I concur with Jim that the evidence in the piece is largely anecdotal, but I have to say that my more than twenty years of experience in the nonprofit world prior to becoming an academic tracks a lot of this analysis. For example, I know of one mainstream NGO who stopped emphasizing the adverse impacts of oil in ocean ecosystems, perhaps coincidentally, almost immediately after entering into a "partnership" with Shell. And while the theory that large ENGOs engage in a good cop-bad cop strategy sounds great in theory, my experience is that the larger ENGOs often work ruthlessly to undermine smaller ENGOs (including ridiculing them and whispering in the ears of potential donors about their alleged financial problems), because in the end, it's all about raising money from a limited base.
And perhaps the most important message in the Hari piece is being ignored here, which is the appeal that he made towards the end of the piece for the big ENGOs to consider taking back to the streets. What has an embrace of ecological modernization gotten the large ENGOs (and society) in the end when it comes to climate change? Two of these big groups, WWF and WRI recently published studies indicating that after you sort out the Copenhagen (voluntary) pledges, we're now on track for temperatures to increase 3-3.9C above pre-industrial levels, and given the shambles that the U.S. "pledge" is now in, that's probably optimistic. Many of these organizations (like WWF) have built offices that would be the envy of many corporate law firms, but in the end, the world is burning. Perhaps the time has come to express the kind of moral outrage that this issue and others, such as the biodiversity crisis, truly warrants. And if they won't , perhaps the time has come to shift our resources in earnest to organizations that do. wil Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 1702 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA Ph: 650.281.9126 Fax: 510.779.5361 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://www.jiwlp.com/> http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): <http://ssrn.com/author=240348> http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Salzman Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:07 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Johann Hari in The Nation Hi Paul, In the spirit of constructive engagement, I think you accept Hari's accusations way too quickly. To my mind, this is an article long on charges and short on fact. The potential CBD lawsuit Hari refers to (that the Sierra Club decided not to join) is far more complicated than described. I'm yet to speak with an environmental law professor, from any ideological bent, who thinks that moving strongly ahead to combat climate change with the Clean Air Act through a NAAQS approach (much less setting the NAAQS at 350ppm) is a good idea. The practical implications are daunting (what do you do when the entire nation is in non-attainment and SIPs literally cannot remedy the situation?). Moreover, the potential for political blowback is very real -- think ESA after the TVA v. Hill decision. I don't think today's Congress is nearly as environmentally-committed as it was in 1978. Reasonable people can differ over this analysis of the CAA litigation strategy, but to call the Sierra Club's opposition a sell-out is absurd. I'm not saying that corporate creep can't happen or has not happened in some instances, perhaps too many, but this breast-beating over losing environmentalism's soul seems overdone. There has always been a range of approaches within the environmental community -- some more confrontational, some less so. EDF and NWF have their way of doing things, CBD has its. Each can point to a string of successes and failures. I've always viewed this as a positive rather than a negative. You obviously take a different read on the article than I do, but I'm going to need a lot more evidence than the CAA litigation strategy, one REDD pilot story, and accusations of Hari and MacDonald to be persuaded that the big environmental NGOs have lost their way and sold out. regards, jim <>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> Professor Jim Salzman Samuel Fox Mordecai Professor of Law Nicholas Institute Professor of Environmental Policy Duke University Box 90360 Durham NC 27708 USA office (1)919.613.7185 fax (1) 919.613.7231 <>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> >>> Paul Wapner <[email protected]> 3/21/2010 7:50 AM >>> I can't verify Hari's claims (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari) but what he reports fits the general impression many of us have been getting for few years now. When corporate creep started, many warned of its corrupting influence, but few thought it could penetrate environmentalism's soul. We twisted ourselves to see the wisdom of partnering with polluters--under the impression that change from within is possible, that one can shift practices by being friend rather than foe. With Hari's piece, we learn that change from within IS possible: the corporates have taken the "long walk through the institutions," and have left some of our most venerable environmental groups shells for the moneyed green world. Hari's article is painful to read. As Hari points out, those of us who care about the earth's ecosystem services and its most vulnerable must now add to our list of things to save environmentalism itself. It is a sad day when the very movement we've built to breathe ecological reality into our politics is in need of resuscitation. But, this is our call. Let's publicize Hari's critique, and demand accountability. Let's send hardcopies of his article in all of those post-paid envelopes we receive asking for our donations. Let's continue to pay our rent on the planet by giving only to those groups who refuse polluters' money, and let's support political efforts that speak on behalf of ecological and social justice realities. Environmentalism is one of the most profound and generous human expressions. There is no question that witnessing the ecological dismemberment of the earth is and will continue to be a sorrowful experience. Imagine witnessing this without a movement committed to bringing a dose of genuine humanity to our descent, and the road forward becomes downright agonizing. Let's swerve. There is a battle for environmentalism's soul being played out as two paths diverge in a darkening and warming wood. Turn left. Further thoughts? (A bit of self promotion: I just published, <http://www.amazon.com/Living-Through-End-Nature-Environmentalism/dp/0262014 157/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261413704&sr=8-1\t_blank> Living through the End of Nature: The Future of American Environmentalism) Paul Paul Wapner Associate Professor Director, Global Environmental Politics Program School of International Service American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 885-1647 Pam Chasek <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 03/20/2010 10:41 AM Please respond to [email protected] To "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> cc 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: <mailto:[email protected]> [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. 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. 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.
