But we also need to recognize that environmentalism will never mean that we do no harm. We'll always have an impact on our environment (why isn't that obvious to everyone?), just as we humanists continue to do wrong by our fellow men. By my definition, I guess, environmentalism amounts to giving a shit about the issues that affect the natural world and therefore us, while recognizing that we're all in it together, and muddling forward from there. That may sound a little misty-poo. Sorry about that, but we can get to the devil in the details later.

It strikes me that we too often forget that environmentalists--like most progressives--have been fighting on political terrain they haven't dominated for a long time, and in many instances never really did. The rise of the conservative wing of the Republican party and parallel disappearance of conservative Democrats may have given the nation clear partisan and ideological choices, but ironically narrowed environmentalist access to Congress or leverage in national elections. If conservative Democrats gave environmentalists fits, they also gave the party control over Congress and thereby enabled environmentalists and other progressives to sit at the table. No more. Heck, congressional Republicans no longer even bother to hold committee hearings on environmental issues, but are content to shape policy through appropriations riders.

The conservative surge also bolstered the resurgence of business as an organized lobby in Washington and fueled the so-called Wise Use movement at the local and state levels. In may ways environmentalists got lucky in the late 1960s and early 1970s: their opponents weren't as well organized as they are today, and environmentalist now find themselves confronting well funded and well organized opponents everywhere they look. Given the tolls all of this took on organizational capacities, it should come as a surprise that most major environmental groups have managed to survive at all.

And let's not forget that with Bush's second term Republicans have controlled the presidency 24 out the the past 36 years, or most of the contemporary environmental era. Indeed, Bush's re-election underscores the point that is has been Republican presidents--not Democrats--who have shaped federal environmental policy, whether through legislative proposals, veto threats, budget allocations, regulatory clearance through the Office of Management and Budget, or appointments to federal agencies and, of course, the judiciary. More important, as Bush underscored in reversing Bill Clinton's support for the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for drilling in ANWR, presidents set the national agenda.

What's my overall point? Environmentalists today confront the most challenging political terrain since the start of the environmental era. Old tactics like lobbying and lawsuits no longer matter as much, although they are still necessary. At the same time, environmental leaders know that they must expend even more effort and money to shape the national debate and maintain an active an organized grassroots base. Such strategies may seem predictable, even conventional, but they matter. And with all due respects to local activists and other critics of the big organizations, you'll still need them when it comes time to push back when the president and his allies renew their efforts to open up ANWR or gut the Clean Air Act. Big Environment, for all its warts, will still matter because that's how American politics works.

On one point everyone seems to agree. If, thirty-five years after passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, "the environment" is something everyone professes to believe in, whoever defines what "the environment" means has the advantage. Given conservatives' long-developing success in shaping their message to fit one set of core American ideals--individual liberty, free markets, and private property rights--it stands to reason that their definitions of "commonsense" environmental policy and "sound science" are also positioned to dominate debates over issues ranging from ANWR to climate change for years to come. It will take persistence, organization, and, most important, a message that resonates with other core American ideals--equity, community, equity, and reverence for place--to construct and constantly repeat an effective counter-argument.

Organized environmentalism is far better positioned than any other sector of contemporary progressivism to develop and deliver this counter-argument. Rather than being irrelevant, the nation's environmental organizations are more important than ever.

Department of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115

Before they even got through the introduction, authors Shellenberger and Nordhaus make the ridiculous and self-serving statement that Americans are "proud moral people ... willing to sacrifice for the right cause."  From my experiences with people from other countries and from reading the news, it seems clear that Americans are instead the most selfish, greedy, materialistic people on Earth.  There's no point in trying to convince that type of person that he or she should make sacrafices in order to, say, prevent other species or ecosystems from becoming extinct or destroyed, respectively.  That type of person basically couldn't care less.  What is needed is to change the thinking of that type of person into that of a more eco-centered, Earth-centered type; then we will not be losing the battle to save the Earth.

The next major flaw in the authors' reasoning is shown by the statement that "environmentalism is just another special interest."  This is right wing propaganda.  Special interests are those that stand to profit from certain legislation, but that have no interest in helping anyone or anything else.  Environmentalism, in contrast, is the ultimate GLOBAL interest, because, for example, clean air and water affect every living thing on the planet.  As an environmental activist turned environmental attorney, I've never met an environmentalist who only cared about him- or herself.

Next, the authors state that the war to protect the Earth "won't be won by appealing to the rational consideration of our collective self-interest."  This is completely wrong; getting people to act out of collective self-interest is the ONLY way this war will be won.  Appealing to people's selfish interests has no chance of achieving a good result.

The authors are correct that the big environmental groups are not effective in solving big environmental problems, though the authors' complete obsession with global warming shows their anthropocentrism.  The problem with the big groups is that they are far too willing to compromise and compromise far too much, probably because the people running them have well-paying jobs and are comfortable making deals with the Democratic Party.  The fact that "most environmental leaders neither craft nor support proposals that could be tagged 'non-environmental'" is not a problem; why should an environmental group get involved with a non-environmental problem?  (Making alliances with other groups in order that BOTH sides will support each others' issues would make sense, but that is not what the authors suggest.  Instead, they lay a guilt trip on environmentalists, as if it's our fault that we don't take on every issue under the sun.)

The Center for Biological Diversity, with only 10,000 members (compared to the 750,000 in Sierra Club) is the most effective environmental group in the country and probably the world.  This group has protected more land, plants, and animals over the last ten years than all of the other enviro groups combined, but it doesn't concern itself with social issues.  The authors are thus wrong about their assertion that we have to become leftists in order to protect the Earth.

Unfortunately, responding to any more of this essay would take far more time than I have, and I've only responded to about the first quarter of it.  Generally, my main criticism is that this essay is an excercise in mental mastrubation that has little or nothing to do with reality.  Calling the environment a "thing" for the purpose of degrading environmentalists who try to protect it to the exclusion of dealing with other issues is meaningless.  Of course the natural world is a physical thing that is separate from the agricultural and industrial world.  While the authors are correct that everything is connected, they take this concept way too far, to the point that one is left with the conclusion that "everything is everything."  A person cannot function if he or she cannot distinguish things by separating them.  This goes for concepts as well as physical things.

Regarding whether environmentalists should take on social issues -- in addtion to or instead of, it's not clear -- environmental ones, the answer depends on where one's heart is.  For those of us whose main concerns are not about humans, there is no reason to tackle social issues unless we get a quid pro quo from groups whose issues we take on to help us with our issues.  While I happen to support gay marriage and an end to racial profiling, I would not take on those issues in my environmental work unless groups who work on those issues were willing to take on, say, stopping a logging project.  It makes to identifiable difference to the trees whether gays are allowed to marry or whether African Americans are stopped for no reason by the cops (though we are all connected and it probably makes SOME difference).  All of this talk about turning environmentalists into leftists seems to be a bunch of leftist hooey to me, as Jim Hightower would say.

Jeff Hoffman

However, average people are a big part of the problem.  Those with more money and power are certainly more to blame for the difficult choices with which we are often faced, but when the average Joe or Jane makes environmentally harmful decisions, that is his or her fault.  The only thing one must do once born is die; everything else is a choice, some easy, some difficult, most in between.  If, for example, a person decides to live far enough from his or her work, shopping, and school that he or she must drive to those places, that is a choice, even if doing the right thing might mean living in a smaller house or apartment.  Same with buying an SUV, having more than one or two kids (or, better yet, none), and generally consuming needless garbage.  As Ms. Meeker-Lowry says, all of us, including average people, must change our relationship with the Earth and give up the materialist (i.e., American) dream in order for any important environmental goals to be met.  Otherwise, we will quickly (in geological terms) become extinct and worse, take a good part of the Earth with us.

Jeff Hoffman

Unfortunately, while environmental minded people know that environmentalism is not just a "special interest," many prominent environmental groups have not taken great strides to dismantle this image. This very image is what keeps many people disinterested.

Two problems (out of many for me) I see with the environmental movement in the US:

Firstly, what do most Americans think of when they hear "environmentalists" or "Sierra Club?" They think of educated, white, urbanites, sipping their third-world chic coffee, concerned over saving whales off the Alaskan coast, saving baby toads in Guatemala, or preserving some forest lands out West, etc....basically as being concerned with saving some pristine track of wilderness or species of animals "out there". Issues such as clean water and clean air are not framed as being so much environmental causes as they are public health causes. Until environmental groups can end the widely held sentiment of "not in my backyard," connecting what happens "out there" to "right here" Americans are not going to see the worth nor value of preserving/conserving natural resources.

Secondly, the environmental movement in the US, (some of this argument stems from my first one) seems to largely ignore issues of environmental justice as it pertains to minorities . Granted, things have improved greatly within this respect over the last decade (according to Richard Bullard, environmental justice activist). But still, as an African-American, I can understand why many people feel disconnected from environmentalists, whom they see as out of touch with issues affecting their own communities. The Sierra Club and Wilderness Society (among the hundreds of other environmental groups) are wonderful groups, but I feel that sometimes, they lose sight of the trees for the forest.

I agreed with some of the points made by S&N. But not all.

However, 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. Its a life-long process to be sure...and I don't even know where to begin starting on it. But I think, that once this goal has been achieved, many of the environmental problems we have will be greatly reduced as people begin to better understand and respect their bond to the natural environment.

I don't know though, I'm just a lowly college student. I don't know much about environmentalism other than what I read, learn and experience, but I do know that is an issue that every American should hold near and dear to their hearts. It is about so much more than trees, bunnies and whales...

You're exactly right. Well put.

But there's a philosophical question in there that is tough to come to grips with; i.e., we're a part of nature AND apart from it. It's HOW we reconcile the two, HOW we 'bridge the disconnect,' as you put it, that will make all the difference.

I'll tell you why environmentalism will never die:

1. It's now big business. There are major corporations involved in implementing environmental laws now. There are billions to be made from wind power to water treatment. Markets like that don't just dry up. GE just brought into the wind business and it's growing by 30% a year, hardly a sign of a dying industry.

2. Technological advancements are continually made that directly or indirectly advance environmentalism. Sure, there was a time when it could be argued that we can't do this or that environmental protection because it is too expensive. But, technology is continuing to advance
   

As much as some conservative elements in our society might wish it would just go away, the environmental movement is now self-sustaining.  There's no way they are going to convince people to go back to the old days of terrible pollution. There's just no justification for it. A move like that would just be anti-technology. Who are the ludites? Environmentalists or conservatives? In this case it would be the conservatives who chose to ignore technological advancements that can improve our environment and go back to the dark ages.

Having an experience in which we really feel, viscerally, that connection, that oneness -- and not discounting it, giving it value, making it a part of who we are, seeking it more often -- this is what it takes. Then we start changing out of love, out of a desire to do what is best and right.

Let me put this as bluntly as I can: If that's what it takes to win, then we will lose. Some people structure their lives around pure spiritual or moral sentiment, but they are a tiny minority, and always will be. If we're waiting to fundamentally change human nature, we're going to be waiting a long, long time.

One thing will make people change: a better alternative. A life that they prefer, not out of love of the earth or self-sacrifice, but for the same reason they prefer good jobs to bad jobs, good relationships to bad relationships, good health to bad health. Offer people a life that is healthier, more enjoyable, more fun, more rewarding, and they will choose it.

Luckily, just such a life is out there, waiting to be chosen, and it's colored green. More on this later.

grist.org

What people need to know is that they can all be full-time, active environmentalists in all aspects of their lives. The values-based approach is valuable for environmentalists. Take the case of my country, the Philippines. Policy is largely non-participatory, but civil society is very strong. It seems then that values-based is the only way to go. There are so many other issues that SEEM to be more pressing, such as poverty and social problems. To unite these and destroy what seems to be "issue or cause-based relativism" is a good step in uniting development efforts and empowering those who are not in power or schooled.

However, policy must not be ignored. Specialists are valuable but the movement must not be dependent on them. Note that before contemporary issues came up the basic underlying values of respect and compassion guided the preservation of natural resources and the unity of communities.

The environment movement is made up of many components, from grass-roots to political lobbying, each playing a role in what Arne Naess has called 'the long frontier'.

To say that the environment movement is dead and is becoming a marginalised 'special interest' is a wrong perspective that ignores two important things:

1. The environment movement is encountering a concerted backlash that is seeking to discredit, marginalise and cut environmental concerns out of public debate, partially by painting environmentalism as a selfish 'special interest'. Articles like 'Death of Environmentalism' at best play into this agenda, at worst, they are a product of the backlash. If the movement appears to lack freshness, or approach issues without innovation, consider that environmentalists are increasingly constrained by responses that are designed to undermine, smear, isolate and gag their efforts. For example, see the $AUD 6.4 million lawsuit against The Wilderness Society in Australia .
I think it is more critical for the movement to develop links and strategies to win against backlash techniques and the marginalisation of environmental concerns, rather than be critiqued as stale, hackneyed, out-of-touch and 'dead'.

2. By saying that environmentalism should be subsumed into a broader 'progressive' movement is flawed as this politicizes environmental concerns - painting them into part of the 'Left' movement. This too, is something that I think should be challenged as the environment movement, to me, transcends political tribalism but it's something that is happening. 'Green on the outside, Red on the inside' is how environmentalism is being depicted, especially as environmentalists move beyond  safe shallow topics like pollution, to questions about the impact and equity of consumption (e.g. global warming). Which directly challenges capitalism and we are back to the backlash.

Articles like 'Death of Environmentalism' raise good questions but act more to damage environmentalism than inspire it. The environmental movement is full of very smart, very inspired, very aware people who know the issues and, in an increasingly right-wing and selfish world, are doing their best to make change and confront altered campaign environments.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus's article do more to 'white ant' environmentalism than to enance 'the long frontier'...

In doing so, you are repeating myths, not facts, about Chinese characters. First, Chinese characters do not represent an ideographic writing system. Second, "crisis" does not equal "danger" + "opportunity".

The credibility of your report is damaged by the use of such myths on the cover.

Susan

I have worked on a 'meta-solution', which means subordinating all institutions and activities to outcomes. It is a way of using markets to achieve our social and environmental goals. For example, take climate stability as a goal. My idea is simple: issue tradeable [non-interest bearing] bonds that become redeemable for a large, fixed sum only when climate stability has been achieved and sustained. The bonds would be backed by all governments. They would not prejudge how the climate is to be stabilised: that will be left to bondholders, who have market incentives to choose the most efficient solutions, responding quickly to expanding scientific knowledge and the changing climate. The bond issuers set the goals and are the ultimate source of finance for its achievement. [See my short paper].  

Policy as if outcomes mattered http://SocialGoals.com

I ended up working for the government, in Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. While the government does have a whale of bureaucracy, it pays well (with benefits), and I think the people that work here have the same amount of passion and interest in what they do for the environment that many non-profits people do, despite the President's disinterest.

There are some non-profits/independent orgs out there that do make efforts to pay for their interns, among them Grist, High Country News, etc. (I know that these are publications, but nevertheless offer invaluable experiences). I agree that if more environmental internships paid/provided temp. housing, they would find that they'd get a more diverse group of students working for them.

The environmental movement is failing to harness the sentiment of the majority to make needed change.  

They have dropped the ball.

Why?

I do not have a scientific answer, and while there are likely many reasons, my opinion is that they've actively alienated the mainstream.  The movement embraces tactics, language, culture, and esoteric philosophies which most Americans find alien if not diametrically opposed to deeply held beliefs.  For instance, the movement does not seem to get that 75% of our nation is Christian and rejects a nature centered universe.  Christians believe that man is the center of God's creation.  Americans in general embrace a human centered world.  

This is just one example.  There are many.  Environmentalist fail to connect with Americans because of such things.  This makes it impossible for the movement to take its rightful place in power politics.

Not to mention that the cultural divide between Environmentalist and mainstream America makes the movement an easy target for conservatives.  However, conservatives need little help in marginalizing environmentalists.  Environmentalists do the bulk of the work themselves.

George Orwell said it about Socialist in England over 60 years ago and it is true today about Environmentalists.  They are the worst representatives for their cause.

Here is a great quote from Orwell, just replace Environmentalist for Socialist, and you'll get an all too familiar picture.

"I do not think the Socialist need make any sacrifice of essentials, but certainly he will have to make a great sacrifice of externals. It would help enormously, for instance, if the smell of crankishness which still clings to the Socialist movement could be dispelled. If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly! But that, I am afraid, is not
going to happen. What is possible, however, is for the more intelligent kind of Socialist to stop alienating possible supporters in silly and quite irrelevant ways."

-George Orwell
The Road to Wigan Pier, Chapter 13

Furthermore (he said churlishly) our addiction to SUV's, mega-appliances and wasteful habits stands in the way of achieving energy independence or becoming reasonable, responsible world citizens
Oooh. that feels better.

I used to be apathetic, but I just don't care anymore

I also find it interesting that there appear to have been no comments about the need to reform the many fundamental problems with the system called "democracy" in the USA, again amply demonstrated by the "elections" of 2004.

Best of luck trying to devise sustainable solutions to the issues of the environmental movement in the USA without reference to these two issues.

Rush Limbaugh:  "It appears to be the hijacking of conservatism," Rush Limbaugh charged his audience today after the Bush administration apparently flip-flopped over the Global Warming issue.

"George W. Al Gore, anyone?" Limbaugh sarcastically said, just hours after the New York Times headlined "Climate Changing, U.S. Says in Report."

The New York Times reported: "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment."

"In the report, the administration for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming."

The report went on: A "disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes."

"What's left of the conservative agenda that has not been offered up to democrats?" Limbaugh questioned aloud, who has been critically outspoken of the Global Warming supporters.

"I have not jumped across this divide, my friends. I thought about this last night when I became aware (of the story), and I thought what am I going to have to do? Am I going to have to go on the radio tomorrow and say , 'folks, guess what? I have been wrong about global warming. I've been wrong about it, the president says it is happening, human beings are causing it. I've been wrong.' I just can't because I don't think I am. I -- too many scientists out there whom I implicitly trust who have proven to me that these predictions are basically apocalyptic doom and gloom based on raw emotion. Even the global warming advocates to this day will not tell you it is definitively happening."

Steve Segrest
Lakeland, Florida
http://www.treepower.org

While the article is about the battle over evolution, the N.Y. Times is also describing the problem faced by environmentalists presenting science based arguments on things like Global Warming, air pollution, mercury, etc.  

The Winning Strategy on how to kill environmentalism:

1.  Find a Scientist to present contradictory views (e.g., Global Warming is a myth).

2.  Put these Scientists on FOX News (with no debate from other Scientists) -- achieving instant credibility.

3.  Have the Rush Limbaughs' trash the science and link the environmental issue to left wing, liberal wacos whose real agenda is a new world order against capitalism.

Secondly, good luck trying to change the minds of 200 million+ Christians.  They are better organizers,  communicators, and fundraisers than the left, by a gigantic margin.  Plus, they have a 2000 year legacy behind them.

Thirdly, America consumes most of the worlds resources.  Fixing the movement here will have an outsized impact.

Fourthly, Americans are anti-intellectual and action oriented.  Good luck using philosophy to get behavior change.

Fifthly, to get a wide range of people to adopt a new idea, you have to adapt the idea to local conditions.  This is exactly what Christian missionaries, the most successful evangelical movement in history, have done for centuries. Christianity in Germany looks a lot different than Christianity in Brazil, even within the same denomination.  Enviros would do well to take a few pages from the Christian play book.

Lastly, America is 75% Christian.  There is no way around it.  Plus, there is no point in trying to change them, because there is common ground, especially in terms of goals.  Little comprise is needed on either side.  The goals regarding the environment are very similar, only the reasons different.  What is wrong with that?  Isn't tolerance a virtue of the left?

Carl Pope's long response, while it disagrees with most of the Reapers' analysis of causes, endorses this description of the problem.  He further agrees that the fix lies in the kind of broader socio/political movement that is working so well in places like Germany.

I don't know if this means that everyone who is scared to death about climate change has to become a Democratic Party activist (after they buy their Prius), but it does mean that we have to get our heads up out of our enviro stovepipe and take a look at what's going on over in their world.

There's a debate going on over there - in many ways a mirror to that triggered over here by the Reapers - about a piece by Peter Beinart the New Republic entitled "An Argument for a New Liberalism.  A fighting Faith", available online at <http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=whKP5U%2BbbaxbirV9FQhQuh%3D%3D>.  In it, he argues that progressives and the Democratic party won't get anywhere until they can articulate a persuasive, visionary response to Islamic totalitarianism  (or "fascism" or "extremism"  . . .take your choice) that offers hope and a promise of security to the American mainstream. Simply saying that the Republicans' response is tragically wrong - as Kerry did quite clearly - isn't enough.  The Dems have to offer a credible alternative, and so far they have failed miserably to do so. Beinhart draws the parallel to the party's decision in 1947 to denounce Communism, which meant rejecting some liberal heroes like Henry Wallace, but which also paved the way for the victories of Truman and Kennedy.

The nexus of Islamic Fascism, US addiction to oil and climate change is obvious, and a lot of the Reapers' anger is, I believe, directed at enviros who are unable or unwilling to widen their scope to see it. The emergence of a  politician who does see it, and who has the persuasive powers of a Bill Clinton would be the single best thing that could happen for the "environment." (Want to dream REALLY big? Picture a vast global hydrogen industry, centered on giant solar-powered hydrolysis plants located in, you guessed it, the Arabian deserts, and generating jobs, education and a decent life for democratically-governed Arab populations.  Military force won't make it happen, but neither will the environmental lobby.  It will take inclusive, visionary political leadership on the left as powerfull as the "values" of the right. )

Global warming is real and it's happening at a faster pace than most people realize.  In the Wisconsin - when I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s - it was common to experience several periods of -15 and -20 degrees below zero temperatures (w/o the wind chill factor).  I witnessed the famous Ice Bowl victory of the Green Bay Packers over the Dallas Cowboys at Lambeau Field in Green Bay on New Years Eve, 1967, and it was - 16 below zero at game time.  I stayed to the end but my feet paid the price.

We do still get below zero temperatures in Wisconsin but not like we use to.  Going outside when it's -5 to -10 below is still pretty cold, especially when the wind is blowing.  But we haven't had the really cold temperatures for a number of years now.    

To return to the subject at hand, it is my opinion that mainstream environmental organizations have been way too timid in demanding appropriate governmental actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  As a result, global warming has already gotten a big head start.  

There have been a number of outspoken environmentalists like my brother and I who have shown the courage to hold up a red flag on the present global warming situation, but we have gotten burned for doing so ... mainly by our employers.

The rise in temperatures over much of the planet is now well documented - by government agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Services (NOAA), which houses the National Weather Service (which still claims global warming is not a problem).  NOAA/NWS instructs local TV meteorologists not to inform the public that global warming is real and that it's a problem.   I know this for a fact.  So because of the TV meteorologist's silence about the issue for the past 5 years, the public in the U.S. remains comparatively ignorant of the problem relative to the other countries.  That's the way the big oil and auto companies who spend millions of dollars a year on TV advertising want it done - keep global warming out of the limelight.  Perhaps that is about to change, since it's becoming more and more difficult for the global warming "skeptics" (they are employed for the most part by the fossil fuel industry) to argue that global warming isn't happening.

For example, global warming is now reflected in virtually all scientific studies of wildlife movements and plant growth throughout North America and on other continents.  Snow and ice records in the Arctic, Antarctic and for mountain glaciers throughout the world show melting is occurring at dramatically increasing rates, the most rapid melting going on in just the last few years.  Ocean water temperatures have also increased as a response to a globally warming atmosphere, and sea levels are rising as a result of the increased melting rates and thermal expansion.  
http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/21216/index.php

While the lower 5-6 miles of the atmosphere (the troposphere) is warming, the upper troposphere and the stratosphere located above it have been cooling.  More of the sun's radiant heat energy is being trapped near the surface of the earth, causing the troposphere to warm, which means less of the heat energy is going into the stratosphere and later escaping to space.  

Carbon dioxide and most of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remain in the atmosphere upwards of 100 years; therefore, the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere each year build up from year because, unlike a flowing stream, the atmosphere is a closed system having essentially no outlet. Background "natural" carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are slowly removed from the system through by photosynthesis and weathering; but the increasingly larger volumes of human-caused fossil fuel burning emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries and even longer, capturing increasing amounts of radiant heat from the sun, and thereby causing "global warming".  

Everyone seems to be saying that we need new strategies to deal with the problem of rising greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and I agree.  A few years ago now, I proposed a major conservation program be initiated by the State of Wisconsin that would offer annual rebates to people and families who would enroll in a program that would pay them annual rebates for driving significantly less miles over the year than average. (Transportation is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide in the U.S. of the four economic sectors.)  None of the mainstream enviro's or government officials offered to support the plan, so it died.  Some said the proposal was "too innovative".  Others said it was "too expensive".  I argued the money (gas tax and vehicle license fee money) that would be rebated was not "a cost", per se, because it was money that was going back to the tax-payers (rather than to road builders for more new highways). Their response was that it was a proposal whose time had yet to come, and that there was plenty of room to build more roads.  

So I decided to circulate the proposal to the state press and it was featured as a cover story on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the next day (Nov. 30, 1999).  It became a politically charged issue, because when millions of people read that the state was going to pay them up to $2,800 to "not drive", some of them naturally were interested. [Well, maybe, in retrospect, that was a bit too high of an offer.]

When my employer (the State of Wisconsin) found out that I circulated the plan to the press, identifying it as a State Plan (my agency initially approved the idea for the transportation department to study), the state quickly disavowed it and I was subsequently punished for going to the press with it.    

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov99/hiway30112999a.asp
http://www.jsonline.com/traffic/news/nov99/hiway01113099.asp

Despite all the press the proposal received, the local and state enviros were silent or expressed reservations because of "political considerations". Their response doomed any further consideration of the plan, and the State of Wisconsin proceeded to begin its $24 billion highway construction and "improvement" plan for 2020.  

Another more recent example - one of the local enviros is supporting increased expansion of electricity generation plants and transmission lines in the area I live in, rather than demanding increased utility company attention to energy conservation.  

When environmental organizations immediately concede to the wishes of corporate energy suppliers even before such proposal are reviewed by the public, the public input/review process is short-circuited and environmentalist like me are trumped out at the getgo.  Such is also the case when enviros negotiate environmental issues with developers and public agencies behind closed doors, before the public review process is initiated.  No wonder the public seldom shows up at the hearings.  The enviros have already spoken for them!  

In conclusion, today's enviros do not seem to be at all interested in promoting radically new conceptd (like Conserve, Now).  They seem to be more content with just supporting the status quo.  They don't express the obvious urgency about the need to attack the global warming problem, before things get totally out of everybody's hand. They are operating with reckless abandonment in most situations, and are all too willing to compromise.  On something like global warming, there can be no compromise.  If we don't reduce emissions to down to the level that nature calls for, we will all suffer the consequences.

The poor will suffer the most from global warming, because they have less resources to use to adapt to it (air conditioning, medical...).  At least with the opportunities provided in "Conserve, Now", they could make a little more money to live and support their families on.

As Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus said in "The Death of Environmentalism", today's enviros have offered little in the way of new thinking to combat the rising threat of more rapid global warming - considered by most scientists and others to be the most critical environmental problem humanity has ever faced or is likely to face in this century.  

As Albert Einstein said, you cannot solve the major problems in our society today by using the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place.  In other words, you have come up with something new and untried or you'll just keep spinning your wheels and things will get worse and worse.  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486
http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw_letter.pdf
http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf

It also needs to reach out to a new audience. A combined membership of 10 million is still not enough. My own frustration with the environmental movement, having worked in it and cared about it, has been its "preaching to the choir" effectiveness. Who belongs to the organizations or reads the magazines other than those who have already bought into the game? Are any minds ever changed? Sure more people join environmental groups when certain presidents preside, but who are these people? Just environmentalists who saved their money when they thought they had a pro-environmental president and didn't need to beef up the ranks?

I found it very telling that S&N wrote their report for funders. They are rightly to be indicted as co-conspirators in this suspicious death. They fun programs very narrowly, and many get written more to appease the funders than to solve problems.

As for Carol Pope, he doth protest too much. He comes across as a whiner. A bit like President Bush saying if you protest the war or question his motives, you are not patriotic. I've always felt the environmental movement had little taste for true dialogue, let alone dissent within its ranks. I loved Buzzworm for giving both sides of an issue. Buzzworm, you ask? Never heard of it? I rest my case.

Specifically, Pope takes issue with S&N for not offering "a single quote to suggest that anyone they interviewed believes that human beings are `separate from and superior to the natural world.' Not one." OK, then I'll say it. It may not come from environmentalists but from the "spin" the other side puts on the movement. It's out there. When we talk about saving spotted owls and they talk about losing jobs, it's framed as an us vs. them issue--maybe by industry and not by environmentalists, but it's there. Why would Clinton and Kerry make such a point of saying you can have jobs and protect the environment.

I do have some agreement with Pope. He says, "we need to look ...[at] what is unique or different about global warming." As currently framed by environmentalists, global warming is very abstract and distant. Even saying "global warming" leads to derision when we have colder than normal temperatures. Say, where's this global warming thing? It is climate change and that means a lot of different things depending on where you live. So it's very hard for nonscientists to understand and feel is as important as getting your kid out of that school spewing asbestos.

I worked for environmental/conservation organizations for 20 years. In my job, I had to rely on scientists to deconstruct Bush's policies, like Clear Skies and Healthy Forests. I had to make a leap of faith and assume the scientists were right because there was no way, reading the documents myself, that I could conclude whether the initiatives were good or bad. I left work to become a parent. You can't even imagine how fast the environment dropped off my radar screen. Not only do I no longer have scientists available to translate policy for me, I don't have time to even read about it before I get the kids off to school, worry about "stranger danger," and decide whether I can afford organic apples or not.

Adam Werbach spoke about the great works done in the past, yet are insufficient. That's because the easy work is done. Ted Williams wrote about the successes in a recent issue of Audubon. Rather than be depressed, he wrote, we should celebrate our successes--rivers aren't burning, the air isn't black. But racists didn't go away with the Civil Rights movement, they just learned not to say out loud what they thought (for the most part; Trent Lott excepted). Now those who would pollute have found quieter ways to do so through the regulatory process. And that has made the fight so much harder. It's not poetic, it's not big picture. It's given a fancy title, buried deep in the Federal Register, or announced on Friday nights before long weekends, with hope no one will notice.

If environmentalism is so damn healthy, why couldn't it compete during the election--of 2000 or 2004? Why is Al Gore not making his second inauguration speech today? Why is Bush president? Sure, he bought it the first time, but to win re-election, he did far more than jigger a few voting machines. He convinced the nation he was the right man for the job. And maybe the environment couldn't compete with TWOT (The War on Terror), but why did Gore lose in the first place? Clearly something is very wrong, and arguing amongst ourselves isn't the answer.

Werbach tosses out a joke, "And we certainly make enough greetings cards and calendars." Oh how true. When the National Wildlife Federation is known more for its catalogs of goodies than its good works, something is very wrong.

The problem of global warming reminds me of an essay Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard wrote, "The Zen of the Bottom Line," I believe. It was about running a business, but could be about any environmental problem. On how to hit the target, he wrote, you don't focus on the target, you pay close attention to how you steady the bow, where your fingers are holding the string, sighting down the arrow's shaft, etc. If you do everything right, you can't help but hit the target.

In the follow-up interview, Dan Carol says, "I think this paper is essentially a provocative device, but in my opinion you can't be both a provocateur and a movement builder." I say Martin Luther King Jr. might disagree.

None of the political struggles or outcomes cited as evidence by both sides have occurred in the UK. Yet in many senses "environmentalism" could be said to be 'dead' here too.  So why ?

It's not such a highly charged issue perhaps because it's seen as a more semantic than a significant point and perhaps because our critics pronounced us dead in the early 1990s (esp 93, 94) and then we achieved some notable successes.  But there are some underlying similarities and differences which can be best illuminated by looking at value shifts in society, which are deeper and more important than the attitudes and behaviours which they drive (including politics).

S + N hint at this in their reference to the 'strategic values' project they talk about (done with Canada-based Environics) and there's more at their website (breakthrough institute).  Sadly they didn't share much more of their thoughts on this.

In terms of values (social values - attitudes and beliefs - not just 'wedge proposition' rhetorical norms used in political debate or religious doctrine), the US and Canada are diverging. So are the UK and the US. Indeed the US is on something of an escalator to outer space, or at least another space, in terms of Maslowian values: more security driven, less inner directed, and notably, less esteem driven. This is described in more detail in a newsletter at my website http://www.campaignstrategy.org/newsletters/campaignstrategy_newsletter_2.doc.  It has lots of serious implications for international relations and any campaign about public goods, global 'issues' etc..

So what's this got to do with the 'Death Of' debate and Werbach's speech (very good I thought) ?  Well for one thing, in the UK, 'environmentalism' as a big idea disappeared progressively in the early 1990s because the notion that the environment was important and threatened by the pattern of human development went from controversial to a no-brainer. It started out as a purely inner-directed idea, then got taken up by esteem-drivens (green consumers emerged) and finally, was taken up by security-driven folk (who want belonging and identity). Hence it was normed. By definition no longer an issue in itself.

S and N don't talk about this and maybe the data in the US hasn't been analysed in such terms but they do say that lots of people 'agree' about environment but not 'deeeply. Norming means agreement on 'the problem' but as the different psychological groups differ on how to take action (DIY/activist, organise and follow-a-lead-from-authority, respectively) you get a 'log jam of violent agreement' over how to move forward.

Try analysing the debate in these terms and maybe it might be easier to find a way forward.

In the Uk some NGOs are approaching this by trying to 'campaign' using channels and proposition and action mechanism specifically suited to esteem driven or security driven groups.  These, whether literal or not (and indirect strategies where the environmental goal is not upfront, have been common in Europe for a long time), may not look anything like 'advocacy' or 'protest'.  Eg they might have to be businesses - esteem driven folk usually want to take action through brands (or other ways of displaying success/achievement)for example.

What's this got to do with being dead ? Seems to me that shedding your skin or transformation or something (reincarnation - take your pick) might be a more appropriate metaphor. Tactically announcing us dead was a good wheeze to stimulate debate but it doesn't necessarily contain an inbuilt logic on moving forward. Depends, as G Lakoff might say, on which death-metaphor is installed in your mind.  Whethere we're dead or not maybe misses the point about what to do next.


Chris Rose UK www.campaignstrategy.org mail@tochrisrose.idps.co.uk

I don't think funding should be pulled from environmental support. I think funders should restructure what activities they will support. Instead of funding the tons of direct mail that few people read, including hard core environmentalists, they should create a pool of money to create television commercials. I'm a journalist and I know that fewer people are reading newspapers these days. A vast majority get their information only from television. If the average Joe & Sue had a clue how disasterous global climat change will be, they'd be trading in their Hummers for a smaller car, but they don't. Sure, television is costly, but it delivers to a vast aduience. We environmentalist do a lot of public speaking, but its always to the choir, a older graying choir. Television would reach far beyond the choir. I have access to a professional televison production company and one of the top ad agencies in New York and a lot of media experience. I know how to do this.

We need very well produced, and placed, television commercials. That's the only way to reach the core of America. If we had their support, we could direct them to their legislator's district office to demand why he/she isn't cutting CO2.

All environmental efforts should be aimed at congressional district offices, more so than the halls of Congress. Anti environmental neos in Congress call us special interest groups when we lobby them in Washington. Perhaps if we have good upstanding citisens living in their home district showing up they would pay more attention.

I think Adam Werbach's suggestion to make the environment an exclusive Democratic Party issue is disasterous. First of all, Republicans hold the important committee chair possitions in Congress, so if you alienate them you will go nowhere. Second, 49 percent of Americans voted Republican. Do you really want to exclude half of the nation from helping, especially when they rely on clean air, clean water, and a stable climate for their servival? His suggestion makes no sence.

THe environmental community holds meeting periodically and this group calls themselves The Green Group. They should open their forum to hear people who have suggestions. S&N's essay caused quite a stir. Even before I learned about their essay, I was trying to get the Green Group to hold a summit. They blew me off. They still give a very strong appearence of turf protecting and closed mindedness. They have to do things differently, or four years from now it won't be any different.

Richard Whiteford I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. THe Lorax, Dr. Seuss

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?

A: The environmental movement has long focused on the fear factor. Well, it works for Bush, so maybe it's not a bad idea. But after 30 years of, how shall we say it, "gloom and doom," notably without the "sense of humor," there is green fatigue throughout the nation. Yes, we know things are bad, but does every direct mail piece from an environmental organization have to make it sound like the world will end if I don't send my $20 now!!!?

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?

A: I think there have been a lot of strides through environmental justice programs and such. What is really missing are the conservatives. Since when is a clean environment only for "progressives"?

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?

A: Doesn't the Green Party do what the reapers say the environmental movement needs? At least in Europe, where it's stronger? Richard Nixon might not be the best example of a green Republican. He may have signed the bills, but I don't think he led the way. It may be impossible to bring together the fringes of the green movement with hunters. They are so diametrically opposed to each other. Roosevelt was a success because the green movement had yet to form. He was a hunter, after all. The problem with environmentalism is that there are no black and white answers to the problems it confronts. The movement attracts vegans to car makers and everyone thinks their way is the only way. Reminds me a lot of religion.

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

A: Exactly. I know a lot of people who don't spend "a great deal of time pondering the beauty of Nature," etc., but they do spend a lot of time enjoying the outdoors. I think they just take it for granted and don't know the history of how that great hiking trail came to be. How many people who have been to the White Mountains know that a century ago it was a logged and charred wasteland?

Question: How can the environmental movement expand its membership and agenda beyond the current racial and socioeconomic profile?

A: The membership of the environmental establishment is largely a middle-class and higher club. It is simply a luxury many people don't have to send money to a group that fights for the environment, especially when it's a nationwide group and not focused on anything in their backyard.

Questions: Is good money being thrown after bad, propping up a failed movement? Should foundations shutter their environmental programs and invest more strategically in coalition-building progressive initiatives? How should green greenbacks be spent?

A: Let's face it, the environmental problems that get worked on are the ones that get funded. If Mr. Richman has a lot of money to give, he's going to be able to say what gets done with that money. Many environmental groups court the rich folks to such an extent that they pretty much ignore the poorer folks who could vastly diversify their ranks and good deeds. In return, many rich folks want to see something tangible for their dough, so they get the nonprofit to build something so they can get their name on it. I've worked for environmental groups where fights almost broke out over who's name was going to go on the building, or they get to name it and come up with something hideous. It's really quite disgusting. Then you've got the money the nonprofits spend entertaining these donors---black-tie dinners, special weekends. All in the name of "education" (gee, where does that expense go in the annual report?) and getting them to part with yet more money. It's a vicious cycle.

As for foundations and corporations, same problem. They have guidelines that groups must follow to get the money. I believe it very often results in a program being designed with the potential funding in mind rather than for a problem to be solved. Then, the funding is almost always short-term. No one wants to fund in perpetuity. It almost sounds reasonable---make the program pay for itself eventually and then the funder can go on to another good project. Trouble is, when a program is wr