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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
