Anthony and all;
One of the interesting things discussed in _Environmental Policy_ (Norman
J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. CQ Press all editions) over the years has
been the changing issues of salience and relevance in environmental issues.
If you take a look at surveys from the 1970s to the 1990s, both salience and
relevance have increased. However, environmental issues tend to be one
aspect of public policy that takes a back seat during times of crisis. Even
Aldo Leopold wrote during WWII that concern for natural resources was
secondary to war preparedness. A friend of mine, speaking specifically about
wildlife policy, made the observation that "Wildlife management is a luxury
of an affluent society." I think that can, with some caveats, be applied to
all environmental policy. One area of exception is public health (although
I've always wondered if public health was *really* environmental). I think
that right now it would be very hard to convince most Americans that ANWR
rises to the level of Anthrax in the mail, much less the war in Afghanistan.
As to the environmental effects of warfare, I recall that despite horrific
images from the Gulf War, concern over that issue was never much of a big
deal.
I have no information about environmental issues in Afghanistan, but my
casual observation is that that part of the world has been degraded so much
for so long that what is going on now is unlikely to be seen as a major
disruption in the long term.
I expected that the main-stream environmental organizations would benefit
from the Bush administration, just as they did during the Reagan
administration. While the actual appointment of Gale Norton is marginally
less offensive than James Watt, the image is not nearly so bad. But, Bush
has shown himself to be no friend of even main stream environmental issues.
My expectation is that now that Afghanistan is on everyone's mind, the
"green backlash" will be merely a whimper.
Steven
Nothing is true, all is permitted, nothing
is true, all is permitted, nothing is true,
all is permitted, nothing is true. . .
The Adventures of Omar Khyyam
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello, Anthony
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quiet group and war?
Steven and all,
I haven't noticed the quiet list, probably for the same reason it
has been quiet, so much about the catastrophe of 9/11.
As a teacher of environmental writing, I'm wondering how members of
this list see environmental issues and stands affected from the standpoint
of the biological warfare issue, the push to develop drilling in the ANWR,
toxics, etc. I'm wondering if these times can't be a further impetus to
heightened environmental awareness instead of environmental disregard and
deference to the need for a war. And what about the environmental effects of
warfare?
Anybody out there concerned or even interested in these issues?
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: quiet group out there
>
> Boy has this list been quiet. I guess that is a reflection of the times. I
> think that it is interesting, however, that discussions on environmental
> issues seem to be a victim of "collateral damage."
>
> Anyway, here is an article on GM I found interesting.
>
> http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10222001/fish_45316.asp
>
> I'm still waffling about this issue. I have a hard time getting worked up
> over "potential dangers" of unspecified nature(s) when there is so much
> specific damage and issues on the environmental plate. One of the
> criticisms
> of the environmental movement (and a somewhat justified one) has always
> been
> that predictions of damage and danger have been either exaggerated, or
> non-existent. Recent television shows and several books have used
> predictions of environmental danger that have not come true as "examples"
> of
> how or why the environmental movement is out of touch with science and/or
> society. The "potential dangers" of GM seem to be largely based on "what
> if"
> scenarios.
>
> Right now we are seeing a real "what if" scenario being played out in the
> media and in life. The Pandora Box of Biological warfare has been opened
> and
> only time will tell us if it is the nightmare we have come to expect, or
> another factor of modern life to be dealt with. Given that, I am having
> even
> more than usual doubts about the "potential dangers" of GM.
>
> Just a random thought. I've been on vacation in Australia and the Coral
> Sea
> and getting back to "real life" is difficult. Maybe this post is just
> something to help me over the jet lag and the doldrums of not wanting to
> go
> back to work.
>
> Steven
>
> Even errors must be respected
> when they are more than
> two thousand years old.
> Sangharakshita
>
|