There are winners, there are losers, and there are people who just don't get it.
If you've been paying attention, you know that in spite of the best efforts of tens of thousands of dedicated environmentalists and the spending of literally hundreds of millions of philanthropic dollars, the environment has been losing.
Hey greens, open your eyes.
Photo: iStockphoto
Not to stretch a point, but if America's environmentalists were more effective, we might not be suffering from the wars and trade deficits our dependence on oil brings. We might not be spending quite so much -- the highest percentage of GDP of any country in the world -- on health care.
Face it: environmentalists have been outgunned and outsmarted. But there is hope. Things are starting to change. Powerful people with black hats are trading them in for green capes.
Topping that list is the popular evangelical minister Pat Robertson. He publicly stated last week that, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." That alone has to give one pause. Could it be that the scientists were right?
Then there's Frank Luntz, spinmeister extraordinaire of the authoritarian Republicans, recently admitting that, "It's now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behavior of humans are affecting the climate." Say what?
If that isn't enough to challenge your worldview, try Wal-Mart. No paragraph is long enough to contain the cultural and environmental destruction of their massively efficient consumption and international worker exploitation machine. But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang.
And finally we have the Sierra Club, America's preeminent environmental organization, daring to endorse a Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
The conversion of Robertson, Luntz, and Wal-Mart and the leadership of the Sierra Club are beyond the cognitive dissonance resolution capabilities of some environmentalists. All these people getting in touch with reality is more progress than some progressives can understand, much less support.
Here in Grist last month, John Sellers and Barbara Dudley, two credentialed environmentalists, lamely took revenge on Adam Werbach for his support of Wal-Mart's greening efforts. Nearly two years ago, Adam spoke out in the "Death of Environmentalism" controversy, daring to criticize the movement for its myopia and ineffectiveness. Unable to argue that the movement actually was effective, Sellers and Dudley finally found grounds on which they felt they could challenge Werbach.
Then, in his "Centrism is for Suckers" column in the New York Times on August 4, the otherwise respectable Paul Krugman slugged the Sierra Club for its Chafee endorsement. Republican moderates like Chafee have repeatedly put their fingers in the levees to slow the Bush/Cheney/Inhofe/DeLay/Pombo flood of environmental destruction. Krugman's criticism is counterproductive.
Sellers, Dudley, and Krugman need to get real. If environmentalists want to win, we need to avoid being ineffective, effete purists unable to discern between real progress, bad policies, and destructive demagoguery.
We all know that America has the financial and technical wherewithal to stop global warming. We can end our addiction to oil and get back on the path to saving our natural legacy. It is, however, going to take more time and be more difficult if progressives become reactionary and inhibit progress instead of supporting it.
Moan and groan if you want. We're heading over to Wal-Mart.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
choffman Posted 6:32 am
10 Aug 2006
How many times do we need to hear about yet another corporation that says one thing and does another in order to feed the bottom line? An entity whose sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders is Machiavellian by nature and does not have either the interests of consumers or the welfare of the planet in mind when making decisions.
How many corporations weasel their way around regulations and laws in order to save money, typically at the expense of the environment? Case in point: Horizon Farms calls its milk "organic" because the USDA says it can because Horizon feeds its cows an organic grain mixture. HOWEVER, their cows have little or no access to pasture for grass and grazing, and are instead stalled almost 24/7. That is NOT organic farming nor even humane treatment of animals, yet they're cashing in on the "organic" mindset and charging nearly $4 a gallon for their not-really-organic milk. That kind of practice, that reasoning, which is pervasive, is patently dishonest.
The only true solution to all of this is for communities to once again begin producing their own food and commodities, and to learn to live more simply. After all, when push comes to shove (and we're almost there), we don't really need to eat pineapples if we live in Maine, and we don't need to eat lettuce in February if we live in Upstate New York. We are so out of whack with the natural cycle of things, that we're killing ourselves, and we don't even know it.
The last thing I want to support is megacorporations getting involved in the organic foods business. I'll buy my vegetables from the farm down the road or the Saturday farmers market or the regional farmers market, thank you, and I will never give Wal-Mart or its ilk one dime of my money to support their evil empire.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:53 am
10 Aug 2006
Make Friends and Influence CorporationsEnvironmentalists eat meat, burn carbon, have children. Should I reject environmentalists because they are not perfect? We all have flaws.
The meaning of life is to protect the future of life. Helping corporations along this path is not a compromise.
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 6:56 am
10 Aug 2006
Perhaps the American public doesn't keep track of this stuff, but enviros have been for decades. It's pretty clear that for every time a company (or any public entity) does what it says it's going to do for the environment, ten more don't. MAYBE Walmart is sincere, but until real, tangible results are created, we're going to continue to be skeptical.
There are, of course, a whole slew of sustainability issues around corporations like Walmart, but my first reaction when I read such things is, "Don't get played for a chump."
Permalink
famouspotato Posted 7:39 am
10 Aug 2006
Permalink
geosynchronous Posted 8:41 am
10 Aug 2006
In the same way that Werbach's original DoE piece was focused on critiquing the kind of environmentalism that is only practiced in the last bastions of the old guard (like the Sierra Club) and ignored the rest of the greens out there actually movement-building and accomplishing things, Renstrom and Perkowitz' implication that everyone who's not celebrating in the streets about Wal-Mart's claimed revelation is an "ineffective, effete purist" fails to show awareness of avenues of progress outside those of "the big compromise".
I'd like to see the head of the Sierra Club show a bit more respect for her accomplices here in the vast environmental conspiracy. We're out here getting things done, and to have an extremely poorly-argued (I'm sorry, it's not nice but I don't know how else to put it) piece lash out against other enviros for having a different [more exacting] vision of avenues to progress is souring at best. I'd like the Sierra Club to join the rest of us on the ground, rather than shooing us away. Previous posters have astutely noted the difference between "progress" and "pledging progress", and until I see something serious in the former category from Wal-Mart, I refuse to let the country's oldest hiking club goad me into excitement.
Permalink
tbelford Posted 9:18 am
10 Aug 2006
On the corporate motives issue, the fact is, companies are absorbing the reality that "green" can be good biz in three ways:
they can actually make PROFITABLE products that service environmental needs;
they can make their employees proud, avoiding costly employee churn and ill-morale, both of which sap productivity;
they can build goodwill with customers, in the face of tons of proprietary research carried out by consumer-facing companies showing that "purchase decisions" more and more include a weighing of corporate reputation on the environment (and other social responsibility factors).
These biz trends are NOT going to change, and smart businesspeople "get it."
So sure, insist on seeing the proof in the pudding. But recognize that "the times are a-changin."
Permalink
usandthem Posted 12:36 pm
10 Aug 2006
It takes time to build trust and not a bunch of retoric.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:29 pm
10 Aug 2006
The Chafee endorsement seems to be an inside-pool determination of strategy and tactics. The Sierra Club cries, "Save the last line of defense!" while critics like Krugman and Kos cry, "Build the new line of offense!" There are valid arguments in both camps, although it's hard to see how the Sierra Club's strategy can lead to more powerful environmental representation in Congress over the long term. From one perspective, the Club's tactic looks like a way to strengthen relationships and influence; from another perspective it looks like self-defeating appeasement.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:06 pm
10 Aug 2006
Sunflower is quite correct to point out that none of us is perfect, and to urge us to cultivate a sense of tolerance for one another's imperfections. But really, well-meaning mistakes, and personal weaknesses and indulgences, are one thing; greed, deceipt, cruelty and injustice are something else again.
And anyway, "It's time for you all to get real!" is hardly a very respectful way to begin a conversation.
On another note, FamousPotato's cautionary observation about the bizarre photograph is well-done. FP claims to "understand the intent," though, and I am afraid I cannot even get that far. Since the blindfolded model's profile rather reminds me of that of Kate Mulgrew, aka Katharine Janeway, stalward Starfleet captain of Voyager, it occurs to me that the image might be taken from one of her more kinky holodeck fantasies, approaching the climax.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:32 pm
10 Aug 2006
We do not surrender resistance with trust. This is not war with victors and the self defeated. It is just words if not real.
On Resistance: An Interview with Barry Lopez
http://www.uga.edu/garev/spring06/martin.pdf
These people you refer to use language as a technology to achieve an end. Using language involves you in a moral act. If your approach to language is practical rather than moral, you become complicit, in my view, in something immoral. Many "results-oriented" people in politics and business use language--"let's say this and then see what the response is"--the way they would use a lawn mower or an after-shave. Truth, the moral ideal, doesn't come into play here. They arrange and rearrange "statements of fact" in pursuit of a desired effect. You can't call them liars. To lie you have to hold a moral position about the use of language.
Permalink
lostyourmarblestoo Posted 4:45 am
11 Aug 2006
For those of you who keep on complaining of trust, remeber that trust is a two way street. We have to have faith that we can and are able to achieve change. We have to start somewhere.
That Pat Robertson is even publically acknowleging global warming is a great leap forward. Face it, most social change in America has always been driven by the word from the pulpit. The American Revolution, slavery, voters rights, even the end of the Vietnam War, were all fueled by religious leaders taking the initiative. Considering that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, organized religion is a key player for any social change. And face it, that is what we are really asking for.
If all of those strict environmentalists who where so pure and insisted on supporting Nader had been willing to listen and maybe put some trust and faith in what the huge majority of environmentalists were telling them, we sure wouldn't be in the mess we are.
Permalink
magmaybe Posted 5:19 am
11 Aug 2006
And as for the disparaging comments about all us party-poopin' purists: Fact is, there's a lot of work to be done, and it is our job as activists and cultural critics to consistently push the envelope in order to keep the focus on change. Of course we should celebrate victories - but if you believe we ought to hang up our critical analysis because Walmart decided to be less evil than usual, you've got to be kidding. Pat Robertson says "boy it sure is hot" and you're ready to herald in a new green dawn? Please.
Celebrate victories and keep pushing and working. It takes a range of strategies and tactics to make a movement. Crapping all over others in the movement for practicing a critical discipline in order to make our landbases safer is counterproductive.
Permalink
ScreamingMisanthrope Posted 5:24 am
11 Aug 2006
plus they still emit a bunch shippin their organic products in from their sweatshops in China
just because somethin is 'green' doesn't mean buying it is, wal-mart still represents the same empty obsessive consumerism that is killing the environment
support local stores not corporate trash.
~Dan
Permalink
ScreamingMisanthrope Posted 5:33 am
11 Aug 2006
we're in a mess because corporate amerika just walked all over us and the very fact that wal-mart is considered an 'environmentally-friendly' megastore is not only an oxy-moron but a loss in itself - it's not that we want wal-mart to become a sincere environmentally friendly store, we just don't want them period.
~Dan
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 7:07 am
11 Aug 2006
Permalink
SD Jim Posted 1:53 pm
11 Aug 2006
do you?
Jim Ricker
Permalink
Steve Kretzmann Posted 3:23 am
12 Aug 2006
Renstrom and Perkowitz's convoluted and tortured defense of Werbach rests on this statement: "Nearly two years ago, Adam spoke out in the "Death of Environmentalism" controversy, daring to criticize the movement for its myopia and ineffectiveness. Unable to argue that the movement actually was effective, Sellers and Dudley finally found grounds on which they felt they could challenge Werbach."
Um, actually, Sellers and I argued quite clearly that the movement is actually quite effective and that Werbach and friends had gotten it wrong more than a year ago. Read it for yourself here:
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Winterof...
Our thesis then (which was recently reinforced by Mark Hertsgaard in the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/hertsgaard) was that it was the leadership (as opposed to the grassroots) of groups like the Club who'd gotten it wrong. Looks like thats still the case.
Steve Kretzmann
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:52 pm
13 Aug 2006
The authors did make one good point when they said "If environmentalists want to win, we need to avoid being ineffective, effete purists unable to discern between real progress, bad policies, and destructive demagoguery."
However, the problem is that they people who are "unable to discern between real progress, bad policies, and destructive demagoguery." are them. (smile).
patrick
Permalink
setb Posted 4:47 am
14 Aug 2006
Any other greenwashing you're willing to do?
Permalink
Howell Haus Posted 6:30 am
14 Aug 2006
Mass consumption is mass consumption, be it there or anywhere else. Their 'Everyday Low Prices' continue to lower the standard of living for everyone, everywhere by forcing distribution channels and manufacturers to produce items for a non-sustainable cost, which many times stems from processes that are not earth sustainable.
They will also put weight and money behind legal actions to soften organic standards to legitimize processes that will allow all their suppliers to do it at costs that Walmart is willing to pay, i.e., control the market... before long it's not really organic. Worse yet, how long before these resources end up sourced from an area that used to be a rainforest, now leveled to grow 'organic' bananas or other?
In my opinion, one of the failings of the environmental movement is calling it that. It's also sad that lines have been drawn between liberal and conservatives, republicans and democrats, etc. What really matters is a person's actions and where they put their money. Actions, not words - people. Start with seeds, move on to deeds...
The question individuals must ask themselves is whether their actions are part of the problem, or part of the solution. We have to lead others into stewardship through positive actions and words. You never know who you're going to recruit when you encourage good morals. Let's quit mincing words and start conserving. And to do my part, I'll see you out there - on my bicycle, of course - JD
Permalink
Matt Painter Posted 7:34 am
14 Aug 2006
Their point about upping our pragmatism is well taken. Hey, if a Republican gets a good grade when it comes to the environment and you're an environmental organization, then endorse away. Likewise, if a megastore does something good for the environment, note it and figure out how you can help them do more.
But the Sierra Club snidely suggesting it's environmentally sound to shop at a Wal-Mart is ironic and sad.
Permalink
PARice Posted 7:31 am
03 Nov 2006
Permalink