As a preface to this post, I want to emphasize that, despite what others may think, I consider myself an environmentalist. I always have, and I always will. However, I realize that I just don't fit in with those who wear it on their deceptive unscientific sleeves.
The previous post explained how the environmental movement has failed to evolve, and on a national basis, the movement no longer enjoys the broad-based support that it once did. Surveys by The Nature Conservancy show that most people in America now consider environmentalists to be extremists. What the environmental movement currently lacks in broad appeal, it tries to make up for with stridency. It's as if all the reasonable-sounding environmentalists have been boiled off, leaving a demi glace eco-reduction that is foul-tasting and stale, instead of delicious.
And those remaining in the pure eco-residue have a narrative for explaining what has happened to them, and it usually involves claims of betrayal, Koch-brother inspired conspiracies, dirty-tricks, and general blindness on the part of non-believers who are not smart or enlightened enough to foresee the imminent ecosystem collapse.
Cross the Friends or their friends and you immediately become labeled in this County. You're "street noise," "unethical," "unprofessional," "Republican," "deluded," "a property rights activist," or any number of similar names used to rally the traditional reactionary hatreds in our community. For the environmental purists in our midsts, it isn't about science or community, it's about winning. Labels are part of the winning strategy of marginalization. Labels are, after all, a variety of thought-terminating cliche too. It's what a person does when they want to quell their own cognitive dissonance and end debate, instead of make a point.
When challenged, the narrative of modern environmentalism falls back on dubious claims of pervasive ecosystem harm that ("they" say) is the inevitable consequence of human existence. The narrative makes arcane arguments about carrying capacity, population growth, and societal collapse. It's long on gloomy predictions and short on facts. The solution narrative is always the same: more and more intrusive government control and coordination needed to avert the ecological version of end times.
We've seen two examples of the eco-noise narrative stoking the enviro-disaster furnace over the past week. One is a letter in the famously sympathetic sanjuanislander.com from Janet Alderton, Friends Board member. The other is an abstruse eco-planning tome about carrying capacity from Orcas.
Janet Alderton's letter is typically quaint for its absurdity. It focuses on a study completed two years ago as if it's breaking news. It repeats unfounded claims that she has made ad nauseum of ubiquitous pesticide pollution in our waters, despite such claims being dismissed by both Ecology and highly-qualified eco-toxicologists. Nevertheless, Janet is driven to distraction by the insecticide used to control carpenter ants, and she writes as if the pesticide and the Common Sense Alliance are in cahoots to destroy our planet. As inevitable as another Elvis sighting, in the months and years to come, we'll probably see more preachy "breaking news" from Janet that repeats tired, discredited claims about lethal carpenter-ant pesticide contamination.
And speaking of preachy, when youth (15 to 18) are asked in focus groups what an "environmentalist" looks like to them, the image they conjure up is that of a woman or girl. She wears lots of green and is wealthy and preachy. The word "preachy" shows up over and over again in focus groups. When young people are asked about this archetypical environmentalist, they say that she is nice enough, but they don't want to socialize with her.
The big environmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy realize that's a problem because national demographics are seismically shifting. The conservation movement always has been rich and white, but the country continues to be less so every day.
The message is that if the leaders of the environmental movement continue to look and behave like Janet Alderton, Stephanie Buffum (the ex Mrs Suckling), Lovel Pratt, or Shireene Hale, its long-term outlook is not good.
In the short-term, however, it is the eco-preachers that have cornered us, and it is our outlook that isn't very good. The CAOs have been imbued with "the narrative" and that makes us subject to their preachy, false, and foul-tasting requirements.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #35 - Stuck in the Past
This CAO series has included a mini-series about risk and another about functions and values. We will now embark on a discussion about the environmental movement itself, including its relationship to politics, where environmentalism almost has become a third rail. This is bad news, and most regrettably, it is bad news for environmentalism.
Popular perceptions are that the Right doesn't care about the environment while the Left is obsessed with it. Figures from the Pew Research Center support that view, showing increasing polarization of the Parties, with "environmentalism" being one of the most polarizing issues.
It wasn't always this way. While even the most partisan Democrat might acknowledge the conservation ethic of Republican Teddy Roosevelt, it might be harder for Democrats to recall that much of our current environmental regulatory framework was established during Republican administrations.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 were signed by Democratic Presidents, but they owe their existence in large part to Republican John Saylor, dubbed "St. John" by the environmentalists of his day. Richard Nixon signed several key environmental laws into effect including the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), creation of the EPA (1970), Clean Air Act Extension (1970), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974). San Juan County's own Bill Ruckelshaus, Republican, banned DDT (based on a risk assessment, I might add) while serving as the first EPA Administrator. And Bush 41 strengthened the Clean Air Act in 1990 (Clean Air Act Amendments).
It's perhaps a measure of how far we've fallen that we now look back at the Nixon Administration as the good old days for environmental bipartisanship. What happened? I am sure many Democrats wonder how Republican views could have changed so drastically with respect to the environment? Well, that may not be the right question because it may not be so much that Republicans have changed, but that environmentalism hasn't.
Using nature as an analogy, the environmental movement has failed to evolve, and it may be going extinct as a result. It is highly endangered within its former Republican habitat, and despite apparent vitality among Democrats, it is not assured a viable future there either. One of the few leading conservationists with the backbone to talk about the problems of modern environmentalism is Peter Kareiva of the Nature Conservancy. This is what a recent article said about Kareiva and his organization. It is reminiscent of what we face on our CAOs.
"We love the horror story. We just love it. The environmental movement has loved it. That, I think, is ... [a] strategy failure. And it's actually not supported by science."
The average age of a conservancy member is 65. The average age of a new member is 62. Each year, those numbers creep upward. Only 5 percent of the group's 1 million members are younger than 40. Among the "conservation minded" -- basically, Americans who have tried recycling -- only 8 percent recognize the group. Inspiration doesn't cut it anymore. Love of nature is receding. The '60s aren't coming back.
It's a problem confronting all large conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Quietly, these massive funds -- nicknamed the BINGOs, for "big nongovernmental organizations" -- have utterly revamped their missions, trumpeting conservation for the good it does people, rather than the other way around. "Biodiversity" is out; "clean air" is in.
"In fact, if anything, this is becoming the new orthodoxy," said Steve McCormick, the Nature Conservancy's former president. "It's widespread. Conservation International changed its mission, and it's one that Peter Kareiva could have crafted."
For these groups, it's a matter of survival. But for ecologists like Kareiva, it's science.
The County philosophy behind the rewrite of our CAOs is straight out of yesteryear, complete with horror stories, an absence of science, and an aging anti-people approach.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #34 - User Error
Sometimes things aren't what they seem to be, are they? That's certainly the case with many aspects of the CAOs, but we'll consider the CAO functions and values in just a moment. Let's first look at a recent email turned up by a public records request (see image at bottom of this post). Apparently, Councilman Jamie Stephens is under the misapprehension that the Trojan Heron "doesn't accept comments contrary to their posts, but it is what it is."
Actually, it isn't what it is. Since the Trojan Heron began in February of this year, it has received over 45,000 hits, has 147 posts, and 410 comments. There are no restrictions on comments. Anyone can say anything. The comments are not moderated. We hope the Trojan Heron never has to moderate comments. In its entire yet brief existence, the Trojan Heron has deleted precisely one comment. Want to see it? Here it is.
レイバン サングラスと言えば、偏光レンズがいいとよく言われる。特にレイバン aviatorが良くて、形も綺麗だそうで、すごく気になる。このような数あるRay Ban サングラスだが、どのモデルがキミのイチオシ？ぜひ教えてください！
which was left by someone named shi zan. So unless Jamie is selling Ray Ban aviator sunglasses, speaking (as well as being a) mandarin, and going by the alias of shi zan, I think the Trojan Heron is in the clear on this one. Honestly, if anyone has been unable to post a comment, the Trojan Heron apologizes, but it is not due to our editorial or comment moderation policies. It is more likely due to user error. All I can say is, try try again.
Speaking of user error and "try again," let's get back to the CAOs. I want to recap where we left off regarding functions and values and related items.
The County hasn't identified critical areas functions, hasn't identified values, hasn't surveyed the community about values, hasn't identified any specific ecological stressors, hasn't defined exposure routes or exposure scenarios, hasn't performed a risk assessment, hasn't developed a site-specific approach, and never had any upfront scoping about the gaps that needed to be plugged by a "review" of the current ordinance in the first place.
In place of all that, the County has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the eco-doomsday notion that we never have enough "protection" ... which somehow seems to be linked inevitably to never having enough baseless assumptions, never having enough grants, never having enough consultants, never having enough coordination, never having enough Department of Ecology, never having enough hypocrisy, never having enough tourists, never having enough property restrictions, and never ever ever running out of eco-pessmissm.
As Peter Kareiva of the Nature Conservancy says, if Martin Luther King had been an environmentalist rather than a civil rights activist, his "I have a dream" speech would have been titled "I have a nightmare."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)