Environmentalism
Problems with the environmental movement.
The purpose of this piece is to attempt to help the environmental movement make positive changes that will enable it to be more inclusive. Hopefully this piece provokes thought and provides substance for debate.
The people in the environmental movement are their own worst enemies. They have turned good ideas into an ideology. By making it an ideology instead of a lifestyle and political movement they've basically taken all debate off the table. If you are not with them you are wrong and by extension a bad person.
Environmentalists, because they are pursuing an ideology, make personal judgments about people that disagree with them. A couple of examples of this the author has seen: someone threatening to slash a person's tires because they drive a hummer, the use of the phrase, "climate change denier". The latter example is used to passively associate people who are skeptical of climate change with holocaust deniers. The use of the phrase, "climate change deniers" has become quite common and is one of the most intellectually dishonest ways of influencing opinion. Environmentalism has become an ideology and almost a religion. The smugness that one used to associate with religious, holier than thou, type people can now be seen cropping up in the environmentalist movement.
In addition to an almost overwhelming smugness from some parts of the environmental movement most individuals in the movement can't put forth solutions preferring to complain about the status quo. When someone brings up wind as a solution to energy needs, someone inevitably complains about killing birds, ruining the view or noise pollution. When someone brings up ethanol as a a replacement for gas, someone else will complain that food crops are used or that cellulosic ethanol is not here or cost effective yet. Electric cars, possibly one of the most effective means of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, are continually dismissed because some of the electricity comes from coal or battery disposal will be a problem.
Environmentalists also tend to dismiss technologies that could be used for various reasons. Geothermal is not the best candidate to them because of water usage or the possibility of earthquakes, never mind that their are many locations geothermal could be used without either water or earthquakes being an issue. Also their seems to be wide scale support for photo voltaic at utility scale when their are much more efficient ways to generate electricity from solar energy. Solar thermal energy is much more efficient and when used with thermal storage it can provide continuous power night and day. Let's not even talk about nuclear power because somehow people are morally opposed to its use.
In addition to not being able to agree on solutions many environmentalists and environmental groups seem to have a bad case of ADHD. They want to champion every liberal cause instead of staying focused on the environment. By adding animal rights, gay rights, and socialism arguments into the debate they provide detractors with ammunition. They also alienate potential supporters such as republicans concerned about the environment, Christians, hunters, and fisherman. Environmentalism should be a movement that is inclusive of everyone that is concerned with the natural environment and wants to do something to help preserve nature for future generations.
In many cases environmentalists are their own worst enemy. Many people in the environmentalist movement are open minded fair people that are truly concerned with the environment. Others are just argumentative and looking for a cause to champion. A big part of the problem is that the moderate, reasoned voices are often drowned out by the radical idiots.
Read the follow up article here.
Re: Environmentalism
So do you expend scarce political capital to silence dissent and enforce discipline within the ranks, potentially losing a critical voice in the process, or do you simply soldier on and allow everyone to be entitled to voice her/his opinion? In contrast to Steve, I think that the voices of moderation are the ones who consistently drown out the more radical environmentalists - after all, their messages are, if not completely palatable, then at least more easily digested by the status quo and the mainstream media.
Steve also seems to confuse acknowledging that there is no magic bullet to solve our environmental problems - that we will always face trade-offs - with opposing any sort of compromise (i.e. recognizing that wind turbines may result in more bird deaths depending on how they are designed, vs. no more turbines at all). This may seem like a semantic distinction, but in fact it is a huge one, because it comes back again to the question of whether the environmental movement is founded on democratic exchange and debate, or a form of technological dogma that does not allow us to question whether or not something that is marketed as "environmentally beneficial" is, in fact, so benevolent. And I won't even touch on the subject of nuclear power, except to mention that in the United States, by the time the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste repository opens it will almost be at capacity.
"Environmentalism should be a movement that is inclusive of everyone that is concerned with the natural environment and wants to do something to help preserve nature for future generations"
But apparently not so inclusive that it includes socialists or animal rights activists? While you may perceive the environment as an issue completely distinct from capitalism or animal killing, many people see them as inextricably linked - many socialists, for example, would point out that the profit motive favors short-term private returns over the longer-term, public costs of ecological ruin, while animal rights activists would argue that the root of our environmental destructiveness lies in our fundamental lack of respect for the non-human world. Meanwhile, I may not think that God and the environment have anything to do with one another, but evangelists may believe that they do via "Creation care." How we understand the environment and our relationship to it is a matter of our beliefs and understanding of how our societies function. Separate the two, and the idea of our "environment" becomes meaningless. Unless that was the goal all along?
Re: Environmentalism
Don't tell me you haven't read a post about ethanol only to see the first comment be "ethanol, isn't a viable solution it uses food crops and is unsustainable." The poster completely ignores cellulosic ethanol and the fact that we need to build the infrastructure now if we are to use it when it cellulosic refinement becomes possible. Of course the very next post in that same thread will agree with the first that ethanol isn't the answer we should use electric cars. Immediately after that will be someone who posts that using electric cars is a step backwards because most electricity is generated with coal. The next poster will say something about carbon sequestering which will in turn be shot down.
What I'm talking about is the need for a unified voice if one wants to attract people.
Don't tell people that they have to grow their own food or unplug all of their appliances everytime they leave the house. The technology exists right now to keep the standard of living that we currently enjoy and still be environmentally friendly saving fossil fuels for chemical usage or fertilizer or whatever.
What's needed in my opinion is a strong manifesto that can be embraced by as many people as possible. To me the environmental issues are more important than the other distractions that seem to keep coming up in the discussion. Even the hackers of the late eighties and early nineties(I'm dating myself I know), arguably some of the most independent and individualistic people in the world were able to agree on some basic tenants and keep other distractions away.
PETA and Greenpeace are not good environmental organizations because they alienate more people than they inspire.
What I'm trying to say in a round about way that may not be coming across is that if the people who care about nature and the environment can put aside the other issues and distractions, their would be a whole lot more people in support of environmental issues than their are now.
In full disclosure, I grew up on a farm. I hunt and I love to be outdoors. I want my daughter to be able to enjoy nature as much as me and to have the same or a better standard of living than I do now. I do not confuse pets or cartoons with the reality of nature I understand that humans are hunters and gatherers and that we are part of nature.
Re: Environmentalismism
Re: Environmentalismism
It drives me insane to see people argue against wind power because they are afraid it will ruin the view. I really hate it when people argue for no good reason against electric cars. I wrote this because I truly believe that in order for the environmental movement to succeed one or more groups need to emerge that have only the environment as a concern. Not animal rights or social issues or socialism vs capitalism but only environmental concerns.
People can have all of the concerns outlined above but a group that's concerned about the environment should try to get diverse groups of people that disagree about other issues to come to a consensus on the environment.
I don't give a damn about gay rights, animal rights, someone's fight to promote socialism. I do care about finding a sustainable way to continue advancing civilization and giving every an even better standard of living than the one they have now.
Re: Environmentalism
The question really is what does it take to make a movement successful. I don't see anything in this piece that analyzes that or makes suggestions. The implications is that some of the behaviors cited are destructive but I don't buy it. Study, for example, the rise of the new conservative movement starting with Goldwater, running through Reagan, and culminating in Karl Rove and George W Bush. Now there is a successful movement. You may not like what they've done but they've captured all three branches of government, overturned decades of legislation, gathered fervent supporters (who may not even know what they are supporting), captured major media outlets (talk radio and Fox News) etc. That movement has done everything this author says is destructive. They turned good (well maybe bad) ideas into ideology. They've taken debate off the table -- with us or against us. They have been exclusive not inclusive. They've certainly exhibited plenty of smugness. And it's worked big time.
Maybe the problem is that environmentalists aren't doing enough of this, not that we're doing too much.
For a brilliant, insightful, and researched analysis of movements and political parties, what's worked and what's failed read this book: The Bulldozer and the Big Tent, by Todd Gittlin. It's a fun read too.