A few months ago I was given the opportunity to hear Dr. Speth, the dean of the Yale School of Forestry as well as the founder of both the World Resources Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council, speak.

Dr. Speth's main point was that our current economic system is incompatible with a protected environment and that modern policies do not address this, nor does the modern environmental movement.

This speech made me think a lot about how the modern environmental movement could or should change to truly address the heart of the problems. As an environmentalist, I most often try to think of ways that solutions can be found through technology or by working with capitalism. But is this unrealistic?

I am interested in what you think.

A conversation at a bar in Boulder, CO last night led to this same topic (in regards to fossil fuels): How can we turn around a system that we have created a dependency on? How can we figure out a way to support ourselves without continuously harming our environment?

A veteran to the business community believed that we should continue to drill for oil while also investing and utilizing wind and solar energy.

A more radical public school educator believed that we should cut the world off of fossil fuels-forcing humanity to change their lifestyles and be forced to use alternative sources of energy.

Personally, I think we can find a balance. I think our federal government needs to start focusing more attention on environmental protection. I believe the individual needs to start being more aware of their personal impact. We need to stop supporting industries that pollute and start supporting industries that are green.

We can create the demand for change. We will need to work within the current system to change the system. But I believe it can happen...it already is.

I think I tend to agree with you. Working within the system is perhaps necessary in order to create any real change. The government must start implementing policies that are enforceable and realize real results, even if these policies are unpopular at first. It will not be easy, but it will probably be easier to try to make environmental protection a part of our culture now as opposed to waiting until there is some large environmental disaster or resource depletion.

What do you think about environmental advocates? Should they be focusing more on lobbying politicians? What about environmental not-for-profits? Do you think the work they do is efficient and effective? Perhaps the best thing for advocates to do is to try to spread environmental education and awareness to neighbors and friends...

I do not know the answers to these questions, I am just curious about what other people think.

I've thought a lot about these issues too. I think environmentalists tend to resent current systems a lot and tend to turn their backs on these systems. The thing is, it's not just capitalism we're working with/against as environmental activists. We're also working with the hand of the government in many ways, some of which are hard to notice.

For example, the government has this thing called The Farm Bill, which is up for review by Congress every few years. A large portion of this bill always has to do with agricultural subsidies. Highly processed foods that are bad for both the environment and human health would not naturally be cheap in a capitalist system. They would actaully be quite expensive. They're cheap because of government subsidies! It's not just the invisible hand of capitalism at work- it's the U.S. Congress choosing to subsiidize certain crops (like corn) and not others (like organically grown crops).

What I'm trying to say is that we, as environmental activists, are not necessarily working against capitalist ideals. If we lobby our Congressional representatives and ask them to subsidize responsible agricultural practices, and if we succeed, our markets will undergo big changes. But these big changes will not be any more "anti-capitalist" than are current subsidies. We don't need to totally change our systems, but I believe we need to change the ways in which we use our systems.

Here is the Farm Bill's website:

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmbill2008?navid=FARMB
ILL2008

Your point about the farm bill is really interesting. And I think you're absolutely right, we do not live in a system of pure capitalism, but rather in a complicated system of government regulation and private enterprise.

I think recognizing how complicated the system is, and understanding that there is no simple solution, is a very important part in evaluating ways to be an effective environmental advocate.

I have become much more interested in local environmental activism. Cities across the United States have chosen to implement important environmental policies and goals, that were more feasible locally than on a national scale. For example, there are hundreds (if not more) of US Cities that have pledged to reduce their GHG emissions to Kyoto Protocol standards.

Additionally, there are tons of environmental policies that are also good for business and local economy.

Your point about the power of small-scale, local policies makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, my school has recently decided to attempt to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, in spite of the fact that our nation is not following suit! This small-scale policy has affected people all over campus, some of whom had not given much thought to GHG emissions before.

Trying to change national policy can be both time-consuming and frustrating. It can also be well worth the effort, but activists can sometimes make just as great (or greater!) of an impact by working at the local level. Working at the local level can also be more heartening, since small changes are easier to make and can have such positive effects. In short, I think that small- and large-scale advocacy are both extremely important. When in doubt of where to put my personal efforts, I tend to choose small-scale activism, but I see both as essential and valuable.