Whither the environmental movement? 4

This post, and this one, and this discussion are part of a larger conversation going on among left-leaning types about how to react to the recent electoral ass-whooping we received.  Initially, a lot of the talk focused on the "moral values" voters who came out to prevent the cosmic apocalypse that is gay marriage.  Least that's what the exit polls seemed to show. However, this article, and several like it, cast substantial doubt on that theory.  In fact, there doesn't seem to be much of a rational pattern.  Bush gained among Hispanics and women, actually went down among rural voters and up among urban voters, lost among self-described moderates, increased the turnout of rich people, won on terrorism despite majorities who said he was screwing Iraq up ... in short, there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet theory to explain the loss (more on all this here). It was a hotly fought ground war, a game of inches, and Bush's team got lots of things right, pardon the pun.

Nonetheless, the question of where the environmental movement goes from here is still relevant.  I think we can all agree that, regardless of this election, environmentalism is not where it should be. Nobody, after all, cites the environment as a reason that any candidate won or lost.  Nobody much cites it at all as a player in electoral politics, aside from a few extremely narrow issues like Yucca Mountain, which is more of a "don't dump radioactive crap in my back yard" issue than a strictly environmental one.

So, I've got some thoughts on the matter.  I'll do my best to get them down in a series of posts, starting with the next one. I hope it sparks some pragmatic discussion, because I gotta tell you, whatever this is, most of it isn't particularly pragmatic.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. jrmassa22 Posted 1:44 am
    11 Nov 2004

    Whence the environmental movementMr. Roberts makes some valid points. I think that in order for the environmental movement to make gains especially in the face of such a hostile administration, two things need to be done. The first is to make the media aware of issues. This means local, regional and national media outlets. If that means hounding them, so be it. People need to be made aware of what is being done. I think that if people were made  aware of policies that are fouling the air, water and soil and how this will impact them, make them ill, then people will really galvanize around the issues. The second approach (and this I think is critical as a way to hopefully win over conservatives) is to equate a sick environment with the economy. Politicians need to realize that if the environment is in a bad way, that this will have deleterious effects on the economy. If the air, water, soil are fouled, people will be exposed to the pollutants; people will then be afflicted with chronic illnesses. Chronic illnesses result in more sick time taken, cuts into productivity and costs business more in the way of loss productivity and having to pay for sick time (for those companies that actually pay sick leave). I think this is where we need to go. Thank you.
    Jim Massa

    Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.



    - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Permalink

  2. Ray Posted 4:35 am
    11 Nov 2004

    Man and The Environment - Where to go Next     As a species that is growing rampant throughout every habitable piece of land, we must recognize that we are crowding out many other species, and as such, we are destabilizing the ecosystem.  We need to get a grip on our own population growth.  To act in this issue we need to declare boundaries such that we don't ravage every area.
         It is the nature of every living organism to expand its niche until it becomes filled and external factors limit further growth.  This usually creates high discomfort at the boundary... starvation, disease...    We are so much more adaptable that all other species that we are able to expand our envelope and our numbers into practically every corner of the planet.  If left unchecked, we will cram ourselves into these corners until nature limits us, collapsing much of the ecosystem in the process.
        Along with our great adaptability should comes broad self-realization and the recognition of a great responsibility we have toward our Global Home and all its species.  We need to self-impose limits on our occupation such that we maintain a comfortable balance of nature.
        With this in mind, the first thing we should do is to STOP OUR PHYSICAL EXPANSION.  We will otherwise grow right up to the edges anyway, so why not draw the boundary when WE still have control of it?  
        The second thing we should do is LIVE RESPONSIBLY.  By that I mean we adjust our lifestyle to maximize the return on consumables while MINIMIZING their consumption.  Examples are: Building fuel-efficient cars & trucks, heavily insulating our homes & workplaces, recycling as much as possible...and working to advance the technologies needed to perfect these undertakings.
        The third thing we need to do is actively work to REDUCE OUR POPULATION.  By this, I don't mean we should enforce birth control or promote abortion.  What we can do, and what has shown to work over & over, is to work to bring all peoples up to a standard of life-awareness and life-expectation of fulfillment that they choose for themselves to limit their children.   The "Westernized" Nations demonstrate that this attitude will indeed result in birth rates that don't even make up for the losses.
        I have not projected these "negative" birthrates onto a global population, but I will venture to guess that once all Nations reach this state, the population of the World could drop by two thirds in 300 to 600 years.  The beauty is that we can achieve the reduction without stepping of our individual freedoms.  It is my guess that this planet could comfortably support about 2 billion people indefinitely.   There is no need to try to have all of us living at the same time!
         As Americans we have distorted the notion of "Freedom" to mean an endless pursuit of unbridled CONSUMPTION.  Well, the days of the Pioneers are gone.  We have covered our land coast to coast.  We have long since escaped the persecutions of the homeland.   We have wallowed in the newfound riches and lack of bounds.   But along the way we have forgotten that freedom also requires responsibility, both to ourselves and to others.  We have diverged from a path of physical, intellectual, and spiritual growth and instead find ourselves competing against our neighbor (who really doesn't care) to show off our status with a display of behemoth vehicles parked at massive homes.  We gorge ourselves on practically everything edible, without restraint... we are lost but try to hide the fact by persistently searching in the same places.   We have become COLLECTORS of wealth but not ENJOYERS.   The emptiness of Consumerism is starting to dawn on us, even as we resist.
        It is time for Mankind to take charge of himself and move onto a path that truly leads to fulfillment.  We humans are blessed with great mental and physical attributes.  We need to use them to redefine our niche such that it comfortably melds with the habitats of all the creatures sharing our planet.  



    Ray Herrmann

    Permalink

  3. Carefree Lynn Posted 6:15 am
    11 Nov 2004

    I agree. We need a new vocabulary.The way to reach this administration and Congress is to link environmental concerns to economic impacts and opportunities.  We need to stop hoping that through persistence we can make them see the inherent importance of bio-diversity, pristine wilderness or clean air and water.  Instead, we need to communicate in terms they already understand.
    This will mean building arguments that center around economic value and cost.  It will mean building business cases for environmental change that are expressed in dollars and cents.
    I've started to give my letters this kind of economic slant, but am not finding much on the web to help me include specific dollar amounts on any given issue.  Does anyone know a good source for environmental studies that address economic impacts?

    Permalink

  4. nick Posted 7:56 am
    11 Nov 2004

    EnvirolinkYou might try http://www.envirolink.org

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement