Red, Green & Blue: Do Environmentalists Always See the Glass Half-Full?
The polar bears are drowning. Large numbers of fish are disappearing from the oceans. Bottled-water companies and farms are depleting the aquifers. Chemicals in cosmetics are linked to birth defects.
The litany of bad news about the environment seems endless. Are things really that bad? Or do environmentalists tend to view everything they see through soot-colored glasses?
In answer to the latter question, I don’t think so. No, the sky isn’t falling and the human race isn’t likely to be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow. But there are very real environmental problems around the world, and pointing them out doesn’t make you a gloom-and-doom nabob of negativism. It makes you a realist, one who — I hope — is motivated to change things for the better rather than tempted to throw up one’s hands in despair and surrender.
Tags: environmental problems, environmentalism, environmentalists, negativism, reality, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
July 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
You know, Shirley; this is a great topic! I often accuse you of being pessimistic but you don’t seem to feel that you are pessimistic yourself. I guess you probably rate my optimism as naïve. I remember growing up worried about many of the environmental scares of the day but time after time they turn out to be nothing really. Sure we should continue to make progress and it’s good that there are forces pushing us in ways to be more environmentally conscious but if history teaches anything it should be that optimism should rule the day. We are tremendously resourceful and given freedom and excess resource free society always tends toward environmental improvement.
I personally think there’s a problem when people try to stimulate fear and pessimism as a way to advance a cause. I think it harms the good work of rational people more interested in real solutions. All of these worst case fear scenarios are just going to undermine the credibility of future generations of environmental scientists.
What do you think?
July 31st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I think that spreading information about the world’s current and coming large scale disasters often serves to take people down into deep, dark caves. The world’s problems are -real-, yes, but far too few people spreading this message consider what happens to people taken by guilt and despair and how those people are seen by others. Is it any wonder that a large portion of the US of A seems to act oblivious to climate change, water usage, and the like? I suspect that many of these people aren’t oblivious; they simply don’t want to be down in the dirt with the lot of environmentalists. Furthermore, many of these individuals think further and fear the “loss of freedom” (whatever it might mean) that apparently will come with the fight to address climate change and related problems. Is it any wonder that they ignore the research of thousands of scientists working as part of the IPCC and cling to questionable theories like cosmic rays causing global warming? Who enjoys the likes of a George Monbiot type poking them in the face about flying? Has anyone really changed their diet after getting burned by the verbal fire of a militant vegan? It’s enough to make some people say, “h$&@ no I won’t think about this… I don’t want to end up like -that guy-!” Heh, I don’t blame them.
Those deep dark caves of despair are like black boxes: something -happens- to people inside of them. Some drown and never come out. Many people come out militant and radicalized; this is the face of “hardcore environmentalism” in the eyes of the “unwashed masses.” A smaller number of people emerge inspired, energized, and hungry to make real -positive- change. These are folks like Bill McDonough, whose radical positive framing spins other environmentalists’ language on its very head. Which epiphanies do we want people to reach in those caves? That we should go home and close the shutters while the world burns? That humans are a scourge upon the Earth and must be eliminated? That the world’s people can increase their quality of life by learning from nature? Different individuals come to all of those different conclusions and more when they are left alone to think. Pointing out the dark clouds on the horizon may make us realists, yes, but that’s a mere first step. It would be irresponsible not to take the crucial next step of reaching into people’s hiding spaces, offering positive visions of a future in harmony with nature, and pulling those people by the hand to walk along new paths.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
c!, you make a very good point when you say that "pointing out the dark clouds on the horizon … (is) a mere first step." Absolutely, hand-wringing and doom-foretelling aren’t productive. But I’d have to add that it’s positive SOLUTIONS, rather than positive visions (which might or might not be attainable) that make the difference.
Likewise, I agree that being harangued by a militant vegan is no way to win people over to your side (much in the same way that anti-abortionists really turn people off with those giant, picket-sign photos of fetuses). However, while George Monbiot could hardly be called an optimist, I appreciate his carefully reasoned plan for showing exactly how we could cut carbon emissions by 90 percent by mid-century. You might not like his plan, but he has one.
Bingo, Jimmy! While I relate to your growing up in fear of many environmental scares (I felt the same way about all those Cold War/nuclear winter scenarios … am I dating myself a bit here? : ) ), Jared Diamond had a good response in his book, "Collapse."
While talking about people who might minimize his concerns about our current confluence of environmental challenges, Diamond cites the example of someone who might say, "Yeah, well, Rachel Carson said we were all poisoning our world to death and we’re all still here and A-OK." Diamond’s response here (this is pure paraphrase, but the gist is the same): "Yes, but it was because Rachel Carson and others like her awoke the public to the extent of poisons we were dumping that we took action and made sure we didn’t kill the planet."
In other words, her bleak vision for the future didn’t come true because enough people took seriously her current vision of how things were, and worked to change things.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Environmentalists are, for the most part, advocating a need to change things and a dissatisfaction with the status quo. If you think something needs to be changed, then fundamentally you aren’t optimistic about it. So I think that environmentalists are likely to be seen as pessimistic because they are unsatisfied with the current situation, and fear the consequences if things are not changed.
If you don’t see a problem, you aren’t going to see a need to change anything (it’s the "Boiled Frog" problem).
July 31st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hey Shirley, did you see Michael’s story about the Border Fence?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Philip and Shirley: agreed. I think, however, that a simple communication change from, “we need to stop doing worse” to, “we need to do better” can make a world of difference. Websites like this one and many others help to do exactly that, and I’m always excited by the things that I read daily. I think, in a funny way, that right now is a great time to be worried!
July 31st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Actually I think progress happens without the outrage. The lubricant in the mix is having a society with the wealth and liberty to consider its relationship with the environment. When militant environmentalism takes on the capital economy and economic progress is when it unknowingly bites the hand that feeds it.
Just like, hopefully, no one is ‘for’ abortion; any reasonable person can acknowledge the realities of unwanted pregnancies and what happens without the legal abortion alternative.
In the same way no one is ‘for’ destroying the environment but reasonable people realize that human survival depends, at times, on taking from nature. Hopefully we have the smarts and resource to give back as much or more than we take. Wealthy capital economies, including the US, lead the charge on keeping watch and dealing with environmental concerns. The environmental zealots however often see a prosperous economy as the enemy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Good thoughts, c!…
July 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I agree, but sometimes it’s harder for people to make change unless they are ‘pushed’ to do something. Unfortunately, most are moved by their wallet and many (not all) of the older generation don’t care about the environment as they won’t be here to experience the outcome. Of course, they worry about their grandchildren, but many (due to the period they grew up in), think this is just hippie-talk. And….most of the population doesn’t want to understand the science and what it’s telling us. So how do we encourage everyone to make a change, not tomorrow but now?
Just as with the presidential seat, most people don’t take a stand to say anything till gas prices go up and it’s hurting their pocketbook. So, maybe instead of screaming it’s the end of the world and our polar bears have no home…maybe we should be shouting as a group - Save Money By Going Green! We want a result that gives us a great future for our future generations…although the message of WHY we are going green may get jumbled, maybe we need to focus on the result we want….and that’s being more environmentally-friendly. So, I applaud all those manufacturers trying to create green products. The more products out there, the more accessible being green will be and hopefully, we can grow a large message that going green could save you money (unplugging adapters in the house, unplugging computers, changing to a hybrid car)…
July 31st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Thank you, Philip! You hit a nail on the head there: if you don’t see a problem, someone else who does appears, by default, to be negative. Plus, whenever someone advocates for change, you can guarantee there’ll be someone else who doesn’t want it (change is scary, the "s" word — sacrifice — even worse).
Jimmy, I don’t see a "prosperous economy" per se as an enemy. However, a prosperous economy that runs rough-shod or sloppily over environmental concerns in sole pursuit of the almighty dollar and nothing else is a problem. I’d much rather see a corporation accept a 5 percent, rather than a 14 percent, growth in earnings so it could invest in greener technologies, fair-trade supplies, etc. But I can hear the boardrooms and shareholders screaming now.
Re: the border fence — I checked out Michael’s story and have heard previous reports of the environmental concerns it raises. Besides the potential harm there, though, really what is the point of a 700-mile-long fence to protect a border three times as long? Silly.
Susan, I like your idea of promoting the idea of saving by going green: appealing to someone’s pocketbook is always a good way to grab attention. Unfortunately, some green products (fair-trade, organic, local) can be more expensive or hard to find. But I agree: wherever it’s possible to point out a long-term savings for a short-term, slightly higher expense (CFLs vs. incandescents, for example), we should do so as enthusiastically as possible.