Can You Hear Me Now?

This has been a theme of mine for years but it bears repeating every time polling results come out like the ones above from the Pew Research folks.  This data indicates what we all know: the economy is the highest priority for everyone.  But of particular interest is the one on the bottom, yes, that's right, global warming.  It's at the bottom.  A mere year ago, in the glow of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award (could that be any cooler, to receive both awards?), global warming was probably hovering close to the number one concern of Americans.  What changed?  

Certainly we didn't "solve" global warming.

At the risk of boring those of you who have heard this story way too many times, I will share what the environmental movement does all too well.  It says "no."  Years ago I had to attend an event at an National Audubon sanctuary in Southern California.  This place is gorgeous, right out of a western movie.  Dry vegetation, a draw, rolling hills, mountain lions, right on the Western flyway.  To get to the sanctuary you drive through Orange County gated communities with huge stucco houses.  Finally, you get to the entrance of the sanctuary only to be greeted with a large plywood sign that says: No pets, No smoking, Not a public entrance, No unauthorized personnel. No...

My rant on the negativity of environmentalists was finally picked up by two trend observers Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in their fabulous essay The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post Environmental World.   Environmentalists, they warned, could no longer rely on old scare strategies to energize diverse and complex communities of people to attend to global warming issues.  Rather, in a post environmental world, they asserted, collaborations of people would focus on positive actions rather than negative restrictions, in order to have impacts.  Of course, their essay was immediately derided by the environmental community, and unfortunately, largely ignored.

But yesterday's Pew polling results require us to re-examine what is wrong with the institutional environmentalist message.  Several days ago I was reading some newsletter that shows up in my email mailbox.  And one of the writers in the newsletter, James Kunstler who wrote The Geography to Nowhere (1993) which was a fabulous critique of suburbia, had an article which caught my eye.  Kunstler was gazing into a crystal ball, forecasting the end of the world as we know it.  The theme of his essay was unless we immediately form small communities relying solely on locally produced food and forgoing any means of transportation short of walking and bicycles, we are doomed.  Wal-Marts and large chain stores will be gone, no more mega-farms, and better find a wood burning stove, soon!

The "no" folks are absolutely delighted with this economic meltdown.  It gives them a chance to say all the politically correct things about the evils of consumption, suburbia, highways, and banks.  But they preach to the same people.  It's always interesting that the membership numbers of environmental organizations stay close to the same.  They are not engaging a diverse population, but rather, continue to talk to the same people.  Diversity, every environmentalist should know, is healthy.

But, as we can see from the polling data, saying "no" and publishing essays which demand that people hitch themselves to a plow because there is no way we're going to buy food at a grocery store anymore, is short sighted and to be frank, doesn't work.  It's what I have said for years, when our lives are just fine, we are willing to support environmental issues, especially if it involves really cool concerts and pretty string bags.  But when we are worried about buying food, concerns whether it is organic or local, or free range go out the window.  Whether it is cheap is what matters.  Spending money on expensive front loading washing machines or re-doing windows to save energy seems frivolous when you're worried about simply paying the mortgage.

We should take a lesson from the Obama campaign.  By simply using the word "hope," President Obama energized millions of people from diverse backgrounds and ages.  Environmental issues such as land use, energy consumption, and natural resource extraction are deeply entangled with economic health and sustainability in this country.  Decisions about what exactly is "green energy," how to use our national forests, are suburban and ex-urban land developments still relevant will increasingly become part of the national dialogue as we roll up our sleeves to bring the American economy back to work.  We need to talk in messages of hope, not sound bites of negativity as we seek to address these issues, especially if we want to engage a whole country, not just the choir.