Opinion: Finding a "Center" in the Struggle of Environmental Activism

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

Any respected physicist, mental health professional, debater, or rational-thinking person would agree that balance requires three elements, i.e., two opposing views and a center point. If any one of these is absent, there can be no balance.

Further, when one or the other of the opposing views gains strength, e.g., voice, influence, resources, a "tipping point" is created. Balance can be regained when either the opposing view gains equivalent strength or when the established center shifts to accommodate these changes. Without this center, any discussion becomes moot as each opposing view vies for dominance in the arena of discussion.

Arguably, there has rarely been a period in our combined history where so many issues are in heated and polarized debate – local, national and global. Immigration reform, human rights and violations of them, the current economic decline, land claims of Indigenous Peoples, religious freedom, and a host of other crises make the headlines of newspapers, broadcasts, and cyber-space on a daily basis. Often, there is a common thread that weaves itself into these various debates, while becoming "newsworthy" only when there are very public protests about the issue: Environmental Activism. It is true that these many topics both effect and are effected by our environment. However, is that effect worthy of the constant intrusion of this issue into more specific debate.

Does the cause of Environmental Activism have a center? If so, (how) has it changed? If not, did it ever have one, where did it go, and how can it be re-established? I suggest that there is a center, although it is so amorphous as to be unrecognizable and difficult to support with intelligent debate.

A possible credo for protectors of an anthropomorphised Earth might be, "Mother Earth must be protected from the ravages of human intervention at all costs." This credo, like many activists in this cause, sees humanity as an interloper that has systematically drained nature's resources—leaving Earth on the road to permanent ruin and disfigurement—to which our planet is now reacting with violent weather, global warming, and consequences too dire to contemplate. What is conveniently ignored is the concept of intelligent stewardship of the resources that our planet has to offer. Because we are interlopers, we are assumed to be incapable of making future choices that will benefit all concerned: planet and humanity alike.

I was prompted to write this in response to the re-broadcast of in-depth coverage, by the CBC, of solutions to the looming water shortage in California. Kelly Crowe probes the worsening crisis in a state that receives all of its water from two primary sources: a delta in the north that is fed by two mountain rivers and the Pacific ocean; and the Colorado River in the south, which is shared with seven other states. Without these sources, this state of constant sand and surf would have no agriculture, far less tourism, and a very different culture. It is naturally one of the most arid regions in North America. One purpose of Crowe's report was to highlight innovative solutions that are being considered to make California less dependent on these dwindling sources of fresh water. While many options are under discussion, the process of desalination has brought the most criticism from environmental activists.

The last third of Crowe's piece concentrates on this process that is currently in use in San Diego county and in testing in Long Beach. Simply put, water is drawn from the Pacific Ocean, filtered and processed to remove the salt content, and then made available to the region for use as fresh water. Long Beach has set up two pilot projects to improve 1) energy consumption for this process and 2) filtering the incoming ocean water through sand to lessen the likelihood of catching fish and larvae in the process. Their reasoning is scientifically sound and has the support of industry, yet activists are unconvinced. Front and Center arguing against this proposal is the Surfrider Foundation, who's "Clean Water Initiative" is as follows:

The Clean Water initiative is primarily focused on protecting water quality in coastal watersheds and in the near-shore marine environment. Consequently, the Surfrider Foundation advocates for strong water quality regulations, adequate marine recreational water quality monitoring, reporting and posting, reduction of polluted discharges into the ocean and education regarding personal responsibility for the reduction water pollution. We also support smart land use planning to ensure that coastal environmental resources are protected and healthy watersheds are maintained.

While their website appears to be rather shallow in scientific support for their many causes, they proudly celebrate, "[founding] in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers in Malibu, California, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over 50,000 members and 80 chapters worldwide." It's possible that the surf, sand, coastal fish and plankton are pleased to have such established guardians. However, one has to question the overall focus of "visonary" pleasure-seekers when discussing complex topics like water shortages. Their status as a non-profit entity also does little to enhance their interest. "Non-profit" simply means that they spend as much as they receive; one can be certain that the CEO, staffers and various experts receive compensation for their efforts. It's a business.

Although water shortages are of specific interest to California and other areas, there are also a number of other "environmental" issues. British Columbia, Canada has its ongoing battle over logging. although industry has made great strides to replant those areas which are harvested; there is a global push towards reducing "green house gases", although the scientific community is still split as to what exactly all those gases are; whale and dolphin hunting continues to grab headlines, as illiustrated by Hayden Panettiere's public reaction to such a "hunt" in Japan last year. In the majority of these cases, the specific needs, customs, and culture of the region's citizens does not factor into the cries of these activists. Remember the credo.

It seems to me that if the growing business of Environmental Activism is serious about its desire for change, then they need to stop reacting to every "crisis" that they see. Rather, they (as a loosely connected group) might return to the roots of activism in general. The mantra of "reduce, re-use, and recycle" was, in large part, a result of proactive responses to unnecessary waste. Common people began composting their kitchen waste and re-using plastic bottles, cartons, and paper long before it was legislated. Local, state, and national incentives came after the fact. Although activists had their part to play, they did so with education and the input of sound and intelligent dialogue.

The constant cries of abusing our planet, "killing off" vast species every day, and other doomsday scenarios do little to advance understanding or proactive change. The simple fact is that, human intervention or not, out planet has always lost species, suffered from dramatic climate change, and been subject to extremes in weather. Yes, humanity has an important part to play in mitigating our effect on the planets resources. Yes, we must endeavour to always treat this planet and its inhabitants, human or otherwise, with respect. Yes, we must ensure that decisions are not based on corporate greed.

However, without a balanced center, all of these efforts will have no effect. These cries become the monotonous drone of the house-fly trying to escape through a closed window.