Same as the old boss.

Revulsion at the behavior of environmentalists is often deeply felt but merely feigned by some in an effort to distance themselves from the losing side in order to maintain political viability. This opinion piece, lauded by Nature Noted, is an example.

I was repelled to hear radicals chant -- "Hey, Bush, we know you! Your Daddy was a killer, too!" -- as the president's limo passed by...

Did this indulgent, vile protest win any friends or allies? It didn't...

As well, what good was done by the rally at Seattle Central Community College, the inevitable march downtown and the predictable oratory? It's happened so often that Pine Street deserves a new name: "Boulevard of Left-Wing Bluster."...

Street-corner rhetoric won't stop rollbacks in environmental protection, or slicing and dicing of the social safety net that Franklin D. Roosevelt began to erect 72 years ago...

The political left in Seattle is used to talking only to -- and agreeing with -- itself. Slogans linger from the 1960s. The sight of heads nodding and shaking in unison at a Jim McDermott town meeting is enough to bring on the need for Dramamine.

But there is no change in the mindset contemplated, merely a change of rhetoric.

A lot of people fear that the Bush administration has fishy plans for America, even those with patriotic inclinations to wish our 43rd president well at the start of his second term...

The only potentially effective strategy is the kind of banding together witnessed on the Columbia River. Sport, commercial and Indian fisher folk have been at one another's throats for years. Lately, though, they've defended common ground...

Just remember, however, cooperation on the Columbia River. A key battle was won, along with a key ally, by linking economic health to healthy salmon runs.

A losing coalition with repellent rhetoric is being abandoned for a new coalition, but the adversarial mindset remains. It isn't cooperative, it is destructive to the community because it chooses up sides and demonizes opponents in the attempt to win power and money at the expense of others. Worse, there is no thought for the environment, just self interest. The environment is used as a wedge to gain power but is not valued for its own sake.

To put things in perspective, the Bonneville Power Administration these people wish to bring down was created in 1933 by Roosevelt. The thinking then was the same as for the social policies defended by this new coalition. The needs of the whole community, not just special interests that band together for power and profit, motivated the effort. It wasn't an unblemished success, we know a lot more in 2005 that we did in 1933, but we have also forgotten a lot about community and cooperation.

This GAO report states the issue clearly:

Bonneville’s two roles, as supplier of economical and reliable power and as protector of fish and wildlife, inherently conflict. Bonneville spills water to benefit fish and directly funds fish and wildlife projects. These actions reduce power revenue and increase costs. On the other hand, demands on Bonneville to supply greater amounts of power put pressure on fish and wildlife, through more intensive use of generating facilities at the expense of spilling water, and reduced revenues available for funding fish and wildlife programs as has occurred during the current crisis. Given Bonneville’s dual roles, conflicts are inevitable and will likely become more intense if growing power demands bump up against increased efforts to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife.

When the whole community is considered and the objective is good governance then there is no use for the adversarial coalitions and political posturing lauded in the opinion piece. That's just petty politics not useful environmentalism or effective input to policy in the interest of good governance.

This is why paleo-environmentalism is losing as well as why the old coalitions it is part of are losing. Updated rhetoric and changing the roster of players in the coalition - kicking out the perennially immature protesters and students and replacing them with salty fisher-folk and Indian groups - is still a losing mind set because it is still adversarial and gleefully seeks to harm the community for power and profit.

To succeed modern environmentalism must distance itself from politics and focus on governance. Each political group has environmental objectives that can benefit from policy input by those who have given special attention to the whole subject. Facing the inherent conflicts between the needs of all the community and the places they inhabit and seeking creative ways to dynamically balance those needs is a worthy task and will result over time as political power changes hands in the greatest progress, the healthiest communities and environments, and reclaim environmentalism from the trash heap.