solutions.”
– If corporations hope to have a consumer base in 2200 they need to build a better plan for managing the earths resources, embrace technology and innovation and engage ecologists and environmental designers as partners in solutions.

Besides, who said the earth is capable of supporting 8.9 billion people? Our economic system is based on 5% annual growth. That is a horrible business model, literally designed to fail. A world of finite resources, including surface area, cannot support infinite growth at 5% annually. It’s absurd. There has to be a healthy carrying capacity. What do you think the environmental impact would be of bringing all of India and China up to American living standards? What if we all expanded at the rate and with the same lack of environmental concern as China? Sure, stocks would soar and share-holders would be pleased, that is, until they couldn’t breath or find a glass of clean water. If we all lived in a box, instead of on the surface of a globe, and we lived off of the contents of that box, would we still be of the mind-set that 5% annual growth is a good thing? I tend to think not. Frankly, we need to thin the herd, not add another 2 billion hungry mouths to an already dwindling buffet.

[Tanya Olson]

At least in the US, failure to meaningfully connect in a culturally significant way to conservative conservationists – ie. outdoor sportspeople – hunters, fishers, other outdoor rec people. They’ve tended to look down their noses at ATVs and motorboats which hasn’t made any new friends. They’ve also alienated USFS management and forest resources proponents, both for grazing and logging.
Overall, its been ideological and judgemental of other lifestyles without examining how different means can result in the same end.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

Tanya, That last sentence is huge.

Another huge problem is that we’ll shut down anything and everything in our country, particularly non-recreational utilization of natural resources, while we turn a blind eye to other countries who are far less careful of protecting the environment as we continue to use the products from their practices that far worse damage to the environment.

A very local similar thing is to use a rechargable battery powered lawn mower where I live. We have an oil fired electric plant, you lose power in converting it into electricity, more as it goes through miles and miles of wires, transformed from ac to dc, battery runs down between mowings (or transformer is running), and the battery is not made of sugar and spice and everything nice. The end user sees nothing but a silent mower spewing nothing but grass clippings and pats himself on the back.

I think the worst thing is the celebration of things that have little to no impact on the environment, but affect people (some or all) in larger negative ways.

[Trace One]

I disagree with y ou, Tanya..I think the environmental movement has bent over backwards to please ranchers and hunters, and to incorporate them – there was in fact a distinct change in the composition of such groups as Ducks Unlimited and The nature Conservancy, as they did actually incorporate those types of values..Look at who the Secretary of the Interior is – Ken Salazar – an oil man from way back.

I do not see anywhere that the environment is winnning, or anwhere a creature other than humans are taking over the landscape..

And for me that is the bottom line.

I think we need to compromise less (NO friggin ski-mobiles in yellowstone for god’s sake! If you can’t WALK there, don’t go!), other wise we will loose everything..There is massive species die-back, lack of oversight (the oil spill..), and inability to move the ball forwards with present accepted methods of environmental preservation (the failure of 25 years of NPDES in the Chesapeake Bay! FAILURE…).
so I have no sympathy for compromise..it’s like trying to compromise with the credit-default swap regulators – compromise only works in their interest and no-one elses..Delay is deadly..

Tell me where environmental regulations are creating a much cleaner better future for us, where are they winning? Not here in the Central valley..Not in San Diego (new road for powerlines through the Cleveland National Forest…roads bring invasives, and ATVs, as we all know..) Not in New York (can’t close mid-town to cars) not in virginia (won’t build any high speed rail, failur of Cheapeaks NPDES…)..Where is the environment and all gods little creatures winning?

[Jordan Lockman]

The biggest blunder that I can see is arguing “CLIMATE CHANGE”! There are a million reasons that everyone can get behind to save the earth, but instead energies are wasted arguing climate change.

Just about everyone really wants to be “GREEN”, but not necessarily be called green, they just want to do the right thing and still make their businesses work! We are hurting ourselves by making adversaries with people that want the same thing in the end. A good example would be, more efficient energy use is good for everyone. There is less resources used, less pollution(heavy metals, CO2, particulates, etc.), and cost. We just need to find partners and not argue about something that would be moot if we were all more green.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

I give this two thumbs up and a twist!

People do want to do the right thing. …. and there are places with much more wildlife and less pollution than thirty years ago (Massachusetts for one). Are there some problems worse than thirty years ago, absolutely. But overall you can see, taste, hear, and smell it. ….proving that it is worth the effort!

The biggest mistake is that they refuse to acknowledge success and go out of the way to demand that everything is worse!

[Author]

Posts