Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Obama's Appointments Reveal What's Wrong with the Environmental Establishment

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nicholas Roberts" <nicholas@themediasociety.org>
  • To: "permacultue discussion list" <pil-pc-oceania@lists.permacultureinternational.org>, permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Obama's Appointments Reveal What's Wrong with the Environmental Establishment
  • Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:38:33 +1100

*Obama's Appointments Reveal What's Wrong with the Environmental
Establishment * *Green Myopia *

By FELICE PACE

Several of the environmental movement's deep problems were displayed during
the December 18th edition of *Democracy Now*. During the broadcast Amy
Goodman and Juan Gonzales conducted interview/debates on two Obama
appointments which are critical to the environment – Agriculture Secretary
and Interior Secretary. In each case a representative of *National
Audubon*supported the nominations. Opposing the appointment of Tom
Vilsack for Ag
Secretary was Ronnie
Cummins<http://www.counterpunch.org/cummins12182008.html>of the
*Organic Consumers Association* ; Kieran Suckling of the *Center for
Biological Diversity <http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/>* critiqued the
nomination of Colorado Senator and rancher Ken Salizar as Interior
Secretary.

Vilsak's appointment is opposed by many in the organic and sustainable
agriculture communities who point to his record as a strong supporter of
industrial agriculture, ethanol over food production and genetically
engineered crops. Vilsak is reported to accept rides on Monsanto corporate
jets – a cozy relationship. Rather than make common cause with progressive
agriculture, however, National Audubon and the other members of the
environmental establishment support Vilsak's appointment. Democracy Now
wanted to know why and the Audubon spokesperson offered Vilsak's support for
limits on payments to rich farmers and his support for USDA's conservation
programs as reasons.

Apparently National Audubon is clueless about the strategy of big
agriculture to shift from crop subsidies to "conservation" subsidies in
order to advance free trade agreements at the same time that the USDA
"conservation programs" are transformed from benefiting the environment to
mainly benefiting Ag producers. This trend was evident in the 2008 Farm Bill
process. In the House of Representatives, for example, language in the Farm
Bill which would have required a 15% reduction in on-farm water consumption
in order for an Ag producer to qualify for EQIP water conservation funding
was gutted. Several national environmental groups were complicit in what
they called "a compromise" on EQIP.

The *Democracy Now* debate over the appointment of Salazar as Interior
Secretary showcased another fundamental division within the environmental
community. Representing the environmental establishment, National Audubon
explained its support for Salazar as motivated by a desire to preserve
"access" to the Secretary. In contrast the Center for Biological Diversity –
which is a product of the movement by grassroots environmental activists to
create alternatives to the environmental establishment – is critical of
Salazar because of his terrible record on public land issues and the
Endangered Species Act.

It appears clear that Salazar will not bring the kind of change that
environmental activists would like to see at Interior. The environmental
establishment's support for the appointment, therefore, speaks volumes about
that establishment's low expectations, overly close identification with the
Democratic Party and myopic fixation on "maintaining access".

The environmental establishment's support for Vilsak and Salizar also
reveals a much more fundamental problem: their lack of interest in making
common cause with progressive movements. The need for alliances of
environmental groups and other progressive movements has been emphasized
recently in the writings of one of the movement's most distinguished elders
– Gus Speth. Now the dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Speth is a founder of NRDC and was head of the Council on
Environmental Quality during the Carter Administration.

Writing this October in the Nation, Gus Speth notes that "the environmental
community has grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has
continued to deteriorate." Speth finds the cause of the deterioration in
"modern capitalism" which he says not only degrades the environment but
degrades society and democracy at the same time. In response to this
"inherently ruthless, rapacious system," Gus Speth finds "the best hope for
change" in "a fusion of those concerned about the environment, social
justice and strong democracy into one powerful progressive force." Speth
also tells us that "this fusion must occur before it is too late."

If Gus Speth's prescription for saving the planet and democracy had been
applied to efforts to influence the Agriculture and Interior appointments we
would not see the environmental establishment represented by National
Audubon taking a position which isolates it not only from progressive
agriculture but also from the environmental movement's own grassroots.
Instead we would have seen those who want to save the environment, small,
organic agriculture and democracy united in support of truly progressive
candidates.

So what can be done to change the current myopia of the environmental
establishment, to get the big environmental groups to embrace and prioritize
"a fusion of those concerned about the environment, social justice and
strong democracy into one powerful progressive force"?

There are no easy answers. For one thing we need to be careful that in
seeking to reform the environmental establishment we do not destroy
institutions whose work in the trenches in Washington DC and state capitals
across the country needs to continue. With all their problems the national
environmental establishment continues to do good work on a myriad of
specific issues. Rather than destroy the environmental establishment we need
to radically reform it. How can this be accomplished?

Perhaps the environmental movements own grassroots can show the way. If
groups like the *Center for Biological Diversity*, for example, were to
forge strong alliances with other progressive movements – with the peace,
justice, democracy, sustainable agriculture movements – the big national
groups, the environmental establishment, might wake up and take notice. And
if the foundations which fund the environmental establishment began shifting
funding to such progressive alliances, then the establishment would not only
take notice but would begin to change.

This sort of change has, in fact, happened before. In the 1990s National
Audubon and the rest of the environmental establishment were too timid and
too concerned about "maintaining access" to consider petitioning to secure
Endangered Species Act protection for the Northern Spotted Owl, Coho Salmon
or a host of other imperiled species. Instead of accepting that timidity,
however, grassroots forest and salmon activists took matters into their own
hands. The Northern Spotted Owl was petitioned by a small, little known
group from Maine; Coho salmon where petitioned by Northwest and Northern
California grassroots activists and scientists. Soon foundation funding
began flowing away from the big, establishment groups and toward the dynamic
grassroots. One group of those activists became the *Center for Biological
Diversity*.

What happened next is instructive. The environmental establishment suddenly
woke up and became less timid. They moved to link up with the grassroots in
alliances and coalitions which brought some of the funding back their way
and allowed them to continue to claim that they were leading the highest
profile environmental and public land movements - including the movements
to protect Ancient Forests and Pacific Salmon.

Persuading the environmental establishment to form alliances with other
progressive movements will likely require something the establishment will
see as equally threatening to their bottom line. Whether coming from
foundations or from members who begin to question their performance, funding
is a powerful motivator for the environmental establishment.

However it occurs, the grand alliance of movements which Gus Speth envisions
is likely the only way to effectively counter the entrenched power of the
modern corporate elite and save the earth from the fate those corporate
interests ordain. Getting the environmental establishment to embrace such a
grand alliance, however, will require a radical shake up – a shake up which
demands that the environmental establishment once again become part of a
movement with a vision and agenda that is much broader than the narrow
objectives of its constituent organizations.

*Felice Pace* has been a grassroots environmental, peace and justice
activist since 1967. He lives and writes near the mouth of the Klamath River
in Northwest California.



--
Nicholas Roberts
[im] skype:niccolor



  • [permaculture] Obama's Appointments Reveal What's Wrong with the Environmental Establishment, Nicholas Roberts, 12/27/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page