Redneck for Wilderness

Since I wasn't able to make it to class for the discussion, I figured I'd light up the blogosphere with my thoughts. After having studied environmental degradation--and some of the baggage that comes with it--quite a bit, I found this article a new, interesting, and useful way to consider the environment. A lot of the pieces we've read thus far have had a fairly similar, likely liberal, view. It was interesting to view the environment through a mostly political lens. Even more interesting was viewing it through--dare I say the dirty R word-- a republican's lens. Foreman's take on conservation was quite enlightening. Not only did I find the juxtaposition of words--conservation and conservatism-- amusing, but also an interesting backdrop for considering just how bi-partisan the issue actually is. For the most part, we've considered the environment on the larger scale-- in terms of global population numbers, global consumption patterns, etc. Thus far, this has made it easy to assume that it is an issue that plagues everyone, universally. With that as the backdrop, it was disheartening to consider that it is actually a split issue at all. Of all the things to politicize, the environment is not one. Granted, we live in a world-- or rather a country-- where politics are inescapable. However, a stark contrast arises when we consider the environment, which knows no borders, in terms of boundaries-- especially political ones.

Foreman is careful to stress the separation between the issues of conservation and environmentalism. He notes that even some environmentalists dismiss it is irrelevant. More interesting is his smart commentary on the word environment. He asserts that it should have been called the human-health movement. While not necessarily his intent, it does pose the question of human selfishness. His assertion is most likely a sad truth: we respond more when something is posed as directly affecting us, rather than an abstract concept. It is an interesting suggestion. All the tenants of environmentalism do correspond to problems such as pollution, urbanization, and other issues that we don't directly equate with human health. He makes another important distinction in his discussion stereotypes. Environmentalists are often grouped into the extremist category: non-deodorant wearing, vegan hippies that merely constitute a special interest group in the democratic party. While his point that this turns many people off of joining the movement, this also should be considered on the larger scale. Extreme as they are often considered, it is plausible that politics as a whole would do their best to exclude environmentalists as a whole.

Foreman's insight is exponentially useful in that he is a Republican. He addresses the fact that in many senses, we don't even attempt to talk to the political right, though this is where the crucial votes lie. Beyond his Republican environmental stance, he makes generally frightening and thus useful points. His exploration of extinction and population problems leaves us with a bitter taste in our mouths, regardless of our political leaning. He explains how we singled ourselves out in a sense, removing and intensifying our role as a link in the food chain. Our developments may have liberated us from the confines of nature, only to put us back in those confines tenfold. He notes how hard it is to find an example of a sustainable human society in all of history. He discusses the increasing impossibility of diversity in the presence of too many human beings, and pairs it with our refusal to discuss the far too controversial issue. Even the Sierra Club no longer talks about it!

Tying back into the environment in terms of politics, the most striking point to me was how much of our natural land is controlled by industry. Federal wilderness acts are losing wind, and he fears that there is so much pressure on conservationists that they have no choice but to make secessions they should not have to be making. This, for me, is reminiscent of the Waxman-Markey bill. Waxman is a fairly staunch environmentalist who just this past summer fought to pass a bill through Congress that would enforce quite a few necessary environmental changes. The bill was continually weakened, clearly due to pressure from the right. It was scary to watch Waxman-- a man who has enough knowledge to hold more fear for the environment than most of the public combined-- allow the bill to be weakened to such an extent. Clearly, Foreman's commentary on politics is not a thing of the past, despite increasing awareness that should have put us all on the same page by now.