[saymaListserv] Re: Does This Sound Familiar? (Londborg/Death of Environmentalism)

[Steve Livingston]

Hello Josh,

Thanks to Josh for putting in his two cents in the recent discussion on 
the SAYMA listserv. It appears to me that he is one of the 
envorinmentalists whose eulogy has been prematurely read.

I agree with our friend Steve Woodall's observation that when it comes 
to ameliorating human impact on the environment it is an unfortunate 
mistake to assume one path to the exclusion of others. Josh also makes 
this point in his comment about distinguishing between "human" and 
"natural", and Roy Taylor made the point as well in his "welcome" of 
market-based solutions.

What moved me to enter into this dialogue was the sense that the 
opening statement implied a false premise that was designed to 
discredit the view of certain facets of the argument: specifically that 
"environmentalists admit that they were wrong". This premise was 
supported by incorrectly identifying Professor Lomborg as "a former 
greenpeace activist" who was presenting "painful truths" and by quoting 
the Schellenberger/Nordhaus essay's politically-charged 
characterization of environmentalism as "just another special interest".

Likewise the article in question presents the reader with certain 
assumptions that are at least disingenuous and probably divisive as 
well, taking credit away from "environmentalists" for what they have 
accomplished, and placing blame, at least implicitly, where it does not 
belong. For example, claiming that "greens roll their eyes" at the 
prospect of cost-benefit analyses, when such analysis has been a 
common practice among environmental advocacy groups in negotiations 
with government and industry for decades. The implication is clear: 
environmentalism is stubbornly impractical.

As I have previously mentioned, whereas the article states that "greens" 
lost the battle over drilling in the ANWR, the truth is that despite the fact 
that the Republican majority in the Senate increased by four, the vote on 
ANWR drilling only changed by two - in other words, the influence of 
environmentalists prevailed over Party loyalty in two cases. Hardly a 
defeat to be laid at the feet of the environmentalists! And whereas the 
article states that "greens . . . have failed to spark the 
public's imagination over global warming", the fact is that global 
temperature changed has become the highest-profile environmental 
issue today, with thousands of front-page articles and televised news 
reports worldwide. A recent poll reveals that almost tow-thirds of 
Americans are more than marginally aware of the issue, and more than 
90% have formed opinions about it that they are willing to express.

Another example is the claim that "advocating data-based, analytically 
rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to 'save the planet', the 
green movement could overcome the scepticism of the ordinary voter." 
Isn't that implying that environmentalists have historically eschewed 
data, and that ordinary voters put the current majority party into power 
based on "analytically rigorous policies" rather than "pious appeals"? 
Since when have ordinary citizens shown the least interest in 
analytically rigorous policies?

We Quakers often find ourselves among the thin and dreary ranks of 
data-readers and rigorous analysts, perhaps because so many of us 
have an intellectualist background: lots of formal education, college 
professors and librarians in the family, a lifelong attraction to non-fiction 
. . . or perhaps simply the Quaker appetite for the truth at the bottom of 
the echo chamber. Whatever the reason, it seems to me that Friend 
Roy's advice is sound. While the statistics have their place, it is our 
spiritual vision that offers the most to the future of our fellow beings, our 
creativity, our sense of universal dignity, our discernment and 
celebration of our part in the cosmic Whole.

Steve


On 4 May 2005 at 22:24, Joshua Stuart Rose wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
> Two issues seem to have been conflated in the recent back-and-forth on
> environmentalism: the essay "The Death of Environmentalism" by Michael
> Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, and the book "The Skeptical
> Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. These are two very different
> issues.