I am not an Environmentalist

A friend of mine shared this article with me recently, prompting me to think of this "Best of" from my former Website, republished below, which touches on many of the ideas mentioned in the article.

I am not an Environmentalist

circa 2001

I don't like stereotypes and labels, and this is no exception. It is too easy for someone to say, "Oh, he thinks that because he's an environmentalist." This devalues the worth of your ideas and allows someone with different ideas to brush them off without even considering them because of who you are.


The word is not broad enough. I am much more than an environmentalist. I can accept the term "conservationist", although grudgingly, but only because as far as I can tell it has no negative connotations. And conservationist is so much broader. Conservation of resources--all resources--transcends environmentalism. Conservation is the opposite of waste, and I can't stand waste. Waste of resources in any form.

If you think of other "ists", such as feminists, they are generally fighting for the welfare and rights of something (in this example, women). Sure, I believe we should fight for the welfare of the environment, but shouldn't everyone be concerned about this? Why should we get any label other than "concerned citizen"? And as far as rights go, I don't think the environment has rights. People have rights, however, and they have the right to live in a quality environment. Protecting the environment protects each other. Environmentalism is just about being a good neighbor--to present and future generations. And since we all should be good neighbors, I don't think we have the need for a term like "environmentalist". Someone destroying the environment is being selfish, uncaring towards others, and usually for private gain (greed). Litter is unneighborly for the same reason--carelessness that affects others. Pollution is litter that actually is harmful beyond degraded aesthetics. We were given the gift of reason, the ability to connect cause and effect, and it is our responsibility to each other to use it.

I disagree with environmentalists on many issues as well. If one can assume the majority opinion of the largest environmental group in America is representative of the thoughts of the average environmentalist. The Sierra Club is opposed to commercial logging on public lands. I disagree. I think in certain cases this is okay. First of all, the activity must follow all laws (including NEPA, ESA, NFMA, MUSY, etc. --ideally pre-Bush Administration-butchering). Second of all, it must make economic sense, unless the logging is intended for some other larger benefit than just taking timber out of the woods. Just spending money to increase the supply of lumber makes little sense and is a waste of our public funds and our public lands. For example, wooding (getting wood, not logs) on the Inyo National Forest appears to be managed well, although I haven't examined the details. And providing fuel wood as a sustainable fuel for local communities is a noble use of our National Forests that offsets the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. It is the details of a logging operation that will determine whether I approve or not. If only we had been farsighted enough to preserve our grasslands as well as we have preserved our forests. Farming a National Grassland would be far worse than logging a National Forest. I say this not to belittle the poor condition of many of our forests, but to put it in perspective.

A couple of caveats, however: It is never appropriate to log a late-successional-stage forest (popularly called "Old Growth") that won't grow back to its former glory for many hundreds of years. There is so little "Old Growth" left, why mine what little of it is left? "Old Growth" isn't renewable at the timespan of human generations, and instead of mining it all out why not leave the few pockets that are left for people and wildlife to enjoy?

Also, I think it is never appropriate to log a forest that is not very productive, with slow-growing trees. Makes about as much sense as grazing in the Mojave Desert. The production just isn't there to replace what you are removing. And where I see the Sierra Club coming from is that public lands are the lands nobody wanted. Back when land was free and speculators were thick as the old growth was, and of course, back when men were men (they're not anymore?), the land that people wanted became private. What was left--what nobody wanted--became our public lands. So our public lands are inherently inaccessible, inhospitable, or unproductive. With a few exceptions. And the inaccessible part changes as time goes on. So I'd agree that for the most part, logging public lands will generally be a bad idea. But ignoring all the exceptions and pushing for stopping it completely? I can't agree with that. It seems like urban snobbishness to me.

Paradigms
I love changing peoples paradigms--especially when they are wrong! It is a sort of favor to them--waking them up and showing them the truth. Sure, ignorance is bliss, but it is a fool's bliss, and a far richer bliss can be attained through understanding. I love it when mine change too--a flash of understanding and insight, a new perspective, is such a wonderful thing.

Come on people, if you double the concentration of a trace gas in our atmosphere, should you expect any consequences? DOUBLING is what we are talking about here--the concentration of CO2 will have DOUBLED since the start of the industrial revolution if we don't make changes. This seems to be far outside the range of natural variability. I don't think we should (or can) completely stop the use of fossil fuels, however I don't think we need to use them up as fast as we can either. Moderation, folks.

After I was car-less for a few months, a friend of mine asked me, "What if no one had a car?" I told him I thought people would still find ways to get around--more public transit, car sharing, etc. I think the world would be a far better place than it is now.

But I'd like to ask the opposite question: What if everyone had a car? I think 6 billion cars would be a disaster. I think most people would agree. Then why is it okay for you to have a car? Do you think you are better than most of the world? This line of questioning shows that our current transportation infrastructure is unsustainable... if you wouldn't want everyone to be doing something you are doing, then there is probably something wrong with what you are doing. Of course, this extends far beyond just cars, especially to Americans (4% of world population) consuming 25% of the earth's resources. This gets back to that whole good neighbor thing... if we want to avoid wars, let's reduce our consumption and try to be better neighbors.

If some people want to jump on the chariot of misguided progress and barrel off into oblivion, that is fine. But the minute your actions affect me, that is when you stop being a good neighbor and you start messing up my world too. Take yourself down, but don't take me with you. Cause if you try to drag me down too I'll go kicking and screaming the whole way. I don't think this makes me an environmentalist--it makes me a lover of freedom.