too much alarmism? a disconnect with mainstream voters?
whatever, not winning any battles lately ...

The U.S. environmental movement is unable to win on even its very top priorities, even though it has the advantage of mostly being right. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may be approved soon, and there's been no progress whatsoever in the U.S. on what may be the single most important issue to Earth in the long run: climate change. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they've lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the left's equivalents of the neocons: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance.

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

I don't think that there's a disconnect with mainstream voters (and he doesn't either). To put it simply, both major US parties don't give two shits about the environment, and there's no real political and economical will to do something about it, even if many americans might care about it. If you then also take into account the political apathy and self contentment of the typical US voter (they might care about pollution, but they won't move their butts to do something about it), it is no wonder that the environmental movement has trouble being taken seriously by mainstream US politicians...

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

I can't stand corporate media hacks and their wishful thinking.

"Death of environmentalism?" Why? Just because the Bush administration is destroying what's left of US ecology does not mean that activism and consciousness around ecological issues is dying.

I certainly agree that the organized eco-movement in the US is in bad shape. In fact, it's much worse than the labour and civil rights movements (and that's saying something).

But from what I have read concerns over environmental health and linking this to human health, as well as labour, socialism and social justice, is slowly on the rise, even in the US.

What Kristof wants is the environmental activism of a company union. One that takes lots of greenmail from industry, doen't get in the way of economic progress, and rolls over like a puppy when told to do so.

Its always quaint to see someone trot out all the "population bomb" books of the 1970s and say "see, they were wrong then - they'll ALWAYS be wrong."

Sorry no. Evironmental science is far more advanced now than it was in the 1970s. We know more and Kristof knows that. Those earlier predictions may have been jumping the gun, but the evidence of global climate change is coming at us fast and furious now and if the Royal Society and some of Bush's own scientists thinks there's something too it, I bet they're right.

Kristof's argument is simply a very nice attempt to discredit the entire movement (I love his: "but I'm sympathethic to its aims" type of bullshit) for the benefit of the monied classes he fronts from in the Times.

I don't care about the Kristof's. I care about what is happening with the perceptions that are induced in the public. Are we prepared for what captilized governments will do when they have finished contracting out every last job to the highest bidder here or in the United States?

My introduction as said was by Michael Crichton's book. Has anyone read it?

As I read two things made itself apparent.

One that such a calmity as a tsunami was actually realized. And two, that giving the brief discription of this insight from Fictional character Ted Bradley, I saw something materialize in my lifetime that had a deep impact. The Beetle kill.

Now if you know that large tracts are up for the taking in allowable cuts you should know that the ring the beetles leave in the tree that kills it off, will not hurt it in any pulping process as this is cooked out of it.

So having come faced to face with a potential boon, in chip supply, where could we direct these resources if not through lumber manufacturers?

When it came to Alcan and their aluminum smelter, what came of value is the resource hydro supplied to this industry might have become when it is sold back to the grid?

There is a potential resource here that that cannot be taken from under the knows of Canadian people and bastardize, by putting it on the open market for us to compete with what was already ours.

So, the Beetle kill is a sign of global warming?

Nov 20, 2003

VANCOUVER - The credibility of tomorrow’s mountain pine beetle symposium in Quesnel must be questioned since timber industry representatives dominate the agenda and no scientists with specific expertise on the mountain pine beetle will appear before the three-MLA panel, says Jim Fulton, executive director of the David Suzuki Foundation.

“If you were holding a forum about how best to fly planes, you might invite a pilot or two,” said Mr. Fulton. “This government claims to be interested in gathering the best science available and in being transparent in how it governs. Well it is transparently clear that Premier Campbell is mainly interested in hearing from the timber industry.”

Of the 14 invited speakers, six are from the timber industry, five represent government agencies, and First Nations, academics and conservationists have one representative each.

You people don't get me wrong. The forest industry has been my life and the support of my family. I want energy, water, forest lands to remain within Canadian hands. I want it to continue to support the many families it is supporting now.

[ 13 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

including,

To the Editor:

Just because certain environmental alarms have not played out in the predicted time frame does not mean that the dire warnings of environmentalists should be dismissed.

The majority of those with expertise in the field believe that man-made global warming is a serious, impending threat.

There is little dispute that we are in a period of mass species extinction caused by human activity. And catastrophic emergent diseases like AIDS may have their origins in cavalier human exploitation of fragile resources. Each of these problems is dire enough to deserve many times the political attention it receives.

Nor is public skepticism a good reason to dismiss the concerns of environmental "alarmists." The general public does not have the time, training or inclination to consider the complex data available about the most serious environmental problems.

Just as we defer to experts in fields like medicine and global finance, so we should with grave environmental threats.

David Hayden
Wilton, Conn., March 12, 2005

•

[ 15 March 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

...That Kristof, a professed former "environmental groupie," is spouting the industry line and has bought into a manufactured mythology is a measure of the success of the public relations industry. His prescription is a complete distortion of the meaning of "Death of Environmentalism" authors Shellenberger and Nordhaus, whose essay calls for activists to do more to make the connection between major environmental issues and the concerns of people in their everyday lives, transforming environmentalism from single-issue activism into a social movement, connected with the other great movements for social justice...

---