The defects in the environmental movement as well as the institutions and policies that have come about as a consequence of it that were discussed a bit in Catch-42 and The Undiscussable are all the more pertinent today.

Gaylord Nelson. . . has died at the age of 89.

After 14 years in Wisconsin politics, Gaylord Nelson was elected to the US Senate in 1962, where he pushed conservation policies until he was defeated in 1980.

He founded Earth Day as an environmental demonstration in the tradition of peaceful protests that had sprung up against the Vietnam War.

Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962, the same year that Nelson began his Senate career. The politicization of the environment, which divided the nation on an inherently apolitical issue that affects everyone, was Nelson's explicit objective. As he tells it:

. . . the idea for Earth Day evolved over a period of seven years starting in 1962. For several years, it had been troubling me that the state of our environment was simply a non-issue in the politics of the country. Finally, in November 1962, an idea occurred to me that was, I thought, a virtual cinch to put the environment into the political "limelight" once and for all. The idea was to persuade President Kennedy to give visibility to this issue by going on a national conservation tour. . .

After President Kennedy's tour, I still hoped for some idea that would thrust the environment into the political mainstream. Six years would pass before the idea that became Earth Day occurred to me while on a conservation speaking tour out West in the summer of 1969. At the time, anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, called "teach-ins," had spread to college campuses all across the nation. Suddenly, the idea occurred to me - why not organize a huge grassroots protest over what was happening to our environment?

I was satisfied that if we could tap into the environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, we could generate a demonstration that would force this issue onto the political agenda. It was a big gamble, but worth a try.

It's difficult to believe today that anyone could be so blind to the consequences of politicization for society and the environment. As farmers say: "you get what you manage for whether you intend it or not". What Carson, Nelson and a host of fellow travelers managed for was polarization and exclusion, in effect drumming those who did not favor the policies and politics of the US Democratic party out of the previously broad based conservation community. The conflict we see today is a direct consequence. Good policy is the victim of partisan sniping and the environment has become secondary to political victory. Each side tries to deny the other any opportunity for credit on environmental issues, even when it is harmful for the environment.

It's easy to imagine and defend counter-factual histories in which conservation remained a broad based and apolitical social concern, and so made very much greater progress without many of the false steps and dead ends that have occurred. The value in this isn't solely in assigning blame, it is in re-imagining conservation for the twenty-first century, freed of the naive baggage of the twentieth.

The Death of Environmentalism discussion sometimes includes ideas about reaching across the isle, toning down the bashing of red-staters and religious groups, and a variety of other specific steps that collectively amount to distancing conservation from the Democratic party. Much of this is a cynical pose, pretending to be be rational in order to steal a march, but the dimly grasped essence of these ideas is useful. Taking it a step further to embrace speakers, leaders and public intellectuals who fully grasp the destructive nature of partisan politics for conservation is what would at long last overcome the legacy of Nelson, Carson et. al. and get society back on a smoother and more productive path.

The dark days of Vietnam protests and Great Society advocacy deformed conservation, but I think it is possible to recover, to dispense with the divisive and counter-productive habits of that grim past, and work collectively to manage the environment well while declining to score points against those who hold differing political views on otherwise unconnected issues. This will take more than grudging acceptance of the methods favored by different views when they can't be crushed by partisan politics. It requires that those different views be explicitly valued and included since they contribute to the overall success of the endeavor. It requires better understanding of the value of diversity for group problem solving as well as a more mature politics that understands the value of inclusiveness for inherently global issues. It will require that we mature beyond teach-ins to learn-ins, recognizing that everyone has something to contribute and that none can achieve their heart's desire unless all have a place at the table and input to policy that is heeded.

Update:

Here's an example of the problem that association with the Democratic party has has caused for environmental policy.

Murray and officials from the Schwarzenegger administration then went back to the drawing board and devised a new and improved (or at least more widely palatable) Million Solar Roofs Initiative that contains no mandate and has been broadened to stimulate solar not only in the residential sector but on commercial and municipal buildings as well. It was appealing enough to conservatives that GOP Sen. John Campbell agreed to cosponsor it, creating an unusual political alliance. "Campbell is not one of these moderate eco-friendly Republicans," . . . "He is an absolute right-wing fiscal conservative from the heart of Orange County. There probably isn't another bill that we would agree on -- it's just that we both understand the logic of this." . .

"The political climate in Sacramento right now is contentious, and that could pose a problem," said Campbell. In other words, Million Solar Roofs could become a pawn in the political skirmish. "The initiative has the governor's imprimatur on it, so some worry that Democrats will shoot it down simply because it would be seen as a big victory for the governor," said Ed Smeloff, an executive at Sharp's California-based U.S. solar division and a strong advocate for the legislation.

By considering the views of all parties a policy was formulated that advanced solar energy in a big way as well as a fiscally responsible way, and that wasn't mucked up with arbitrary mandates. It has support from all sides except the Democratic party which wishes to deny a coup to the (nominally) Republican governor. Environmentalists have an opportunity here to break with the Democrats in a very public and politically effective way. Take names, point and laugh, promise consequences at the polls. Deny Democrats the ability to hold legislation that has broad support hostage to petty political tactics. Those battles can be fought elsewhere. Be clear on this: there are no principled objections to the bill, it is only the wish to deny the Republican governor a greenish victory that motivates the venal Democrats (not that Republicans are above such tactics).

» The Undiscussable from Crumb Trail
I'm always a bit amazed when seemingly careful thinkers try to defend the politicized muddle that has been made of environmentalism. How many people died of malaria because of a ban on DDT? First, there has been no such......[read more]
Tracked: July 3, 2005 01:59 PM