Environmentalism in the Balance

Recently, The New York Times ran an unusual headline: “Obama Proposes Opening Vast Offshore Areas to Drilling.” Unusual, that is, to anyone who hasn’t followed the debate over climate policy taking place in the US Senate during the last few months. Amid the public options and accusations of Hitlerism, a quiet revolution is taking place in the most important environmental debate of our time. Environmentalists, long caricatured as beatniks prepared to sacrifice the economy on the altar of the polar bear, have in fact become ruthlessly pragmatic, cutting hard bargains with business interests and their satellites in Congress to reach deals that balance the dual imperatives of economic growth and climate protection. The best strategy for emissions reduction—a simple carbon tax—was dismissed as politically impossible. The best alternative—cap-and-trade, with all permits auctioned—is eroding, as nervous senators worry about high energy prices depleting the industrial base. Nevertheless, all the major environmental groups maintain their support for the bill. Given all the compromises that brought climate legislation to this point, the failure or passage of this bill will likely determine the direction of the environmental movement. To paraphrase Al Gore, environmentalism hangs in the balance.

If the climate bill passes and the US begins reducing emissions, environmentalism will remain largely intact. Some elements may complain that the mainstream organizations are too close to the industries and government institutions they are supposed to check, but these frustrations will go mostly ignored. If, however, Congress fails to take action, the environmental movement may become more stridently anti-establishment, more interested in civil disobedience and less inclined to seek a balance between nature and commerce. In short, the movement could become more disruptive and less predictable. The results might veer in one of two diverging directions. On the one hand, a die-hard environmental movement could be a useful counterweight to the polluters, who have often shown little concern for the objections of environmental advocates (or citizens in affected communities, for that matter). On the other hand, aggressive, narrowly focused advocates might not be able to influence policy effectively—especially on mundane matters that require a great deal of expertise and receive little publicity. Plus, influencing legislation is difficult when your representatives on the Hill have little clout or connection to the grassroots.

A moderate, establishmentarian wing is essential to ensure that environmental objections are met without sacrificing too much prosperity or alienating too many erstwhile allies. In order to build broad-based support—a necessity for any successful social movement—environmentalism must appeal to as many potential partners as possible. If we want to continue to see clean air, clean water and intact wilderness—and if we want to avoid climatic catastrophe—we must pass this imperfect bill. Otherwise, the earth and its advocates may slip from the balance, and we will lose what many have worked to protect.

ALEX JONES