I’ve heard environmentalism described by Walter Starck as a quasi-religious blend of new-age nature worship, junk science, left-wing political activism and anti-profit economics.
While this description may apply to some deep green activists, it’s also true to say that we are all environmentalists now.
But most Australians have little say in the environmental policies being put to government. These policies are almost exclusively the domain of a tight network of conservation groups with a particular world view.
But the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is different.
At the first Conference and AGM for the Australian Environment Foundation, Mike Archer will plead for, what he describes as the revolution we must have – between the ears and on the land – in our approach to sustaining environments as well as rural and regional communities in a changing world.
Now, do your bit for the environment, copy this image to your website or blog:
————————
I’m a director of the AEF.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jennifer,
I like the kookaburra silhouettes, not so sure about the ‘new-age’ tag and on my browser the ‘Australian’
header looks a tad bilious in colour; however the conference agenda looks very interesting.
Hi Lamna,
I appreciate the comment. I didn’t do the logo or ‘ad’ for the conference.
But did suggest the term ‘new environmentalists’ which was modified to ‘new age environmentalists’. Have you a better suggestion?
Members of the AEF have a radically different approach to environmental issues from the established environmental groups, but I think their/our approach will one day be accepted as sensible and practical?
Will you be able to make the conference?
Hi Jennifer,
I would be pleased to come , but I live very far from Australia right now… anyway I’m remined of Australia everyday, haha, I have my koala mascot , Sheridan duvet cover and an especially beautiful duvet cover designed by your artist Ken Done.
In my grocery they sell also Western Australian fling salt…quite expensive though…
Jennifer said “But did suggest the term ‘new environmentalists’ which was modified to ‘new age environmentalists’. Have you a better suggestion?”
How about “environmentalists”.. plain and unadulterated.
Hi Siltstone,
Thanks for the comment and suggestion. But there is a need to differentiate.
These are the values that underpin the AEF:
1.Evidence – policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.
2. Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
3. Technology – appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented.
4. Management – active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic.
5. Diversity – biological diversity is maintained.
6. People – the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration.
Perhaps ‘practical environmentalists’?
I, too, have difficulty with the “new age” phrase. Here in the US, “new age” is a major section in most book stores. In the “new age” section, one finds witchcraft, satanism, channeling, divination, voodoo, astrology, etc. In short, it’s where you go to find things with no scientific basis. I’m afraid the connotation might affix itself to the conference if “new age” is part of the ad message. From the US perspective at least.
Something has to be done; people are seriously worried and depressed by all the negative hype that the media piles on, day by day – sadly very little if any of it is true.
I would have thought that self-proclaimed environmentalists would more likely be found brousing the new-age sections of book stores and that Walter’s description conforms with such enthusiasms.
For the AEF to distinguish itself, it should champion the values of anti-corruption and environmentalism simultaneously.
So can we have a one or two word descriptor? Rog and Neil are usually good with words?
Over the last year or so I’ve made the following suggestions, all of which have been so far rejected without an alternative being suggested:
1. progressive environmentalists (my very first blog post),
2. new environmentalists,
3. new-age environmentalists (as per the above ad),
4. skeptical environmentalists,
5. practical environmentalists.
Scrap ‘environmentalist’ altogether; too much baggage and too much egocentricity!
How about the Foundation for Environmental Justice?
Neil,
This is not about a new name for the AEF!
Your business revolves around ‘the environment’, you run an ecotourism business… what sort of environmentalists are you? How do you describe yourself?
If you avoid use of the term ‘environmentalist’, then what?
You could borrow some thoughts;
Real Environmentalists?
Environmentalists Audit?
Dear Jennifer
I agree with earlier comments re “new age”… YUK.
May I suggest given the stated values of the AEF, that the term “social environmentalists” be considered.
Blair
Hi Blair
‘Social Environmentalists’ sounds a bit too close to ‘socialist environmentalists’?
And while the AEF values ‘people’, given how slow registrations are for the conference… I wonder how ‘social’ we really are?
Environists? (we take the “mental” out of the environment)
Jennifer,
I was not suggesting a name change for the AEF, just a distinctly different descriptor for its adherents in terms of purpose rather than pretention.
As far as my business is concerned, I do not describe myself as an environmentalist. In my first post, however, I described myself as a living reproach to the conservation sector.
Hi Neil, Your concern is ‘justice’, mine is ‘truth’. They are both important and related. But do they differentiate us? I’ve heard Greenpeace argue they are about ‘justice’ for whales?
Hi Rog, So the above ad could read: ‘Environists Gather in Brisbane’? Its novel, would it catch on? What do others think?
Hi Jennifer
How about Positive Environmentalists?
How about the
“Corporate Environmentalists”
or maybe the
“Monsanto’s Front Foot Attack Environmentalists”
or maybe the
“There Just Has To Be A Technological Answer Environmentalists”
I’m out the door and back to work…..
Problem with truth – is that you will still run into value systems. e.g. (and without starting a whaling words war)you might show that Minke harvests are sustainable theoretically but (a) not trust the whaling nations to stick by their agreements – political interpretation.
OR (b) still find the issue still morally repugnant.
What is truth in the end – who has the best r-squared wins??
You still have a pluralist democratic society which has politics, philosophies, moralities and value systems. We are regularly reminded that scientists should be on tap not on top. The best most rational science does not win over policy or political considerations.
AEF itself will need (IMHO) it’s own ethics, ethos and value systems.
Ethical environmentalism?
Dear Jennifer
I suggested ‘social environmentalists” because I believe the AEF has a stronger emphasis on the social/viz human impact of environmental policies and issues than the majority of environmentalists who often seem to exclude people from the environment and/or ignore the impact of environmental policies on people.
Apart from values 4 and 5, the values of AER would seem to fall witin the core values of the social sciences.
“The social sciences are groups of academic disciplines that study the human aspects of the world. They diverge from the arts and humanities in that the social sciences emphasize the use of the scientific method and rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity, including quantitative and qualitative methods.”
Wikipedia
Blair
“New Age” sends entirely the wrong message.
New Era might be better.
Certainly my feel of the blog sentiment and therefore perhaps AEF is along Blair’s lines.
Environment not ruling over sustainable resource use, economic resource use, or individual liberty with property and use of resources on that property.
Respect for cultural differences towards resource use.
Evidence based environmental analysis.
A sentiment that the world’s environment is always changing naturally which may eclipse any anthropogenic effects.
But beneath this gruff exterior still a respect and extreme interest in the natural world.
Not saying I agree with all this – but trying to define what this “new philosophy” actually means.
Na, I can see ‘ Environists Gather in Brisbane’ changing to ‘Environits Gather in Brisbane’ – and the New Age has to go.
Land system managers?
Is there any truth to the rumour that AEF will have bumpers stickers that say “Licence greenies not guns” and “Emit with pride”.
How about “Scientific Environmentalists”?
If it’s evidence based, that’s science.
I think the first three “Values” are fine, the rest are just fluff. (Though you probably do need to state the last, just to get the message to the PC crowd.)
“Licenced greenies hate guns”
“Emote with pride, facts don’t count”
Whatever terminology is used, the outcomes need to avoid the absurdities that are propogated in the cause of environmentalism. Things like:
1. The reaction of the tree huggers to the presence of pine trees (radiata etc) and the rush to cut them down when espied on the side of the road, but which once having been felled these same tossers go home to houses that have used pine as the main timber framing/studding.
Its alright for my house to built out of pine but the trees shouldnt be allowed to grow as singletons or separate groups
2. The way the envirocrats have prevented America from tapping the large reserves of oil in the Gulf of Mexico off Texas, which would then make the USA largely independant of ME oil, and thereby solve a number of other worldy problems of concern to humanity.
3.Similarly for the large gas reserves in Wyoming and Montana?
4. Then of course there is the perennial problem of inadequate planning for water supply, and the difficulties involved in dealing with the environmentalists, such that until recently no real planning has been undertaken by responsible governments anywhere.They have all been too gutless.
Environmentalists are by nature negative people, who have a reputuation to stopping anything happening, but have no idea about what to put in its place.
Evidenced based policy making is a good start but it needs people with balls to counter some of the more extreme and recognise that humanity is not going away and cities and farms have needs.
Not only greenies stop things – it’s everyone – it’s called NIMBY syndrome.
e.g. Wolfdene Dam, Koala Hwy – Goss administration – not about Koalas – really about landholders, no new road bridges in Brisbane, no diversion of Ipswich Road through Pullenvale. Greenies at Pullenvale – come on !
Any serious green protests over new SE Qld dams? Nope.
Drinking recycled water in Toowoomba – bugger orf !
Rainwater tanks – stuff Motty – not in my nice backyard. Let’s flood somewhere else.
Seems like we’re all greenies now if it’s in our backyard.
Oh yea – no blocking my view !
Hi Jennifer,
Its extremely difficult to come up with a succinct title that covers all AEF’s aims … Eco-technoligists… Eco-pragmatists…. Biospherists?
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the conference in person but I look forward to reading the presentations afterwards.
Hi Lamna,
Thanks for getting this discussion going.
Rog can rest assured that the ‘new age’ bit is being discarded … and I will let you all know when the AEF Exec has decided what, if anything, it will be replaced with.
Nimbyism is only part of the story.I thought that was evident from the few examples provided.
The biggest problem are gutless governments, who cave in to the rantings of the Greenies, of which there are plenty of examples.
Malcolm – I think you might be a tad biased somehow. We could of course fill pages on the environmental excesses of business and governments. But that wouldn’t fit your pre-conceived blame game. I hope the AEF membership isn’t consumed by this sort of total negativity, otherwise you’ve probably net increased the green vote.
Human Ecology is the study of interactions between human society and nature. Despite a rocky start in the 1920s, when it got muddled up with some dodgy sociology, it now enjoys a common syllabus at a network of universities in Europe, Scandinavia and USA. Even Australia has, at last, come on board, with forestry being rightly subsumed, at ANU, into Human Ecology. Trying to ‘save nature’ by ignoring human needs is plain silly, and won’t work. Humans are at the core of the problem, and are also the solution. Despite pretentious claims by some biologists, hoping to be eco-gurus, ecology is not a branch of biology. Biology is a root discipline of ecology, together with meteorology, climatology, chemistry, mathematics, sociology, politics, law, psychology, history etc. How about calling those who want to find real solutions, involving both nature and society, Human Ecologists? I think H.G. Wells made that suggestion many years ago. I would vote for a political party which made Human Ecology a main plank in its policy.
Luke,
Not biased at all. Just been around long enough to see what happens, and can give more real life examples of where the excesses of the greenies has been counter productive, and mostly based upon B/S science.
Yes it is true that in the past governments and business were not totally blameless. But now the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
My life experience also includes witnessing a so called expert science witness ( a university lecturer no less) presenting information in a court case that was fraudulent, but as it was only a minor point,fortunately it did not alter the outcome. But he did do it.That person was associated with a greeny movement.
Despite this I think David Gam is more on the right track than most.
Jen,
I know it has been rejected but “Practical Environmentalist” is the best. It implies solution based policies.
A New Age Environmentalist is someone who gazes into an ecologically-mined crystal ball?