Adam Werbach, former president of the Sierra Club, made a pretty powerful speech a few weeks back in which he argued that the environmental movement needs to re-integrate itself with the broader progressive movement in order to win a new generation of victories.
Adam works over much the same territory as Shellenberger and Nordhaus do in their recent “Death of Environmentalism” paper, but does it far more eloquently, and couches a strong critique in a more positive, less antagonistic tone. Because of this, I think it stands a better chance of generating the kind of conversations this movement desperately needs to have.
Well worth a read (or a listen.)
On a related theme, Alex Steffen thinks that “bright green thinking” is the way forward.
Look at the explosion of interest in bright green technologies in the design professions, in business and in popular culture. From Hollywood to Wall Street to the radical fringe of design innovation, there’s a sense that a cultural moment is unfolding. An awareness that sustainability can be cosmopolitan and urban, stylish and dynamic, profitable and progressive.
I know I can provide anecdotal evidence for the trend myself: I’ve been getting a bunch of calls from journalists and requests to speak to groups in the last month or so. Other allies I’ve spoken to report a similar buzz. Heck, even the parties are getting better, like the Treehugger launch party the other night, which was jammed with hip, interesting people having a fabulous time and talking about how to change the world.
Having a fabulous time. Changing the world. Isn’t that what it’s all about?
“he argued that the environmental movement needs to re-integrate itself with the broader progressive movement in order to win a new generation of victories.”
I can’t agree more – both as an activist and as Sierra campaign organizer. We need new ideas, new blood, new directions… energy, emotion, a cultural edge, etc.
Werbach echoes George Lakoff’s insistence that the left lacks that cohesive energy and strategy that makes the right so -I hate to say it- effective. They, the right, tie all their issues together in the most perfect little value-knots and talking points. We need to do this – tie the environment into cultural and social values, into health and economics. Canadian scientist and environmentalist David Suzuki ties the environment -and our attitudes towards it and each other- into everything. I saw him interviewed recently on television and the host of the show asked him what was the most compelling issue of all issues we face. Suzuki said that he felt the most critical challenge we face is within our minds. That everything – environment, social justice, equality, etc – is tied into concepts and thinking and that things cannot change unless our thinking changes. One of the things we have to start doing is making larger connections, thinking more creatively -metaphorically/poetically/metonymically even – about the environment , our beliefs, our lifestyles, our motivations, everything. The old approaches simply cannot complete with the speed and force of our world.
To those of you who haven’t read Lakoff I insist that you do so immediately. It is essential reading for all progressives/leftists/liberals (however you define yourself).
Melanie-
Couldn’t agree more. David Suzuki hits many of the right notes; it’s too bad that he’s Candaian, because it makes him politcally irrelevant here in the U.S. (That’s really not intended as a slam on Canada, but as a hard-nosed comment on the pathetic state of US political discourse.)
I recently spearheaded an effort at ONE/Northwest to distribute copies of Lakoff to hundreds of environmental leaders here in the Northwest — I think we pumped out something like 250 copies. I know the wheels are turning to bring him in to consult with enviros here in Seattle and Vancouver, possibly Portland as well.
Some have commented that Lakoff is better at arguing FOR framing than at actually doing it, at least for environmental issues. That may be fair, but to me it just emphasizes the need to devote focused energy to this difficult task.
All true, Jon – I hear what you’re saying about Suzuki and the US given the entire political climate in your country. He’s done a lot though to mainstream the environment for Canadians through his TV show The Nature of Things http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/
As for Lakoff, I also agree that putting the frames into action is much harder than articulating why we need them. I think a good challenge for all of us – particularly enviros – is to actively develop our own frames. Use some of the ones he started with as examples and build on those. Perhaps if some envirobloggers started a category in their blogs just for frames we could, collectively, begin to construct our own strategic body of frames? Such an effort – by bloggers (although one could argue this is already underway) – would embody the kind of cohesive-message that Lakoff identifies as being absent from “the left” (that free-floating, hybrid-issued grouping causes and concerns). This is not to say that we are not effective in our different but related goals and causes but that we need to find more connections and play in-concert rather than tooting our horns in a cacophony of solos
(myself included …).
In Yolo County our Coalition for Local Power has been organizing to take over the electric business from Pacific Gas & Electric since 1997. Now we are trying to get annexed to the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), a publicly owned electric utility governed by an elected 7-person Board.
In our article “Should We Join SMUD?” in the Nov. 2004 Yolano FLAME of the local Sierra Club chapter we cite the reasons for joining SMUD:1)SMUD is cheaper; 2) SMUD is greener (5 times as much PV per meter; twice as much windpower); 3)SMUD has happier customers; 4)SMUD’s top executive are in it for the service, not the money (In 2003 SMUD’s General Manager made $283,327; PG&E Co’s CEO/President “earned $11,838,392); 5)SMUD is more democratic. (PG&E is governed by a self-selecting Board of Directors). For more on this theme, including our article, go to the Coalition for Local Power website at www2.dcn.org/orgs/localpower/.
Or look at WHO OWNS THE SUN? which John O’Connor and I published in 1996, esp. Ch. 4:”:Public Power” and Ch. 5, “Green Capitalism and Wall Street Environmentalism,” which attacks NRDC and the Energy Foundation for their consistent defense of the giant utilities in everything they do. For more on this theme go to “The Private Energy Elite:How the Energy Foundation has abandoned environmentalists and used big money to greenwash the private utility industry,” Oct 8, 1997 in the SF Bay Guardian. Nothing new to democratic public power activists…..Hal Harvey and I had lunch in Nov. 1997 and he admitted that he lived in Davis he would be in favor of a Davis Municipal Utility District, but didn’t response to my query, “If it’s good for Davis, why not for the rest of California?”
In sum, go to http://www.dcn.org/orgs/localpower/ or http://www.SMUDannexationstudy.com at the end of January to see the results of the US$500,000 SMUD annexation study regarding the annexation of most of Yolo County. According to our estimates, PG&E spent almost $300,000 in 1997-2000 to keep the issue of a Davis MUD off of the ballot…and spent over $4 million to defeat the various public power measures on the ballot in San Francisco in 2001 and 2002. The best source for these campaigns in the San Francisco Bay Guardian.
Rest assured…we expect NOT help from NRDC’s Ralph Cavanagh or the Energy Foundation or any other large “environmental” groups in our struggles. But the fight goes on….Email us at bermfam@mcihispeed.net if you want to know more…..Or read WHO OWNS THE SUN? online at http://www.chelseagreen/images/whoownsthesun.pdf. We have been working on this for a long time….. Dan Berman