In early 1990, I was hired as a research assistant by a pair
of Chemistry Professors at the University of Victoria (UVic). One of the
professors was also the Chair of the brand new University of Victoria School of
Environmental Studies. I served as a research assistant out of the school until
1994 when I was invited to do an Interdisciplinary PhD in Chemistry and
Environmental Studies. In 1999, I was one of the very first UVic PhDs with the
words “Environmental Studies” on their degree.
So why am I giving you this back-story? At UVic I was a
science grad immersed in a school made up mostly of students uninterested in
environmental science preferring environmental history or environmental
politics. The fourth year students I helped teach talked of the issues with
“toxic” chemicals but, when asked, could not explain how toxicity was
established nor could they explain what “CEPA toxic” actually stood for? This
was the era of the birthing of the modern environmental movement in BC. When I
started working at UVic, Clayoquot had not yet happened. When it did our
department was one of the places from which the foot soldiers of the protests
were drawn and resources for the protests were sourced. I had a ring-side seat
at the time and watched as a devoted environmentalist keen on advancing the
cause. At the time I saw a need for both pragmatists and activists in the
movement. I saw the pragmatists as the ones to get things done while the
activists scared the government into
talking to the pragmatists and the public into accepting concessions. I was
very wrong at the time. The activists won the day at Clayoquot while the pragmatists
were unable to get anything accomplished.
The victory appeared to reinforce the activist’s beliefs that working
with governments was a fool’s game and that activism without referral to, or
the constraints of, democratic decision-making was a faster way to advance the
cause. I argued at the time with my friends that a dedicated voting block of
activists could influence policy from within established political parties
(specifically the NDP) but my colleagues chose a different path. Over the years
the movement has become more divorced from mainstream democratic processes and now
with their access to the financial support of rich philanthropists and
well-meaning individuals they appear to see little reason to be accountable to
anyone.
So what has that left us with now? Groups so devoid of
oversight that they would desecrate a world heritage site in order to enhance
their message. NGO’s so single-mindedly anti-science that they would let
third-world children go blind rather than consider the option of Golden Rice. Activists
who will block a safer technology (oil-by-pipelines) while doing nothing to
address much more environmentally damaging approaches (oil-by-rail). Even President
Obama blindly arguing that Keystone is only good for Canada when all Keystone
will do is replace oil imports from an enemy bent on destroying the American
way of life (Venuzuela) with oil from a reliable ally (Canada). What is more
troubling is that the organizations are staffed by the same people I saw as a
University TA. We have science-blind activists like 350.org whose aim to return
the world to 350 ppm can only be accomplished by an immediate decarbonization
of our industrial base, presumably coupled with a massive human die-off. How
else could they not only stop the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations but
actually see it decrease by 13%?
What the children of the Clayoquot seem not to have learned is
that the reason they ultimately won was not their tactics but because their
cause was right. The logging of the last of the ancient rainforests was a betrayal of our
ecological heritage and the protection of this heritage garnered broad public
support. Their tactics brought the logging to the world’s attention but the
cause was what won them the fight.
The modern environmental movement continues to try to repeat
the tactics that won in the Clayoquot. When I talk to these activists the
impression I get is that they think the Clayoquot was won due to their tactics.
They seem to believe that repeating the tactics will repeat the outcome
regardless of the cause being forwarded. In doing so I see them ignoring what
got them the win in the Clayoquot: a good cause, sold well. Be it pipelines,
coal trains or climate change until they can get a coherent message that they
can actually sell to the public, all the tactics of civil disobedience will not
get the outcome they are looking for. The people fighting pipelines in BC’s
north (Northern Gateway) have made their case; they have mobilized public
support around legitimate environmental concerns and thus they will likely win
that fight. The people fighting the Trans-Mountain (or frankly Energy East)
have not done the leg-work and until they do they will sound like a shrill
whistle and will not build the traction they need with the public to actually
win this battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment