Canyon Country Zephyr page 26

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

Establishment Environmentalism & Change Without Changing

By Scott Thompson

"The mainstream environmental community as a whole has been the 'ultimate insider.' But it is time for the environmental community - indeed, everyone - to step outside the system and develop a deeper critique of what is going on."

- James Gustave Speth, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,

Yale University

So: ask yourself if the establishment environmental organizations on your own plate are keeping this issue front and center on their websites. Check this out when you get letters from them seeking donations.

Bet you'll find that very few of them do.

Second issue: repudiating exponential economic growth. Here is Gary Snyder in "Four Changes:" "To grossly use more than you need, to destroy, is biologically unsound...humanity has become a locustlike blight on the planet that will leave a bare cupboard for its own children - all the while living a kind of addict's dream of affluence, comfort, eternal progress, using the great achievements of science to produce software and swill...a continually 'growing economy' is no longer healthy, but a cancer...Economics must be seen as a small subbranch of ecology..." (pp. 38-39).

Sometimes a revolutionary movement has a spark of creativity and truth which lights up the public's imagination. Eventually powerful people realize that in order to protect themselves at least some of the groups urging far-reaching change must be granted a bona fide role in society. There can actually be a bonus for the society's honchos in doing so: utilizing the symbols and terminology of such groups can aid in stabilizing the mainstream political and economic order while seeming to change it.

I call this change without changing.

So it is that mainstream environmentalism has thrived by focusing on environmental work that does not fundamentally threaten the mainstream political and economic order, such as preserving large tracts of wild land or fighting pollution from coal-fired power plants. And while these efforts are important, and probably necessary, they don't effect the radical social transformations - change itself - that are essential in order to save planetary ecologies in the long run.

Another irony is that what has become vital to establishment environmentalism's prosperity is appearing to save the environment. Yet another irony (they're stacking up, aren't they?) is that this appearance is maintained by the sincere belief of those working within mainstream environmentalism that they are indeed doing all things possible to save the environment.

We can see how far establishment environmental groups have distanced themselves from the essential transformations - change itself - by looking at three crucial issues. The first two have been obvious since at least the 1960s to any environmentalist not on life support, while the hair-raising nature of the last has became apparent to the best climate scientists in the last 3-5 years.

In 1968 Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is

a cancerous madness... an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human."

In 1968 Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness.. .an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." (Desert Solitaire, p. 127). In 1982 he added: "We hear the demand by conventional economists for increased 'productivity...Productivity of what? For whose benefit? To what end? By what means and at what cost? Those questions are not considered. We are belabored by the insistence on the part of our politicians, businessmen and military leaders, and the claque of scriveners who serve them, that 'growth' and 'power' are intrinsic goods...As if gigantism were an end in itself." (The Best of Edward Abbey, p. 298).

James Gutsave Speth arrived at similar conclusions in his 2008 book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: "Right now, one can only conclude that growth is the enemy of environment. Economy and environment remain in collision...Capitalism as we know it today is incapable of sustaining the environment." (pp.57, 63).

Among other things, he found destructive correlations between exponential economic growth on the one hand and increases in environmental impacts on the other, and between increasing incomes on the one hand and many negative environmental impacts on the other, (pp. 51-52, 56-57). The pattern is simple: the more the economic output grows, the more damage relevant ecologies suffer.

He is also skeptical that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and continued economic growth are compatible processes: "In the carbon dioxide example, almost half the required rate of [technological] change is needed simply to compensate for the effects of economic growth...Perhaps it can be done. I am doubtful..." (p.114).

And he did contend that markets could be effective, at least in theory, if prices included environmental costs, which they now do not. This phenomenon is known as "market failure." But Washington lobbyists and the government that works for them have been unwilling to make this happen, and that phenomenon is known as "political failure." (pp. 52-54). The trouble is that way too many powerful people have way too much money invested in keeping these failures going.

The first issue: significantly reducing the human population. Let's initially draw from Edward Abbey and Gary Snyder here.

Abbey's comments, vintage 1968, crackle with energy. Bear in mind that the U.S. population at the time was 200,700,000: "It will be objected that a constantly increasing population makes resistance and conservation a hopeless battle. This is true. Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation's population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn. Wilderness preservation, like a hundred other good causes, will be forgotten under the overwhelming pressure of a struggle for mere survival and sanity in a completely urbanized, ever more crowded environment. For my own part I would rather take my chances in a thermonuclear war than live in such a world." (Desert Solitaire, Touchstone version, p.52).

Since then the U.S. population has ballooned by over 50% to 308,400,000 (U.S. Census estimate).

So it is that mainstream environmentalism

has thrived by focusing

on environmental work that does not

fundamentally threaten

the mainstream political

and economic order.

In 1969 Gary Snyder published his seminal "Four Changes," a twelve page article that crystallized environmental priorities from a deep ecology perspective. While he wrote with a cooler hand than Cactus Ed, he was even more pointed: "There are now too many human beings, and the problem is growing rapidly worse. It is potentially disastrous not only for the human race but for most other fife forms...The goal would be half of the present world population or less...The long-range answer is a steady low birthrate...the measure of 'optimum population' should be based on what is best for the total ecological health of the region, including its wildlife populations." (A Place in Space, pp. 32-34).

When he wrote "Four Changes" the world population was 3,631,000,000. Since then it has soared to 6,840,000,000, by a current estimate. Almost double. Snyder's goal was 1,816,000,000 or less.

Today human overpopulation can be candidly described as a world-wide emergency. In their 2003 book, One With Ninevah, Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, who are nothing if not candid, estimate that humans have already overshot the Earth's carrying capacity by as much as 40% (p. 69). They said: "Addressing the population factor must be a crucial part of any successful global strategy for achieving a sustainable civilization." (p. 184). It's self-evident that none of the grave environmental problems the Earth faces, including global warming, will be solved in the long run without reducing our numbers until we are no longer depleting the ecosystems we live in.

The Ehrlichs and their colleague Gretchen Daily have estimated that the optimal long-term global population for a sustainable civilization on our planet is about 2 billion people. That's what the human population was in 1930. (p. 184-185). Richard Heinberg, in his 2003 book, The Parly's Over, cited a study by Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel that made the same estimate, (p. 226).

So: do the mainstream environmental organizations you're interested in openly advocate on their websites either for scrapping growth economic models in favor of no-growth models (for example, Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics) or at a minimum insisting that all environmental costs without exception be included in market prices?

The best bet is that they're either silent or waffling on that one.

Third issue: reducing atmospheric C02 to 350 parts per million or less FAST (the current level is 387 ppm and rising by 2 ppm each year).

By late 2005, NASA scientist James Hansen was openly talking about recent paleo-climate research showing that the planet is perilously close to global warming "tipping points." Once the oceans and atmosphere heat up beyond a critical point, amplifying feedbacks - accelerated by methane releases from ocean sediments and arctic tundra - will take the process of global warming out of humanity's hands. The result will be catastrophic sea level rises of "tens of meters" from melting ice sheets and also massive species extinctions due to "unnaturally rapid shifting of climatic zones."

Every good mainstream environmentalist knows this much. The sticking point is that in late 2007 Hansen determined that the safe level of atmospheric C02 is actually 350 ppm or less; that we are dangerously close to the tipping points right now. Up until then it was thought that some additional warming was safe. Another 1.2 degrees C or maybe 0.7 degrees C. In other words, it was thought that there was leeway for at least a modified version of business as usual.

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>


	Establishment Environmentalism & Change Without Changing By Scott Thompson "The mainstream environmental community as a whole has been the 'ultimate insider.' But it is time for the environmental community - indeed, everyone - to step outside the system and develop a deeper critique of what is going on." - James Gustave Speth, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University So: ask yourself if the establishment environmental organizations on your own plate are keeping this issue front and center on their websites. Check this out when you get letters from them seeking donations. Bet you'll find that very few of them do. Second issue: repudiating exponential economic growth. Here is Gary Snyder in "Four Changes:" "To grossly use more than you need, to destroy, is biologically unsound...humanity has become a locustlike blight on the planet that will leave a bare cupboard for its own children - all the while living a kind of addict's dream of affluence, comfort, eternal progress, using the great achievements of science to produce software and swill...a continually 'growing economy' is no longer healthy, but a cancer...Economics must be seen as a small subbranch of ecology..." (pp. 38-39). Sometimes a revolutionary movement has a spark of creativity and truth which lights up the public's imagination. Eventually powerful people realize that in order to protect themselves at least some of the groups urging far-reaching change must be granted a bona fide role in society. There can actually be a bonus for the society's honchos in doing so: utilizing the symbols and terminology of such groups can aid in stabilizing the mainstream political and economic order while seeming to change it. I call this change without changing. So it is that mainstream environmentalism has thrived by focusing on environmental work that does not fundamentally threaten the mainstream political and economic order, such as preserving large tracts of wild land or fighting pollution from coal-fired power plants. And while these efforts are important, and probably necessary, they don't effect the radical social transformations - change itself - that are essential in order to save planetary ecologies in the long run. Another irony is that what has become vital to establishment environmentalism's prosperity is appearing to save the environment. Yet another irony (they're stacking up, aren't they?) is that this appearance is maintained by the sincere belief of those working within mainstream environmentalism that they are indeed doing all things possible to save the environment. We can see how far establishment environmental groups have distanced themselves from the essential transformations - change itself - by looking at three crucial issues. The first two have been obvious since at least the 1960s to any environmentalist not on life support, while the hair-raising nature of the last has became apparent to the best climate scientists in the last 3-5 years. In 1968 Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness... an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." In 1968 Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness.. .an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." (Desert Solitaire, p. 127). In 1982 he added: "We hear the demand by conventional economists for increased 'productivity...Productivity of what? For whose benefit? To what end? By what means and at what cost? Those questions are not considered. We are belabored by the insistence on the part of our politicians, businessmen and military leaders, and the claque of scriveners who serve them, that 'growth' and 'power' are intrinsic goods...As if gigantism were an end in itself." (The Best of Edward Abbey, p. 298). James Gutsave Speth arrived at similar conclusions in his 2008 book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: "Right now, one can only conclude that growth is the enemy of environment. Economy and environment remain in collision...Capitalism as we know it today is incapable of sustaining the environment." (pp.57, 63). Among other things, he found destructive correlations between exponential economic growth on the one hand and increases in environmental impacts on the other, and between increasing incomes on the one hand and many negative environmental impacts on the other, (pp. 51-52, 56-57). The pattern is simple: the more the economic output grows, the more damage relevant ecologies suffer. He is also skeptical that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and continued economic growth are compatible processes: "In the carbon dioxide example, almost half the required rate of [technological] change is needed simply to compensate for the effects of economic growth...Perhaps it can be done. I am doubtful..." (p.114). And he did contend that markets could be effective, at least in theory, if prices included environmental costs, which they now do not. This phenomenon is known as "market failure." But Washington lobbyists and the government that works for them have been unwilling to make this happen, and that phenomenon is known as "political failure." (pp. 52-54). The trouble is that way too many powerful people have way too much money invested in keeping these failures going. The first issue: significantly reducing the human population. Let's initially draw from Edward Abbey and Gary Snyder here. Abbey's comments, vintage 1968, crackle with energy. Bear in mind that the U.S. population at the time was 200,700,000: "It will be objected that a constantly increasing population makes resistance and conservation a hopeless battle. This is true. Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation's population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn. Wilderness preservation, like a hundred other good causes, will be forgotten under the overwhelming pressure of a struggle for mere survival and sanity in a completely urbanized, ever more crowded environment. For my own part I would rather take my chances in a thermonuclear war than live in such a world." (Desert Solitaire, Touchstone version, p.52). Since then the U.S. population has ballooned by over 50% to 308,400,000 (U.S. Census estimate). So it is that mainstream environmentalism has thrived by focusing on environmental work that does not fundamentally threaten the mainstream political and economic order. In 1969 Gary Snyder published his seminal "Four Changes," a twelve page article that crystallized environmental priorities from a deep ecology perspective. While he wrote with a cooler hand than Cactus Ed, he was even more pointed: "There are now too many human beings, and the problem is growing rapidly worse. It is potentially disastrous not only for the human race but for most other fife forms...The goal would be half of the present world population or less...The long-range answer is a steady low birthrate...the measure of 'optimum population' should be based on what is best for the total ecological health of the region, including its wildlife populations." (A Place in Space, pp. 32-34). When he wrote "Four Changes" the world population was 3,631,000,000. Since then it has soared to 6,840,000,000, by a current estimate. Almost double. Snyder's goal was 1,816,000,000 or less. Today human overpopulation can be candidly described as a world-wide emergency. In their 2003 book, One With Ninevah, Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, who are nothing if not candid, estimate that humans have already overshot the Earth's carrying capacity by as much as 40% (p. 69). They said: "Addressing the population factor must be a crucial part of any successful global strategy for achieving a sustainable civilization." (p. 184). It's self-evident that none of the grave environmental problems the Earth faces, including global warming, will be solved in the long run without reducing our numbers until we are no longer depleting the ecosystems we live in. The Ehrlichs and their colleague Gretchen Daily have estimated that the optimal long-term global population for a sustainable civilization on our planet is about 2 billion people. That's what the human population was in 1930. (p. 184-185). Richard Heinberg, in his 2003 book, The Parly's Over, cited a study by Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel that made the same estimate, (p. 226). So: do the mainstream environmental organizations you're interested in openly advocate on their websites either for scrapping growth economic models in favor of no-growth models (for example, Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics) or at a minimum insisting that all environmental costs without exception be included in market prices? The best bet is that they're either silent or waffling on that one. Third issue: reducing atmospheric C02 to 350 parts per million or less FAST (the current level is 387 ppm and rising by 2 ppm each year). By late 2005, NASA scientist James Hansen was openly talking about recent paleo-climate research showing that the planet is perilously close to global warming "tipping points." Once the oceans and atmosphere heat up beyond a critical point, amplifying feedbacks - accelerated by methane releases from ocean sediments and arctic tundra - will take the process of global warming out of humanity's hands. The result will be catastrophic sea level rises of "tens of meters" from melting ice sheets and also massive species extinctions due to "unnaturally rapid shifting of climatic zones." Every good mainstream environmentalist knows this much. The sticking point is that in late 2007 Hansen determined that the safe level of atmospheric C02 is actually 350 ppm or less; that we are dangerously close to the tipping points right now. Up until then it was thought that some additional warming was safe. Another 1.2 degrees C or maybe 0.7 degrees C. In other words, it was thought that there was leeway for at least a modified version of business as usual.


	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>