Differences between environmentalists’ strategies and mine
I’ve been increasingly realizing and pointing out that I am not an environmentalist. I surprised myself to discover it.
I had long felt misunderstood when people asked, “If you like nature so much, why don’t you go to the woods live in nature?”
It had long been obvious to me that we needed to change culture, not escape it, and New York is an influential cultural center.
Then I checked and in 2014, shortly before my first experiment in acting sustainably of avoiding packaged food for a week, in a post in this blog entitled The Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the world we live in, I wrote, “The issue is not how other people think about us or trends. Polluting means hurting people. Dirty air and water, mercury in the environment, and so on hurt people.” I ended that post with “You can still take responsibility for your own actions.”
Except Greta Thunberg, every prominent environmentalist I know of eschews taking personal responsibility for their personal actions. I just finished books by and about Bill McKibben, Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, and his biographer, also lead climate writer at the New York Times, David Gelles, and they fly around like there’s no tomorrow. Others can’t respond fast enough that acting sustainably is just being BP’s dupe, which is backward.
I support them for their goals, but think they act against their interests. Below are some examples I share not to criticize (and I understand how I wrote may make it hard not to see it that way, but I hope you persevere), but to suggest ways to improve their messaging and leadership. I am not judging them, but I wish I saw from them more hands-on practical experience.
I do my best to avoid convincing, coercing, or cajoling others to live more sustainably. I see them favoring those techniques, but if living more sustainability will improve lives, why convince, coerce, or cajole, such as the Green New Deal?
To clarify, I allow coercion as the Constitution allows to protect life, liberty, and property, and to ensure enough is left as good in common with others.
If living more sustainably leads to a better life, why not practice it? If not, why promote it?
If you convince, coerce, or cajole, aren’t you implying that people won’t like it? Aren’t you motivating them to oppose and resist?
If your goal is popular, where are the votes? If you lack the votes, is the movement democratic?
They often cite scientific consensus. If you’re right, why do people disagree with you?
If the people you oppose, like executives of polluting industries and their politicians, are serving themselves at others’ expense and health, what are you doing when you fly?
Read my weekly newsletter
On initiative, leadership, the environment, and burpees