What? Environmentalism isn't dead!

As I sit here reading "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World," I can't help but ponder the irony of this article's meaning in my own life.  The professors of this class have posted each week's readings online so as not to waste paper, especially in the spirit of the human/nature element of the class.  However, I think I can safely say all the students inevitably end up printing the readings anyway because it is easier to read them on the train, make notes in the margins, underline sentences, etc. (not to mention one of the readings was scanned sideways at a 90 degree angle, thus making it quite difficult to read without printing it).  The sad part is that when the students are each printing the articles and essays, they only get printed one-sided on the xerox/phaser printer, whereas if the articles were scanned using a copy machine, they could be printed double-sided, saving the school money and the environment several trees.  To me, this scenario is much like environmentalism today: it comes with the best intentions, but in reality it just doesn't pan out.

THE-DEATH-OF-ENVIRONMENTALISM. The fact that environmentalism looks really good on paper, but can't seem to make any headway standing up to conservative politics was the biggest challenge environmentalists were facing when this article was released back in 2004 (reading this article felt like I was reading yesterday's news).  Since the article's release, we have trudged through the rest of George W. Bush's 8-year term and are now entering a new wave of liberal politics spearheaded by President Barack Obama.  Obama has already tapped into the article's suggestion to creatively propose 'environmental' solutions by appealing to multiple interests, such as the CAFE amendment did for both the auto industry and the environment.  Today's hot topic is "green jobs" which combine the goals of environmentalism with career opportunities.  Obama has recently announced $20 billion will be invested in a cleaner, greener economy and $50 million will go toward green job training, spawning industries and creating jobs that we don't have now.  This is really exciting, and exactly what the article predicted was necessary for a "third-wave" environmentalism (framed around investment).

But what are some of the other stumbling blocks for this third-wave environmentalism?  In my opinion it's the American people.  Despite the recent Democratic shift, for the last 25 years the U.S. has been in a conservative direction, thus rational logic will not work to convince everyone.  The article clearly states that environmentalists need to appeal to the collective self-interest of the American core values; someone quick find a passage in the Bible that says the rainforest is holy!

Many people are skeptical of science, mostly because science is usually hard to understand and religion causes them to become leery of scientific thought.  They question scientific discoveries.  Case in point the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  Give people statistical-based facts and watch their eyes glaze over.  The article states, "Environmentalists need to tap into the creative worlds of myth-making, even religion... to figure out who we are and who we need to be."  Does anyone have any insight as to how this can be accomplished?  I suppose the only good way is to combine the issues: health care, taxes, auto industry, jobs, and other big issues.

Eliot Porter, Luna Moth 1953

So... back to the image part of human/nature/image, how do we as artists impart environmental change?  It seems obvious after reading "Every Corner is Alive" about Eliot Porter's nature photography that Porter's tactics aren't nearly valid in today's society.  As the article states toward the end, the influence of Porter's pictures from the 1960s has changed over time.  Nature photography today is photoshopped, pristine, and flawless, showing cliches where Porter once pioneered a photographic genre that was environmentally concerned for the land all its inhabitants.  So now that we know perfect untouched nature doesn't scare people into environmentalism, what about scary images?  Sure, Martin Luther King Jr said, "I have a dream" not "I have a nightmare," but perhaps a little Burtynsky might instill some complexity into the issue.  

Edward Burtynsky, Oxford Tire Pile No. 1, 1999

Edward Burtynsky, Nickel Tailings No. 32, 1996 

But what do we do now that we live in a society so completely entrenched in photographs?  Is it possible for nature photography to impart change?  Can it still have aesthetic means for a political end?  I think perhaps on a small scale it's possible, but not just in regards to photography.  Take for example Brian Collier's "Pika Alarm" displayed in Lucy Lippard's "Weather Report" exhibition.  Collier mounted a motion-activated speaker atop a pole that emitted the pika's singular high pitched cry when someone would approach or pass by.  A help-yourself postcard describes the small rabbit-like creature's struggle as possibly becoming the first known animal to become extinct from global warming.  It's small, cute, and has a message.

a pika

On a side note, two weeks ago I went to the film screening of Empty Oceans, Empty Nets.  Now, let me first preface with the fact that I love eating seafood and was not expecting to walk away from the film feeling horribly guilty about this.  Anyway, after seeing the film I learned all the graphic details of overfishing and aqua-culture and how fish stocks are depleted to the point where the fish can't recover.  An especially destructive method of fishing called bottom trawling uses nets that scrape across the bottom of the ocean floor, destroying important plantlife and reefs where fish feed and breed, not to mention that it catches all sorts of other sealife like sharks and turtles that aren't meant to be caught.  It's important that people eat fish caught from sustainable fisheries.  The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program is designed to keep consumers in the loop as to the "greenest" seafood to buy and which to avoid.

Orange roughy- endangered but still being fished

My point of bringing this up in my blog is how was I to know any of this information if I didn't seek it out myself?  I never thought overfishing was such a colossal problem.  I mean, when people go to the grocery store to buy swordfish, bluefin tuna, or orange roughy there's no label on the package that states "overfished and nearly endangered."  How can we blame consumers for being so naive when this information seems practically hidden??  I think these hidden pitfalls of blind consumerism for many Americans are soon coming to an end.