An eminently reasonable rant, though unfortunately the political sphere is
nowhere so reasonably organized. The two-party system militates for polar
opposition.
        An interesting usage, "ecological sustainability": the first time
I've heard it used. Generally, the word /sustainable/ is uttered and one
wonders what is to be sustained. It seems most of the sustainable movements
want to sustain the continued growth of the human footprint, but they want
to do it in a way that defuses their opposition. Adding the word
/ecological/ modifies the usage and at least implies that we are sustaining
the ecology, rather than the level of human exploitation.
-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:         Chris Perley[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Monday, December 17, 2001 4:27 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Environmentalism vs Anti-environmentalism: left vs right?
>
> >  Steven Bissell wrote:
>
> >
> > What I wonder, and often ask my students in Environmental Policy,
> > is why has
> > "Environmentalism" become a politically liberal issue and
> > "anti-Environmentalism" a politically conservative issue? I've
> > been reading
> > a few "reviews" of Lomborg and it is clear that the conservative press
> has
> > really jumped on this bandwagon, while criticism is coming mainly from
> the
> > left, or from the environmental camp.
> >
> > I remember back to the first Earth Day when the major objections
> > to it came
> > from the left. The civil rights and anti-war movements saw
> > environmentalism
> > as conservative, white, middle class dilettantism, and a cynical
> > attempt to
> > take support away from them.
>
> CP: This is interesting.  A colleague of mine is very active in the role
> of
> value AND science of sustainable management - particularly in relation to
> co-management of ecosystems where science and the traditional harvest by
> Maori people is involved (they harvest young Sooty Shearwaters - aka
> muttonbirds - aka titi).  He was also involved in the development of the
> ethics and the science of sustainable management systems in forestry -
> e.g.
> adaptive management systems; qualifying and quantifying the values that
> sustainable management ought to be aware of (ie NOT a 'resourcism',
> 'sustainable yield' value system).
>
> He comes from a history of the environmental protest movement of the 70s -
> essentially against the dominant 'resourcism' ethic of the time, and what
> he
> considered unsustainable practices when considering the wider ecological
> issues - rather than looking at forests as merely an agronomic 'crop' of
> wood.  At that time he was in the mainstream of a united environmental
> movement.
>
> Interestingly - because of his advocacy of social equity and science in
> ecosystem management, which involves essentially an acknowledgement that
> humans and culture can, and *must* coexist - he has been referred to as an
> "anti-environmentalist", even as a traitor to environmentalism.  Those
> that
> point this particular finger tend not to share his view that human
> inclusion
> does NOT necessarily harm nature, nor that excluding humans necessarily
> 'protects' nature.  By the same token, he is opposed to *both* the
> 'resourcism' camp that sees nature as some robust mine for human hubris
> (what you could call the "conservative" camp), and to the preservationism
> idealists that he associates with an urban, well meaning, though often
> ecologically naive and probably URBAN liberal politics.
>
> Those of a Manichaen bent will put my colleague either into a
> 'conservative', 'resourcism' camp (because he dares to suggest humans can
> be
> included in some ideal of ecological sustainability), or into the "loony
> left", "environmentalist" camp.  In so doing they highlight their own
> particular values rather than his.  They also simplify the issue.
>
> I think it is much more helpful to consider at least three 'camps' -
> 1.'resourcism', 2.what you could call 'ecological sustainability' (which
> accommodates culture and nature), and 3.'preservationism'.   The two
> extremes *may* correlate to some political positions of conservatism and
> urban liberalism, but the middle ground of ecological sustainability
> probably transcends that political spectrum.
>
> I also think that the two extremes (resourcism and preservationism) have
> much in common!  Particularly their views on the nature:culture
> relationship.  I reckon they both are very happy with the idea of humans
> being separate from nature.  They compete over land to ensure it either
> falls into the preserve of agronomy (perhaps "laissez faire market
> economy"), or into the preserve of what Drury (Chance & Change: Ecology
> for
> Conservationists 1998) called "laissez faire nature" (where nature is
> beleved to know best, and 'protects' itself where humans aren't in
> evidence - a view that Drury pretty much demolishes).  So they view nature
> as either 'whore' to exploit, or 'Madonna' to worship in its non-human
> 'purity'.
>
> Both IMHO compete *against* an integration of culture and nature, and - if
> you view that integration as some necessary step required for an
> environmental ethic that may provide us with a sustainable future - then
> both resourcism *and* preservationism represent a part of the problem,
> rather than part of a solution.  That argument that we need that ethic
> rests
> on many implicit assumptions of course.  They also give tacit support for
> having *only* the two extremes on show - by NOT allowing an inclusive
> philosophy (which was very much Leopold's message in Sand Couty Almanac)
> to
> set a seed.  So they are both part of the problem in my view.
>
> Anyway, I guess the point is that "environmentalism" vs
> "anti-environmentalism" is much more complex that some black or white
> typology, and what constitutes "environmentalism" has moved from *merely*
> an
> opposition to resourcism, to - at least for some environmentalists - an
> attempt to look beyond the problems to some search for solutions -
> solutions
> which *necessarily* accommodate humanity within the environment, rather
> than
> as segregated elements outside it.
>
> Both resourcism that views the world in a narrow sense of yield and
> monetary
> value, and preservationism that focuses continually on ever more obscure
> problems (many picked for their PR appeal rather than for objective
> reasons), might BOTH be considered "anti-environmental", because the
> preservationist cause may at times work against a protected environment as
> much as the resourcism cause.  That is how it appears in NZ where the
> vision
> of a human-inclusive ecologically sustainable land ethic has next to no
> political mandate.
>
> But perhaps that is politics modus operandi - to force the issue in two
> camps - like that idiot Bush's comments that "you are either for us, or
> against us", or his mind numbingly moronic statement about the fight
> against
> terrorism being a "crusade".  Dumb, dumb, dumb.
>
> Chris P
>