« Environmental Fear-Mongerering In The Media? | Main | Environmental collapse - sooner not later »
April 8, 2005
Environmentalism Better Not Be Dead
By: Rowan Wolf
In September of 2004 Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (both with long careers in environmental activism) wrote a monograph titled The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World. It is a presentation that has generated tremendous discussion (just do a search on the article). One of the more organized of the discussions has been at Grist Magazine. Another collection of responses is at OneList.
I will be returning to the issues raised by Shellenberger and Nordhaus in later pieces, so I have two purposes in putting this out there for you. My first purpose is to introduce you to the monograph, because it is a thought provoking piece of work. The second purpose is to briefly explain the premise of the monograph.
The basic premise of "The Death of Environmentalism" is that despite lots of activity, little has really been accomplished and that the movement is not putting forward a coherent plan for dealing with the scope of current environmental crises. They argue that environmentalism is becoming an anachronism. They discuss the realities of the current political environment where there is radical right control of all three branches of government. Given this and the power tilt in the country toward corporations and rabid capitalism, they propose a dramatic change to make the movement relevant. That relevance they argue, is by working with corporations and capital in a broader political arena.
"If, for example, environmentalists don't consider the high cost of health care, R&D tax credits, and the overall competitiveness of the American auto industry to be “environmental issues,” then who will think creatively about a proposal that works for industry, workers, communities and the environment? If framing proposals around narrow technical solutions is an ingrained habit of the environmental movement, then who will craft proposals framed around vision and values?"
While I would agree with the need to look at the broader structures and effects of both environmental issues, and social structures, somehow, embracing the model that has caused the damage doesn't make much sense to me. Likewise, they argue:
"If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we must start framing our proposals around core American values. We must start seeing our own values as central to what motivates and guides our politics."
I would argue that we need a redefinition of those values, rather than a framing of issues around them.
In reading the monograph, there are a number of areas that make me distinctly uncomfortable and even alarmed. Shellenberger and Nordhaus have a new organization where they are concentrating on the new strategic plan. The site is Breakthrough Institute
I would be interested in your thoughts on the issue and on their proposal.
Posted by Rowan at April 8, 2005 6:17 PM Category: Alternatives
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.radnoesis.info/mt33/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1558
Comments
I will make it a point to persuse the article, as it must be rather seminal, since I've seen repeated references to it on other environmental sites. I completely agree with your concerns, Rowan.
This statement particularly indicates the inverted reasoning that seems undeniably self-serving (on a superficial level): "we must start framing our proposals around core American values."
In my opinion, core American values lie at the foundation of our environmental crisis. Our consumer culture accentuates our values of production and consumption, fueling our presumed entitlements. It is critical that we re-evaluate the privileged status of our Calvinistic "work ethic" which--it can be argued--views production as an end rather than a means, thereby encouraging voracious consumption.
If we must adhere to a mandate to continually produce (in order to maintain our capitalistic economic system), we must address what and how we produce, and identify demand on terms that intersect with need.
The framework should not be driven by a clearly flawed value system ... a "core value" that has been described by Lawrence Shames as a "culture of MORE" (caps mine). Consumption is not the trajectory that should power our values--I find this mandate by Shellenberger and Nordhaus to be shortsighted and in light of the environmental ledge we teeter on, somewhat tragic.
Posted by: Pamela at April 9, 2005 6:06 AM