"Report on the Death of Environmentalism is Wishful Thinking"

Report on the Death of Environmentalism
is Merely Wishful Thinking

By Paul Watson

Captain Paul Watson's Response to Michael Shellenberger and Ted
Nordhaus' essay "The Death of Environmentalism"




Read Shellenberger and Nordhaus' article at, http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/little-doe/


In their essay on the Death of Environmentalism, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus state with great authority in their introduction that, "modern environmentalism is no longer capable of dealing with the world's most serious ecological crisis." It would be more correct to say that human society is no longer capable of dealing with what the authors believe is the world's most serious ecological crisis. In fact I cannot imagine any movement being capable of dealing with the enormity and complexity of global warming. It is also a case of too little too late.

There are many environmental problems. The environmental movement has the capability of addressing some of these problems to a certain degree but certainly not all of them, and some not at all. I do not agree that global warming is the most serious ecological crisis. It is in fact a problem caused by the more serious ecological crisis of escalating human population growth and increasing rates of material consumption. In my opinion the most serious global ecological crisis is the escalating diminishment of biodiversity and the fact that the Earth will lose more species of plants and animals by 2050 then it has lost over the last sixty-five million years.Global warming will certainly be a major contributor to this mass global extinction but it is a problem caused by the first major threat and that is escalating human population growth.

Rather than be critical of environmental movements, Nordhaus and Shellenberge should understand that the environmental organizations have done the best they can with the tools they have. After all it's pens, computers, cameras and meetings against drills, bulldozers, chainsaws, harpoons, tanks, and missiles.

With respect to global warming, the environmental groups have pushed for more energy efficient cars, they have indeed worked on treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, and they have lobbied for legislation. In short they have done everything they can within the limitations allowed by society and the law to promote change.

I notice they did not mention more radical activism, which the authors obviously consider unacceptable. They did not interview representatives of Earth First, Rainforest Action Network, Earth Island Institute or the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society.Yet they state; "in their public campaigns, not one of America's environmental leaders is articulating a vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis. Instead they are promoting technical policy fixes like pollution controls and higher vehicle mileage standards - proposals that provide
neither the popular inspiration nor the political alliances the community needs to deal with the problem."

This is a very misleading statement. What the authors are saying is that in their opinion not one of the people they interviewed is articulating a vision.Twenty-five people does not a movement make.I would suggest that there are numerous individuals and groups that are indeed articulating a vision.

<snip>

http://lowbagger.org/watson.html

"It is in fact a problem caused by the more serious ecological crisis of escalating human population growth and increasing rates of material consumption. In my opinion the most serious global ecological crisis is the escalating diminishment (sic) of biodiversity and the fact that the Earth will lose more species of plants and animals by 2050 then it has lost over the last sixty-five million years.Global warming will certainly be a major contributor to this mass global extinction but it is a problem caused by the first major threat and that is escalating human population growth."

However the imminent collapse of the atmosphere is the most serious immediate outgrowth of that root cause, over-population.

It is possible, of course, that the population problem with solve itself with dizzying speed, but if so, the mechanism will certainly involve global climate change.

I'm not sure that the problem of global climate change has a solution but to the extent we are living we must at least try to do what we can.

We gotta at least try. We owe that to our children.

But if we know our "leaders" are deliberately killing off the biosphere, what sorts of choices does that leave us?

And I agree that over-population may "solve" itself rather quickly given what else our species is up to...

Any specie which overgrazes it's food source, or so depletes it's environment that it can no longer support said specie, is doomed to near extinction.

I shudder to consider what will happen with our particular specie.

Environmentalism: Was it ever alive, or did it just have a great youth and now is old and crippled?

There was a time when real progress was being made. Wasn't that the golden age of environmentalism?

Now, we know, progress has come to a screeching halt. Will it get a 2nd wind and run again, or is the game already over?

I vote for a 2nd wind.

but alas, (to mix metaphors), as the bumper sticker says:

Nature Bats Last