Gristmill wants to know what environmentalism is

As an environmental economist I've been accused of being an environmentalist (by economists) and anti-environmental (by environmentalists).  The Gristmill asks "How do you define "environmentalism"?"  Go here to register your answer.  And if you would, repost your answer here.  I'm interested to see how our readers' responses compare to the "environmentalists" over at Grist--or just post your comments here and then we'll see if we can steal some of their readers. 

Comments

[allen claxton]

I've been toying with this idea lately, but I haven't had to really put it concisely. Consider this a first draft:

I think that nature works through cycles, based on competition and cooperation, that exist at multiple scales within time and space. I think that modern human society lives in a way that, in any scale relevant to us, is fundamentally not cyclical--we have raw materials and we have wastes, and, except in rare instances, they don't support the complexity of life that nature's cycles (at comparable scale) do. Environmentalism, then, is trying to bring modern human society back into working in the same kind of cyclical way as the rest of nature.

[David Roberts]

Allen, you get right back over to Gristmill this minute!

[J.S.]

[new] Don't want to disrespect anyone but...

the above definitions make no sense:

1. nature's cycles also include cataclysmic events so i don't think we won't to bring ourselves back into "balance" with those

2. defense of ecosystems from man-made intrusions means collective suicide because there is no society that has ever not had major impacts on ecosystems

so......

here's my def:

Environmentalism is the belief that the non-human world both provides tremendous benefits to humans that are often not taken into account and has intrinsic value above and beyond the use value of humans. Environmentalists try to make sure that prices in the economy reflect the true cost of the pollution and environmental degradation that accompany all goods and services, encourage government provision and protection of environmental public goods, and try to enact policies that reflect an appreciation for the diversity of the non-human world. Not perfect, but hey, what is?

J.S.

[allen claxton]

1. nature's cycles also include cataclysmic events so i don't think we won't to bring ourselves back into "balance" with those

Within what I scoped out--living within nature's cycles--a cataclysmic event is something to get through ... much like it is now. On the one hand, that means just making it through a hurricane or an earthquake, but on the other hand it means having a social system (and I include an economy as a subset of that) that can deal with climate events like droughts and floods, such that there isn't widescale famine and death. There's not anything hugely environmentalist about that, but I also don't think that sort of thing is excluded, either.

On the other hand, what's the alternative? Preventing those cataclysmic events? Can we really stop earthquakes? Do we want to put an end to the El Nino cycle (and allow me to plug Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World here) ... do we even know what changing a large-scale climate pattern like that would entail?

Thanks for the comment. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.

[codeburner]

I see rational enviromentalism this way: We are part of the ecosystem and should avoid doing any unneccesary damage to the system. We should strive for to work in a renewable fashion. For example, forest harvesting should be done is such a way to minimize damage to the ecosystem and to replant removed trees.

However I recognize that humans are at the top of the pyramid and some damage will occur. We should strive for good hard scientific data and use that data in a economic analysis as a basis for environmental planning. We also must recognize private property rights in all that we do. People with an economic interest in the environment are often the best guardians.

BK

[Tim Haab]

BK

Define 'damage.' I think this is where things start to fall apart. Anytime there is interaction, there are trade-offs. Is damming a river to provide irrigation oir electricity to local residents 'damage?'

Tim

[Dano]

What J.S. said.

(I'd modify 'belief that....tremendous benefits' to 'realization that humanity is completely dependent upon' but I still agree)

Best,

D

[Tim Abbott]

Personally, I avoid the term environmentalist entirely, prefering to self-identify as a conservationist (I make my living as a conservation professional so it suits me). Why stick yourself with a label on which few can agree and that many folks needlessly vilify?

I was over at Grist on March 6th and got into the Environmental Ethics discussion that lead to the question of how to define environmentalism. As of yet, no one has picked up on my remarks - too esoteric, maybe - but if I'm going to take another shot at it in your forum, you should know the values that inform my take on this values-based question.

There is not a square inch of planet Earth - air, land or sea - that is not affected by human values and the choices we make as their outward expression. That is different from saying that the existence of the planet and all the organisms it sustains matters only to the extent that humans place some worth on them. Nor do I subscribe to the value system that believes in a divinely reordered New Earth regardless of human intention. However, treating humanity as somehow separate from and distinct from the environment is neither ecologically sound nor sustainable.

To take but one example from East Africa, David Western recounts in his exploration of the relationship between Kenya's people and their environment, In The Dust of Kilimanjaro, that removing pastoralists from nature preserves resulted in an overall decline in wildlife health. In the absense of Masai cattle which had been grazing among the antelope and elephants of Amboseli National Park for millennia, unpalatable grasses proliferated. Only a return of cattle to this system reestablished a mutually beneficial grazing regime.

Human behavior reflects our values, and this is true for the choices we make as individuals and as groups. The range of constraints and resources available to us defines our arena of choice. If we wish to change our behaviors, and the repetitive patterns of behavior that comprise our institutions, then we need both to understand the values that inform our problematic actions and broaden our arena of choice. To transform an institution and the values that support it requires an informed act of social change. Anything less merely replaces the gargoyle squatting atop the capital and leaves the rest of the column on the same, shaky foundation as before. So it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" or, if you prefer the proverbial French to lyrics by The Who, then "Plus ça change...plus c'est la même chose" makes the same observation.

Environmentalism is entirely about values. One of these is a belief that we can and should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions for the rest of the environment. Another is that simply letting "nature take its course" will nonetheless result in human-influenced outcomes. Conservation, an outward expression on environmental values, is about making informed choices and recognizing the value in maintaining and promoting value-laden attributes of our environment: wilderness, biodiversity, the view from the back porch, sustainable rural economies, dark skies, community character, finite resources.

Quantifying ecosystem services, while statistically interesting, has not been a universally convincing argument for conservation. The invisible hand of the market has neither created just and equitable human societies nor safeguarded shared environmental resources. It takes intentionality to achieve these values-based ends.

How resource users feel about their environment, their relationship with it and to other stakeholders in its conservation, is a critical determinant in how they perceive their area of choice and what outcomes they will support. The broader lesson of the Intelligent Design controversy may be that values can trump science, but also that values can change: physical laws of cause and effect are far more immutable. Finding our place in the universe means valuing the place we have.

[Lim Jun Ying]

Hello, nice blog. I'm personally very interested in environmental economics. I'm an environmentalist. And one thing that I have learnt with my experiences is that environmentalism and conservation is used almost interchangably.

Conservation, as the name suggests, is about conserving whatever natural resources we have. It might not neccesarily centre around finding alternative sources of energy or other stuff of the like, but it places emphasis on the sustainability of the energy source. I personally feel that it has been too loosely used and the definition has been diluted and warped somewhat.

Environmentalism, on the other hand, is a more general term for all efforts that involve the betterment of the natural environment. Whether these benefits are driven by some environmentalist's farsight - to create a sustainable and hospitable place for future generations to come - or the simple understanding of Man's innate and deeply rooted (but mostly unrealized and masked) relationship with the natural environment. I'm the latter.

[JeyZee]

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!

[pauline]

link exchange