Comments on: The Death of Environmentalism? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICKS « The Conservation Report http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10853 ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICKS « The Conservation Report Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:33:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10853 [...] ARE WE ALL STILL ENVIRONMENTALISTS?, The Death of Environmentalism?, FREE & GREEN: A NEW APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Green but Anti-Government, [...] [...] ARE WE ALL STILL ENVIRONMENTALISTS?, The Death of Environmentalism?, FREE & GREEN: A NEW APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Green but Anti-Government, [...]

]]>
By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10734 TokyoTom Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:25:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10734 I think it's prettty clear that environmentalism is not at all dead. Rather, it was very successful in cleaning up the environment in the 70s and 80s, and the environment has continued to improve - so in part, their own success at home has made environmentalism seem less relevant to voters - even as problems outside the US and globally have worsened. Further, my own view is that we have too much environmental regulation, with the result that environmental protection is much more costly than it need be. Even though this is not a situation created by the enviros - legislators and industry are much more responsible - the right has successfully blamed enviros (who are more prominent for dilatory lawsuits) while ignoring how industry has protected itself with the aid of law makers. So the enviros have been getting more blame than they deserve. However, enviros have failed to respond to some attacks, which do have a fair point - that government command and control is often an overly expensive and fractious way to protect the environment, and that many environmentalists fail to understand basic principles - which is that environmental problems arise when resources (streams, lakes, the air, wildlife) have no clear owners (who can't invest in or defend the resources), and that socialized ownership and regulation may often make environmental problems more difficult to solve, by shifting them from private fora to zero-sum conflicts before politicians and bureaucrats. FWIW, I remain a misanthropic enviro-Nazi. I think it’s prettty clear that environmentalism is not at all dead. Rather, it was very successful in cleaning up the environment in the 70s and 80s, and the environment has continued to improve – so in part, their own success at home has made environmentalism seem less relevant to voters – even as problems outside the US and globally have worsened.

Further, my own view is that we have too much environmental regulation, with the result that environmental protection is much more costly than it need be. Even though this is not a situation created by the enviros – legislators and industry are much more responsible – the right has successfully blamed enviros (who are more prominent for dilatory lawsuits) while ignoring how industry has protected itself with the aid of law makers. So the enviros have been getting more blame than they deserve.

However, enviros have failed to respond to some attacks, which do have a fair point – that government command and control is often an overly expensive and fractious way to protect the environment, and that many environmentalists fail to understand basic principles – which is that environmental problems arise when resources (streams, lakes, the air, wildlife) have no clear owners (who can’t invest in or defend the resources), and that socialized ownership and regulation may often make environmental problems more difficult to solve, by shifting them from private fora to zero-sum conflicts before politicians and bureaucrats.

FWIW, I remain a misanthropic enviro-Nazi.

]]>
By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10730 Mark Bahner Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:00:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10730 I'm an environmental engineer, with more than 20 years of experience, mostly in environmental research. About 20 years ago, I joined what I recall as the Sierra Club, in Roanoke, VA. I only attended a couple of meetings. The participants seemed to be very anti-industry. At my company, I did a fair amount of consulting for local companies. I thought they basically were decent people, trying to be decent neighbors. So I quit the club. Maybe 5-10 years ago, I subscribed to Worldwatch magazine for a year or two. Again, they seemed very anti-industry. Also, all gloom and doom. Finally, I subscribed to the Audobon Society's magazine for a year or two. They were very much anti-Republican. (I'm not a Republican, but it just got annoying.) So I'm an environmental engineer. But I don't consider myself to have much in common with the people in those groups. So I guess I'm not an environmentalist. I’m an environmental engineer, with more than 20 years of experience, mostly in environmental research.

About 20 years ago, I joined what I recall as the Sierra Club, in Roanoke, VA. I only attended a couple of meetings. The participants seemed to be very anti-industry. At my company, I did a fair amount of consulting for local companies. I thought they basically were decent people, trying to be decent neighbors. So I quit the club.

Maybe 5-10 years ago, I subscribed to Worldwatch magazine for a year or two. Again, they seemed very anti-industry. Also, all gloom and doom.

Finally, I subscribed to the Audobon Society’s magazine for a year or two. They were very much anti-Republican. (I’m not a Republican, but it just got annoying.)

So I’m an environmental engineer. But I don’t consider myself to have much in common with the people in those groups. So I guess I’m not an environmentalist.

]]>
By: Rocky Raccoon http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10728 Rocky Raccoon Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:31:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10728 dogwood writes: "Environmentalists have given the word a bad name and it is now synonymous with extremist." Why should environmentalists be blamed? The problem with the term "environmentalist" is that beginning with the rise of the far-right media (Fox News and right-wing radio) in the 1990s, this rise was accompanied by smearing environmentalists by taking the most extreme elements (who have very little to do with environmentalism, and are much closer to just general anarchist ideology) and portraying them as some sort of spokesmen for environmentalism. Those crazy people burning SUVs and whatnot have nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism, but if you flip on the TV you'd think the opposite. They do not define environmentalism any more so than the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas (whose anti-gay members protest by cheering at the funerals of iraq war soldier victims) define christianity. Those idiots who climb into, then pout in, trees to prevent logging have no power in this country except that they are nominated by partisan media to represent the environmentalist movement. Just look at the graph on this blog - it is the early 1990s when people start reacting badly to the environmentalist label. That is the same time when partisan media began gradually gaining influence. Consider Rush Limbaugh and the like shrieking about some idiots burning down homes under construction, etc. These days, "environmentalist" means different things to different people, which makes this graph uninformative, since it is just varied, subjective labeling. To some, the label means anyone who likes the environment, and to another it means hairy Berkeley students with anarchist tendencies. The only thing this graph demonstrates is that beginning in the the early 1990s, people started to less highly of environmentalists. In that sense, it demonstrates the power and success of partisan media, and the reason it has grown into a position of considerable power in this country. dogwood writes: “Environmentalists have given the word a bad name and it is now synonymous with extremist.”

Why should environmentalists be blamed? The problem with the term “environmentalist” is that beginning with the rise of the far-right media (Fox News and right-wing radio) in the 1990s, this rise was accompanied by smearing environmentalists by taking the most extreme elements (who have very little to do with environmentalism, and are much closer to just general anarchist ideology) and portraying them as some sort of spokesmen for environmentalism. Those crazy people burning SUVs and whatnot have nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism, but if you flip on the TV you’d think the opposite. They do not define environmentalism any more so than the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas (whose anti-gay members protest by cheering at the funerals of iraq war soldier victims) define christianity.

Those idiots who climb into, then pout in, trees to prevent logging have no power in this country except that they are nominated by partisan media to represent the environmentalist movement.

Just look at the graph on this blog – it is the early 1990s when people start reacting badly to the environmentalist label. That is the same time when partisan media began gradually gaining influence. Consider Rush Limbaugh and the like shrieking about some idiots burning down homes under construction, etc.

These days, “environmentalist” means different things to different people, which makes this graph uninformative, since it is just varied, subjective labeling. To some, the label means anyone who likes the environment, and to another it means hairy Berkeley students with anarchist tendencies. The only thing this graph demonstrates is that beginning in the the early 1990s, people started to less highly of environmentalists. In that sense, it demonstrates the power and success of partisan media, and the reason it has grown into a position of considerable power in this country.

]]>
By: Environmental Movement Among Populace Dying | Skeptics Global Warming http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10711 Environmental Movement Among Populace Dying | Skeptics Global Warming Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:54:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10711 [...] Source: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu Tags: colorado, Science Related Posts [...] [...] Source: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu Tags: colorado, Science Related Posts [...]

]]>
By: The Volokh Conspiracy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10703 The Volokh Conspiracy Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:22:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10703 <strong>Are We All Still Environmentalists?...</strong> Roger Pielke Jr. cites some interesting polling data purporting to show the percentage of Americans considering themselves to be "envir...... Are We All Still Environmentalists?…

Roger Pielke Jr. cites some interesting polling data purporting to show the percentage of Americans considering themselves to be “envir……

]]>
By: PaddikJ http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10693 PaddikJ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:54:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10693 Interesting. I really hadn't considered that "Environmentalist" was becoming synonomous w/ extremist. I just started letting my memberships drop about 15 years ago - the near-constant apocalyptic fear-mongering, the money begging, the Alar debacle; it just got to be too much. And this from a guy who proudly wore the Environmentalist label since his early 20's (which was the early 70's). Now that you mention it, I have gotten to prefer conservationist. Interesting. I really hadn’t considered that “Environmentalist” was becoming synonomous w/ extremist. I just started letting my memberships drop about 15 years ago – the near-constant apocalyptic fear-mongering, the money begging, the Alar debacle; it just got to be too much.

And this from a guy who proudly wore the Environmentalist label since his early 20’s (which was the early 70’s). Now that you mention it, I have gotten to prefer conservationist.

]]>
By: dogwood http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10692 dogwood Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:03:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10692 Ditto Sylvain's comment. Environmentalists have given the word a bad name and it is now synonymous with extremist. I believe conservationist would have polled better. Ditto Sylvain’s comment. Environmentalists have given the word a bad name and it is now synonymous with extremist. I believe conservationist would have polled better.

]]>
By: Sylvain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509&cpage=1#comment-10677 Sylvain Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:19:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4509#comment-10677 I think that there is a distinction to make between the term environmentalist and caring for the environment. Environmentalist is a term that with time, it seems, became more pejorative and associated with the extremist of the environmental movement. Yet, even though the poll shows that people have disassociated from the term does not mean that they are less preoccupied by the environment. They just don't want to be labeled as extremist. I think that there is a distinction to make between the term environmentalist and caring for the environment.

Environmentalist is a term that with time, it seems, became more pejorative and associated with the extremist of the environmental movement.

Yet, even though the poll shows that people have disassociated from the term does not mean that they are less preoccupied by the environment. They just don’t want to be labeled as extremist.

]]>