A Question for the Spirit

Nordhaus and Shellenger, the authors of Death of Environmentalism and Breakthrough, awaken controversy when they speak of the high church of environmentalism. People don't like to think of environmental leaders as priests and environmental writers as prophets. I feel like that cuts particularly deep because we don't have a very positive image of a traditional church dynamic in our minds, and because we somehow believe in the modernist philosophy that people are becoming less religious and therefore less in need of churches or spiritual guidance.

Parts of all that are true, and we can recognize how environmentalists don't like the image of themselves as part of a flock. But we can also phrase that relationship between a shepherd and his flock as something very beautiful and very human. We all have certain skills we bring to bear on the situation, and an ability to create a space where the spirit can roam free is a contribution to a group the same way a teacher, a chef or a manager can do their jobs. All of these jobs can be done well or poorly, to be sure, and all these jobs are necessary.

Most of us do not react very strongly to observations of the similarity between the belief system of environmentalism and other belief systems. I think a lot of us know that there's enough of a connection there that it's not worth getting down into the details. I'm more curious about the people who do react very strongly against the notion that environmentalism does fill a spiritual need in many of our lives. What is it about the similarity is so disturbing? What would be bad about embracing that connection?

We are very aware of the somewhat delicate frame of reference upon which our identity as environmentalists rests. In the cultural back and forth of framing and re-framing that the intellectual leaders of our partisan social sphere engage in as if it were warfare, certain ways of looking at things begin to look dangerously like 'the enemy'. If certain words like religion and priest have the power to put us on edge, then we are not on a very stable keel. We are not going to right ourselves by moving further to one side of the cultural ship. We've probably already rocked it about as far as it can go. Lets start to come back, to find our balance and accept that we have spiritual needs which can be met in many ways.

I hope I haven't lost anyone on that little ramble. Typing is a lot harder than conversation, and I can't exactly check in to see if you're with me. However, if you are with me, then thank you.

Environmentalism: what does it all mean?

Some of you know that I'm currently travelling to Minnesota for the January Climate Institute, a small conference of student leaders designed to push the bounds of how we see ourselves and the climate movement.

Of all the big, hanging issues out there, the one at the top of the list might be the term 'environmentalism' itself, and all the identities and connotations that tag along. I'm not fan of the term and rarely consider myself an environmentalist, but my reasons for doing so are often inarticulate or boring. Still, I feel it more and more strongly, the need to break free from the values and identity that is ascribed to us so that we can focus on the possibilities the future holds.

Here's a piece of recommended reading: The Failure of Environmentalism: Hurricane Katrina It seems to lack an ending, but other than that it really cuts to the root of why environmentalism is simply an inadequate term and philosophy.

Whether too scientific, too technical or too policy focused, leading environmental thinkers are discovering the fact that global climate change, as an issue, is simply too large for the environmental movement alone. Each of these papers advocated for different coalitions to be formed. Shellenberger and Nordhaus advocated for an alliance with labor, like the Apollo Alliance, and subsuming the goals of environmentalism into the larger progressive movement. Professor Dan Esty, from the Yale School of Forestry, in a debate, argued that environmentalism should stop attacking drivers of SUVs, as they are motivated to protect their children’s wellbeing, and instead focus on the parent’s concerns over their children’s future and the consequences of global warming.[xii] Bill Moyers, in an address to environmental journalists, argued that conservative Christians should be swayed to respond to the issue.

When we look at Katrina,

All of these concerns [about what went wrong with Katrina] are valid, but there is a definite disconnect between all the identified problems and those categorized as “environmental.” One major factor that Katrina reveals is how many constituencies and issues are tied up in the response to the climate crisis. Scientists have warned that storms will get more intense, sea levels will rise, and effects as far-ranging as drought to regional cooling might occur. How to protect humanity and the rest of the ecosystem from these impacts is a question that involves the effectiveness of government, the robustness of infrastructure, the level of education of the public, land-use planning, environmental policy, and social justice.

You really need to read the whole thing (its only about 2 pages).

For me, this is yet another way of rephrasing the question that seems to be constantly on my mind: why is it more important to fight climate change than address any number of other human problems? I guarantee you, whatever answer you have to that question is not going to hold up as well as you want it to.