Emily's post reminds me of the comment by the American ecologist Eugene Odum on similar proposals in the 70s:  "Small is beautiful, but big is powerful."

There is no contradiction at all between work on local and on national levels.  Some of us choose to put our energy in different places, but it is important to support people who are involved in national politics.

I feel suspicious of this call to ignore national politics.  There is nothing that Bush & Co. would like better than for there to be confusion and apathy among envrionmentalists.

Some of the Grist bloggers seem to specialize in sidetracking political involvement and muddying the waters, in a strategy not far removed from greenwashing.  For example, Emily points to an article that says the coming Supreme Court appointment could mean a real shift in power, but then advises against doing anything about it because she is exhausted from reading "blogospheric rantings."  

Emily, if you really are committed to environmentalism, could you talk about some of your political activities that have exhausted you?  The committed people I know do not talk as you do.

That sounds more reasonable, Corey.

It's the story of the blindmen and the elephant.  Each of us sees a particular side of the story and wants to over-generalize.  

I agree with you about working on the local level. Personally I'm strongly attracted to it, and I spend a lot of time with local groups.  

On the other hand, I respect and support the people who are willing to get involved with the nuts-and-bolts of politics.  It is critically important -- especially now.  If one wants to take a break or contribute in other ways, that's fine.  

But I think it is intellectually lazy to say that politics is messy and confusing and both sides are the same.  Therefore one is going to retreat into a safe little hole.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing." -Edmund Burke    

Corey channels me quite well, here. Thanks Corey.

I don't have fatigue for environmentalism, bart.  I have crisis fatigue.  

The near-constant air of emergency drives people away.  A dedicated hard core of activists alone is not enough to right the wrongs, make the future better, etc.  How does environmentalism get out of this reactive mode?  How does it gain a broad, broad base of support that would protect the nation's environmental laws regardless of who is on the Court?  That is what I am asking.

Emily writes: "I have crisis fatigue.  The near-constant air of emergency drives people away."

You're absolutely right.  And I think your solution  is right -- if you are suggesting that we connect with people around us and not pursue abstract struggles so obsessively and intensely.  

I remember feeling guilty during earlier years because I wasn't doing as much as some of the people I admired.  I was involved in my own personal issues, and besides I felt uneasy around groups.

Since then I've seen so many activists burn out, with their perfectionist attitudes and (to me) unrealistic goals.  Also, the past few decades have been very hard for political or environmental activism.  It sometimes feels as if one is slogging through maple syrup.

How can one keep going over the long term?  Some sort of religious or secular faith seems to be important.  It helps if the theme of one's activities is congenial.  Homegrown food, gardening and people who like plants all give me a charge and make me want to get up in the morning.  I have a hard time getting excited about legal issues or electoral politics, so I leave that to other people.  

What things do other people do to prevent burnout?

I agree that we must work on all levels, not just concentrating on the federal.  However, Emily seems to think that the ecological crises brought about by humans over the past several hundred year -- and which get worse by the day -- are not real.  In fact they are very real, and the current bunch of psychopaths now running the U.S., and thus the world, is quickly making things much worse.