Comments sandy m has made

let environmentalism die

Dave Roberts is right on. As my colleague Jason says, Lakoff is a penny's worth of insight in a five-pound bag.

What bothers me is that in all the bruhaha people seem to be missing the point: the Right has won by invoking basic frames - weakness v. strengh, sickness v. health -- because it has a coherent world vision that can be articulated in basic principles, in terms of basic human desires (security, independence, etc.). I think it's a flawed vision, but it's coherent. Lessons in wordplay won't fix the schizophrenic Left. Once we manage to articulate a clear vision that answers the questions 'How can America be strong?', 'How can America be prosperous?' and 'How can America be safe?' -- in global terms, not with policy proposals! -- we'll be able to invoke that vision in smaller policy debates. The left needs to frame itself before it can frame anything else.

What lesson, then, for panicked environmentalists? I have to admit that I didn't submit an entry to the elevator pitch contest because I don't want to make a case for environmentalism. People see the environmental movement as aloof and self-indulgent, and there's truth in that. The lesson from Lakoff is that people care more about their fundamental needs than about trees; if we're working for people we won't have so much trouble framing. I'm no Freidman disciple but his 'geo-green' approach taps needs that feel basic and urgent - literal and economic security - and if I had to do a pitch for it I'd say that 'geo-green' stands for smart management of natural resources to protect health, peace and prosperity in America and around the world.

Has anyone read any other attempts to describe/name a new - I don't know what to call it - mentality? movement? approach? that prioritizes technological innovation, smart economics, the casting of natural resources in terms of economic value?On And more framing posted 4 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Local, yes. But can we back up?

Hi, everyone. This is a wonderful conversation. Congrats to Grist for getting it going.

I hate to begin with a disclaimer, but here it is: I work for Oceana, the international oceans group, but I am not writing here as a representative of the organization. All views are mine and mine alone. That should do it.

I'd like to return to Dave's original unsolicited advice to the environmental movement - to go local. I agree wholeheartedly (although I do still think that some issues benefit from a top-down, national/international approach). I would add that we need to reconsider not only how we wage these battles, or who does; we need to think about why.

As Dave writes, environmentalists have a reputation as radical, deluded, latte-drinking coastal elites. Rather than worry about how to rid ourselves of a disadvantageous image, it might behoove us to ask: Are we radical, deluded, latte-drinking coastal elites? Why are we trying to save the spotted owl, after all?

For most of the people in the world and in this country, the environment is not an end in itself. It never will be. If you didn't grow up running through sunny meadows or splashing around in the tide pool at the end of the road, you don't see any intrinsic value in "saving the environment," whatever that means. People care about having food, having money, having rights and opportunities, and staying well. Environmentalists need to recognize that they are ultimately fighting for these more basic things, and need to understand how their concerns overlap with people working for social and economic justice.

While we're rethinking it, we could also do ourselves a favor by renaming our cause. "Environmentalism" is a dry, empty, and abstract word. My office is my environment; so is this drab city; so is the air I breathe and the water and land around me. The word has no innate appeal or positive meaning.

Why don't we frame our fight in terms of the goal and in terms of human life, as every other successful movement for social change has done? Instead of the "environment," why don't we say we that ours is the movement for resource rights - air rights, water rights, land rights? Children have the right to breathe clean air; coastal fishing communities have the right to protect their waters from rapacious, destructive industries; all of us have the right to make decisions about resources we have no choice but to share.

It seems to me that we're not going to get very far with "environmentalism." I'd love to hear what you all think.  
On Whither the environmental movement? II posted 5 years ago 14 Responses