I am pleased to learn that there is some interest in this, and appreciate the specific responses from Wil, Karen, and Pam. The issues resonate with some I explored in 13 Ecology Law Quarterly 715-58 (1986) [when Carl Pope was just a lad! -- he became executive director of the Sierra Club in 1992 and left the job just this January].
And there have already been responses to Hari published by The Nation, including one from Leah Hair, the widow of Jay Hair, who is specifically mentioned in Pam's earlier note to this list. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/forum The responses, highly varied in length and persuasiveness, are from: Christine Dorsey, National Wildlife Federation Kevin Koenig, Amazon Watch Leah Hair, National Wildlife Federation Phil Radford, Greenpeace John Adams, Natural Resources Defense Council Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity Carl Pope, Sierra Club Bill McKibben, 350.org Karen Foerstel, The Nature Conservancy Johann Hari, The Nation There is also an interesting and recent literature, here, spanning a wide range from McCormick (1991, 2005) to Nordhaus and Shellenberger (2005, 2007) to Bosso (2007), among others, as well as the critique by MacDonald (2008) mentioned in Hari's essay. At the level of political meta-strategy, one would also include works such as those by Speth (2005, 2009). What especially interests me, however, is the opportunity to look at this at a much more concrete level and from the perspective of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy (JIWLP), with which Wil and I are associated. The crucial thing, here, is the spotlight Hari focuses on Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and other groups with a long-standing priority on the designation and management of protected areas, especially in the developing world. Clearly, considerations about the future of protected areas are deeply intertwined with considerations about climate change. In the specific context of marine species and habitats, for example, this inter-relationship is the pre-occupation of an April 2009 symposium at Stanford Law School: http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/symposia/agenda-April-2009.php There is much talk in the contributed papers of the need for adaptation to climate change to "manage for resiliency," as climate change induces the "migration" of species and habitats "beyond the borders" of the network of protected areas on which so much time and effort has been expended by the international environmental movement in recent decades. But in this particular symposium explicit analysis of political strategy is missing, and there is not even the hint of a suggestion that the key to protecting marine species is for environmental NGO's to make money by being "middlemen in carbon markets" or making ill-gotten gains from "carbon laundering." So, what has been and is now, in face of climate change, the global conservation value of a political strategy centered on the designation and management of protected areas (with or without connective "corridors"). What relevance does this strategy have going forward, both for wildlife and for local populations deriving value from protected area resources? How is the case for species and habitat protection being framed, how is it being financed, and how is it being carried out? I wonder if we could identify a small group of colleagues who have interesting, worthwhile, and research-based things to say about these questions, most especially if it rests on empirical analysis of the work in various parts of the world of groups like Conservation International and TNC, and of the ways in which, on the ground, they are constructing a politics to protect nature as climate changes? If we can, we might have the basis for a publication project that JIWLP can nurture. Geoffrey. _____ From: Pam Chasek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:40 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Johann Hari in The Nation I think part of the problem is that many of us have been on spring break this week. I asked for and received a reaction from a "high-level" representative of one of the environmental groups mentioned in the article. Here's what he said: "They never talked to us before this was published. They sent me an email saying I could write a 300 word response that they would post in their web. I talked to Katrina their publisher to no avail. Leah Hair, Bill Ruckleshaus, and several others also wrote. They are practicing junk journalism on the left." Have the environmental groups been co-opted? Perhaps. I guess this goes back to the age-old debate: when do you compromise your sense of idealism for the reality of what small gains are possible in the society in which we live. Many admirable souls will not give up the fight. Others reluctantly recognize that they cannot give up their cars, their computers, their consumptive lifestyles, travel and food choices to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a difference. And the environmental groups? Are they trying to fight the battle or have they given up and are happy with minor victories? I clearly agree that they have not been that effective in their work at the national level or international level for that matter. But how much can we really expect? I don't know. Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin IISD Reporting Services 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955 E-mail: [email protected] International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) www.iisd.org <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pam\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Inte rnet%20Files\www.iisd.org> IISD Reporting Services - Earth Negotiations Bulletin www.iisd.ca <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pam\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Inte rnet%20Files\www.iisd.ca> Subscribe for free to our publications http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 4:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [gep-ed] Johann Hari in The Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari Did I miss something - I don't think I did, I'm just checking - or has the publication of Johann Hari's essay, "The Wrong Kind of Green: How Conservation Groups Are Bargaining Away Our Future," in the March 22, 2010, issue of The Nation passed entirely without comment, here? Is there, perhaps, a sense that it is so polemical as to be not worth the bother? Just curious. Geoffrey. ------------------------------------ Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith Emeritus Professor of Political Science University of California, Davis To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gep-ed+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gep-ed+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
