A few years ago, Nordhaus and Shellenberger made the case that because the environmental community hadn't been able to make progress on climate change -- which to them defined almost all of environmentalism -- the environmental movement was a failure (and should die). I argued then that given the scale of climate change, the uncertainties, and how deep it cuts across all sectors of the economy, it was unrealistic and silly to expect immediate action. I also argued that traditional forms of environmental activism were alive and well and there was no need for a new paradigm.
Well, I think with this past election cycle we should lay the "death of environmentalism" to rest once and for all.
Not only did approximately 20-strong environmental candidates defeat some of the country's worst environmental nemeses (based largely on their environmental records -- Richard Pombo first and foremost among them), but a large part of Arnie's resurgence in California was due to his sweeping climate change proposal, which is the strongest in the world (yes, stronger than Kyoto).
In addition, with Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer replacing James Inhofe on the Senate environment committee, many new climate change bills will be making their way to Congress. We can be sure that this will be a big part of the 2008 campaign, and if a Democrat captures the White House, we can expect significant national legislation. And if a Democrat does win, it will be due in part to the fact that much of the West is turning Democratic, driven largely by environmental concerns.
Of course, environmentalism is never going to rank as high as war or terrorism in the public mind. In 2004 it was a side issue, but so was everything else, for all practical purposes, including health care and education.
In summary, environmentalism doesn't really need a rebirth because it never died; it just was pushed to the side like everything else in a time of war.
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 3:56 am
26 Jan 2007
I think we have a lot of hubris to think that we know what's right or wrong for "the planet". It seems like everyone and his uncle is now an armchair commentator on what should or shouldn't be done.
In most cases, everyone seems to be marching off to battle without a battleplan, or equipment (mostly mental equipment).
Environmentalism is a very new "science" -- although it's closer to philosophy and religion than any real science. There's little in the way of experiment or verification. Half of the ideas seem to be published in the popular press. Various Rasputins get the ear of politicians and force large changes with little or no scientific backing.
Overall, we're very vulnerable to the type of social policies that Lysenko promulgated, leading to the disasters in Russian agriculture during the last century.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:58 am
26 Jan 2007
Their basic thesis, as I understood it, is that the environmental movement lacks a positive and visionary progressive plan of action. It's a movement that arose as a reaction to something bad, and has historically focused on preventing harm or stopping harm that is already in progress. All well and good, but fighting fires only gets you so far, and the fact is that Bruce Sterling's criticism of environmentalism is still very relevant to where the movement finds itself today. (The essence of this concern is, incidentally, shared by Bill McDonough.)
Environmentalism is not dead, but it still carries a worrisome Achilles' heel that has, and will continue to, weaken it.. We dismiss that concern at our peril.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:16 am
26 Jan 2007
The URGE2 concept if it takes hold will give new direction as well. A shiny carbon neutral, sustainable car or home is far more appealing to the majority of people than veganism, communal agrarian lifestyles, and hemp underwear. Nothing short of force will reverse humanities voluntary move toward increasing urbanization (that isn't an endorsement of continued environmentally destructive industrial farming practices).
The anti-technology crowd is also waning. Solar panels and wind turbines are high tech as is the neural web linking billions of nodes called the Internet.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:32 am
26 Jan 2007
I believe that the environmental movement must recognize these distinctions and articulate them in the form of a positive vision for the future.
My recent optimism is not, I should add, because of anything that has happened in DC. While it's good to know that the American public is able to notice reality, albeit rather late, I have little faith in the Democrat's ability to move beyond politics and address real solutions. That inability is, I believe, based in part on their lack of vision. Without vision, they fall back on the desire to lead for its own sake (or for the sake of keeping the Republicans from doing so). This urge, while perhaps well intentioned, very quickly becomes venal.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:56 am
26 Jan 2007
The vision thingFWIW by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming 50% improvement in energy efficiency/conservation, we (US) can get the other 50% from about $1000 to $2000 per person per year via low-cost low-carbon active solar energy.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:59 am
26 Jan 2007
Is stasis a pattern of nature?
gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/15/1950/64392/#comment77
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:15 am
26 Jan 2007
Anyway...
(1) Environmentalism is not dead. Never was dead. There are plenty of problems to address. Global climate change happens to be one of the larger ones. Americans are still interested in clean air, clean water, and wilderness (even if some of them are motivated by the prospect of driving their SUVs through that wilderness). There is also the hook and bullet crowd. There are the people who feed birds in the back yard. They notice when the animals suddenly go missing.
(2) I strongly disagree that environmentalists need an enemy. Perhaps you are all annoyed by my constant interest in preserving grassland, but it is quite relevant here. In southwest Wisconsin there are at least six organizations -- from very local to national -- interested in RESTORING NATURAL HABITAT. There are not only trying to prevent further destruction. They are trying to expand natural habitat, trying to reduce fragmentation and create larger blocks, they are returning species to their old stomping grounds, they are persuading people to adopt natural landscaping around homes and businesses. Environmentalists will have enough work to sustain their movement for a long time if they engage in more restoration activity. It is also a means of drawing people into the movement.
(3) biodiversity makes a very good point... an enviromentally friendly car or sustainable home is far more appealing than veganism and hemp underware. Preservation of the biosphere requires a balanced approach.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:39 am
26 Jan 2007
And wiscidea, I also agree with your "uninformed opinion", especially the restoration part. This is part of our giving back, I think.
And while it's nice, and maybe a bit hopeful (but I don't want to count on it too much) that the Democrats are on the upsurge, by no means can we afford to relax. Now is the time to push the envelope, I think, with regard to where we need to go, how to get there, the vision thing. I think a little bit of that 60s passion and daring would be nice. Not to alienate, but to wake up.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:32 am
26 Jan 2007
gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/15/1950/64392/#comment77
Well, that was obscure, but I think I get the point you're trying to make. You're still stuck in the perspective that we, ultimately, have to choose between progress and statis, and that a future that does not rely on an infinitely expanding energy base must necessarily ossify.
Is that what you're trying to say?
The answer is simple, and is implied by the question you ask. No, of course, the pattern of nature is never static. And yet, nature has been growing, developing, complexifying, and becoming increasingly dynamic for millions of years without ever significantly increasing the total energy coming into the system.
Learning to use energy and technology responsibly and with restraint does not have to imply statis, or a boring future. Nature has proven what is possible. It only remains to us to figure out how to do it. When we can build a building like a tree, that is part of a city that functions like a forest, then we will be well along that path. At this point, we're just now noticing that that path exists.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:37 am
26 Jan 2007
We should, in the long term, absolutely develop the ability to divert an incoming dino-killer asteroid, with all the energy intensity that capability implies (zero-point energy, anyone?). Failure to do so would be an irresponsible oversight for a mature technological civilization. But we shouldn't build our infrastructure in such a way that we have to rely on that level of energy intensity for the basic needs of our society, like food and warmth. That would be stupid, because it would not be robust or have a graceful failure mode.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:11 am
26 Jan 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:56 pm
26 Jan 2007
Thus, for the good of the planet, it is probably more important that a movie star like Arnold is making a fuss about climate change, than that the Democrats have taken over, as after all, since when has anyone believed ordinary politicians. To fight climate change, it has to be made fashionable, even cool. Sad, but reality often is.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:49 pm
26 Jan 2007
Thank you for the link to the article. It appears that a perfect storm is forming and environmentalists had better take advantage of it. I hope everyone maintains pressure on their representatives.
I am nervous about one thing. Democrats control the Senate by a single thread. If they lose one person (by illness or other misfortune) and he or she is replaced by a Republican, it could derail their efforts. There is also the threat of a veto.
The end of the article presents an interesting point not discussed much in the the United States media, the role of individual states in pushing for change. I believe it demonstrates once more the wisdom of the Founders in establishing a system where states serve as incubators for different approaches to solving problems. It would be awful if all of the efforts to protect our environment had relied on action by the Federal government during the past 7 years. I have never appreciated the importance of state rights more than I do at this moment.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:14 pm
26 Jan 2007
Sunflower,
Let me translate what you said. By greatly decreasing home energy use via more efficient lighting, appliances and insulation, we can provide the rest for about 2K a year by putting a simple, cheap, passive solar collector on our roofs hooked to a simple thermostat and circulation fan. Close?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:44 pm
26 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:51 pm
26 Jan 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:16 pm
26 Jan 2007
The 2006 elections certainly don't prove a whole lot. So the Democrats won. We can debate how much environmental issues played a role in that victory, but at the end of the day what most matters is action. Global warming won't be adequately responded to with bumper sticker slogans -- it will take aggressive governmental action. That will not be any easier to gain approval for and implement than civil rights for Blacks during the 1960s and 70s.
Business-as-usual activism simply doesn't have the capacity to tackle such a large and complex problem as global warming. Contemporary environmentalism is too short-term, fragmented and reactive. N/S's vision may be flawed, but at least it gets us to start thinking out of the box. This is even more necessary in the wake of the 2006 elections, where we now have a modicum of political power to pursue a proactive policy agenda.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:42 pm
26 Jan 2007
This shuts down all coal, oil, and gas.
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/200505_bdpie167.pdf
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:07 pm
26 Jan 2007
Hey folks,
You can diss veganism all you want, but you should try some hemp clothing before you dismiss it! What I have owned is practical and comfortable (though not cheap, but after seven years, I am still wearing several shirts, alas the underwear did not last that long!).
Please do no include hemp clothing in a category with hair shirts, or with things one does as a perceived sacrifice. It ain't like that!!!
But a nice hemp shirt, or pair of jeans, try one. (smile).
Don't be like Mikey and refuse it just because it's new!
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:08 am
27 Jan 2007
cheaper than leather
better looking
More comfortable
better for the environment
The leather industry will be dead within a few decades.
http://www.vegetarian-shoes.co.uk/
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:09 am
27 Jan 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:30 am
27 Jan 2007
But maybe one should read Thoreau's 'Walden Pond' and other works. Darwin was inadvertently labeled as a "naturalist" but didn't he work on the environment too? Sheesh, give me a break.
Why do we need hippies living in giant redwood trees and protesting at Washington Mall to be an environmentalist or have a movement? Those are rather quaint concepts now, almost cute.
Our interaction with the environment continues, not matter what kind of political spin you want to put on it. Shame on y'all!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
cleanair Posted 5:56 am
27 Jan 2007
Within the U.S. there is a critical mass of environmental awareness and stewardship that continues, through a laborious grind-it-out process, to make the environment a little cleaner and healthier each year. Results are slow, sustainable, and there is no backsliding. It also does not make for very riveting reading.
Unfortunately, the climate change issue has turned the environmental movement into a laughingstock. The farm is bet on this issue, and there is a strong likelihood it will lose big.
Prohibition in the U.S. (alcohol illegal) was a huge disaster. Given the choice, people would rather drink and accept all the problems, and there are A LOT of problems, rather than give up drinking. By an overwhelming margin.
The same is true of climate change. People are going to keep their standard of living and deal with whatever climate changes occur. Especially if the changes are somewhat uncertain, nebulous, and far into the future.
The bottom line is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning will continue to rise over the coming years. Regardless of how much is said about the issue by the media, business, government, the UN, scientists, or anyone else.
Why the environmental movement wants to glom onto this hugely unpopular issue that has no solution, is beyond me.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:28 am
27 Jan 2007
Many of our forests not only have to be saved from clearcutting and high-grading, but from well-meaning and sorely misguided preservationists. Their calling card of "The forests have taken care of themselves for hundreds of thousands of years" surely isn't applicable to today's "unnatural" forests. A "true" environmentalist will do what it takes to restore our forests back to more natural states, even if it means cutting some trees.
That leads right into "restoration". Yes, if we strictly leave our forests alone, they will eventually return to what Lewis and Clark saw on their expedition. But, only if us modern humans stay COMPLETELY out of them. Plus, that would take HUNDREDS of years. And we all know that is certainly impossible. Preservationism is alive and well in our wilderness areas and National Parks, as it should be. The rest of our forests certainly aren't doing well, debunking the idea that I explained above.
The big picture says that we CAN accelerate forest restoration with careful and creative hands-on management. The preservationists cannot and will not believe this, continuing this slow-motion disaster that many folks seem to not want to see, regardless of the truth.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 11:09 am
27 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 3:04 pm
27 Jan 2007
Except that in every case I know of, the environmental benefit is subservient to the financial one.
The thought is that both the forest and the loggers can benefit from thinning, and they can, but rarely at the same time. The trees that should stay, if the forest is the concern, are precisely the trees that make the enterprise worth it to the loggers. The forest and the loggers are still competing for the same resource--the biggest, healthiest trees.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:44 pm
27 Jan 2007
Here in California, a few of those decidedly mid-sized trees between 20-30" dbh that pay for the thinning and brush removal. A mere 1-2% of those sized trees will be cut. The resulting work that gets paid for is essential to the survival of those forests.
And, no, those mid-sized trees are suppressed, diseased and of poor form. We're saving the best of those for our future old growth.
"Reverse Dittoheads" are losing the battle in the woods by using misinformation, rhetoric and dogma. Wake up and go see for yourselves! I KNOW that I can set up a tour for ya'll. Come join me and see the truth.
It's out there!!.....In the woods!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:34 am
28 Jan 2007
Check out the bamboo "silk" clothing. Sexy and green? Not sure how sustainable most bamboo farming is? According to this article it can be.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/04/bamboosa_bamboo.p...
Awesome Valentine's gift guys. Think how untrogolodytic you will look (while at the same time encouraging eros)!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:36 am
28 Jan 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:26 am
28 Jan 2007
Backcut wrote...
".. there IS a difference between being an environmentalist and being a preservationist. Similarly, there IS a difference between restoration and preservation..."
I believe environmentalism includes, among numerous other interests, preservation and restoration. Some folks focus on clean air, others on industrial agriculture, et cetera. And there are others who campaign to save relatively natural areas, others who try to restore lost habitat. It all depends on the individual's interests, skills, knowledge, and where they live.
I understand Backcut's perspective, I think, because his area of expertise is forestry. He encounters a lot of misguided environmentalists who have not taken time to fully understand what is required to care for a forest that has been deprived of native megafauna for thousand of years and a natural pattern of fire for a century. Moreover, there are alien insects and fungi attacking those forests. There is probably very little natural forest left to preserve and it is almost impossible to restore them. Forests NOW REQUIRE human intervention to care for what is left.
When I mentioned preservation and restoration above, I was not thinking in terms of forests. I live an an area that was once oak savanna and grassland. There are bits of it left that CAN be preserved if we find them and alert the landowners. It appears that it CAN be restored, if we can persuade and help landowners do it, though it will always require prescribed burning as long as humans try to live in the midsts of it. So, for me, environmentalism includes preservation and restoration.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:04 am
28 Jan 2007
I couldn't be more in agreement and couldn't have said it better, wiscidea.
8^x
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
willa Posted 12:11 pm
28 Jan 2007
I'm sure the situation is different where you are (and maybe you're different than the Forest Service folks I grew up dealing with), but in the mountains of northern New Mexico, there's not much in the way of timber larger than what you mark. It's not that the environment won't support it, it's that it's all been cut. How do you explain the vast areas in northern NM and southern CO where there are random bald patches, where the forests fade into scrub just where you would think trees would be the biggest and healthiest? They've long since been cut, and in a dry climate a forest has a hard time regenerating itself. It's sort of like a rainforest, in that the land that remains when you cut the big trees is surprisingly useless and surprisingly unable to regenerate forest, or really anything but sagebrush.
And yet, people still want to cut the few remaining big, healthy trees and call it "thinning." A few years ago, there was a huge to-do when environmentalists finally got the last old-growth harvesting stopped.
I'm not against harvesting timber. I'm against doing it in a way that prevents healthy forests from continuing to exist, especially when--as so often in the Southwest--it's billed as thinning necessary to forest health. I'm suspicious when the only measures taken to improve forest health are the ones that also produce a salable product.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:52 pm
28 Jan 2007
Generalizing and stereotyping seems to be a staple of the preservationist "industry". Yep, ALL us "Freddies" are evil-doers and "destroyers" of the world. We're also, as ole Jeff the eco-lawyer says, "tree killers". The bigwigs of the eco-groups strive to keep the debate polarized, using "dirty tricks" and misinformation to keep those dwindling donations coming in. Be sure to read the slanted piece on forest defense in the new Rolling Stone. Nowhere in the article does it say how ineffective those actions really were, on the Biscuit.
The preservationists ALWAYS have that fall-back position of punishing us for what happened in the now-distant past. Yes, that WAS the thinking back then. The foresters wanted to treat the forest like it was a great big farm, complete with trees planted in nice rows.
Today's forestry is much, MUCH different, with some credit due to the "ologists" an conservationists who persevered to change forest management, hopefully, forever. However, preservationists continue to take their quest too far, wanting to preserve an unbalanced and unnatural forest, instead of restoring it.
While I don't have direct experience in those forests you talk about, I do have extensive experience in many parts of the country. I can "read" a forest just by walking through it, as any good ecologist does. I've done goshawk and spotted owl surveys. I've worked very closely with archeologists, botanists and silviculturalists. I have confidence in myself that I can do the right thing for almost any forest, given time to "grok" its existence.
While I don't always agree with marking prescriptions, a good timber marker can and will "micro-manage" parts of the forest to match the conditions. That takes a keen eye and oodles of experience to be able to apply the right "treatment" and to be able to back up your decisions with science. All too often, the Forest Service will hire someone off the street, put a paintgun in their hand, give em a little bit of training and then send em out in the woods. Years ago, that was the easy thing to do, when timber management meant cutting all the big ones.
Today's reality demands that we take economics into account, willa. The "sins" of the past will require sacrifices today. Loggers and forestry workers won't work for free. Personally, I think it maybe time for a new policy in ecosystem management. Instead of most of the timber profits going to the "General Fund", don't you all think it's time for those monies to ALL go back into the forests?
PS....On a related note, your description of your cutover lands in New Mexico reminds me of a burned forest recovering. Without salvage logging, fuels management and reforestation, such stands can take up to 500 years to recover. And, some preservationists clamor for exactly THAT to happen. It looks like more gridlock for post-burn restoration, with the Democrats taking over in Congress and squelching important salvage legislation.
And, finally, please remember that "Healthy Forests" was overwhelmingly voted in by both parties but, only after some necessary Democratic "tweaking".
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
willa Posted 2:51 pm
28 Jan 2007
What I'm saying is, in the Southwest, we do not have enough big trees to be able to afford salvage logging and thinning as they've been practiced (and I'm talking about ancient history, sure, but also things that have happened in my own lifetime, and I'm not that old). The Forest Service (Freddies, eh? Where I'm from the only nickname I'm aware of is Floresta) is certainly not 100% bad, but it is certainly not entirely on the environment's side, either. And, yes, good question, why do the revenues from timber production not go 100% to protecting the forest? I know it's not just the FS that created the situation where private companies get to cut and mine and otherwise extract public natural resources virtually for free (or even, in some cases, with the government paying them to do it), but it's ridiculous and it has to stop.
I understand intellectually why people expect badly damaged forests to pay their own way to restoration, but it's total bs if you ask me; I could name a zillion worse things my taxes pay for, so it's not clear to me why the forests can't just be preserved and restored with tax dollars, whether or not they're producing anything financially valuable. But I'll stop preaching to the choir now...
Permalink
Backcut Posted 4:14 pm
28 Jan 2007
This is just one example out of many myths that you perpetuate, willa. Here's an example of what mills will pay for timber. I marked a dead sugar pine that was next to a road. It was 65" dbh and 205 feet tall and had more than 11,000 board feet in it. It was sold at $750 per 1000 board feet so, that one single dead tree cost the mill $7500, "on-the-stump", meaning that it is before logging and hauling costs. Definitely NOT "virtually for free"!
Today's new "Stewardship Projects" thin forests of both merchantable small trees (9-18" dbh, here in California) AND submerchantable trees and brush. Since there is no real markets for that sub-merchantable stuff as of now, that is just an extra cost for the mill and the loggers.
I can surely understand what you are saying about your forests, though. It's a much more harsh environment in those dry forests. There really is no scientific or economic reason to cut the reamianing big trees, and I support the protection of them. In those kinds of forests, we're in agreement that only an influx of tax dollars can fix that mess.
Your heart is in the right place but you tend to buy into the rhetoric too much, willa. Broaden your horizons and you might just see that even an old timber beast like myself can learn a new trick. Forests are messed up everywhere and each type of forest requires its own special management style. Although many want to see a one-size-fits-all approach, that just isn't possible (or desirable) in the Forest Service.
Just to show hopw much has changed, even within my own career, my first timber sale in 1986 had an average "cut tree" diameter of 48". Nowadays, the average "cut tree" diameter in California is a mere 14" dbh on a green timber sale.
Welcome to the new millenium!!!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
willa Posted 4:34 pm
28 Jan 2007
I don't know what happens where you are, except based on what you say. I do know that, in my lovely but backward state, it's still a struggle to get people to leave the big trees alone. It's still true that the Forest Service virtually pays people to do stupid shit like graze cattle on overgrazed, over-logged public lands (well, the BLM etc do this too--gov't agencies are still by far our largest landowners). It's not all strictly related to logging, but these people still think it's their right and duty to extract valuable things from public lands.
Permalink