Environmentalism: The need to shift the paradigm

The great challenge for environmentalists is presenting sustainability in a way that is not cliché and two-dimensional.  To the ordinary person struggling to put food on the table, it is an abstraction reserved for liberal intellectuals who have the luxury to worry about saving wetlands, birds, frogs, dolphins and trees.  This does not resonate within communities beset by unemployment, poverty, and an abysmal quality of life.  Those who represent the status quo are all too aware of this, and seize upon this perception (or misperception) to cast scorn upon environmentalists and environmental activism.  The environmental movement often fights uphill battles as it suffers rhetorical barrages from seasoned pundits and politicians, some with vested interests in the Old World model of energy generation and distribution.  But, in fairness to the old guard, proponents of sustainability have not found an effective way to communicate how a cleaner, greener energy policy is consistent with sound fiscal policy and economic growth; nor have they shown how protection of other species are in the best interest of stakeholder communities that do not immediately rely on the protected areas for food or shelter. The importance of biodiversity in ecosystems and to the entire planet cannot be overstated.  But, how do you make this relevant to bureaucrats with little to no science background (or interest in science) and people whose principal preoccupation is survival? 

Now, more than any other time in history, environmentalists should have little struggle in appealing to the economic and sovereign interests of governments. By relating the value of a green-based economy to food and energy security, a cogent argument can be made for implementation of sound environmental policy.  The fossil fuel industry, for the first time in history, now faces very real competition from solar energy, as countries around the world begin to reach grid parity--that is, solar energy costs are now on par with conventional electrical energy generation.  According to Goldman Sachs, solar energy is already becoming more cost effective than fossil fuel in this respect.  In fact, the Wall Street investment bank had made a ten-year plan, back in 2012, to invest $40 billion in renewables. Other Wall Street banks are also investing enthusiastically in this sector.  Last year, Google had invested more than $1 billion in wind and solar energy projects, and they’re not done. 

The construction, administration and maintenance of solar energy plants and wind farms would also create opportunities to develop new businesses and employment for thousands.  Earlier this year, the United States federal government approved solar energy projects on public lands in California and Nevada; it is estimated that these projects will supply 550 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to supply 170,000 homes and employ 700 people.  Of Google’s renewable energy projects, 14 of those plants will be able to generate 2 billion watts, enough to supply 500,000 homes or all of the elementary public schools in three states for one year, according to a November 15, 2013 article in Computerworld.com.  The Edmonton Journal reported that, in 2013, solar energy supplied as much power as 10 nuclear power plants.  The development of more efficient solar cells has lowered the cost and installation of solar panels precipitously.  Compared to the cost of exploration, drilling, excavation, transportation, refining, storage, distribution, and eventual cleanup of fossil fuels, the cost savings of renewable energy is indisputable.

The United States Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling limiting the operation of coal fire plants in 28 states throughout the country, citing compliance to the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement authority under the Clean Air Act. This effectively sets a precedent for future decisions by the courts, and favors the growth and development of green-based industries.  The Supreme Court’s decision was instructive, for if there is no coherent, comprehensive message that compels industry and government to adjust to the changing world of energy generation and distribution, along with waste disposal and conversion; and if the hearts and minds of the average person can not be won over by a clear vision of immediate, as well as long-term benefits, then all is lost.  Environmental reforms will be in a state of perpetual regression until they cease to be relevant.  But, that day is not here, and currently sustainability has the momentum.

In this vein, environmentalists cannot remain naïve to the inescapable link between environmental issues, politics and economics.  There is real business to be developed—not only enterprises that focus on eco tourism and research, but also revenue-generating, job-creating, infrastructure-developing industries that contribute to economic stimulus and growth, as well as energy independence.  This is what needs to be driven home to the old guard.  This is what they understand. In other words, loving the environment, and seeing the value of sound policy that protects it, is not contrary to social progress and economic development.  Neither is it contrary to forming a political bloc that represents the interest of those who have a vision for a sustainable future.  For too long "environmentalism" and "environmentalist" have conjured images of disparate groups of protesters with varying agendas.  The time has come to don the suit and tie to occupy seats in government, as well as in boardrooms.  This will not happen, however, without a clear strategy, a cogent message, united voices, and organized effort.