[Ibon]

Enjoyed very much reading this piece by Paul Kingsnorth. His article reveals how the sustainability movement is mostly about strengthening Kudzu Ape and is really in the mainstream just a total farce. His views are eloquently stated. An ecocentric perspective that reflects my own views, born from my youth spending too much time in wild places.

Worth to read and consider.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/ ... icle/6599/

Today’s environmentalism is as much a victim of the contemporary cult of utility as every other aspect of our lives, from science to education. We are not environmentalists now because we have an emotional reaction to the wild world. Most of us wouldn’t even know where to find it. We are environmentalists now in order to promote something called “sustainability.” What does this curious, plastic word mean? It does not mean defending the nonhuman world from the ever-expanding empire of Homo sapiens sapiens, though some of its adherents like to pretend it does, even to themselves. It means sustaining human civilization at the comfort level that the world’s rich people—us—feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” that is needed to do so.

It is, in other words, an entirely human-centered piece of politicking, disguised as concern for “the planet.” In a very short time—just over a decade—this worldview has become all-pervasive. It is voiced by the president of the USA and the president of Anglo-Dutch Shell and many people in between. The success of environmentalism has been total—at the price of its soul.

[kublikhan]

George Carlin said something like this as well:

George Carlin on The Environment

[Newfie]

Niçe, well put. Thanks.

[Ibon]

George Carlin said something like this as well:

George Carlin on The Environment

One of America's prophets.

[Newfie]

Read through the entire posting. A bit long winded but I truly liked the sentiment. And also the Carlin bit. I played that at church one time. Got some looks on that one!

[Loki]

We are environmentalists now in order to promote something called “sustainability.” What does this curious, plastic word mean? It does not mean defending the nonhuman world from the ever-expanding empire of Homo sapiens sapiens, though some of its adherents like to pretend it does, even to themselves. It means sustaining human civilization at the comfort level that the world’s rich people—us—feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” that is needed to do so.

This is not a new development, “environmentalism” (i.e., conservation) in the late 19th and early 20th century consisted primarily of developing “sustainable yield” systems of resource management. Samuel Hays' “Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency” is the seminal work on the subject.

But there have always been those who have been concerned with protecting biodiversity and landscape ecosystems. This is the classic tension in modern American environmental history. Think Gifford Pinchot vs. John Muir.

That said, I share the OP's concern that the “efficiency” and “environmental justice” types are too dominant, and the branch of the environmental movement devoted to protecting the wild is too subordinate. Also agree with him that the “social justice” types have had a negative effect on the environmental movement:

Environmentalism, which in its raw, early form had no time for the encrusted, seized-up politics of left and right, offering instead a worldview that saw the growth economy and the industrialist mentality beloved by both as the problem in itself, was now being sucked into the yawning, bottomless chasm of the “progressive” left. Suddenly, people like me, talking about birch trees and hilltops and sunsets, were politely, or less politely, elbowed to one side by people who were bringing a “class analysis” to green politics.

Here in the US it hasn't been “class analysis” so much as “environmental justice,” coopting environmentalism and turning it into a minor branch of the civil rights movement. I went to an environmental justice conference once; they had separate sessions for whites and “people of color,” and the main speaker, a black civil rights activist, openly denounced environmentalists. Came away from it with a sour taste in my mouth.

[WildRose]

There was a Wordsworthian feel to the whole thing: the defense of the trees simply because they were trees. Living under the stars and in the rain, in the oaks and in the chaotic, miraculous tunnels beneath them, in the soil itself like the rabbits and the badgers. We were connected to a place; a real place that we loved and had made a choice to belong to, if only for a short time. There was little theory, much action, but even more simple being. Being in a place, knowing it, standing up for it. It was environmentalism at its rawest, and the people who came to be part of it were those who loved the land, in their hearts as well as their heads.

I very much identify with his sentiments here. There are many places I regard in this way, places I visit maybe once a year and also places I walk in every week. Some of them are places that currently are shrinking because of development and I mourn that every time I visit with my dog.

I enjoyed this piece, and I do get how Kingsworth reached his conclusions about today's environmentalism. There is lip service paid to environmentalism by "greenies" just as there is by the industries that are most damaging to the environment. However, I think he is generalizing and making some incorrect assumptions about the goals of environmental action today. For example, there is a huge protest this weekend in many cities in Canada fueled by a desire to limit tar sands growth, specifically so that 1) places sacred to many might be spared a disastrous bitumen spill, and 2) carbon emissions, linked to water and air pollution and climate change, will be slowed. The motivation here is to protect the resources (water, air, trees, wildlife) most precious to us, because they're vital and beautiful and worthy of protection.

Cleaner forms of energy and powering down seem to me like steps that will protect our natural world far better than the trajectory we're currently on. I would not think that we could continue "business as usual" (that is, the way we know it now) with renewables, which to me imply more careful, conscious use of energy.

[americandream]

Powering down global capitalism is something of an urban myth for want of a better description. In essence, its another example of can kicking. Unless we remove the culture of profit, it is wasted effort on an unachieveable end.

[sparky]

.
The comment on environmentalist is very limitative.
President Trujillo of the Dominican republic was a blod soaked tyrant ,
In the fifties he switched the whole country to butane gas for cooking
it saved their forests , the poors are totally destructive , they have no choice

at the border with the barren Haiti , the lush forest was protected from
cross border logging by having the offenders hands chopped off .

Margaret Tatcher , worried about atmospheric change founded the Hadley center
the foremost organism for climate prediction , here is part of her opening speech

"Many of us have been worried for some time now about the accumulating evidence of damage to the global environment and the consequences for life on Earth and for future generations. I spoke about this to the Royal Society in 1988 and to the United Nations General Assembly in November last year. Today, with the publication of the Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, we have an authoritative early warning system, an agreed assessment from some three hundred of the world's leading scientists on what is happening to the world's climate—all this under your distinguished chairmanship, Dr. Houghton. I congratulate you on getting three hundred distinguished scientists to agree on a single report

Your Report confirms that greenhouse gases are increasing substantially as a result of Man's activities; that this will warm the Earth's surface, with serious consequences for us all, and that these consequences are capable of prediction. We want to predict them more accurately and that is why we are opening this Centre today.[fo 1]

We have therefore a Report of historic significance. It is not something arcane or remote from everyday concerns. What it predicts will affect our daily lives. Governments and international organisations in every part of the world are going to have to sit up and take notice and respond.

Of course, there is a lot more that we still need to find out but if the Panel's predictions are broadly right, then the world could become hotter than at any time in the last 100,000 years and just to get our time perspectives right, can I remind you that Abraham was around only 5,000 years ago! "



I could mention many examples ,
not mentioning Hitler would be unfair to one of his very few redeeming qualities

[americandream]

What exactly is your point sparky? Could you clarify a rating order for the individuals you list, perhaps...and why?

[dohboi]

Carlin is a great entertainer. Biologist/ecologist--not so much.

I like how Kingsnorth brings up deeper questions that are sometimes shied away from in mainstream circles, but I can't agree with all of his characterizations of the env movement. (ad, good luck trying to make sense of nearly anything that sparks tries to say--I've pretty much given up on that one.)

[sparky]

.
I would be hard put to make a ranking list ,
My point is concern for nature is hardly the property of one political side
Concern and love for the natural word is not limited to an inner city lifestyle or mind set.
I could add another , Nixon supported the creating of the EPA .

the thread seems to concentrate on the "official" Greens and NGO

Some "environmentalists" are simply striking a pause , with no critical thinking
it goes like that ...." if all my friends repeat the same things ,since we are so smart ,it's obviously true "
If one dig a bit deeper in their semantics , one found petty middle class contempt for lowly suburban workers
they have to be told how to think properly an be forced to cut their lifestyle

[dohboi]

"Concern and love for the natural word is not limited to an inner city lifestyle "

Has anyone here made any such absurd claim? If so, please point to the post where that specific claim was made. If not, who are you talking to, exactly?

(Much of the rest of your post is nearly incomprehensible--"striking a pause"? Do you mean "striking a pose"? If so, big deal. Happens everywhere. If there is a particular pose that a particular environmentalist has struck, point it out to us so we can see if it really is a pose or not. It's generally a good idea to re-read your prose a few times before posting, if communication of anything is your actual goal. I generally regret it when I haven't done so, myself.)

[SeaGypsy]

The linked article is a great find. I have sought for words found herein. I have nothing to add...

I am leaving on a pilgrimage to find what I left behind in the jungles and by the cold campfires and in the parts of my head and my heart that I have been skirting around because I have been busy fragmenting the world in order to save it; busy believing it is mine to save. I am going to listen to the wind and see what it tells me, or whether it tells me anything at all. You see, it turns out that I have more time than I thought. I will follow the songlines and see what they sing to me and maybe, one day, I might even come back. And if I am very lucky I might bring with me a harvest of fresh tales, which I can scatter like apple seeds across this tired and angry land.

[Loki]

Sparky's point---expressed in his crude pidgin---is that environmentalists are nothing but a bunch of Nazis. At the same moral level as tyrants who chop people's hands off and gas undesirables. It's a standard wingnut meme.

Funny, when I was protesting the logging of old growth forests back in the '90s I wasn't aware that I should have been wearing jackboots and a red arm band. Certainly would have increased media coverage.

It's hip to be anti-environmentalist these days, among both left and right. The original article's provocative title is yet another sign of this fad. It's unfortunate.

[americandream]

If these critics stopped to think of the repression that will accompany collapse (at either the resourcing level or climate, or both), I suspect they would stop to think carefully about the next comeback.

Sparky's point---expressed in his crude pidgin---is that environmentalists are nothing but a bunch of Nazis. At the same moral level as tyrants who chop people's hands off and gas undesirables. It's a standard wingnut meme.

Funny, when I was protesting the logging of old growth forests back in the '90s I wasn't aware that I should have been wearing jackboots and a red arm band. Certainly would have increased media coverage.

It's hip to be anti-environmentalist these days, among both left and right. The original article's provocative title is yet another sign of this fad. It's unfortunate.

[Newfie]

I can't seem to sufficiently follow all the replies.

What I do know is that I feel we have far too little respect for the natural world. It is a pity.

I've had a pretty strong Humanist background, and while I find myself sympathetic to the cause, I feel they too are pretty rough on the natural, mostly out of ignorance.

I do feel some sympathy for the extreme Eco warrior movement. I don't support their methods, but I do understand the desire. But perhaps the failing is mine, I don't have the strength of my convictions.

Was Ted Kazinski all wrong?

What about Thoreau on Civil Disobedence?

Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War.

[Ibon]

For example, there is a huge protest this weekend in many cities in Canada fueled by a desire to limit tar sands growth, specifically so that 1) places sacred to many might be spared a disastrous bitumen spill, and 2) carbon emissions, linked to water and air pollution and climate change, will be slowed. The motivation here is to protect the resources (water, air, trees, wildlife) most precious to us, because they're vital and beautiful and worthy of protection.

Cleaner forms of energy and powering down seem to me like steps that will protect our natural world far better than the trajectory we're currently on. I would not think that we could continue "business as usual" (that is, the way we know it now) with renewables, which to me imply more careful, conscious use of energy.

There is no doubt that in the Canadian population there is a significant percentage of citizens who focus on protecting wild lands and natural resources for the sake of the species therein as much as for human sustainability. That is exemplary but they are far outnumbered, even in Canada, by those advocating the prostitution of sustainability as a concept of strengthening human utility as highlighted by the author.

What is being discussed here is nothing short of the most egregious collective Kudzu Ape hypocrisy. Sustainability as a means to maintain our invasive population in overshoot and maintain our invasive consumption behavior.

It is collective cowardice, collective hypocrisy, and in this late stage of overshoot with instabilities at our doorstep, collective blindness and stupidity.

It is abundantly clear that we are surrendering our fate to external events whose consequences will impose the changes we are incapable of designing into our economic, political and spiritual institutions.

These consequences will be our teachers. For those of us that will reach the graduation date when the diplomas are handed out...

The Overshoot Predator came to me in a dream last night and whispered in my ear that there are only about 1.5 billion diplomas printed.

[americandream]

As far as the capitalist is concerned, the natural world is just another resource....like oil, or copper, or iron ore...to be exploited. The masses are preoccupied with earning enough to shop etc. I dont think you will get much more, for the moment.

I can't seem to sufficiently follow all the replies.

What I do know is that I feel we have far too little respect for the natural world. It is a pity.

I've had a pretty strong Humanist background, and while I find myself sympathetic to the cause, I feel they too are pretty rough on the natural, mostly out of ignorance.

I do feel some sympathy for the extreme Eco warrior movement. I don't support their methods, but I do understand the desire. But perhaps the failing is mine, I don't have the strength of my convictions.

Was Ted Kazinski all wrong?

What about Thoreau on Civil Disobedence?

Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War.

[SeaGypsy]

What is being discussed here is nothing short of the most egregious collective Kudzu Ape hypocrisy. Sustainability as a means to maintain our invasive population in overshoot and maintain our invasive consumption behavior.

It is collective cowardice, collective hypocrisy, and in this late stage of overshoot with instabilities at our doorstep, collective blindness and stupidity.

Exactly, it's like the author's honesty itself is some strange beast in itself, a modern day Platypus.