Fractured movement searches for new focus (Earth Day)

Thirty-five years after the first Earth Day galvanized environmentalists, the movement is suffering a national identity crisis.

Local environmentalists say San Diego County is cultivating a vibrant environmental community interested in preserving open spaces, cleaning up beaches and pressing for cleaner air.

But the green establishment can't seem to get its way in Washington, D.C., the cause of much soul-searching in the run-up to Earth Day festivities that will span the globe tomorrow.

Critics contend that environmentalists lack a compelling vision and say the movement has become just another special interest. Even though environmental groups' coffers are fat and people of all ages profess interest in ecological issues, the movement arguably has lost its way in partisan politics, seemingly incessant fundraising and a lack of personal connection to ecological threats such as global warming.

Those concerns are even coming from committed conservationists, some of whom have given speeches with titles such as "The Death of Environmentalism" to provoke change.

"Environmentalists are trying to fix their tactics and their messages," said Adam Werbach, a former president of the Sierra Club. "What I am trying to say is that it's really an ideas problem."

Major obstacles Some prominent environmentalists cite the following challenges for the green movement nationwide:

An image of shrill rhetoric, litigation and pervasive fundraising that has damaged the movement's credibility

Inability to attract public interest in issues such as global warming and genetically engineered crops

EarthFair is one of the nation's premier Earth Day events. Because of a scheduling conflict, the festival will take place 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. May 1 at Balboa Park. There will be five entertainment stages, a food pavilion, a cell phone recycling program, a children's parade and more than 200 exhibitors. The fair is free. Call (858) 272-7370 or visit www.earthdayweb.org.

"Make executive directors go to a red state and try to explain environmentalism," he told a crowd in San Francisco in December. "If they don't have a plan to activate the values we share in the majority of Americans, they need to move on."

Even for environmentalists who describe the problems as overblown, the conundrum is figuring out what form the green movement should take in the 21st century.

Should environmentalists make a hard political left turn and broaden their message to include poverty and overpopulation? Should they continue to prophesy doom and destruction? Can they interest average Americans with their ideas for daunting problems such as global warming?

But Grist.org recently reported one of the most tangible results of all the questions. The online magazine said several national environmental groups are paying for a high-level political strategist to help them rethink their message and methods.

"We need to have another coming-together of environmentalists to figure out who we are what we stand for," said Denis Hayes, organizer of the first Earth Day in 1970 and chairman of the organizing network for the worldwide event.

The future of environmentalism is especially important in San Diego County, a major center of biodiversity in the United States, home to about four dozen federally protected species and host to one of the nation's banner Earth Day festivals.

"I am forlorn and discouraged," said Carolyn Chase, founder of San Diego EarthWorks, which puts on the annual EarthFair in Balboa Park.

"I am not discouraged about conservation activism and the interest that people have in the environment around them," she said. "But somehow we haven't been able to transfer that into effective political power."

Environmentalists said they are playing defense against a presidential administration and Congress they often view as hostile. On Capitol Hill, they have lost battles over oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, government support for nuclear energy and the United States' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Meanwhile, environmentalists contend that ecological indicators continue to decline. They say fossil-fuel consumption, droughts, global warming, deforestation, species extinction and overdevelopment are among many growing threats.

The upside for California conservationists: Lack of muscle in Washington has turned the attention of environmental leaders back to grass-roots efforts – the initial force behind environmentalism.

For instance, San Francisco-based Sierra Club is refocusing on local activism with the Sierra Summit. The club's first national convention and expo, planned for September, is billed as the largest gathering of club members ever and a milestone in the movement.

Club spokesman Eric Antebi said the club aims to energize its traditional base. "We recognize that the heart and soul of the environmental movement are the everyday people who are leading the way in their own back yards," he said.

The San Diego Foundation launched its Environment Working Group in late 2000 to do basically the same thing. At the time, the sizes, staffs and bank accounts of the region's environmental organizations were "shockingly low," said environment program director Emily Young.

Today, the foundation is pumping more than $750,000 per year into local projects, many of which protect open space and curb pollution.

More conservation groups are springing up, Young said. Others are growing. Networks are building. New alliances are forming. And deep pockets keep giving.

One reason for grass-roots rejuvenation is that local groups can find specific and achievable solutions, such as protecting green space along the San Diego River.

"If you are looking at a lot of these issues on a national or global level, they seem so large and so complex," Young said. "(At) the regional and community level, it's really much easier for people to feel like they can make a difference."

Despite Earth Day and environmental topics holding a place in the cultural mainstream, the environment still isn't a hot-button issue.

In a survey released yesterday, the Gallup Organization asked about 1,000 Americans about the most important problems facing the nation today. Only 1 percent of respondents named the environment. Most people were worried about Social Security, Iraq and the economy.

Environmental groups acknowledge that they have had trouble convincing people that genetically engineered crops could pose hidden dangers or that global warming is an imminent threat.

"Some of the most important environmental problems, though very real, don't assault us personally, like the lung-scorching smog or burning rivers of decades past," said Daniel Hinerfeld, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles.

Regardless, membership in environmental groups has swollen during the past 30 years to include millions of Americans. By all accounts, there still are plenty of energized young adults interested in ecology.

Modern environmentalism has its roots in "Silent Spring," a 1962 book by Rachel Carson about the dangers of chemicals such as DDT.

In those years, environmentalists had lots of clear and present targets: unfettered use of toxic chemicals, the spread of nuclear power, smoke-belching factories and seemingly endless discoveries of new environmental threats to America's health and welfare.

Earth Day, the brainchild of then-U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, captured the spirit of the times to put environmental issues on the political agenda. Twenty million people turned out for inaugural events nationwide.

Through litigation and legislation, environmentalists helped establish the public's right to clean air and water. The federal government banned DDT and agencies were given sweeping oversight of toxic substances, endangered species and water-quality issues.

Then came the rise of environmental organizations, which expanded with money from foundations and philanthropists.

Together, they papered the nation with mailers about environmental crises and pleaded for money to help save high-profile species such as wolves and eagles. Each year, the biggest groups raise tens of millions of dollars in donations and pay six-figure salaries to top employees.

Today, some fear the near-constant barrage of fundraising solicitations and dire predictions aren't translating into political leverage or on-the-ground changes.

"Modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new might live," environmentalists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus said in an essay last fall that sparked wide discussion, including rebuttals from top environmentalists.

Such hand-wringing shouldn't detract from San Diego's 16th annual EarthFair, said organizer Chase. About 60,000 people are expected to attend May 1.

The fruits of extreme environmentalism are apparent in my county. Here is a column I wrote in this week's weekly news. Just happened to coincide with Earth Day.

I just read a 2005 study entitled “The Impact of California’s Changing Environmental Regulations on Timber Harvest Planning Costs” by Cal-Poly at San Luis Obispo. The study tracked the increase in the cost of preparing a typical California private land Timber Harvest Plan (THP) from $2,200 in 1973 to $30,000 in 2004 more than a 1,200% increase over a 30 year span. This figure did not include special considerations for salmonids, which can increase the cost up to another $15,000.

The study stated that the reasoning behind environmental laws is that the social welfare benefits from improved human health and well-being; an improved legacy of natural resources to be handed down to future generations; and retention of aesthetic beauty far outweigh the economic, social and environmental costs of the regulations.

California has taken a mandatory, process-oriented approach in regulation. These restrictive regulations micro-manage for: “forest health, wildlife habitat, water and air quality, archaeological sites, land use patterns, and respect for community sentiments.” On the other hand, the Southern states have chosen a voluntary, best management, outcome-based approach and have faired much better in overall results.

The report indicated that the by-products of California’s approach have been: an increase in imports of wood products; an export of jobs; disruption of community stability; reduced forest health; and increased fire risk. The cost of the THP per unit has produced a trend toward larger scale harvests and more frequent conversion of small woodland into residential or other uses. The reason behind this effect can be seen in a recent presentation by Charlie Brown of Fruit Growers Supply, where the market price for logs was shown at $400 per thousand board feet, and the cost to harvest them in spotted owl/salmonid country was from $300-375 per thousand board feet.

The trend has been the closure of small local mills that sawed larger trees, to be replaced by a few larger, more efficient mills designed for smaller logs. Since 1988, 49 lumber mills have closed in the State. Since 1973, California’s share of the softwood timber market by volume has declined from 25% to 15%. In an international market place, forest practices and environmental regulations have been determined to be the most important issue affecting the California industry’s competiveness.

Locally, the impacts have been severe. According to a study by Registered Professional Forester Mike Duguay, Siskiyou County has lost 80% of its logging jobs since 1989, (from 951 jobs in 1989, to 331 in 1995, to 186 in 2004.) Timber harvest during the same period has declined in total million board feet from about 550 in 1989, to 150 in 1995, to about 230 in 2003. Harvest on public land alone during this period of time has declined in million board feet from about 320 in 1989, to 20 in 1995 to 35 in 2003.

Population changes in Siskiyou County since the Northwest Forest Plan indicate that along the Klamath River corridor, the population declined 22% between the years 1990-2000. The number of residents aged 0-4 and 20-29 dropped by over 50%, while age 5-19 and 30-44 dropped 45%. Age 45-64 grew 86%. There was a 41.8% drop in school enrollment. Median household income declined from $31,236 to $20,924, (a drop of 33%.) The number of households earning less than $10,000 grew by 24%. Unemployment climbed from 16.18% to 19.60% in 2000.

On the other hand, Scott Valley saw a population replacement effect of new retirees during the 1990-2000 period. The population actually slightly increased. The number of residents aged 0-4 dropped by 31.63%, aged 30-44 by 28%, Those age 45-64 grew 46.65% and those 65 and over grew by 27.27%. There was a .72% drop in school enrollment. Median household income increased 9.53% from $27,888 to $30,545. Unemployment increased from 7.95% to 9.32%. The number of households earning less than $10,000 decreased 21%.

It appears that "benefits" and "costs" of this policy are not evenly distributed across the state.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.