A number of Grist contributors have grumpily said things along the lines of, "I'm not an environmentalist," or "I'm not sure I'm an environmentalist."
Environmentalism comes in all flavors. Wanting to protect natural environments because they benefit humans is a perfectly valid form of environmentalism -- in fact, I'd argue more valid than the "humans are evil, tapeworms are virtuous" variety. If you want to protect our world against the worst consequences of global warming, if you want clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and yes, some wilderness and wild left for the sake of your sanity, then you are an environmentalist.
Every now and then I will run into someone who says, "yes, I think women are fully human and should be treated as such. I believe in equal pay for equal work, anti-discrimination laws, anti-harassment laws. I think there are important ways in which women are not treated as fully human that have to be changed. But I'm not a feminist." If you believe those things, you are a feminist. You are just buying into an anti-feminist stereotype. And not calling yourself a feminist won't stop all mini-Limbaughs who dominate talk radio from calling you whatever the latest version of "feminazi" is. Similarly, if want to protect the environment, even for the most anthropocentric reasons in the world, claiming not to be environmentalist won't protect you against being called names by those who think the ideal breakfast is fried spotted owl cooked over an open flame fueled by old-growth timber. So own the term "environmentalist." Claim it proudly. Don't let hate-mongers define it, or purity trolls monopolize it.
[Updated title to take out the damn 60s reference the editor put in.]
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
Rowan Posted 12:12 pm
06 Jul 2008
greenpictures.wordpress.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:27 pm
06 Jul 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:24 pm
06 Jul 2008
Gar,
excellent post.
Rowan,
excellent comment.
BioD,
excellent whatever. Of course, NOBODY uses "gay" to mean "happy" anymore.
Quite the reverse -- and you should be on top of this: "gay" seems bigotedly to have come to mean "weird" and "way uncool."
Let us all work on correcting that.
As for prejudice against the term "environmentalist": It is all David Roberts's fault, for being such a savage snap-dragon. : )
Or: Henceforth, let us be nice to people. To everybody. Let us be the most humane people imaginable. And let us display our environmentalist credentials proudly.
Here in NYC, my husband has a green shopping bag, from somewhere. I have a bag from Defenders of Wildlife, with a wolf design on it, with a pin with a right whale design from Provincetown Center of Coastal Studies. When one wears such gear, one feels a responsibility to be especially kind, to everyone.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 10:59 pm
06 Jul 2008
In college, I invented a new term for those wannabe hippies that "loved Mother Earth" without understanding the first thing about her mechanisms. I call them "nature winkies." And for a long time I was at pains to explain what separated me from the nature winkies. I was more analytical, intellectual, and of course I was right more often. :)
Today I devote my time to educating people on environmental science and issues and I've come to realize that we all start out as nature winkies.
What's in a name? If someone has conveniently assigned all "environmentalists" to the "eco-socialist conspiracy to bring down America" then there's little to be solved by claiming another title for yourself; they'll just expand the definition.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:54 am
07 Jul 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:27 am
07 Jul 2008
Sez it all:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mly/ ...
Permalink
sindark Posted 2:58 am
07 Jul 2008
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:03 am
07 Jul 2008
But it's like saying you're a "geographer," which I also am. There are at least 40 kinds of geographer, from weatherman to historical geographer and GIS analyst. I have a diploma that says I'm a geographer but not one in "environmentalism" even though that was my concentration. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:09 am
07 Jul 2008
Look, I love James Brown and some of the classic sixties Motown. But you know there was an American progressive movement long before the sixties came along. There were abolitionists, a women's right movement. There was a tiny marginalized minority who wanted to deal honorably with Indians instead of massacring them and taking their land. There was a labor movement, a civil liberties movement, a civil rights movement. And activism did not end with sixties either.
If someone wants to criticize me as DFH fine. But don't stick gratuitous sixties references into the titles of my work. (And I know it is not being done as a critique. Sixties references are just a reflex. I used the term "feminism" approvingly, aspirationally. Therefore I must want to be shoved into the sixties box. )
This is not because I hate the sixties. I admire the accomplishments, ending a freaking war, ending America's petty apartheid, advances in equality for women, advancing gay rights to the point where they could fought for publicly, the great environmental advances. But it was just one era, and I am sick of the false choice between ahistoricism or making the sixties the major historical connection for progressives. There is a whole long history of progressive change in the U.S. Don't just look at the sixties for references.
You want some examples? You might find a quote or two in Langston Hughes or Frederick Douglas, Gore Vidal, Billie Holiday, John and Abigail Adams, Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln. The sixties were just one decade. The U.S. has had around 230 years as a nation. So Grist interns, why not step outside of the bong circle David Roberts is fond of remembering, and include the other 22 decades in your historical references?
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 3:15 am
07 Jul 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:58 am
07 Jul 2008
On the other hand, a large majority of Americans used to say they were environmentalists (is this still true?), which is clearly false. There needs to be some standard for this term, as for any other. I think a good one would be that an environmentalist is someone who gives priority to the environment over other issues and/or makes sacrifices for the environment. What the standard CAN'T be is just liking nature, thinking natural scenery is beautiful, thinking animals are cute or liking them, etc. All sane people feel like that. Without standards, "environmentalist" becomes a meaningless term. When I first read the results of the poll where something like 85% of Americans said they were environmentalists, I was jumping for joy at our victory. Only after I realized that the vast majority of these people were not environmentalists at all did I realize that there was no victory.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:55 pm
07 Jul 2008
Gar's absolutely correct. The term is not the property of hate-mongers or purity trolls. If a person is an environmentalist they should not be afraid to say so. Indeed, avoidance of the term only strengthens the stereotype by not revealing the diverse views it truly encompasses.
Yes ... I'm an environmentalist who likes his rural home, his commute, his SUV, and his job creating GMOs ... and does not see a conflict of interests.
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:28 pm
07 Jul 2008
Permalink