When I started this blog a year and a half ago, I was inspired, passionate, energetic, and naive. I still am all of those things (I hope!) but I've learned a lot in that time... from classes, politics, family discussions, friends, my own reflections and observations about the world, and more. I've rallied for clean energy in the capital, I've worked for the Fish and Wildlife Service, I've joined other young people at a climate congress, I've worked in the wilderness maintaining trails, I've fought with CalPIRG at Berkeley to defeat Prop 23. My life over the past few years has been a series of hops from one "environmental" opportunity to the next.
But lately, with the help of my Intro to Environmental Studies class at Berkeley, co-taught by ecology professor Garrison Sposito and U.S. Poet Laureate Robert Hass, I've begun to question what I mean when I describe myself as an "environmentalist." Does anyone really know what that term is meant to signify, encompass, evoke?
Most people point to the 1960s and 70s as the beginning of environmentalism, with Silent Spring, hippies, the first celebrated Earth Day, and the passage of legislation like the Clean Air Act and the creation of the EPA. Of course, environmental philosophy predates the hippies by centuries, but it wasn't called "environmentalism" until someone named it that in the 60s. Before "environmentalism" there was the dichotomy of conservation and preservation, with each movement's respective icons, Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Aldo Leopold spearheaded the embracing of the field of ecology. There are many ways to think about nature, and mankind's relationship with nature, and somehow everything got put under the environmental umbrella. I'm all for unity in our efforts, but I worry that it's too easy for individuals to avoid confronting moral dilemmas and working out their own views and opinions. Instead of working at determining your own philosophy to live by and fight for, you can just call yourself an environmentalist.
But where are we today? It seems that environmentalists have begun to focus much of its attention on global warming, and rightly so, as it is a global catastrophe that we can mitigate by changing human behavior. Slowing and lessening the effects of climate change is essential; there is absolutely no question about that in my mind. However, people like me need to sort out priorities, motives, and ideals. Why are we fighting climate change? Is the climate movement a strictly environmental movement? Is the goal of our movement to prolong human civilization, and consequently preserve the environment that sustains us? Or is the goal to protect wildlife, the ecosystem, the environment itself, simply because it has the right to exist and thrive?
One could argue that the answers to these questions are irrelevant. As long as people are coming together for a common cause, it doesn't matter why they're doing it. Of course I am a huge advocate for the unity that the climate movement engenders- economics, justice, conservation, preservation, and more all come together in the climate movement. But to call it all "environmentalism" seems to me a bit old fashioned. I think we'd have a better conversation and a better widespread following if we stopped calling it environmentalism, and instead explained all the different facets that are involved in the fight. At the same time, individuals have to work out for themselves what it is that they're fighting for, otherwise we're at risk of losing the beautiful and essential diversity of attitudes and causes.
A preservationist has to continue to fight for untouched wilderness, even if other "environmentalists" argue that wilderness should be used as a wind farm or dam.
A global economist has to continue to fight for a sustainable, functioning economy, even if other "environmentalists" argue that humans must sacrifice their lifestyle for the greater good of the planet.
An advocate for environmental justice has to continue to fight for equality and fairness toward people in developing countries suffering from environmental tragedies, even when other "environmentalists" argue that the world will be able to better combat global warming if some of the poorer people are left behind, forgotten.
A conservationist has to continue to fight for "wise use" of the land so that people can live, and eat, even when other "environmentalists" want the land saved for nature.
Yes, there are conflicting interests here. There always will be- the world is full of people with different lives, ideologies, morals. That's why negotiations are so tough. But as long as they continue to stick with their beliefs, come together to discuss and make compromises, and fight for what they believe in, no one sect of "environmentalism" will be forgotten and discarded. And we need all of environmentalism's puzzle pieces in order to create the best world we can, with what we have left.
No comments:
Post a Comment