A lot of the time, I quote other people simply because they’ve said what I wanted to but never got around to it. I frequently get criticised on here for taking a hardline stance on environmental issues, especially on supporting groups like Plane Stupid, because they’re seen as too alienating. Because Middle England won’t agree, the argument goes, these people are a danger to the cause. I always disagree.
This article by Peter Malchett hits the spot.
Now environmentalism has gone mainstream, Hickman argues, we need to “embrace mature political debate”. I agree with a lot of what he says, but not his conclusion that compromise and pragmatism are now the order of the day. This isn’t the first time that environmentalists have won an argument. Nor is it the first time that there has been a significant backlash as a result.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/activism-food
…
One of the first environmental campaigns in the UK that led to a clear-cut victory was the campaign to get lead out of petrol in the 1970s. This appeared to be a no-brainer, and brilliant work got government agreement in a short time. But there was an immediate backlash on behalf of what had now become the downtrodden and oppressed drivers of vintage cars, whose lifestyle the ban apparently threatened.
…
We can be realistic without losing our idealism. The real danger is that environmentalists become so caught up in what politicians and companies think of as reality that they lose not only their idealism, but also their ability to communicate clearly and simply with the public, which is where their power lies.
All completely spot on. Environmental issues is one area where I don’t yield much, and frankly when people snort angrily about Plane Stupid that gives me even more pleasure. The fight will only be won by constantly pushing the boundaries and arguing for a different world. To that extent, I think sometimes even I become too pragmatic instead of idealistic. Thankfully there are articles such as this to set me straight.
Ooh, and this article by Hugo Rifkind on student activists is quite good too. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5739655.ece
Now environmentalism has gone mainstream, Hickman argues, we need to “embrace mature political debate”. I agree with a lot of what he says, but not his conclusion that compromise and pragmatism are now the order of the day. This isn’t the first time that environmentalists have won an argument. Nor is it the first time that there has been a significant backlash as a result.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/activism-food …
One of the first environmental campaigns in the UK that led to a clear-cut victory was the campaign to get lead out of petrol in the 1970s. This appeared to be a no-brainer, and brilliant work got government agreement in a short time. But there was an immediate backlash on behalf of what had now become the downtrodden and oppressed drivers of vintage cars, whose lifestyle the ban apparently threatened.
…
We can be realistic without losing our idealism. The real danger is that environmentalists become so caught up in what politicians and companies think of as reality that they lose not only their idealism, but also their ability to communicate clearly and simply with the public, which is where their power lies.
All completely spot on. Environmental issues is one area where I don’t yield much, and frankly when people snort angrily about Plane Stupid that gives me even more pleasure. The fight will only be won by constantly pushing the boundaries and arguing for a different world. To that extent, I think sometimes even I become too pragmatic instead of idealistic. Thankfully there are articles such as this to set me straight.
Ooh, and this article by Hugo Rifkind on student activists is quite good too.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5739655.ece
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
4 degrees of separation
18.02.2009 18:07
Hugo Rifkind
Malcolm Rifkind
Margaret Thatcher
D-Lite
question
19.02.2009 09:59
so what
@ so what
19.02.2009 12:12
ARC
Because D-Lite
20.02.2009 18:18
More power to Plane Stupid
And again
Guardian holiday offers
21.02.2009 16:22
Veganism is a greater contributor to saving the climate than refusing to fly or drive, and vegan campaigns tends to be a more purist in that they mostly commit to never eating meat, not just when it is convenient. I love flying but I've only had one flight in eight years, probably my last flight, so I couldn't care less whether the airports are shutdown, I'd appreciate the quiet. I am amused at how many airmiles my supposedly Green friends have notched up over the same period, greenwash being a personal as well as corporate issue. From the outside though it is also a PR mistake for spokepeople urging others to fly less not to personally pledge never to fly again. Or for that matter to eat meat. I know these are personal decisions but any campaign is better fronted by the purists.
Apart from Rifkind, you approvingly quote Peter Melchetts ponitificating on 'Green idealism' which is immediately followed unironically by ahuge advert for the latest mobile phone and
Guardian holiday offers
Visit our new holiday site. Book the best of the holidays available from our hand-picked suppliers.
Guardian home exchange
Guardian home exchange allows you to swap homes and live like a local all over the world.
D-Lite