 Thus, consciousness-raising events
like Earth Day, a belief in techno-fix or letters-to-legislators solutions
as well as individual life style changes, are seen as nothing but tranquilizers.
Recycling centres, for example, should not be viewed as the answer to our
waste problems but as a confession that the system of packaging and production
in our society is out of control. Like hospitals, they are institutions
created as a final solution to problems which never would have occurred
if ecological criteria had operated in the first place.
In this context, nothing less than
a drastic overhaul of our civilization and an abandonment of its ingrained
gods progress, growth, exploitation, technology, materialism, anthropocentricity
and power will do anything substantial to halt our path to environmental
destruction.
Still, a green consciousness seems
to be emerging as a ground swell rather than a fad, at least in countries
with an educated, prosperous citizenry. Issues internal to the environmental
movement its intrinsic merit, constituent factions, composition or strategies
for effective political action will undoubtedly become clearer as the movement
coalesces.
Notwithstanding, the old-guard coalition
of business government and industry the perceived "enemy" of environmentalism
is not waiting until a recognizable opponent emerges onto the battlefield.
A case in point is the destruction of America's rain forest in the Pacific
Northwest. While conscientious consumers eat specially marketed ice cream
to save the Amazon, American timber companies are successfully lobbying
Congress and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to let them cut the
last ancient rain forest in the United States, having depleted much of the
valuable timber on their privately owned land. The USFS plans to increase
the acreage logged each year by 10 per cent, with the eventual result that
most of the ancient forests will be gone in 60 years or less.(3)
How can this be possible, when the
USFS is a government agency responsible for managing the harvest of trees
from public lands and when the reserves in question consist of 500 to 1,000
year-old forests of great conifers which were set aside by law at the turn
of the century? One reason is that the USFS defines even this precious old-growth
forest mainly in terms of its value as timber. Another reason is that the
lumber industry, comprised of several large companies and their allies in
Congress, has managed to sway public opinion by a marketing campaign which
frames the debate as "jobs versus spotted owls."
Because the northern spotted owl
is listed as a threatened species, and, like the canary in the coal mine
is considered an indicator species for the health of the whole ecosystem,
federal courts have issued injunctions to stop logging operations in spotted
owl habitats. The industry has been quick to blame the birds for the loss
of logging jobs, and to brand environmentalists as "no jobs" reactionaries.
However, the main reason for the
loss of jobs is really the changing operations of big timber companies.
More than 85 Oregon mills closed in the last decade and 13,000 Americans
lost their jobs, but the amount of timber cut in the state nearly doubled
from 1980-1990. Over half the jobs were lost as a result of automation in
the timber industry and another quarter of the jobs went overseas with logs
to China, Japan and Korea where labor is cheap for building or finishing.
Legal challenges by advocates of
wildlife conservation, Native American Tribes and others have so far been
the most successful in slowing exploitation of public forests. But what
needs to be challenged, according to many thinkers, is the whole notion
of nature as a resource waiting to be developed for human purposes: "Until
the human species understands itself as a species, it will never stop treating
the earth and its treasures ('resources') as the rightful food for its omnivorous
maw, will never stop acting as if it owns the earth and has the right of
'domination over' its species."(2)
Meanwhile, as environmentalists in
the "developed" world tackle yet another red herring to convince
people that their jobs don't depend on killing owls the Third World stands
in the wings, ready to repeat and even to better the mistakes of the North.
For example, faced with her people's legitimate desire to raise the standard
of living for a quarter of the world's population, the knife at her back
to become "competitive" amongst the world's industrialized nations,
China sits on large unexploited resources of coal, a first-class engine
of growth and pollution.
As the Nigerias and the Mexicos of
the world surge "forward," their first concern is to import from
the First World its "love affair" with the car. Why should Poland
or Hungary, poised to adopt a "democratic ideal" and to career
onto the capitalist "fast track," accept less than the comfort
and prosperity level now taken for granted in the countries next door?
It does not take much thought for
us to realize that "the environment is the number one issue" as
we grapple in the 11th hour with the wholesale changes which must be made
despite a panoply of hidden agendas and disinformation from those who profit
from the status quo and the general ignorance of the public concerning the
issues and the lack of clout at the grass-roots level. But can we collectively
agree on the changes which must be made and implement them in time? Only
perhaps, if we can see ourselves as the One Humanity with its many shades
of green. | 
ven the most cursory review of current
environmental literature shows that the environment its protection, exploitation
and/or management is quickly coming to the forefront as a political issue.
Broadly, there seem to be four main factions or shades of green within the
environmental movement itself(1):