A great story in the now-threatened L.A. Times focuses on a heroic small business in Rancho Dominguez in Southern California called Advanced Cleanup Technologies.
This 14-year-old firm can get 30 calls a day, to clean up every kind of toxic spill you can imagine.
They've long pioneered new clean-up and pollution-control methods, and now they're trying to scrub the fuel-oil smokestack emissions from ship engines that have been fouling air at ports for years.
A Port of Long Beach official is calling their new barge-based system a potential "major breakthrough."
All that's great, and what Ruben Garcia and his team have done is admirable, and maybe even incredible.
But that's not what this post is about.
This post is about a word -- the word used to describe our movement and people like us.
At the very end of the story, an engineer for the company declares that because their technology can reduce 90% or more of emissions of three major pollutants, "if you're an environmentalist, you're going to want this."
True. I do want this. And, more fundamentally, I expect that anyone who breathes and lives or works near or at a port will surely want this pollution control, and as soon as possible.
But what did you just call me?
If I call myself an environmentalist, I'm using pretentious diction, for the sake of vagueness. That's what George Orwell would say, and rightly so. ("The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.")
I'm choosing an empty word -- environs -- on which to center my political identity. It comes from an old French word that means "round about," with references to "circle" and "turn." It's rarely used in English.
Environs means essentially: that which surrounds us.
But can you imagine calling yourself a "surroundalist"?
Can you imagine claiming you're passionate about "surroundalism"?
Of course not, it sounds absurd.
That's why I'm frustrated with the word "environmentalist."
On a spiritual level, it's self-contradicting.
On a linguistic level, it's irritating.
On a political level, it means little.
On a moral level, it binds us to nothing.
I recognize the English language is far bigger than I am, and may force my choice.
But what do you think?
Here's a poll to find out.
Please choose one of the answers to this question:
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
hayduke1 Posted 1:31 am
09 Oct 2006
Keep it Wild!
Permalink
Icelander Posted 1:37 am
09 Oct 2006
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:16 am
09 Oct 2006
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:40 am
09 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:14 am
09 Oct 2006
The Spanish term that is the equivalent of "environment," "medio ambiente," is literally "the ambient medium." The ambient medium of a fish, say, is the water that it is swimming in, in which it breathes. So, along those lines, one's "environment" starts at one's skin. It is not in a distant place. Strictly, what I mean by "environment" is not Yellowstone or ANWR or whales near Antarctica or rhinos in Africa. It is the physical conditions of the place right where I am. As such, it is hard to extend it to include more than a discrete collection of people.
And it should therefore logically follow that something called "environmentalism" would refer to a topic in public health.
But that is not how we use the word, is it? In fact people who call themselves environmentalists have all kinds of different values and interests.
So I am all in favor of finding a new word. Since the term "tree-hugger" is such a cute formation (unfortunately derogatory, though), I would be content with "earth-lover," or "life-lover." And then the movement could just be called "earth-love," or "life-love." (Once we settle the Moon and Mars, I suppose we would have to re-think "earth-love," but let us not worry about that right now.)
Anglo-Saxon etymons are so homey and sweet. But if one insists on hellenizing, there is "geophile" and "geophilia," or "biophile" and "biophilia." Frankly, though, I do not much like the sound of them.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Daniel Collins Posted 10:18 am
09 Oct 2006
I checked the Oxford English Dictionary (online). It provides all uses of a word and dates of first usage. (Unfortunately, the online version hadn't updated "environmentlist" since its previous edition, but that doesn't change anything here.)
What I found was that during Leopold's time, the word "environmentalist" had a very different meaning from now. An environmentalist was someone who followed the theory that the environment played an overarching role in the development of human society. It had nothing to do with conservation or protection of the environment.
Further digging suggested a transition of the dominant meaning during the 1970s, when Rachel Carson was shaping environmental thought.
Permalink
wordwright Posted 12:30 pm
09 Oct 2006
Permalink
TariffDude Posted 1:06 pm
09 Oct 2006
Permalink
stringy Posted 1:28 pm
09 Oct 2006
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 6:24 pm
09 Oct 2006
However, today, at this time, I believe that we require the conviction of environmentalists in order to best lead. Without a good environment the economic system is a worthless vessel.
How we reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels while maintaining our standard of living will not be possible without considerable change.
It looks like a good winter for designing and acquiring a solar photovoltaic system and maybe even a wind turbine. Anyone who lives in California and has a home with an exposure to the south should consider photovoltaic. I believe it is possible to install a 2.5 kW array on your home in California today for a cost of less than $5000.
I say embrace being an environmentalist for in the near future all people will be such.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:49 am
10 Oct 2006
Symbiosisism? We are those who want human life on spaceship earth put back into symbiosis with the natural world again.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:22 am
10 Oct 2006
Permalink
Douglas Watts Posted 2:42 am
10 Oct 2006
The word "environmentalist" as used in the English language directly implies that everyone except "environmentalists" has no problem with raw sewage in their front yard.
Think about it.
Permalink
Shaun C Posted 6:34 am
10 Oct 2006
Lasting jobs, a growing local economy, reliable investment. Or as we call it 'round our parts, "Common Sense".
If you are interested in this so-called, "Common Sense". Check us out, http://www.newenergychoices.org.
As for a label I prefer, "Thinker of Common Sense and Drinker of Texas Pete"
Shaun Chapman
Communications Manager
Network for New Energy Choices
http://www.newenergychoices.org
Permalink
willa Posted 8:43 am
10 Oct 2006
My college had an environmental group--oh, sorry, a green, treehugging, dirty hippie group :)--that called itself (maybe still does, I'm not sure) Earthlust. The daily email newspaper put out by a student group was in the habit of April Fools pranks, and, in the course of putting out an Onion-like 4/1 edition one year, referred to the members as Earthsluts, which of course was well received by all, including the Earthsluts themselves. :)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:23 pm
10 Oct 2006
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:57 pm
10 Oct 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
cactushugger Posted 3:29 am
11 Oct 2006
Oh yeah, and a tree-hugging communist hippy slut.
Permalink
lmlhlinc Posted 6:44 am
11 Oct 2006
I'm a noncomformist, just like everybody else ....
Permalink
wordwright Posted 8:38 am
11 Oct 2006
The word "environmentalist" as used in the English language directly implies that everyone except "environmentalists" has no problem with raw sewage in their front yard.
Which is exactly why we should all be environmentalists-- i.e., concerned with the condition of our environs.
The word "environmentalist" isn't what needs to be banned, Douglas; it's the raw sewage in our front yards. Call it what you will; environmentalism is, at its core, simply enlightened self-interest.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:46 am
11 Oct 2006
What about "enlightened dedication to the common good"?
What about "charity"?
What about "love"?
Earthlust does not quite get it, however deeply in love with "earthslut" I have fallen. But I continue to think earth-love has promise, no matter what Roy Moore and the legislators of the South might suspect.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:01 am
11 Oct 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
willa Posted 4:08 am
12 Oct 2006
I don't think it matters.
It does, however, take some of the joy out of the whole thing to be constantly second-guessing oneself and wondering how pure one's motives are. Besides, some of the tasks we take on to benefit the environment (composting? ewwww...and yeah, I know people really love it, but I think it's gross, and half-assedly do it anyway) are sufficiently disagreeable that I say we deserve all the congratulations we can get, even from ourselves, for doing them. If people think we're nuts...well, raise your hand if no one ever thought you were nuts for some non-environmentalism-related reason. So at least this creates some more variety in the potential reasons for people to look at you strangely. :)
Permalink
lmlhlinc Posted 6:44 am
12 Oct 2006
I'm a noncomformist, just like everybody else ....
Permalink
lmlhlinc Posted 6:51 am
12 Oct 2006
I'm a noncomformist, just like everybody else ....
Permalink
Chris Cooper Posted 11:58 pm
17 Oct 2006
Chris Cooper
Network for New Energy Choices
http://www.NewEnergyChoices.org
Network for New Energy Choices
http://www.NewEnergyChoices.org
Permalink