Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental
movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly
the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet
groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into
the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and
pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement
that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its
agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed
by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
· It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as
a "cancer" on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate
the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest
of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts
the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature
and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism
leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief
that it would be "good" if a disease such as AIDS were
to wipe out most of the population.
· It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists
dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society.
Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support.
All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and "unnatural'.
The Sierra Club's recent book, "Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial
Forestry", is an excellent example of this perspective. "Western
industrial society" is rejected in its entirety as is nearly
every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and
small group selection. The word "Nature" is capitalized
every time it is used and we are encouraged to "find our place"
in the world through "shamanic journeying" and "swaying
with the trees". Science is invoked only as a means of justifying
the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
· It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend
to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual
behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments,
multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds.
It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except
the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for
taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries,
this being proof that they have no "allegiance" to local
communities. Where is the international environmental movements
allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in
the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How
much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental
campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally
and economically superior?
· It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed
to "free trade" but to international trade in general.
This is based on the belief that each "bioregion" should
be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it's too cold to
grow bananas - - too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes
to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds,
islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems
it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent
of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just
another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses
of intolerance and xenophobia.
· It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism
and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business.
They dislike "competition" and are definitely opposed
to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if
they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality.
The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an
alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at
meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves
up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering
nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
· It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous
aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society,
liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too "human-centered".
In the name of "speaking for the trees and other species"
we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism.
The "planetary police" would "answer to no one but
Mother Earth herself".
· It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism
rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that
nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save
the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes,
no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the
Garden of Eden.
