The Greens Are Fading Despite their best efforts and those of their political and academic allies, the well-funded Green Movement is being marginalized ? and this decline is likely to continue.
In fact, the Green movement has found itself in a bit of an environmental crisis. According to Gallups annual Earth Day Poll, environmental issues are next to last on the list of peoples major concerns, finishing just above race relations. More telling, 44 percent of those polled said that the economic concerns should take precedence over protection of the environment. That figure has risen from 23 percent in 2000 and 19 percent in 1990.
Its not that the environmental movement has been hampered by lack of funds. Consider these budgets: $44.6 million for the Environmental Defense Fund; $4.8 million for Friends of the Earth; $9.2 million for the Union of Concerned Scientists; $46 million for the Natural Resources Defense Council; $10 million for Public Citizen; $15 million for the Center for Science in the Public Interest; $20 million for Greenpeace.
Thats a total of $150 million.
To understand the declining of the Greens, lets examine the four primary reasons.
First, and most significantly, many of the initial goals of environmentalism have been achieved.
Just consider the traditional goals of the Green movement, and the progress towards those goals that have been achieved in recent years. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, and a more responsible attitude towards dangerous industrial byproducts. Gregg Easterbrook, writing in the Brookings Review says, “Arguably the greatest post-war achievement of the U.S. government and of the policy community is ever cleaner air and water, accomplished amidst population and economic growth.”
For example, Steve F. Hayward, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that “in the United States, we have reduced every form of air pollution from 30 percent to 99 percent over the past 30 years. [O]zone has increased slightly, although emissions of pollution continue to fall. Because of a quirk in ozone chemistry, ozone levels can rise, even as emissions fall, but this will prove temporary ? ozone levels will be lower 10 years from now. Developing nations are showing signs of following the U.S. model; air pollution in Mexico and China appears to have peaked and is about to start falling.”
According to the EPAs latest assessment in 2003, our environment is steadily getting cleaner, a trend that is likely to continue. The Clean Air Act of 1970 helped to accomplish this. But some amount of pollution is unavoidable. This is true among animals other than humans.
Industrialization is necessary for a healthy economy. But industry, because of its economy of scale, concentrates production in one area, and in doing so concentrates pollution in that area as well, making it much more noticeable. But, for a price ? more expensive goods and services ? the most dangerous kinds of
pollution can be reduced or even eliminated.
Cleanliness is not free, as The Philadelphia Inquirer points out in a recent editorial. “It turns out that it is the wealthy countries of the world that can afford to control their pollution. The poorest countries typically have the worst environmental records. Where free markets and limited government regulation exist, prosperity allows people the luxury of environmentalism.”
The editorial furthers points out that with the substantial gains in a cleaner environment, the “relatively small environmental gains of increasingly stringent regulations must be weighed against their cost, to the economy in general, and especially to the poor.”
It points to John Stossels ABC News special that concluded the greatest threat to human health isnt mercury pollution or asbestos - but poverty. And the wealth that we put into the latest environmental scare might better be spent where it will do the most good.
That brings us to the second reason for radical environmentalisms diminished impact: Business has co-opted the environmentalist rhetoric. Companies like Dow and Toyota demonstrate how sustainable business models and environmentally friendly products can be cost-effective as well. Leading multi-nationals now recognize that making possible a clean environment is good business.
Companies like British Petroleum are doing more to ensure a sustainable environment for mankind and other species than the Greens ever did. And they are doing it in ways that lead to the greatest value for everyone, applying real science in a cost-effective way.
That brings us to perhaps the most serious problem that the Greens face today: More people are recognizing that the arguments put forth by the Greens are based on shoddy science and an irrational worldview. People understand that some of the agendas of environmental groups represent a serious hostility towards progress ? one that is at odds with mainstream social responsibility.
In fact, there is a growing backlash against the fuzzy science and overreaching fervor the environmentalists have applied in the past. Michael Crichton, addressing the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco said, “Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the 20th century history of America.”
DDT was banned after the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, in which she accuses the chemicals use in an array of dangers to human health ? notably cancer ? and ecological ills. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, assesses Carsons science succinctly: “Our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned.”
Then why was DDT banned in 1972? Because the environmental movement prevailed over science. Crichton asserts, “We knew better and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didnt give a damn.”
In assessing the relative power of the Greens, Crichton says, “Our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly. But we do not recognize our past failures and face them squarely. And I think I know why ...today one of the most powerful religions in the Western world is environmentalism...[which] seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.”
Beliefs, then, are often immune to rational scrutiny. Unfortunately, such thinking breeds some tragic ironies. The industrialized world had eradicated malaria and had enjoyed the benefits of DDT before banning it and urging other nations to ban it as well. In the face of an African malaria catastrophe ? one that costs millions of human lives each year, “a completely preventable epidemic . . . Greenpeace is currently campaigning to shut down the only facility in India that still manufacturers DDT,” according to Ted Lapkin, writing in Quadrant.
Crichton puts the deadly price of environmentist action at “somewhere between 10 and 30 million people since the 1970s.” For him, we must wrestle responsible environmentalism from the hands of zealots for whom it has become a surrogate faith and return it to scientific rigor.
“I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply arent true. It isnt that these ‘facts are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case. . . in the strongest way. Not at all ? what more and more groups are doing are putting out lies, pure and simple: falsehoods that they know to be false. The trend began with the DDT campaign and persists to this day,” Crichton contends.
The third reason why the movement is losing its relevance is because it has acquired a curious patronizing, anti-progress message. For example, the president of the Friends of the Earth insists, “Its just not possible for all people to have the material lifestyle of the average American. Im proud that weve been able to block almost 300 hydro-electric projects in developing countries.”
Gar Smith, of Earth Island Institute, explains, “African villagers used to spend their days and evenings sewing clothes . . . on foot-powered sewing machines. Once they got electricity, they spend too much time watching television and listening to the radio.”
The fourth and final factor militating against the Greens is their own growing radicalism. Until recently, mainstream Americans didnt associate environmentalism with the radical fringe. Today, this growing realization diminishes as it compromises the appeal of Green to a wide population.
The launch of The Day After Tomorrow, Hollywoods improbable salute to global warming, is the perfect example of junk science and new age religion meeting radical politics. Although the movie pulled in $68 million during its launch over the Memorial Day weekend, this film has some serious problems.
As Anthony Lane, writing in The New Yorker, sums it up, “The very silliness of The Day After Tomorrow means that global warming will become, in the minds of moviegoers, little more than another nonspecific fear about which they must uncomprehendingly fret. They will vaguely understand that the United States didnt ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the reasoning behind this will be lost in a frosty mist.”
As Lane goes on to point out, the movie takes on a religious fervor when it strikes a “grim, puritanical deal: Having offered us the undoubted pleasure of watching the Empire State Building turn into the worlds tallest Popsicle, it then makes us pay for that pleasure by lecturing us on what irresponsible citizens we have been.” Lane concludes: “I can just about take this from politicians, but not, I fear, from the man who directed Stargate.”
Nevertheless, some environmental groups decided to capitalize on the films publicity to attract attention to their cause, passing out leaflets on global warming outside movie theaters. At a press conference organized by an activist group called MoveOn.org, Al Gore tried to capture a moment of national attention by commenting on the film. He dismissed some of the science of the movie but bewilderingly urged people to see it anyway.
The likelihood that The Day After Tomorrow will rekindle a serious debate about the environment is slight, although it has caused a bit of noise. Like the Green Movement in general, the reliance upon exaggeration over reason and melodrama over science is proving to be self-defeating.
Given the ebb and flow of public opinion, its impossible to say with certainty what exactly the future holds for the Green Movement in the U.S. and globally, but wed like to offer four forecasts for your consideration:
First, the Greens will have increasingly less influence over business and public policy as their message becomes more tailored to a radical fringe.
Second, businesses will continue to embrace ecologically friendly innovations and practices, especially when doing so proves to be cost-effective. The main advantage, though, remains that its an attractive and useful marketing strategy.
Third, rather than moving to the center to facilitate incremental improvements in the environment, many of those who are committed to environmentalism as a “de facto religion” will become even more alienated from the mainstream. As a result, we expect to see even more instances of “eco-terrorism” in the coming decade. Some of these eco-terrorists will resemble the Unabomber, while others will simply be more militant spin-offs from organizations like Greenpeace. This will represent a challenge for corporate security and law enforcement.
Fourth, consumers will continue to respond to products and services that acknowledge environmental concerns, while providing convenience and safety. For example, the Hummer may eventually fade from favor, but the moderate-sized SUV is here to stay.
References List :
1. The Miami Herald, April 26, 2004, "Mother Earth Movement Pass," by Cal Thomas. ⓒ Copyright 2004 by The Miami Herald. All rights reserved.2. ibid.3. The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 22, 2004, "Hidden Costs of Environmentalism Are Getting Too Much to Bear," by Roy W. Spencer. ⓒ Copyright 2004 by Knight-Ridder, Inc. All rights reserved.4. The Australian, January 24, 2004, "Trail of Lies Begins with DDT," by Christopher Pearson. ⓒ Copyright 2004 by Nationwide News Proprietary, Ltd. All rights reserved.5. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was first published in 1962 by the Houghton Mifflin Company. ⓒ Copyright 1962 by Rachel Carson. All rights reserved.6. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg is published by Cambridge University Press. ⓒ Copyright 2001 by Bjorn Lomborg. All rights reserved.7. Quadrant, November 2003, "DDT and the New Colonialists," by Ted Lapkin. ⓒ Copyright 2003 by Quadrant Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved.8. Winnipeg Free Press, January 31, 2004, "Eco-Freaks Turn Against Wind Power," by Tom Oleson. ⓒ Copyright 2004 by Winnipeg Free Press, a Division of FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership. All rights reserved.9. The New Yorker, June 7, 2004, "Cold Comfort," by Anthony Lane. ⓒ Copyright 2004 by CondeNast. All rights reserved.
