Talk:Environmental movement in the United States/Archive 1

Gain Perspective from the Outside

This article has wobbled all over the place in the past months. It is currently pretty dismissive of "environmentalism"; but the info and perspective are rather U.S.-bound.

Why not have a look at what other sober, practical modern nations (e.g., Germany) are doing in terms of goals, policies, practices, industrial development and regulation? These other countries have had waves of environmental awareness among citizens, too.

The findings of scientists have obviously been important, in the U.S. and elsewhere, as have the actions of technologists, teachers, activists, and everyday citizens. It is better to live in a more environmentally aware nation, even if the problems or solutions to them have not all been worked out.

The flip-flopping in this article -- the eclipsing of one viewpoint by another, and vice versa -- is ridiculous. Get beyond it.

---

I made some changes in how the article is divided up. If this is disapproved of, tell me why and we'll talk about it. I'd just like to see a definition and some facts, and then discuss the controversies after. --ArcticFrog 15:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This smells like advocacy:

with those who place high importance on environmentalism (environmentalists) coming into conflict with those who accord it lesser importance

I have never heard of people assigning degrees of importance to the enviroment, if that's what the writer of this phrase meant. There is, of course, considerable disagreement about various risks -- such asglobal warming. UNEP fears impending catastrophe, while SEPP sees no cause for alarm; what they have in common, though is:

• belief that a 4 degree Centigrade rise in average world temperature would be bad, and
• a desire to take action (if needed) to prevent such a rise.

Where they disagree is only on whether such a rise is likely. UNEP's view is that the evidence is already in: temperature is rising 0.4 degrees per decade! SEPP (backed by NOAA data) says not: 0.01 degree per decadedecrease.

I'd like to reword the above phrase to something more neutral like: many environmentalists consider action to counteract various risks to be important and urgent. They conflict with others who -- while having perhaps the same level of concern for the issue -- disagree over the seriousness or urgency of those risks. I'd like to avoid any division into good environmentalists who care about nature and people and bad opponents who don't care about anything or anyone.

Any suggestions?

User:Ed Poor

---

In my experience most of the confusion arises from confusing ecology (a science and taught in most universities as a science) from t, failing to differntiate it he fuzzy term "environment" (meaning at best ecology as percevived by society)

An "ism" implies that you have a choice, that it's an ideology you can avoid. I don't know about you but I can't stop breathing or drinking water, or using my body as my way to get around, etc.. So "environmentalism" is an absurd concept to any living creature - its environment is its life.

Now, as used politically, things get messy, with many people claiing to know the truth about what matters to people's health, well-being, etc. - in general it makes more sense to refer to a "well-being debate" and an "environmental health debate" and "ecoregion conservation" than to "environmentalism". It doesn't make sense to me to try to distinguish the moral rationales (ethical treatment of animals, personal aesthetic, genuine fear of being killed by someone whose family farm is under water due to your SUV, etc.) - but if you can do it, go ahead, do it...

It's worth noting that Green Parties used to have other names, like "ecology party" or "values party" or even "peace party" or "women's party" - and all those uses have died out in favor of "Green".

The complexity of this I tried to convey in environmental_movement and conservation_movement... ecology_movement seems to define the Green Parties themselvse which usually claim science is the basis of policy, and peace_movement likely needs more consensus on terms before it can be written neutrally.

I hope this helps...

---

You're taking a helpful attitude, which always helps.

I'm interested in distinguishing the science from the advocacy. Science describes what is, or is likely to be, and often this is controversial in itself (see protoscience). Only a century and a half ago, doctors didn't bother to wash their hands between patients -- that didn't change until Pasteur, Lister and others proved that (a) germs can cause disease and (b) dirty hands carry germs. Now health professionals advocate the washing of hands, with a generally recognized scientific basis.

User:Ed Poor

---

almost all the science is considered "ecology", and almost all the advocacy is using the term "environment" -not that people don't abuse the term "ecology", but it's possible to correct what they say from the *science* of ecology, which makes all the difference...

---

This is not neutral. It is not because that the EPA decided that CO2 was not a pollutant that only supporters of the KP and protocols of the GWH classify it as a pollutant. This is a widely shared belief, and the EPA is the exception. The current explanation is turning the reality the other way around. Anthère

I agree that it is a widely shared belief. In fact, the EPA only recently changed its position -- soon after its Clinton-era director resigned. Please tell me the best way to phrase this, so that it says ce que vous voulait faire dire. --Uncle Ed 18:50, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

after all, is that important ?

Narrow understanding of breadth of disagreement

I have never heard of people assigning degrees of importance to the enviroment, if that's what the writer of this phrase meant. There is, of course, considerable disagreement about various risks -- such as global warming. UNEP fears impending catastrophe, while SEPP sees no cause for alarm; what they have in common, though is: belief that a 4 degree Centigrade rise in average world temperature would be bad, and a desire to take action (if needed) to prevent such a rise.

Even a perusal of readily available web sites will show that there are people, perhaps small in number, who dispute that 4 degreeC rise would be "bad". There is therefore dispute that any action should be taken. There is also a great deal of dispute as to whether any action would be effective.

To be objective, it is fine to mention surveys, experts, or concensus groups, but in matters of evidence--especially when requiring rather complex statistical modelling--there will always be those who are not persuaded. Do deny those possibilities, as you are doing, is to deny the limits of evidenciary knowledge and slip into unnecessary editorializing.

Man-nature dichotomy & environmentalism not really explained

Much of the language of this article, and environmentalism itself, is implicitly based upon a valuing of man as distinct from "nature". This really ought to be discussed as well as the other values associated with this ideology. Is environmentalism meant to preserve and promote human life? Is it meant to limit effects of humans? To promote some kind of stability? Why is it that homo sapiens (versus other aspects of nature) is isolated for special consideration--humanity's influence? --its capacity to judge and act? --or some other religious or psychological reason? Or are non-human effects held with equal concern, e.g. possible meteor impacts, natural flooding and fires, volcanic eruptions, natural extinctions? These questions are core to defining what environmentalists consider "bad", which chemicals or objects are "pollution", and what physical changes constitute "environmental destruction". What does "nature" mean to an environmentalist?

So much is left undiscussed in this article about an ideology that has taken on almost religious significance for many millions of people. I just think it deserves a better treatment.

Yes, I'd agree with that, it needs better treatment. I consider myself as an environmentalist, politically, and there is some debate within the movement about this kind of philosophical issue. Personally I favour a human-centred environmentalism and find it hard to see how any other position can be coherent. I must admit though that my view on this subject is probably a minority position within the green movement, the more popular position being somewhat religious, as you say (gaia mysticism, that sort of thing).

My own view is that to ensure sustainability (defined, according to the classic Brundtland definition, as meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the welfare of future generations) there are some pressing problems concerning resource use, conservation, pollution and poverty/inequality that need addressing. This forms the agenda for political change that environmental groups pursue.

As far as the article goes, and echoing some comments in this discussion page, I think we should be clear about the political stance known as environmentalism, and its relationship to but separate existence from the study of ecology and environmental science.

Does that help? I would be happy to contribute to improving this and related articles. FrankP11:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) Talk

Thanks for the very thoughtful comments. I do think such additions would add greatly to the depth and completeness of the article, and it sounds as though there are contentious issues WITHIN the movement that need some treatment. Being a political movement, it cannot be properly understood without describing its metaphysical underpinnings, and (most important) how those underpinnings distinguish it from non-environmentalist ideologies.

---

With all three branches of the United States government firmly in the hands of anti-environmental extremists, and environmentalists powerless to win U.S. action to address the global warming crisis, many environmentalists in 2004 started questioning whether “environmentalism” -- as it was conceived 40 years ago-- is still a useful moral, intellectual and political framework.

This is rank POV writing. Must be changed to restore neutrality of article.

---

True, it is POV, however the gist of it is true - the current administration and the major players in the three branches of government are currently doing very little to address globally accepted environmental concerns, and in many cases are rolling back environmental programs and attitudes, i.e. drilling in Alaska, restructuring Superfund finance, etc. etc. so please while changing the text preserve its factual meaning. --The silentist 06:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV in "Death of Environmentalism"

The last few sentences of this section are obviously POV. "Religious and economic fundamentalists backed by the office..." is not language suitable for an "objective" encyclopedia. I don't know how I ought to change this to NPOV it, so it would be great if somebody else could take charge here.

Overlap with Environmental movement article

I propose to resolve this by moving this article to Environmental movement in the United States.--Erauch 12:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Requested that this page is moved back to Environmentalism.

This page was moved from Environmentalism after no opposition to the move. The article is on the international environmental movement but has numerous points about the US. I have requested that it should be moved back. There are also many links that are now double redirects. There is a need for a seperate article on the US but it should not have been made by moving an existibng article. Alan Liefting 23:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There already is a page on environmentalism: Environmental movement. The proper course is to move the non-duplicated material from the old Environmentalism page to Environmental movement. I have partially done this. This was outlined in the discussion page a week before the move. --Erauch 01:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree with the proposed move. There's enough material about the environmental movement in the U.S. to justify a separate article on that subject, without lumping it in with other countries, but the title of that separate article should make it clear that it's specifically about the U.S., which the current title does. If the title is merely "Environmentalism", someone will come along and complain that it's too U.S.-centric and start adding international stuff. Also, at some point we might want to haveEnvironmentalism discuss the principles of and objections to environmental thought, while Environmental movement talked about the leading individuals and organizations in the field and chronicled their successes and failures. For now, Environmentalism as a redirect to Environmental movement is OK, but down the road we might find it useful to have a separate article there, so let's keep it clear.JamesMLane 10:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not agree with the fact that the aricle was moved from environmentalism to Environmental movement in the United States because the Environmentalism page now has no history and there are many links now pointing to a redirect page. The stuff on environmentalism in the US could have been edited out and put in the new page. This whole episode smacks of a US-centric worldview! Alan Liefting 21:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But the history in the old Environmentalism page was US-centric anyway. See the discussion page for Environmental movement for some ideas on international history. --Erauch 22:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Liefting's concern about redirects is a valid one, but my impression is that a fair amount of link-cleaning will have to be done once these articles settle into stable titles, regardless of which arrangement is selected. As for the history, the move to Environmental movement in the United States was done in the correct manner, with the "Move this page" function rather than as a cut and paste. Thus, its history is now intact. Much of that history does indeed relate to its new subject. To the extent it relates instead to material that's being moved out of the article about U.S. environmentalism, it would be helpful to leave a note on the talk page of the article it's moved to, pointing back to this history. The fact is that, if the history that was at Environmentalism relates to material that really ought to be split up, then only one article can inherit the intact history. I don't see a current need for separate articles on Environmentalism and Environmental movement, with all the U.S.-specific material cut-and-pasted from what was Environmentalism into a new article. JamesMLane 00:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that Environmentalism is a topic distinct from most of the US material in this article so I would oppose a move back to that name. We can fix the links when everything is stable. --Theo (Talk) 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being pedantic but I would prefer to have the page moved back and the minority of stuff pertaining to the US can be moved the this page. I am of the opinion that the page history should remain with the Environmentalism page.Alan Liefting 03:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now created an Environmentalism page and moved and also cut'n'pasted some relevent info into it.Alan Liefting 02:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, that page is redundant with Environmental movement. Please move the relevant parts there. --Erauch 17:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

An Environmental movement and an Environmentalism is appropriate in Wikipedia since hyertext links allows for short self-contained articles to be easily linked. If you now refer to the articles there is a clear demarcation between the two articles. As I have stated elsewhere it is a rather geographically blinkered approach to move an article on an international issue to one that is for the United States.Alan Liefting 09:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that short self-contained articles can be easily linked if the articles are redundant. The reason the page was moved to Environmental movement in the United States was because it was almost exclusively about the United States. --Erauch 14:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It was not "almost exclusively about the United States". See [1] to check. It did have some specific US stuff which is fine if balanced with other countries. I still maintain the a new article on the envirom miement in the US should have been made by removing the relevent info from one page to another rather than moving the complete page. This discussion is academic since what I requested will not happen. I am annoyed at what appears to be arrogant US-centric behaviour on Wikipedia. Alan Liefting07:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the abstract, the topic of the Environmental movement in the United States is largely a national-political one. Exactly what environmenatlists do in the USA is contrained by the social histories of the USA, the laws of the USA, the political parties of the USA, and so on. Other countries have different histories and different laws. Another article on Environmental movement in India or Environmental movement in Germany, for example, would be just as justified (but obviously, they'd need editors to write them).

There should also be general articles on Environmentalism sui generis, and probably either an article or redirect (or disambiguation) for Environmental movement. All these articles should have appropriate "See also" sections to bounce around to related movements. But that stuff is a matter of getting the right links and redirects in place, nor removing this article title. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:21, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Heading

I am not sure how this article should be layed out. I seems to be missing a introduction. I could use some help KAM 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Radical Environmentalism

Can we change the section on radical environmentalism from this:

“While most environmentalists are mainstream and peaceful, a small minority are more radical in their approach. Various extreme ideologies of radical environmentalism, and several ecology-based theories ofanarchy (known as (small-g) green anarchism, i.e. eco-terrorism) are cited to justify equipment sabotage, logging, fishing blockades, and arson, such as burning of houses impinging on a perceived "natural ecology." Environmentalists differ in their views of these ideologies and groups, but almost all condemn violent actions that can harm humans. Some tolerate the destruction of property not essential to sustaining or saving human life. The most extreme often claim to view themselves as part of nature, simply acting to protect itself from man. “

to this:

“While most environmentalists are mainstream and peaceful, a small minority are more radical in their approach. Adherents of radical environmentalism and ecological anarchism are involved indirect action campaigns to protect the environment. These campaigns have employed controversial tactics including sabotage, blockades, and arson. There is substantial debate within the environmental movement as to the acceptability of these tactics, but almost all environmentalists condemnviolent actions that can harm humans.”

The one on the page is very confusing, as it implies that radical environmentalists engage in logging, for example, and includes several awkwardly worded phrases “and several ecology-based theories ofanarchy (known as (small-g) green anarchism, i.e. eco-terrorism)” for example.

I changed it but it got changed back.

Debates amidst the faithful

That is a nasty heading and should be changed to something more NPOV. For example, "Debates among environmentalists". Seeing as I'm just jumping in, you can ignore me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243(talk) 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Edmund S. Muskie and Cronon

The main changes I've made are increased emphasis on the grass-roots nature of the movement prior to the 1970 and additions to the criticism sections. - my sources include Hayes, Nash and Judd. KAM 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate within the environmental movement

The last paragraph of the section labeled debate within the environmental movement about books and the second circuit court of appeals case doesn't seem to fit the heading. I think the paragraph should be moved up to the history section and merged with the information there because some of it is repeated in both sections. Bhe22 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)