The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Green movement missing key link

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by John Sprangers:

Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
War rhetoric comprises policy (November 2, 2007)
Familiar slogan to be flipped around (October 19, 2007)
Guantanamo's end an unsolved misery (October 8, 2007)

by John Sprangers

Friday, November 16, 2007

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — At a recent climate change conference at the University of Maryland, I witnessed both the promise and likely pitfall of America's student environmental movement.

"Power Shift 2007," billed as the "first-ever national youth climate summit," was an inspiring display of student activism. Around 5,000 collegians from across the country converged on a picturesque colonial campus from Nov. 2-5 for what amounted to an environmental tent revival.

Young leaders preaching the gospel of climate change built rousing crescendos into speeches; attendees were indoctrinated with information and courses of action to convert their communities; and conviction in the righteousness of the holy cause enveloped the campus. But unlike other sects prophesying the world's end, these worshippers of the

Church of Gore have the backing of the scientific community.

Here was the first sign of our generation, often maligned as apathetic, rising up to meet what could be its greatest challenge, not a World War but a war we have long been imperceptibly waging on the world. I was astounded at the talent and experience of the students who introduced themselves and their backgrounds in event sessions. Some had led movements that convinced universities to seek carbon neutrality. Others headed multi-state environmental organizations. Power Shift brought together a vanguard of young people with the ability to move (or, perhaps more appropriately, preserve) mountains.

By the end of my stay, though, I wasn't confident that we would move more than a molehill or two.

What separates the world's great faiths from peripheral cults is pragmatism; they were all willing to adopt symbols, dates of holidays and the like, to expand their followings and welcome key constituencies. Likewise, an environmental movement that hopes to make the greatest impact needs to have broad appeal and work to incorporate groups that can furthest advance the cause. I was dismayed to see Power Shift go the way of the cult, marginalized by its adherence to the unorthodox rites of extreme liberalism and unable to engage the private sector that is at the root of our environmental problems.

While workshops at this "climate summit" included "Challenging Male Supremacy," "Whiteness" and "Songs and Song Leading for Activists," not a one was offered on the long-term competitive advantages of going "green," or budding "green" technologies awaiting entrepreneurs, or tactics for appealing to the growing demographic of environmentally conscious consumers.

Renowned activist Van Jones spoke of the potential for "green" jobs to offset the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing employment in this era of globalization, but his teachings weren't reinforced by any of the workshops that were offered. Those that did target the corporate world sought to enhance government regulation or rally protesters (such as "Grassroots Strategies for Fighting Big Coal on a National Level").

This ignores the fact that the business community is climate change's ground zero — it is to blame for much of the degradation, but it will also provide the technological innovations and new methods of production that will allow us to sustainably enjoy the luxuries of the modern world. The market's "invisible hand" must be spurred to successfully take on the climate change challenge, though it will only do so with active governance and outspoken citizens to guide it and instill in it an appropriate sense of urgency.

The negative regulatory approach advocated by Power Shift (and, with some exceptions, environmental movements in general) is one way to do that, and legal guidelines for emissions and the like are essential parts of any plausible environmental strategy. But Power Shift missed a golden opportunity to build a bond between young activists and business students, to positively engage — rather than antagonize — the private sector heading into a perilous future that will require its cooperation.

Besides advocating harsher regulations and penalties, young environmentalists should encourage rewards and tax breaks for private technological innovations that reduce our ecological footprint. Harnessing the corporate world's wealth, talent and competitive culture to combat climate change is the greatest power shift possible.

This could have started in Maryland. Event organizers could have actively sought the participation of business and engineering students and temporarily disregarded liberal pet causes only tangentially related to the environment that aren't palatable to a broader audience. By association with radical issues such as "male supremacy," combating climate change is perceived as a liberal cause when its alarming implications should make it a unifying force.

And just as effective preachers use analogy to make ancient teachings resonate with diverse modern audiences, Power Shift could have framed the environmental debate in a variety of ways. These include job creation and economic competitiveness, which might seem more immediate than more commonly invoked examples such as the extinction of animals or melting of glaciers irrelevant to our daily lives.

Power Shift, though, was content to preach to its anti-corporate choir. That doesn't mean that student environmentalism doesn't accomplish great things — as the stories of Power Shift participants testify, it most certainly does. But it is likely only going to be successful within its small sphere of influence on campus, and activists will continue to work only with people similar to themselves. Fighting climate change won't be the consensus national cause — like winning World War II — that it should be.

And that is a shame. Because whether our foremost concern is preserving a favorite state park, preventing the developing world from bearing the brunt of the United States' ecological irresponsibility, or ensuring that sufficient natural resources remain to maintain a profitable business — combating climate change is something we can all believe in.

John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 8:59am):

"preventing the developing world from bearing the brunt of the United States' ecological irresponsibility"

The developing world is where the greatest increase in CO2 and pollution is coming from.

Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 10:06am):

8:59-

perhaps, but it's the residual accumulation from US output that poses the greatest threat.

Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 10:49am):

Everyone's favourite comment on the eco-fascists is, or should be, that of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic: "What is at risk is not the climate but freedom...I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning"...

But I wondered if you were also familiar with this wonderful passage from C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Apart from amending this to "the SUPPOSED good of its victims", I'd say that pretty much covers it, wouldn't you?

Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 10:51am):

10:06

BS

The change in China's and India's "contribution" is huge - even cpompared to the existing USA output.

Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 2:45pm):

10:49-- We also have the freedom to slowly kill ourselves, and it looks like as a country we are exercising that right.

Anonymous (November 17, 2007 @ 10:13am):

If you care about CO2 then the only solution is nuclear power, which in France is 80% of electrical production.

Anonymous (November 17, 2007 @ 4:16pm):

We are spending another half trillion dollars -- that's $1,000,000,000,000/2 or $500,000,000,000 -- on the war in the Middle East. The theory is to plant democracy over there. That will assure oil supplies to the US.

What could we do with that money if it were invested in developing domestic oil resources, building nuclear power plants, developing more efficient ways to use electricity in transportation, and development of Space Solar Power Satellites? Instead we intend to conserve our way to prosperity, and pay the money to the Middle East, Mexico, Hugo Chavez, and other lovers of democracy and peace and freedom.

Cuba and China are drilling for oil off our shores; but as a matter of public policy we can't drill out there in the Gulf on our side of the resources border. This makes no sense, but apparently our masters like the idea. Better to send our Legions to Iraq than to drill in the Gulf, and pay money to everyone with oil instead of to ourselves.

Just what has happened to this country? Have we all lost our minds?

Anonymous (November 18, 2007 @ 12:17pm):

Global warming's negative effects can be most productively countered if the issue is not perpetually restricted to the left-wing platform. If the issue is continuously associated with the earth-loving, vegetarian-eating, socially-conscious hippies, the risk of alienation and intensified divide between parties surfaces. On such an important issue, collaboration becomes crucial. The global warming campaign must be approached with more universal appeal.

Anonymous (November 18, 2007 @ 5:13pm):

If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.