It's getting tougher and tougher to figure out who the real environmentalists are anymore

By Kay Martin

Folks flying the environmental banner nowadays march to a host of different drummers. Some are hirsute, some Ivy League. Some embrace science, others rhetoric. Some seek to unify and build, others to divide and obstruct. Some advocate diversity and preservation, while others harbor a decidedly xenophobic or incendiary spirit.

In short, things have gotten rather untidy in the “enviro” ranks, and more than a bit confusing. What does it mean to be green? With such a Babylonian medley of scientists, practitioners, and crusaders bearing witness, policymakers are at the mercy of mixed messages. To whom shall legislators and the general public turn for guidance in matters of “saving the Earth?”

Who’s Who?
In pondering this question one rainy afternoon, it occurred to me that what we really need is a glossary for the environmentalist spectrum—one that puts some labels on the various shades of green, from the faintest tinge of global awareness to the dusky funeral pyres of torched SUVs. How many of the following have you spotted lately at local public hearings?

Eco-ignoramus: a person who believes that the planet’s bounty is perpetual and there for the taking by the chosen or most fit, that resources and fossil fuels are here to stay, that dilution is the solution to pollution, and that biodiversity should be limited to species that either feed or otherwise pleasure Homo sapiens

Eco-libertarian: one who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted preservation of all planetary species; recognizes a common spiritual essence in all living things; is associated with Mother Nature, Mother Earth, and Earth Goddess cults; disdains modern society as impure or depraved; and seeks a return to pristine, pre-industrial landscapes

Eco-pragmatist: an adherent of the theory that Earth’s resources are limited but may be replenished through conservation, greater productive efficiencies, and development of new raw materials and renewable industries; one who advocates the application of science and technology to the solution of environmental challenges, supports free market initiatives and cost-benefit approaches to resource and pollution issues, and believes that sustainability rests on the practical merging of environmental, social, and economic values

Eco-ideologue: an adherent of the theory that Earth’s resources are in imminent danger of running out unless drastic interventions are imposed; one who advocates mandatory changes in production and consumption, distrusts free market solutions and cost-benefit approaches to resource issues and environmental problems, and believes environmental values should be prioritized over all other societal needs and pursued “at any cost”

Eco-evangelist (aka Eco-sectarian, Eco-fascist): an Eco-ideologue for whom theory has become religion, with associated concepts of good and evil; one who ascribes to the doctrine that large corporations conspire with the disposal industry to wantonly destroy resources and pollute the environment for profit; advocates decentralization of the capitalist economy, a mandatory reverse distribution system for all manufactured products, and radical corporate tax reforms; and demonizes “non-believers”

Eco-Jacobin (aka Eco-obstructionist): a person who specializes in the political dismantling of policy initiatives and development projects perceived as contrary to environmental goals; utilizes existing environmental statute, organized lobbies, and litigation as tools to thwart innovation and change; and advocates selective manipulation of scientific or factual data and fear campaigns to negatively influence public opinion

Eco-terrorist: a clandestine saboteur who advocates destruction of private property and acts of physical violence against persons perceived as “enemies” of an environmental cause or movement (e.g., fire-bombings of development projects and “liberation” of laboratory animals)

Eco-fatalist: one who believes the Earth, its resources, and its inhabitants are irreversibly doomed (i.e., no matter what we do, we’re just one step short of the Apocalypse) and thinks the rest of us are nuts for trying to fix it

Whose Who?
This is just a small sampling of folks who regularly voice opinions on the environment. With such a diverse set of players, it’s no wonder the public gets confused. What’s worse, there are at least some tantalizing tidbits in each viewpoint that seem to engender sympathies or occasionally make sense. For example, consumption can be fun; birds and bunnies are appealing; natural resources are being depleted; industry has had some bad actors; and things do appear hopeless at times.

But there is something distinctly unpalatable about those who have abandoned all efforts at rational solutions, or for whom the ends have been construed to justify the means. Environmentalists, in their role as resource stewards, advisors, and watchdogs, engender a measure of public trust. They should also, therefore, lend themselves to public scrutiny. Civil servants are held to certain minimum qualifications and standards. Why not environmentalists?

Here’s some litmus tests I’d like to see.

Real environmentalists must

• be from the same planet they are trying to save. This is kind of baseline, isn’t it? While our democratic system embraces free speech, the credibility of spokespersons must ultimately rest upon rational thought rather than fable, spiritualism, anthropomorphism, or grand conspiracy;
• value science and truth as the ultimate arbiters. Factual data and science are cornerstones to our understanding of resource relationships and the development of effective strategies to meet environmental challenges. Selective use of data and intellectual dishonesty are antithetical to this goal. Mixing natural science with political science makes for dangerous cocktails;
• see the big picture. Much lip service is paid to the phrase “Think globally, act locally.” But how often are commentators on environmental issues driven by decidedly narrow agendas, such as political posturing, NIMBY, or market share? One of the challenges of the 21st century is to recast policy issues and development initiatives into the broader context of global resources and the global economy. A dynamic systems approach is essential. This begins at home with life-cycle planning and incentives for technological advances and new industrial platforms that can benefit the world community;
• focus on optimization and outcomes. Because resource relationships and technology are dynamic, there is no single anointed path to environmental salvation. Current environmental platforms are not immune to conservatism and dogma, and in some cases constitute major impediments to innovation and progress. Forward thinkers shun prescriptive formulas, and instead pursue performance-based frameworks that open the playing field to multiple pathways and novel solutions;
• accommodate a diversity of values. Instituting fundamental changes in the way resources are perceived and utilized requires behavior modification across the entire industrial spectrum, from production to consumption. Whether pursued at the individual level or in society at large, environmental goals must be realized within the complex fabric of competing sociocultural and economic values. The most powerful messages and greatest gains are built on the foundation of compromise and accommodation. This lesson, along with the value of a well-developed sense of humor, is frequently lost on absolutists; and
• believe the battle can be won. It’s said that the pessimist has no motor, and the optimist has no brakes. Without the will to win, there is no progress. But pedal to the metal is not enough. Effective change agents know when to accelerate, when to downshift, how to negotiate obstacles, and how to cut new roads to the ultimate destination. Unlike the evangelist, whose optimism rests on the slippery slope of righteousness and unitary paths, the pragmatist has few answers at the onset, but gathers enlightenment and momentum along the way. True optimism is fueled by an inherent curiosity, keen observation, invention, experimentation, the joy of meeting challenges, and a fundamental belief in human ingenuity.

After completing this little exercise, I found myself back where I started. How many people can measure up to these criteria? Plenty. Fact is, this profile fits the lion’s share of everyday solid waste managers to a tee. Hats off to the real environmentalists! As for the mystics, Armageddonists, myopic crusaders, charlatans, and those who would pursue chicanery in the name of “environmental benefit,” I say, pox on all of their houses.

Kay Martin is with the BioEnergy Producers Association.

MSW - Elements 2006