Every year, Roper ASW does a survey on American attitudes and practices regarding the environment for the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. This year’s results? Overall, about 10% fewer Americans deliberately sought out articles or television programs, or otherwise tried to educate themselves, about environmental issues -- the first drop in several years. Moreover, about 11% fewer were regularly trying to save electricity at home; 20% fewer participated in curbside recycling programs (only 36% did so overall); and 13% fewer read labels on pesticides to avoid environmental damage in use. Environmental issues seem to be holding less interest for the public -- and it’s reflected in practice.
There are obvious reasons for this. Recent economic performance has been problematic, and most people are more concerned about their economic well-being than all but immediate and severe local environmental challenges. Terrorism and war have dominated public discourse, eclipsing longer-range issues, as would be expected.
But it is still a cautionary finding: the first time in years data have indicated such a broad drop in environmental concern. Moreover, it occurs at a time when many environmental groups are trying to organize against what they perceive to be environmentally unsound governmental practices -- and, with a few notable exceptions, failing. This contrasts powerfully with the funding and PR successes of environmental activists during the Reagan administration, when environmental progress was similarly seen to be under attack.
It is at least possible, then, that the shift away from public environmental activism is not just a superficial and short-term phenomenon. And, indeed, there are a number of other straws in this particular wind. The market for environmental professionals is weaker than it has historically been, a trend that began well before the U. S. and global economies ran aground. Environmental law and policy have become backwaters, not the vibrant cutting-edge disciplines they once were. Despite activist campaigns, Americans continue to buy SUVs, minivans, and light trucks in record numbers. On a more upbeat note, the U. N. Environment Program has begun thinking about how to shift environmental messages from the negative (“These are all the things wrong with the environment and modern consumer practices”) to the positive (“Here’s how to enhance your quality of life – and leave a better world for your children as well!”).
This poses a dilemma. Up to now, “environment” has been a remarkably broad tent, including science, ideology, emotion, and belief; doctrines from Marxism to anti-globalization to antiwar to corporate managerialism; and activists from the purely local to the truly global. Traditionally, much activism has been sparked, and NGOs supported, by routine reference to crises and looming disasters, some more valid than others (compare the hysterical tone of The Population Bomb with the equally scary, but much more solid, Silent Spring). Despite this inherent ambiguity, the concept of “environment” remains broadly popular.
It is potentially a major problem if “environment” loses its credibility and strength as a concept. After all, even if negativism, confusion of goals, and activism may have turned the public apathetic, or even hostile, to environmentalism, it does not mean the underlying problems don’t exist or require responsible, ethical responses. It merely means public support for necessary measures will be smaller, less informed, and more fragile, and environmentalism more subject to hijacking by extremists or those interested in other discourses, such as anticapitalism and anti-globalization, currently popular among some environmentalists.
Equally important, if “environment” loses its brand value -- its ability to mobilize positive sentiment and affect behavior -- there are no easy replacements. We would still have an anthropogenic world in which the dynamics of “natural” systems and cycles are increasingly determined by human demographics, technology, development, and consumption. But we would have lost a simple and beneficial framework by which to understand that world, a touchstone for conceptualizing it, a compelling brand of significant value.
The supreme irony would be if “environmentalism” turned out to be one of the most subtle, and difficult-to-manage, human dangers to the environment itself.
-------
Brad Allenby is VP of environment, health, and safety for AT&T, an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia's Engineering School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Business School. The views expressed herein are those of the author, and not any institution with which he is associated.