During the school year this is where I work: PCEI (The Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute). It is here where I first learned of of this little gem.
Now many, many counter pieces are being written on the problem with this article's ideas, such as this.
(I'm standing on my soap box right now-careful of flying spit...)
After reading many articles over the past few days on what various authors think is the problem with the article, "The Death of Environmentalism," I decided I agree with Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus.
This article compelled me to do something for Mother Nature. To see that after reading Muir, Dillard and even my favorite web zine www.grist.org I could be a part of the movement. It all may seem to be dead now, but Shellenberger and Nordhaus gave examples and ideas of how to revive it all.
Start on the grassroots level, find a common bond and focus, and run with it.
Rather than sitting around and debating about weather Shellenberger and Nordhaus leave out gender and race, start to understand that movements like the environmental, or feminist or generational movements can't move until those who want to be involved take charge. And I believe there is a huge reliance on the minority. History has shown that it is the minority that gets things done, it is these dedicated people that want to see a change, that in the end, make the change.
I agree that the environmental movement has been pushed by liberal white men. But I don't agree that Shellenberger and Nordhaus overlooked race and gender on purpose. In this day and age, anyone who looks at publishing such a political piece knows to look at gender and race and how it is displayed in their thoughts.
But rather I believe that they understand what has killed the movement and what it will take to revive it. It takes, organizations like the PCEI, and other local non-profit grassroots orgs. to transform what people think of saving the environment.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus stress over and over throughout their piece that "we believe the most important next steps will emerge from teams not individuals." OR "'But, if we would focus on how our interests are aligned we might craft something more creative together than apart. By signifying a unified concern for people and the climate...'"
If we as a nation could get past pointing fingers and assuming that individuals and groups are out to get the minority and believing that everything is a battle against one another I don't think the environmental movement would be dead. I don't think we would have minorities, but rather we would be a majority fighting for a common goal. If we would start to get behind one another and support each other's visions and beliefs things in this country would get done, rather than just being talked about. And this is what I think is the heart of "The Death of Environmentalism" article.
"In the absence of a bold vision and a reconsideration of the problem, environmental leaders are effectively giving the "I have a nightmare" speech, not just in our press interviews but also in the way that we make our proposals. The world's most effective leaders are not issues-identified but rather vision and value-identified. These leaders distinguish themselves by inspiring hope against fear, love against injustice and power against powerlessness."
