The Death of Environmentalism- good riddance!

Yesterday, Michael Shellenberger spoke here at Earlham. I believe, in many ways, what I heard was the future not only of the "environmental" movement but the future of progressive politics as well. I have argued elsewhere for a new "eco-porgressivism" to emerge out of the late modern period that would supplant the problems shot through the current environmental movement- the romantic notions of "Nature", the elitism, the dualism between nature and culture, and the inability to bring humans into the equation when we think about environmental problem solving. This is best signified by the success (in battles) of the ESA- the endangered species act. This act has been used quite successfully to win many an environmental battle- but it loses the war- it turns off more people than it converts- and the debate becomes loggers vs spotted owls. Shellenberger sees this as well, particularly in light of global climate change, which blows any past environmental concern out of the water (pun intended). Here is what he had to say in the now infamous piece titled "The Death of Environmentalism":

"Our thesis is this: the environmental community's narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power. When you look at the long string of global warming defeats under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, it is hard not to conclude that the environmental movement's approach to problems and policies hasn't worked particularly well. And yet there is nothing about the behavior of environmental groups, and nothing in our interviews with environmental leaders, that indicates that we as a community are ready to think differently about our work.

What the environmental movement needs more than anything else right now is to take a collective step back to rethink everything. We will never be able to turn things around as long as we understand our failures as essentially tactical, and make proposals that are essentially technical."

In proclaiming the "death" of environmentalism, he of course is not advocating for the clubbing of seals. But he IS arguing that so long as progressive "greens" cede markets, individualism, aspirations, progress, and hope to the Right, we lose. If we cannot re-shape the debate such that it no longer pits anti-progress, anti-growth environmentalists against common-sense, pro-growth Joe Schmoe Republican (or Democrat for that matter), we lose. Check out his Appollo project. Read his article on the Death of Environmentalism. And then, dear progressive friend, ask yourself, isn't the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing expecting a different result? If progressive greens keep down this road, we lose. The only way to affect policy is to be in power. The only way to be in power is to give people a sense of hope, empowerment, and trust that you have a better plan than the other guy. Telling everyone the world is going to end is stikingly similar to what those "radicals" on the far Right say, no? It's time to build a better mousetrap. R.I.P. environmentalism. Now, let's get to work.