<< BLOG STATS ~ MAIN ~ JOHN KERRY, TED KENNEDY, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, O'ROURKE >>
ENVIRONMENTALISM IS DEAD
Professor John Quiggin described me as an “ultra-optimist” after I wrote in 2002 that the environmental movement was fading, and “signs of wonderful green death seem to be appearing all over”. The NYT’s Nick Kristof has now come around to my point of view:
Sadly, it’s true, environmentalism is dead.
When environmentalists are writing tracts like “The Death of Environmentalism,” you know the movement is in deep trouble.
That essay by two young environmentalists has been whirling around the Internet since last fall, provoking a civil war among tree-huggers for its assertion that “modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new can live.” Sadly, the authors, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, are right …
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they’ve lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the left’s equivalents of the neocons: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance. (Industry has also hyped risks with wildly exaggerated warnings that environmental protections will entail a terrible economic cost.)
“The Death of Environmentalism” resonated with me. I was once an environmental groupie, and I still share the movement’s broad aims, but I’m now skeptical of the movement’s “I Have a Nightmare” speeches.
In the 1970’s, the environmental movement was convinced that the Alaska oil pipeline would devastate the Central Arctic caribou herd. Since then, it has quintupled.
When I first began to worry about climate change, global cooling and nuclear winter seemed the main risks. As Newsweek said in 1975: “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend ... but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
This record should teach environmentalists some humility.
Let’s hope not. These people are no fun unless they’re howling about global destruction like Pinky the cat. Ignore Kristof! Remain hilarious!
LIBERAL senator Eric Abetz is correct – the environment was clearly one of the most important factors in the West Australian election (Opinion, 9/3), with the Greens polling over 14 per cent in the canal country of the Kimberley. Across the state, the Liberals received less than five votes for every Green vote. The Nationals (Abetz’s federal comrades) ranked fifth behind the third-placed Greens, who continue to compete above their minor party status.
In early preparation for the 2006 Tasmanian elections (up to 15 months away) Abetz is creatively inflating the significance of marginal fluctuations of less than 1 per cent in the Green vote.
This bolstering is desperately needed in Tasmania, where the 2002 election saw the Liberals lose three of their 10 seats to the Greens. A loss of only two seats next election would see the Greens replace the Liberals as the opposition party in the Tasmanian Parliament. Abetz’s fears, and those of the Liberal Party, are well founded despite their noisy rhetoric suggesting otherwise.
David Baker, Coburg, Vic
The Australian, 12/03/05I take this a step further. Soon we will be repealing anti-litter legislation. If environmentalists want to spend their Saturday afternoons cleaning it all up then that would be a nice benefit, but otherwise time to let people decide whether they want to throw that McDonald’s wrapper in the garbage can or watch it sail away in the wind.
There is no question in mind, not only is environmentalism (as traditionally concocted) dead, but there may be a backlash coming.
I say meet in the middle—environmentalists no longer a factor, environment situation becomes better than it ever has because of people who actually are developing better technology and improved efficiency, not because of some new policy creations and anti-development protest marches.
peace….
A big problem for the environmental movement is that they can never be satisfied. There have been major improvements in the quality of the environment over the last 35 years. THe environmental movement can claim part of the credit for this, but if they admit success, or “concede victory”, it makes them less relevant today.
The most radical, shrillest voices are always the loudest. There are still plenty of real, if manageable, environmental problems to face, yet the shrills are fixated on hypothetical catastrophes in 50 years time. Unfortunately for them, the nightmare scenarios have been around for decades, without result, and people are just not connecting any more.
I would get too complacent folks, their latest game is the Precautionary Principle, or “we think you might endanger the environment with your proposal, so you have to prove you won’t, and waht management steps are you proposing to implement your proposed activity” type of legislation.
It is already here I may add, but no one really noticed it.Enviornmentalism might be dead, but it has reincarnated itself into the PP.
One can only hope. I look forward to the day when I can leave the cat outside, no longer fearing he’ll become an easy snack for these guys.
Greenpeace is still running TV ads begging for funds to fight Global Warming. But that, as John Kerry would say, is all about the bottom line.
Can’t we have an environmental group that is focussed on the real issues, rather than fundraising via bogeyman issues?
Is Greenpeace any longer to be taken seriously as an environmental group, or are they really just political animals sponging on the gullible?Genuine ‘environmentalists’ have been left behind in the rush to polticise environmental issues. Corporations adopt resource management as an integral part of their Quality Assurance (QA = increased profits) whilst greenies work on blind emotions against Capitalism.
I live in rural Australia and we have undertaken a tree planting program - in between droughts - (experience has taught us that increased bio-diversity does help with insect and pest control) but do you think I could get a greenie to help with the hard yakka? Not on your nellie!
Some do great work, but others can be the left’s equivalents of the neocons: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance.
The liberals can never criticize liberal/lefties without also criticizing the right. They are so predictable, it’s funny.
Posted by Jabba the Tutt on 2005 03 12 at 11:44 PM • permalinkEnvironmentalism will not die, because it has become a religion. Like any religion, it is impervious to reason and facts. It is disproportionately influential, and will remain so, because its noisy acolytes get attention while the mass of people who couldn’t care less, or are too rational to believe, are dragged into conformity (like the current brouhaha over decency standards in broadcasting brought about because of a massive surge in complaints to the FCC - all of which came from one small radical religious organization.) Also like any other religion, contradictory facts will be illogically integrated and explained as being congruent with the larger faith, i.e., global warming will fry the planet as it simultaneously causes an Ice Age, with the increase in temperature causing a decrease in temperature.
You’re right Dave. And those that disagree with the new religion are denounced and smeared by the ‘mother earth cultists’ for the equivalent of committing heresy.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 03 13 at 12:30 AM • permalinkAs much as an exaggeration as it sounds, it really is a religious issue for some; I’ve met people who outright admit it, calling it a “spiritual” issue for them.
Even though I’m an atheist, it does remind me of the phrase “people who don’t believe the Bible will believe anything.” Seems to be true: if people give up one religion they’ll pick another one up.
Posted by Dean Esmay on 2005 03 13 at 12:44 AM • permalinkI believe that environmentalism has a place in our world. But not as an alarmist organization that throws road blocks in front of any possible solution simply because they don’t like the idea (for whatever reason).
I’ve seen too many reasonable projects with cost overruns or delayed implementation simply because someone had a minor problem (Louis, you have the right it!) that stopped everything.
It’s time for science to take precedence, not some wispy “Follow Gaia” psuedo-religion. If someone wants to worship Mother Earth, move to a wilderness area and Be One With Nature.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 13 at 02:19 AM • permalinkYou are being an ultra-optimist, Tim. Did Darwin kill religion? Did the enrichment of blue collar workers and the decline of the industrial sector kill socialism? At most, they only cause those disaffected from the old religions to sprout new sects, and the old religions to reform themselves and seek a new constituency. Blue collar workers with a comfortable lifestyle and heretical views caused some socialists to break off to join the environmentalist faith when they realised the noble savages didn’t want them as a messiah. So too will some hippies start leaving environmentalism as soon as we can translate dolphin speech and discover that the dolphins are really saying “Sod off, swampy”. I predict that in future, non-theistic fundamentalists will seek to become messiahs for rocks and other inanimate objects such as planets and asteroids which can’t utter heretical views.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 03 13 at 02:47 AM • permalinkSpeaking of backlash, remember that this coming Tuesday is Eat an Animal for PETA Day.
The Real JeffS:
I believe that environmentalism has a place in our world. But not as an alarmist organization that throws road blocks in front of any possible solution simply because they don’t like the idea (for whatever reason).
I recently read Michael Crichten’s State of Fear, and he had a great idea: That environmental science should be researched and taught by legitimate climatologists, not various doctors of literature and psychology and sociology. AND that this research should be done by the double-blind method. The researcher should never know what his or her sponsor “expects” to be found.
Over the years, I’ve also found a difference between environmentalism and ecology. Environmentalists tend to lean toward “one size fits all” solutions for the entire planet. And that’s one of its main fallacies.
I recall back around… was it 1980? I was living in Orlando back then, and we were going through a major drought period (that happens cyclically in Florida… as a part of the natural ecology). During this drought, we had a population explosion of Everglades deer. With the ground drying up, there was more food on dry land available for them. Then Hurricane David struck. The Everglades flooded back to its normal level, and the dry ground… and food supply of dry land plants for the deer… went away.
The State decided that we needed to open an early hunting season on Everglades deer to keep the poor critters from starving to death. But the Sierra Club got an injunction and stopped the hunting. They came up with the bright idea of moving the overpopulation to the Okeefeenokee Swamp in Georgia.
Completely apart from the assininity of moving a sub-tropical animal into the temperate zone, there’s another problem with Everglades deer: An animal that timid which grows up in an environment that also includes alligators and panthers will die from sheer terror if captured and held in a manner where it can’t run to escape predators.
This was pointed out to the Sierra Club by the Audubon Society, but they didn’t listen and insisted on going out for their deer capture.
Well, those little buggers are FAST, and the Sierra Club managed to tranquilize only five of them. And when the deer woke up in cages, every one of them died.
Meanwhile, because of the delays, the deer started dropping dead all over the Everglades from starvation. They were nearly wiped out, and the rotting carcasses caused a temporary overpopulation of rats :(. Because the deer population dropped drastically, alligators and panthers were endangered.
The only reason the Everglades deer still exists is because the Seminoles and Miccosukis kept the herds on their lands thinned out all along.
Needless to say, the Sierra Club’s name was “Mud” for nearly ten years down here. The only reason they’re tolerated now is because of the population turnover, with new people who weren’t here then.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 13 at 04:24 AM • permalinkPS: Hurricane David struck Florida in 1979. I noted that the Sierra Club web page didn’t mention the Everglades Deer Disaster on their page with their History Highlights.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 13 at 04:38 AM • permalinkmamapajamas, your story is one that has happened in other parts of the country. The deer in the “nature preservers” of Chicago is an excellent example….a similar story, except that the ecology didn’t almost go away, since those “preserves” are little more than semi-tended parks.
But what happened in Florida way back in 1980 clearly demonstrates the “value” of “environmentalists”, i.e., only to themselves. I’ve dealt with similar (non) mentalities on a professional level, and it is equally disheartening to see some doofus with a college degree hired as a “environmental specialist” push his personal agenda, when the real agenda may well do far better….because it is more realisitc.
Micheal Crichten has a good solution. I would love to see it implemented.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 13 at 06:26 AM • permalinkJim Geones:
Correct. Environmentalism is for many a secular religion.It has the advantage that intelligent people find it far easier to believe than Christianity. It doesn’t require the same suspension of disbelief Christianity requires. It doesn’t require the belief in a ten thousand year earth, a virgin birth etc that make it harder for a follower of scientific materialism to deal with. And people follow scientific materialism because it works. Same reason people read Tim Blair and Den Beste… their predictions are spot on most of the time.
To that end, one can find many convincing photos and arguments justifying environmentalism. On the face of it, the earth DOES have finite resources. (But so does the sun… i.e. big deal) If the logic doesn’t get to you, how about a picture of a heartless hunter killing Bambi? Or savages in Brazil burning the amazon? And now with Diamond’s Collapse, there is no cognitive dissonance necessary with the false predictions. Make all you want, if it helps you bump your membership!
People still like to believe that they are fighting on the side of good versus evil (or for some, the other way around). They still want to believe they are cast as Frodo or Gandalf or in some cases, Sauron or Saruman in some sort of cosmic Lord of the Rings.
I’m about to raise some hackles here no doubt, but environmentalism as religion is very similar in lots of ways to communism, various socialisms, Randian objectivism and dogmatic libertarianism. The only difference being who the dogma is pitched to, the substance of the dogma itself and how that dogma is pitched.
Are you poor, stupid and oppressed? Have no fear, the Communist Manifesto says you will inherit the earth. Your employers aren’t actually smarter and harder working than you, they only got where they were through greed. Never mind the fact that you aren’t smart enough to even file your own taxes if you wanted to, or balance a check book.
Sick of paying unconstitutional income taxes so that lazy people may benefit from your stolen largesse? Here, have some Hayek! By implementing that small safety net you inevitably doom the productivity of your country and sell yourself to serfdom. But just ignore the lack of references.
Along the same lines, do you want a philosophy that says that objective reality is a proven fact (and of course, you are its official arbiter!), who cares what Quantum Mechanics or Relativity may indicate? Are you sick of commies leaching off all your hard work? Who cares about empiricism, just go read this 1000 page propaganda novel, you’ll thank me for it later.
I think Islam gets around its inherent ridiculousness by virtually disallowing the time or thought for scientific investigation, let alone chess. It’s kind of ironic that perhaps Thomas Aquinas, in the act of encouraging reason and science in Christianity and in so making Europeans preiminant in the modern world through technology - unintentionally set in motion a chain of events leading to the creation of Christians dubious about their own religion.
taspundit: Christians don’t have to believe in a ten-thousand year-old earth. The Young Earth Creationists believe this but it’s essentially an offshoot of mainstream Christianity.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 13 at 10:32 AM • permalinkAndrea, correct. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can create internally consistent versions of Christianity. Den Beste wrote a piece on Donald Sensing’s Christianity that mentioned this, IIRC, also mentioning his reliance on induction.
It’s been a long time since I made up my mind on the subject of Christianity (15 years or so now), so forgive me if no convenient example springs to mind about things that seem naturally a bit hokey about the bible to someone with a bit of science background. With a bit of time I could come up with better examples. But it’s no big deal. As long as Christians keep their religion to themselves, off the pledge and off the coinage I don’t have a problem with them.
I suppose I should mention something about my faith in empiricism. It’s a faith. It’s an approach that has worked very well in the past, but that does not necessarily mean it will in the future (although inductively I know it to be true, I don’t think I can prove it).
As to it being some sort of religion without a god in the way of environmentalism or Objectivism… if there are holy texts I don’t know of any. Empiricists don’t tend to have regular meetings to keep the faith. Well, unless you count universities?
regular meetings to keep the faith
I can think of two that I am associated with—Affordable Comfort and the Energy Efficient Builders Assoc.—but there are innumerable technical groups that get together. They exchange information and raise spirits (in every sense of the word.)
Environmentalism is more active and effective than ever. Houses are better built, appliances work better, and sewage treatment plants are more efficient. With any parameter you care to measure, the results show. It just doesn’t have much to do with people who wasted their university years on a degree in Environmental Studies.
Tim, I have to ask if you have actually read “The Death of Environmentalism”? Kristol has way more of a clue than the authors of that tract will ever have.
Some more insight from that piece:
“Our opponents use our inability to form effective alliances to drive a wedge through our potential coalition. Some of this is a
cultural problem. Environmentalists think, ‘You’re talking to me about your job — I’m talking about saving the world!’yup, it’s a religion. Empiricism as far as I know isn’t about saving the world. And this:
“Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World 29
Answering charges with the literal “truthâ€? is a bit like responding to the Republican “Swift Boats for Truthâ€? ad campaign with the facts about John Kerry’s war record. The way to win is not to defend — it’s to attack.”Uhhh, no. The solution is to run a better candidate who is enough of a centrist to get elected. Hopefully the left will be smart enough to run Hillary in 08.
But other than that, not a terrible read. They hit some points, miss others, but it’s a start.
“The Young Earth Creationists believe this but it’s essentially an offshoot of mainstream Christianity.”
The last time I talked about this offshoot re: their other beliefs, I was slammed for insulting 2 billion Christians as a whole. I’m confused. Are they fringe, as I thought, or mainstream as I was told, or fringe as I’m told now? Never mind. Screw it. I’ll just continue avoiding the subject.
The Catholic Church, and the mainline Protestant denominations, have all made their peace with Darwin and evolution and the Big Bang and the fact that the Earth appears to be billions of years old.
Some radical protestants are less certain of all that and hold to various theories involving a creator, some more half-assed than others.
Posted by Dean Esmay on 2005 03 14 at 12:10 AM • permalinkThanks for the link rog2… my bad.
It’s all about the money. Public employee unions chip in millions in cash to politicos who let them write the rules expanding the need for more environmental regulators. Gov’t cash is funneled to NGO’s to lobby for more enviro rules and man phone banks for reelection efforts. Just another blue sky scam for votes, power and money.
IMO, it is a mistake to underestimate the enemy. The only true believers are the brain-dead pipe-dreamers who chain themselves to bulldozers and cultivate body hair.
Heh. And people on the mainstream always want you to believe that the things they would like to hide are only the fringe element. *cough* jihadism *cough*. I’m reminded of this essay by Stephen Schwartz It turns out the people behind jihad are only Wahhabists, and I should buy this from someone who has converted to non-Wahhabist Islam. Ohhhhhkay… so if you converted to non-Wahhabist Islam are you going to ever put your hand in post 9/11 climate and say “Mr President, you forgot us, we’ve got some committed terrorists too!” No? Didn’t think so.
Not saying that the creationist Christianity movement is not fringe, though.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Science runs on the same principle as a maser : one guy sets off another who runs in the same direction alarming others. Then they hit a mirror and run through the population the other direction, picking up more every pass. This is offset by loss terms, like retirement and other hobbies.
There’s an undying sound from it all though, which is the sound of big science.
There’s also the sound of big newspaper. It’s a wonder that the maser wasn’t discovered much sooner.