If not dead, then illin'

Posted by Lisa Hymas at 4:59 PM on 04 Feb 2005

Read more about: environmental movement | Oregon

Michael Milstein of the Portland Oregonian delves into the sickly state of the environmental movement, focusing in on the Beaver State. It's the Death of Environmentalism quandary distilled down to the state level -- and it's a bummer.

"The environmental community seems to be at a new low for the amount of influence it has," said Noah Greenwald, a biologist based in Portland for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Not only is the strategy and messaging a mess ...

[Environmental leaders] sense that some citizens who believe in environmental protection have come to see the groups advocating it as increasingly divisive, distant and irrelevant, some say.
"They share our values -- they don't understand our solutions, and that's a failure of ours," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

... but money's a problem too:

The Sierra Club is now slashing programs, including staff in Portland, after exhausting much of its financial backing to battle Bush administration policies and spending millions in a failed drive to defeat the president.
"We've been saying, 'Dig deep,' and people have," Pope said. "The reality of that now is that people are going to give us less because they have less left to give us."

Notice that these admissions of failure are coming from people working within green groups, not just from outside critics. Here's more of the same:

"When the general public thinks about environmentalism, they think conflict, they think negativity, they think using a heavy hand to get things done," said Susan Ash of the Audubon Society of Portland.
"We've hurt ourselves by concentrating mostly on litigation," she said. "But if we were not doing that the federal government would be getting away with not following their own rules and regulations. We've come a long way in holding our government accountable, but at the same time we've marginalized ourselves in the public's eye."
... "Many voters just assume the environment's going to be protected no matter who's in office," said Steve Pedery of the Oregon Natural Resources Council. "We have done a pretty poor job explaining why these issues are relevant to people's daily lives."
... "We've looked to the courts for help with very good reason, but the consequence of that is we have become too distant from the larger public," said Don Smith of the Siskiyou Project in Southwest Oregon. "We talk to ourselves and we scratch our heads wondering why other people aren't listening to us."
... "The bankrupt approach is to do what's not working because we know how to do it," he [Ken Rait of the Campaign for America's Wilderness] said. "The better approach is to find new ways to go at the same issues."

Kudos to Millstein for a fine piece of reporting that shows how grim things are looking for greens these days.

For story: If not dead, then illin'
6 Comments | Post a Comment

Wrong Reasons For Lack Of Connection

As I've been reading the articles and comments about the supposed death of environmentalism over the past several weeks, I've been wondering if any of the people writing the articles or making the comments actually talks to anyone who's not an environmentalist.

The vast majority of my friends are not environmentalists, and neither is any of my familiy. The reason that we are losing influence is because while the support of our goals of a clean environment and saving wildlife and wilderness is broad, it is also very shallow. While one article mentioned this fact, the rest of the commentors don't seem to have a clue. Susan Ash, from the staid and very conservative Audubon Society is the most clueless so far, which is not surprising considering the group she represents. The people who equate environmentalists with conflict and negativity are almost always people out to make a buck at the expense of the Earth. Instead of "hurt[ing] ourselves by concentrating mostly on litigation," litigation has done more for the Earth in the U.S. over the past 15 years than all other enviro work combined.

The economy of this society is based on destroying the Earth, and the environment ranks at or near the bottom of priorities for most people. When faced with a choice between losing their precious materialistic toys or freedoms to destroy the Earth by, say driving, or giving up those things for the sake of our planet, most Americans choose the former. Our task is to convince people that life (all life) is more important than money, needless material stuff, or harmful "freedoms" such as driving. If we can't do that, all of our work will be as useful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 1:24 AM on 05 Feb 2005

Tying up loose ends

You're talking to someone who is not an environmentalist, at least not in the sense most on this site might conceive. So you have expanded the circle ever so slightly. The problem is that Environmentalism and science are too tightly wound together. Enviornmental scientists and activists are perceived by many as having little concern with the problems that environmental issues create. While science gives the movement credibility, it is not an end unto itself and the reliance of the movement on science and lawyers is a drag on more effective organizing that might have better effect.

And while I like the dearth of testosterone laced expletives, it is just as negative to toss around piety and terms like "materialist toys." The silly put downs by environmental activists of the economic interests of working class Americansby have put the environmental movement at odds with those they most need.

I remember seeing the UAW gathering outside Congress a few years back to lobby against emission standards because the major auto makers have convinced them that fewer SUVs means fewer jobs. My immediate assumption was that the Reuther family would spin in their graves to see what has become of their union. But I don't see many environmentalists casting their appeals in the broader economic context that environmental technologies mean more and better jobs. Do they??

Arianna Huffington's rather silly slogan about "what would Jesus drive?" was a more effective means to combat SUVs than all of the journal articles on green house gases, or the publication of crash test results showing how dangerous the damn things are and how many lives they lose annually. Huffington's campaign is a good example of looking for ways to broaden the appeal of environmental issues, to market environmental concepts in innovative ways that make people think more broadly. Appeals to science alone, as in the crash test results, do not make it to the top of the charts, and they are hard to dance to.

The left should be about finding ways to weave environmental, economic, and social concepts together and unite constituencies. Unions are dying, the environmental movement is losing every major legislative battle in town, and in the name of national security we are alienating almost every nation on earth. Yet no one can figure out how to make opposing these evils even remotely popular, appealling, funny or cool. I think Arianna was on the right track. I think science needs to get laid, and the lawyers need to get......a life.

Go Nats

by Benprofane at 1:55 PM on 06 Feb 2005
[ Parent ]

nearly dead

I have long disassociated myself from the environmental movement because its adherents have long insisted on missing the big picture: they never came to grips with 1) world population growth and 2) the fundamental need for nulear power, failing as they did to see global warming as a big threat to man's well-being on the face of the earth. Thirty years of negativism have set us back to the state we are now in - and are likely to be in within the next decade.

it is not that I have been AGAINST environmentalism, but - as with alternative energy - the solutions don't even approach the severity of the problems. Keith Palmer

by keithpalmer at 2:40 PM on 06 Feb 2005

not dead, but rejected

It is not our movement that has died, it is the American public that has lost touch with the natural world- they no longer care. Our society has gone for too long making little or no sacrifice for the good of man (except close family) or the good of nature (beyond the front lawn). It is the American Dream of material wealth and luxury that is the problem; it is incompatible with preserving the health of our environment. It is not that we have not phrased our case convincingly- it is that few people want to hear the truth- the lies are easier to believe and more consistent with the dream. Why is it our task to find 'positive' solutions that keep everyone's job and improve everyone's standard of living, while saving the environment? It is impossible. Is it our fault for using science to justify our cries? The science is truth- it makes no promise, offers no solutions for preserving lifestyles or societal goals- that's for others to work out. Science tells us what will happen if we continue taxing the earth- we listen and spread the news- is it up to us to tell you how to keep your SUV and prevent Global Warming?

I believe it is our goal to convince people to listen- to care- and to make some sacrifice while WE ALL try to find solutions that work. Sorry for advocating radical change- if you'd listened to us 30 years ago, we might not be in this mess. Don't kill the messenger because you don't like the news.

a liberal in redsville

by birdboy at 10:33 AM on 07 Feb 2005

Don't Blame Environmentalists For Others' Actions

Benprofane's comment that my "toss[ing] around piety and terms like 'materialist toys'" puts the environmental movement at odds with working class Americans would be true if I were talking to a general audience. In that case, I would use diplomacy, though I would not change the message. In this forum, I assume I'm talking to other enviros, and my language is geared toward them.

Re the substance of benprofane's comments, while working class people need not do so to the extent of middle and upper class people, all Americans must simplify their lifestyles and greatly curtail (or better yet, eliminate) their materialistic desires if we are to make any environmental or ecological advances.

Keithpalmer's comment that nuclear power is an environmental solution to global warming is ridiculous. Nuclear anything is very harmful and should be rejected out-of-hand. Specifically, in order to have nuclear power, uranium must be mined, which is very ecologically damaging due to both mining itself and the radioactivity released by mining uranium. (Re the latter, all credible scientists agree that there is no safe level of radioactivity, so any amount added to our atmosphere is damaging.) There is also no solution for the hideous nuclear waste generated by this Franken technology, leaving us with huge amounts of radiocactive garbage well into the future.

Birdboy has it right: it's not our fault that most people are too greedy, selfish, and/or materialistic to live in an ecologically sustainable manner. Benprofane suffers from the (American?) delusion that one can have her cake and eat it, too. In order to stop or even slow the ecological damage we are doing, we must make sacrifices, not attempt impossible solutions that offer the delusion of being able to do whatever we want while not harming the planet.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 4:43 PM on 07 Feb 2005

Think locally, act locally

Someone above wrote that "The American public that has lost touch with the natural world- they no longer care."

That's part of the job of the environmental movement -- to make sure people continue to care.

Considering that most Americans (if polled neutrally) do express strong concern about the loss of open space, and the need for clean air and water, it is all the more shocking that the public has drifted away from environmental causes. It's even more of an indictment if a movement loses such natural (no pun intended) constituents.

Elsewhere, I've posted that these values remain alive and well at the grassroots level. Foundations and national groups for too long have taken a dismissive posture toward local and regional causes, focusing the bulk of funding on lobbying and lawsuits in Washington, D.C.

It may be a cliche when the presidents of national organizations say it, but as a grassroots activist who does indeed talk with my neighbors, regardless of their existing ideology -- who goes to fire houses and churches as well as fundraisers to seek support -- the grassroots is where this movement must rebuild itself.

The organization I work for has grown from 40 to 4,000 members by taking the time to sit around kitchen tables and stand outside post offices making connections in our communities.

And we are not only working to prevent environmental threats in our region, but also to spread awareness of how the consumer and other lifestyle choices we make every day contribute to the problems we take on. It's about both holding polluters accountable, and taking personal responsibility.

Environmentalism is only dead to the extent we allow it to become so. Look to your local community to raise awareness, rather than just mailing in a check in response to another glossy mailer with pandas on it.

Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends. -- George Bernard Shaw

by Hudson at 8:54 AM on 08 Feb 2005

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.