but I worry that environmental organizations won't take it.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that most advocacy groups -- and enviros are no exception -- thrive on confrontational tactics and incendiary rhetoric. And while those tactics may not actually succeed in saving the environment (as negotiation and compromise might), my guess is that they are extremely successful in a) raising money for environmental advocacy organizations, b) firing up their membership bases, and c) keeping the organizations themselves in business.  Or am I being too cynical here?

PS  I say this as a strong environmentalist who has been active politically and given lots of money to green causes over the years, so I guess I'm not TOTALLY cynical!

I definitely agree that being proactive is key.  It is vitally important to continue to bring violators to justice, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to create at the very least minimum standards of protection through laws and regulations.  However, the environmental movement needs to shake its Chicken Little image and become the movement of possibility, progress and preemption.  I think that this pendulum swing from "the sky is falling" to the "sky is the limit" has already begun with the recent boom in renewable energy research and development, the mounting interest and work being done in sustainable development and green building, and the increasing awareness of the interconnectedness of the environment, energy, economy, health, jobs and domestic and international security.  We need to continue with such efforts, as well as numerous others, and make the people of this country aware of the positive side of environmentalism.            

One of the issues that you brought up that I feel will be a bit more difficult to capitalize on is trying to raise the profile of the local movements.  It is going to become increasingly difficult to get the attention of the media, even at the local levels, because of the mass consolidation of media into fewer and fewer hands.  The voice of the local community is drowned out in this new media environment by the incessant focus of the sensational by these media conglomerates.  The hurdles for local access and attention will only get higher. (This, by the way, is not a lefty agenda, but rather an issue of importance to all Americans no matter what political stripe).   That is why outlets such as Gristmill are going to play a critical role in drawing attention to local efforts.  I realize that Gristmill is a national weblog, but it allows individuals to have a voice, a form of representation, from wherever they might be.  If anything, these national weblogs could serve as a catalyst to form local weblogs on the topics that the national websites address.  As more and more people log-on to the internet they will get there news from sources like yours.  The trouble will be trying to get those other than the "choir" to come to these sites.  Once people begin reading, hearing and seeing the positive environmental efforts going on in their community and how these efforts directly impact them they will become engaged.  Interestingly, I think that natural food markets such as Whole Foods, Wild Oats, etc. and local farmers markets have begun to play an important role in this respect.  People are more aware of where the food they eat comes from and how it is made. They have coonected health with healthy eating, which requires healthy and environmentally responsible ways of raising and growing the food we eat. Even though some of these food markets are national chains, they offer information on local environmental events, initiatives and organizations.  I think people are learning more about their community and the positive environmental efforts being made in them by going to these markets once a week, much more than they could ever learn from a years worth of local news.  At least that seems to be the case in communities like mine here in Miami, Fl.

I guess my little lesson here is a quick drive to the market to get organic chewing gum can open your eyes to new worlds of environmental possibilities.  

I agree with the call to a local focus on positive action, and I would also like to suggest that a more effective message to a local or regional population might be best achieved through the voices of their own. I would like to see ads in coal country where folks talk to the camera about how their lives were damaged by coal dumping and relaxed standards. Where they have lived, hunted, raised families, fished - and now they can't. Or a message from a child or a mother with a child suffering from asthma, who can't play on many polluted days, and how the pollution has worsened due to relaxed air quality standards. There is a compelling story from every state, every region.

There's a need for positive messages and also messages of concern - all would be strengthened greatly if they were spoken from those who are truly affected. And then those ads would be run in the areas where the speakers live - or areas where their message had relevance and credibility.

Many of those writing here are correctly pointing out that the environmental movement can come off as elitist or as lecturers. I agree, and I support the idea of working locally to achieve positive results, and using local or regional voices to point out the problems or downside.

I appreciate the comments above and will share the dilemma I am in. I think the focus needs to be both locally and nationally (though local environmentalism is most effective I think) on the issues themselves and not the candidates. By backing and pushing left leaning candidates the environmental organizations put folks like me in a very difficult position. For example, most strong pro environment politicians are also very much pro abortion rights and pro embryonic stem cell research for example, both of which are unconscionable positions for most evangelical Christians like myself. I hate it that I have to choose in a candidate between protecting babies and protecting whales (or habitat or clean air etc), but if pressed, I will vote for babies and against whales, though it breaks my heart to do the latter. And what environmental organization even tries to employ conservatives who care about the environment to lobby and press conservative politicians on the particular environmental issues of concern. I think such lobbying is easiest to do the more local an issue is, but it's not impossible on larger issues. The cleanliness and beauty and health of the environment (and the species of plants and animals in it) have a strong moral component not inconsistent with other values shared by many conservatives. Indeed, one could argue that the conservative Christian from the standpoint of his own world view and basic assumptions has a powerful moral case for the protection of the environment and the creatures in it - both for the sake of the creatures, the sake of neighbor, and the sake of the God he or she worships. But he or she is almost always put into an either/or position, and that is ultimately to the detriment of the environment, because, when push comes to shove, he will vote for issues of human life. For myself, I would be glad to work and fight for the protection of a habitat, the continuance of the Endangered Species Act, against drilling in ANWR, or for the enforcement of clean air laws, but I won't work for, and will indeed vote against, the very candidates who would best serve these issues, for the other reasons. So, again, it would make more sense to me to invest a greater amount of energy and money and focus on the issues themselves and not the candidates. I would like a whack at lobbying congressmen and senators, republican or democrat, on the various issues themselves (anyone hiring?), and I am happy to be a co-belligerent with my more liberal neighbors on many environmental issues, but NOT if that means I have to give my money to or support their left-leaning candidate, which I cannot in good conscience do. So, many of us who voted for Bush are not only not morons, but we are willing to work for environmental causes locally and nationally, and make a difference, if the environmental movement could make its tent bigger to include us.

Joel Gillespie Greensboro NC (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_GvCHErugKl').innerHTML = output; //]]>

I would also like to suggest that a more effective message to a local or regional population might be best achieved through the voices of their own.

Dmunk, though it might not have been clear through all the excess verbiage, this was precisely my point.

Joel, I feel what you're saying, but it leaves us all in a bit of a fix, doesn't it?  Ultimately, like it or not, it's the politicians that control policy.  If you support certain policies that address certain issues, you have to support the politicians that advocate those policies.  Environmentalism can't get out of the business of supporting candidates.

For the most part, the politicians who support those policies also come down on the left side of issues like abortion and stem cell research.  It doesn't seem like that's a choice we can get around.

One thing I'd take issue with in your comment:  The choice is not between babies and whales. The choice is between embryos and other life forms.  Unborn babies are affected by mercury.  And born babies -- i.e., people -- are hurt by air and water pollution.  It's not about whales, it's about your neighbors.

From my perspective, you're choosing clumps of cells over all other kinds of people.  Even if you view those clumps of cells as people -- I wouldn't presume to argue with you about that -- is their welfare really that much more important than all the lives threatened by pollution, toxic chemicals, population dislocation and conflicts, droughts, extreme weather, etc. etc.?  Just on a purely utilitarian basis, it seems like you'd want to save the most lives possible.  What am I missing?

www.grist.org

One of the problems that I have frequently seen with the environmental movement is that, while pointing out the BIG disasters and highlighting the BIG polluters, it misses the obvious.  Each on of us, on a small scale, contributes both with our dollars and with our everyday behaviours to thoses disasters and polluters.

I agree that part of the solution lies in focusing our energies where we have the greatest ability to effect change - locally.  I would argue, however, that we must start thinking of local as being our block or apartment building, not only our city or our state.  

I live in New York City now and I have lived in four other cities in the US.  In each of these cities, few of the people I knew lived next door to me, and few of these people I knew actually knew anyone who lived next door to them.  This is one of the frontiers of the new environmental movement.  Yes, that's right, it's a social front, the one where you actually reach out to your neighbors and start to connect with them.  This may prove to be the most difficult part of our movement because it can be scary to break down that barrier.  Have a party once a month, get out front and garden (I garden in the median of Riverside Drive at 115th).
Say hello to people every time you see them and introduce yourself.  If you've never or rarely done this, it can feel awkward at first, but I find that most people really appreciate the effort and are willing to meet you halfway at least.  Sure, some people are a little more private - patience, patience.

In addition to getting to know your neighbors and neighborhood, start to get to know thyself!  I have heard many an environmentalist become outraged at the latest oil spill while being seemingly unaware of the connection of that oil spill to his/her commuting or heating needs.  How many of us drive or fly to a protest against the Iraq War or the WTO.  These events and organizations are merely reflections of our day to day behaviors and desires on a global scale.  In order to support my right to leave a light burning all day in my apartment, I'd better get used to the idea of dirty power and expanding landfills (where the burned out lightbulbs of mine and my neighbor and everybody else go).  

In sum, we must bring our unflinching gaze to bear on our own lives and habits.  Bringing a canvas bag every time you WALK or BIKE to the grocery store and buy as many BULK or UNWRAPPED goods as you can really doesn't make that much of a difference....or does it?  We no longer have the luxury of using that excuse.  Multiply your choice by 280 million every time you make it.  Realize that those oil tankers are for you, that nuclear plant is for you (most electricity companies are allowing customers to buy "green" energy now - make the switch), the highways are for you, the jet fuel is for you, the cocoa from Ivory Coast is for you, the Coffee from Mexico is for you, the Mercury poisoned fish is for you and the war in Iraq....it's for you as well.  

Depressed?  No need to be.  Every moment offers you the opportunity to change your mind and change your habits.  It's not always easy.  I drove a car from the time I turned 15 until age 28.  By that time, when I finally sold them both and bought a used bike, I actually owned TWO cars.  I still don't even know how much STUFF I own but I've started to tally it up.  ("Your Money or Your Life" is a book well worth reading if you are ready to start simplifying your life and walking more lightly on the earth).  Can you choose between your job and the environment?  Maybe you don't need to.  Maybe it's just a matter of taking a second look at your life in context - what can you change that will reduce your emissions and increase your enjoyment of life while helping the environment.  It doesn't have to be "big" stuff.  Really, remembering to take a canvas bag every time you shop is huge (multiply by 280 million and BELIEVE that when others see you they do think about it).  

Oh, and if you want to do something huge that doesn't involve any major purchases - get out of debt and stay out of debt.  

Remember, you are always doing the best that you are able to do at the time.  Keep striving but cut yourself a break when your brain is full and you're tired out.  We're stuck in a big mess, but the things we can change right away are small.  Dwell on the BIG stuff and you'll start believing that nothing you can do really matters.  Think small and local and you'll feel more energetic at the end of the day.  

We're all in this together!  Do what you love and what brings you joy and the rest will follow.

Ciao,

Martin

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.  

I messed up posting this, so I hope it doesn't end up being posted twice, and if it does I apologize to everyone. I tried the preview, but then lost it. Anyway, I appreciate Dave's reply. and his willingness to plow through my excess verbiage. What you're missing Dave is that this is not a utilitarian matter to many of us. I grant the possibility that more human lives might possibly be spared by a worldwide improvement in the human environment than would be spared by outlawing partial birth abortion for example, but it just doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't matter may cause frustration to you, but in fact many of us could not vote for a candidate who would not outlaw partial birth abortion no matter how much good he would otherwise do. So, in that sense, using that example, it is babies versus whales, and even babies versus overall world wide human health. I just hate being in the either or position. But it is not just the human life issues, it's other and more general cultural issues, like the moral smut that goes with the left meaning Hollywood crowd, pro-environment as they may be. I just don't think the environmental movement should be wedded to one party or set of candidates, and I think it would be better served if folks like myself were not disenfranchised from it because we are more "conservative" in other respects. That's why I suggested more of a focus on the issues and less on the party and candidates. As a Christian I do believe that love of God requires love for and protection of His creatures as well as care for the health and well being of one's fellow human beings. So I often say to my conservative friends, you cannot love your neighbor and dirty up his air and water. You cannot love God and destroy His world. There is more to life than unfettered consumption and cheap gas and free trade. And if we're going to try to protect unborn children, we should work to see that they are not born only to get sick and die because of dirty air and water. We should work to see that their lives are not denied the immeasurable richness and blessing of the good earth full of all of its animal and plant inhabitants. We should work to protect the masterpiece we believe that our Creator created, and say out loud that to assault it is to assault Him. So, at least let the environmental movement include conservatives who can work the same issues within their own camp so to speak, and not leave us in such an either/or bind. Sorry to be so long winded. Joel.

Joel Gillespie Greensboro NC (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_YlIrUBOCJZ').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Hoorah Sandy!

I think you really hit on something with your comments re the allure (or potential liability!) of the term 'environmentalists'. We're in a 'headline society' and I think this played a big role in the recent elections - candidates and media say whatever they want,true or not, and their headlines are all that a significant segment of the population relies on. It's lamentable but real. So I say, let's look at the lessons that George Lakoff is trying to share (go to Amazon and check out his titles: moral politics and the one about the elephant).

I'm not diminishing the other comments re a broader, value-based new approach to our causes and our country. But inevitably, a crucial element will be how we, in fact, frame our issues, and, as Sandy has revealed - the 'environmental' movement itself.  

Perhaps the environmentals that are the true "Pro Life" Movement??? Think about it!Why cede that label to those who would be perhaps more accurately labeled 'Anti-Abortionists"? Let's muck things up and make a stand!

This is indeed a big problem, one that deserves the thoughtful discussion enabled by our friends at Grist.

For what it's worth, we can see how our political champions came to be liberal democrats- we have been pushed away by the GOP, because our agenda threatens theirs. The idea that a free market should prevail without government regulations just doesn't jive with our ideas. They claim that a corporation is a person, with all the rights that citizens have- the right to privacy, the right to do what they want with their property, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- in effect, the right to pollute if they want to. We enviro's would regulate them, monitor them, and punish them for bad behavoir, and that's just bad for the bottom line. Look at the ratings given by LCV and Sierra Club to republican law-makers vs those of democrats- it is clear who has adopted our cause and who has rejected it.

So, here comes the 'liberal' baggage- suddenly, we are godless gay-loving baby killers, who want to tax and spend so that shiftless lazy types can get a free-ride on good people's hard-earned money, right? We are over-educated and over-payed and out of touch with the real world and real people, right?

But wait a minute- none of that stuff about liberals is true, that's just what the GOP has convinced people is true- liberals have allowed themselves to be defined by conservatives, and the picture they paint is no more true than it is flattering. Being associated with a liberal candidate has only recently become a handicap- perhaps what we should be doing is re-defining the liberal agenda for the general public as the one with a conscience, the party who really cares about people and wants to help them reach their potential, for the good of all. None of us thinks abortion is a good thing, none of us thinks religion is a bad thing, and nobody wants to pay higher taxes to encourage laziness. OK, we might seem to be over-educated to some, and that may give us an open mind about alternative lifestyles, but does that make education a bad thing? Don't they still want their children to get an education, get a good job, and earn a good salary?

I'm sorry to say it, but I believe much (but not all) of the right-wing agenda is no more than thinly veiled racism, homophobia, arrogance, and greed. No self-respecting liberal can bend that far to the right. Saving the environment is not about owls or whales, its about the future of humanity, its about saving something healthy, clean, and beautiful for our children, for everyone's children. The other side believes that they are more deserving, having been chosen by God, and wants to exlude much of the world, who are not so 'special', from getting a peice of their pie. The environmental movement has been shoved onto the left side, and we seem to be more comfortable here anyway.

a liberal in redsville

I'd be interested in hearing from Joel and others who share his views about expanding the Pro Life tent to include environmental concerns.

I've thought for a long time that the Pro Lifers focused on Pro BIRTH.  How do you think the idea of putting time, energy and money including tax dollars toward protecting babies after they are born would play in the Pro Life movement?  Is this something that the movement would see as a natural expansion of their agenda?

There is a distinction on the one hand between the activist pro life groups which are as narrowly defined as the environmental groups, and on the other the concept or moral position pro-life position itself. I don't know if the organized pro life groups can enlarge their agenda. However, not all people who are morally "pro-life" are willing to be defined in every respect by the Republican party agenda. Plus, in my view, the basic moral values which make people pro-life make them "vulnerable" in a good sense to persuasion to a sound environmental ethic. That is, there is a consistent moral case that can be made for being both pro-life and pro-environment, or as I often say, both pro-creation and pro-procreation. I think that if the environmentalist powers that be respected more the value and ethical system of many religious conservatives, and were willing to seek us out and hire some of us to lobby conservative politicians potentially persuadable by the consistency of a pro-life and pro-environmental ethic, then the environmental movement would be better served. But when the focus is almost always on the candidate and not the issue itself, it bodes poorly for the environment, for these days the environmental candidates are losing mostly for other reasons. The problem for many of us is that when the Republican Party embraces a pro-life agenda, even when it is weak on the environment, and the Democratic party a pro-environment agenda even when it is weak on the hot button pro-life issues, many folks like me will pull the lever for human life. That will keep happening. And, as has been shared, it easier to bridge this divide on local environmental issues when life and health and beauty are more intertwined entities so to speak, and the parties mean less. I don't know the answer, but why could not the Sierra Club or the Wilderness Society or the Audubon Society or the World Wildlife Fund hire conservatives to lobby conservatives on the issues themselves. It seems to me that that would help. Today we have a fantastic Congaree Swamp National Park in South Carolina which finally came to be because Senator Strom Thurmond became persuaded. Yes, that's right, and until then it was DOA. I remember meeting personally several times with Congressman Floyd Spence. I don't know if he ever came around on the vote, but he was open partly because it was in his backyard and partly because he was a decent conservative man who listened to his constituents. I just think if we can dampen some of the associated political left issues and agendas that accompany the environmental movement to such a great degree, and accept the help of environmental conservatives who simply won't fight for the election of democratic candidates, and unleash them to help in other ways, then more environmental progress would be made. But here I go again being verbose. Joel.

Joel Gillespie Greensboro NC (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_OiDJj8vsFm').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Bob,

Thank you for your kind words. The truth is, I very much want to be a part of helping find consensus on enviromental matters, for, after all, we all have to live on this one earth together. As to the Rebublican group you mentioned, I read about them recently, maybe in OnEarth magazine. But I am not a Republican, though I have wondered if I should register as one just to work this issue from within that party where the need on this issue is greater. But I doubt I will. Yes, there are some good evangelical groups that are working for greater sensitivity to environmental matters - the Evangelical Environmental Network comes to mind. I like your idea of a conference where we leave other issues and differences at the door and see how we can conspire together to protect species and clean up air and water etc. That would be fun. Ultimately I think we would find a kind of moral common ground, in the sense that a moral sense drives us to similar vision for protection of the earth, even if the ultimate religious or spiritual bases for those moral grounds may be different. I think there is something in our common humanity that can and will bring us together here even if we sharply disagree elsewhere. So, I hope I will find my place, my home for service on earth matters. I have not found it yet. Thank you again.  Joel

Joel Gillespie Greensboro NC (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_i8dmpwAJVS').innerHTML = output; //]]>