When We Talk about the “Environmentalist Movement” Exactly What Do We Mean?

I’m working my way through a collection of esteemed essays on a variety of topics, and I happened upon a brilliant piece on environmentalism: Jedediah Purdy’s “Shades of Green.”   A professor of law at Duke University, Purdy ably makes the point that there are several different such movements that have little to do with one another, and sometimes actually come into conflict.  Consider a few different sectors, and think about the differences in ideas between those who:

• are focused on maintaining the pristine purity of the wilderness

• advocate sustainable agriculture

• work to protect inner-city kids from lead-based paint

Even the demographics are wildly different.  Where historically, the National Parks’ advocates have been rich white guys, the defenders of children living in poverty are far more varied.

Until I read this and realized how correct it is, I had foolishly conflated all these groups; I would refer to the fact that “there are over 200,000 groups around the globe whose purpose is environmental and social justice.” While that’s true, it misses an important point.

Purdy’s urges everyone involved in environmentalism in any way to consider the consequences to all sectors of mankind, i.e., to look at this from a more “human perspective.”  This, of course, is excellent.  It calls to mind the folly of the extremists who wish to protect the habitat of certain desert turtles from the invasion of solar power, at the expense of building more coal-fired power plants.

Purdy concludes: None of our several environmentalisms will go away, and none should, but they are all better off with the recognition that the environment is very much a political, cultural, and human affair.