Is the environmental movement dead?
Document Actions
A controversial essay entitled "The Death of Environmentalism" circulating since December has stirred up passionate debate about the current role and future of the environmental movement. Is the movement still relevant, or has it be replaced by more broad-based movements?
"The Death of Environmentalism" (subtitled "Global Warming Politics in a Post-environmental World") by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (download the paper here) has sparked heated debates within the environmental movement. In this essay, which argues that modern environmentalism is not capable of dealing with ecological crises such as global warming because the movement itself is a special-interests group that focuses on technical solutions rather than real change. The paper then argues for organizinig progressive movements and institutions around a broader vision and a set of common values. The authors call for a collective reflection on the state of politics and the ways to be effective (read an interview with the authors at Grist Magazine).
The authors suggest that we must "let go" of old
mental models in order to fully embrace the new vision and movement.
The "environmental movement's foundational
concepts, its methods for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded" (p8, emphasis original).
This has caused a strong reaction from many of the more traditional
environmental institutions, such as the Sierra Club. Carl Pope (Sierra
Club) wrote a 6,000-word response to the article,in
which he acknowledges agreement with several of the authors' points,
but derides the arguments and conclusions of the paper. A former
Sierra Club president Adam Werbach addressed the same issue in his recent speech to the Common Wealth Club,
where he proclaimed the environmental movement dead. He emphasizes the
need to recognize the past usefulness of the movement (and affection
for it), but to not become so attached to it that we cannot embrace new
tendencies and realities of our current context.
Whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the paper, the arguments point to the need for a broader debate in our communities. How do we shape our strategies, policies, funding, or actions to contribute the necessary shift in society to ensure a future for ourselves and future generations that is worth living?
We at ifPeople support an engaged community that practices respectful conversation. Though it is not our intention to put forth our views in this article, but instead to inform our community of the happenings, we welcome your comments and invite a renewed discussion.
