Progressive Environmentalism – The New Green is Pink?

By David Schnare • Jan 6th, 2010 • Category: Environment, Feature

Two years ago, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote a provocative paper entitled The Death of Environmentalism in which they argued that to meet current challenges, environmentalists need to develop “a set of proposals that simultaneously energize ‘our’ base, win over new allies, divide our opponents, achieve policy victories and make America’s values more progressive.”

What does that really mean?

I believe it means that environmentalists should engage in a culture war and opt for socialism.

By definition, progressivism means interventionist economics such as taxing the wealthy more than the poor, opposing the influence of corporations, being skeptical of government because it is not controlling more of our economy and advocating governmental reformation to expand wealth transfer. In practice, Associate Professor and self-proclaimed socialist, Greg Albo, endorses an environmental progressivism that includes:

Work time reduction and increased leisure time; massive expansion of collective services such as daycare, education, parks, museums, and other recreation facilities; increased funding of the “grant economy” for cultural workers, community festivals, and the like; a mass shift to public transportation funded by long-term (50-year) bond floats; major income redistribution given the huge class differences in causing environmental degradation; increased worker input into the health and ecological conditions of labor processes; expansion of the cooperative and worker-controlled enterprise sector as a basis for building alternative local communities; debt relief for the global south; mass transfer of sustainable technologies; sharply limited growth in the north to provide room for growth in less developed zones and to diminish inequality; and so forth.

More simply, as Gus Speth, former dean of the Yale Forestry School, puts it, “[environmentalists need to] challenge the power of corporations and question the nation’s commitment to perpetual economic growth.” He suggests: “The solution is to figure what needs to be done to change today’s capitalism.”

In sum, progressive environmentalism of the sort advocated by Nordhaus and Shellenberger would be to link environmental goals to all the other progressive social goals and sell this utopian vision and values. (It includes a one-world order, as needed to deal with global warming.) They want environmentalists to man the barricades and militate for a political overthrow of existing political systems, or at least what they think of as the entrenched political powers.

Let’s bring this down to earth, so to speak. How would this “progressivism” apply to the Chesapeake Bay? Long-time advocate for the Bay, Howard Ernst, has taken up the progressive call. He wants to see William C. Baker, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s long-standing and remarkably able chief executive, resign. He wants a “dark green” approach (read bright pink). Light green vs. dark green, Ernst says, is about voluntary vs. mandatory, about “caring” vs. confrontation, about acting “responsibly” vs. demanding clean water, just as the Civil Rights movement demanded equality.

The progressives are supposed to care about the economy and jobs. Yet they take no steps to recognize the opportunity costs of regulations that fail to honor the need for economic growth. They believe in using the power of the economy to shift to “green” energy, but they want to do so by picking winners and subsidizing their favorite energy alternatives; rather than opening up new energy resources and intellectual endeavor, and letting the market place pick the winners. They believe centralized governmental regulatory controls work better than old fashioned stewardship.

To solve the problems of the Bay, we need stewardship, which can include regulation. But let’s remember what the goals of old fashioned stewardship are: (1) to ensure the estate, Virginia citizens and businesses, has sufficient revenue to meet their needs (think of jobs and being profitable); and, (2) to ensure the estate’s assets grow (think better educated and more productive citizens and husbanding of natural, agricultural, commercial, industrial and productive resources).

We don’t need pink politics to create a green economy. We can grow Virginia’s economy, in part, by increasing the productive capacity of the Bay and its ecology. Think of it this way, the new green is a healthy blue.

David Schnare serves (pro bono) as the Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute, Virginia’s premier independent public policy foundation. He is a Senior Attorney and Environmental Scientist in the Office of Regulatory Compliance at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He holds an appointment to the Environmental Quality Advisory Council of Fairfax County, the largest urban county in the nation. He is CEO of Schnare and Associates, Inc., a professional corporation providing legal representation, legal and policy analysis and is Chairman of the Environmental and Land Use Committee of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, an organization of 143 homeowners associations in western Fairfax County, Virginia. Bringing his “balanced” environmental views to his community, Dr. Schnare Co-Chaired the Occoquan Watershed Task Force, a group appointed by the Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to make a thorough assessment on the status of the watershed and to make recommendation on how to ensure its continued protection. Dr. Schnare’s honors include: Two Gold and four Bronze Medals from the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Vice President’s Hammer Award and multiple U.S. Department of Justice Certificates of Commendation. His academic achievements include Law Review at George Mason University School of Law; Inns of Court (GMUSL); Sigma Xi (Science Honorary); Delta Omega Service Award (Public Health Honorary); National Science Foundation Research Fellowship; LEGIS Fellowship; and the U.S. Public Health Fellowship. He is an Honorary Member of the Water Quality Association. Dr. Schnare earned his JD in 1999 from George Mason University School of Law. While attending law school (and working full-time at EPA) he was the Hogan (Environmental) Essay winner and served on the Law Review and the Inns of Court. He graduated Cum Laude (Order of the Coif). He holds his PhD in Environmental Management from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, a Master of Science in Public Health-Environmental Science from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, and a Bachelor’s Degree from Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa where he majored in chemistry and mathematics.
Email this author | All posts by David Schnare

One Response »

  1. I’m not in disagreement with the expressed sentiment but I am a tad suspicious of how the espoused concept actually works on the ground.

    We need compelling, connect-the-dots science for actions that we take on the Bay because I do agree that doing anything/everything is …in a word.. irresponsible.. because it wastes resources and it does squash opportunity whose only crime is to be implicated by those who don’t care about facts.

    I’m not convinced – to date – the the Bay’s PRIMARY problem is nitrogen and phosphorus. I want to see this Bay compared to other Bays in terms of the concentrations of these two substances and I want to see what a “good” river with the right concentrations of these two substances looks like compared to a bad river – and a ranked list of rivers that feed the bay in terms of their concentrations and contributions.

    Then within each river, an inventory of the segments using the same data-approach. show me the segments that have the most problems and the ones with the least.

    Finally, I’d like to see how AG contributes compared to Stormwater compared to municipal outflows.

    Does AG contribute MORE or LESS than storm water? It’s hard to believe that stormwater coming off of impervious surfaces that do not have application of nitrogen and phosphorous would have a bigger contribution but where is the data to show this?

    We now that stormwater has all kinds of nasty stuff in it but is the problem with it – PRIMARILY nitrogen/phosphorus or are there other substances that are involved? and if there are other substances involved, what are they and what is the TMDL for THOSE substances?

    What we’re doing right now – fooling around with unvalidated models is just plain dumb not to mention costly both in terms of time and money but most importantly in terms of a lack of effectiveness to come up with performance-based criteria.

Leave a Reply