Symposium 011 "The Death of Environmentalist!!

"

"THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALEM"

Introduction to the Symposium

MAU RIE J. COHEN

New Jersey Institute ot iechnology

The American environmental movement has been struggling for more than a year
the strong critique offered by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in their w
seminated treatise "The Death of Environmentalism." Their essay accuses organ
ronmentalism of framing key issues in overly narrow terms, of failing to connect w
day public concerns, and of inadequately responding to the challenges of con
political interests. This article briefly summarizes the essay's key arguments, retra
relevant history pertaining to the past decade of environmental policy making, a
lights some of the areas in which this work touches on topical issues within the envir
tal social sciences. The article ends with a brief overview of the other contributio
make up this symposium.

Keywords: American environmentalism; environmental movement; transition

ment; democratic expertise; public ecology; death of environmentalism

Newspaper
months, obituaries occasionally
or even years, earlier. reportmayonraisea death that occurred several
These belated announcements
fleeting suspicions about the timeliness of coverage, but there is ordinarily a plausi
ble explanation for the lapse. The news may have taken time to filter back from a
distant locale or a communication mishap among surviving family members may
have impeded the prompt conveyance of public information. Whatever the specific
reason, the point is that we are normally not surprised when formal declarations of
death lag a distance behind the actual event.
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus 's (hereafter S&N; 2004) widely dis
seminated essay "The Death of Environmentalism" could easily be interpreted as
an instance of this phenomenon. Composed as a time bomb and released at the
2004 annual meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, the authors'
essential thesis is that environmentalism, as institutionally created, is little more
than a special interest and its flagship organizations misguidedly pursue an overly
narrow policy agenda. At the same time, conservative politicians, commentators,
and think tanks have successfully managed to paint the environmental movement

Author's Note: The author wishes to acknowledge David Pellow 's participation on the original panel that gave rise to this symposium.
Special thanks to Phil Brown for his guidance organizing the earlier event in Philadelphia, to Robert Brulle for handling the logistical
arrangements, and to the governing council of the Environment and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association for
institutional support.
Organization & Environment, Vol. 19 No. 1, March 2006 74-81
DOI: 10.1177/1086026605285586
© 2006 Sage Publications
74
 Cohen / THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALEM 75

as perilously out of touch with common concerns and as a danger to the wel
of ordinary people. To back up their claims, S&N cite some provocative soc
vey data to underscore the extent to which environmental values have lost g
in the United States.

To reverse these trends, the essay argues that major environmental or

tions must become the vanguard of a new progressive wave of political act
forging novel partnerships with perennial adversaries and dissolving certain
sanct commitments. Central to their strategy is the New Apollo Project, a 2
old initiative to launch a broad coalition to champion a national renewable
development program.
Response to the S&N essay, perhaps not surprising, has been polarized.
readers have celebrated the authors as prescient lion slayers whereas detr
have pilloried them as impertinent dupes. The first question, invariably, is wh
clamor? Although the treatise has circulated extensively via the Internet ov
past year and received attention in the popular press, the faltering condit
the American environmental movement can hardly be construed as newswo
Most attentive observers have recognized that organized environmentalis
ailing for some time. Numerous proponents have whispered among themsel
a decade or more that demise was imminent. There were even frequent uns
tiated rumors that death had already come. If so, why the emotive outpour
grief—and denial—once the long-anticipated decree was nailed to the doo
Good forensic practice requires pathologists to first familiarize themselves
the deceased. Sociologist Robert Brulle (2000) has conducted one of th
exhaustive studies of the contemporary environmental movement and we
fully draw on his characterization for guidance. After reviewing legally ma
financial disclosure records, Brulle contends that institutional environmentalis
the United States encompassed during the 1990s upward of 10,000 sep
groups. However, the vast majority of these entities exist in little more than
and they command few resources. He identifies 87 organizations as making
active core of the contemporary environmental movement.
In terms of any reasonable measure of size and scope, The Nature Conser
(TNC), a behemoth land trust with vast holdings, towers over the rest of its
Because of its distorting effect, it is first necessary to exclude TNC from any
quent analysis. Even absent TNC, the American environmental movement i
whelmingly preoccupied with two interrelated sets of issues: wildlife prot
and landscape preservation. More than 90% of all so-called environmental o
zations in the country are principally oriented around this pair of concerns (C
2006a). And herein lies the basis for the delayed pronouncement made by
The authors are, with good reason, primarily concerned with the ill effe
industrial pollution and speak earnestly about the signal importance of the
Air Act and other related pieces of landmark legislation. The regrettable t
however, is that human health has always been an understated concern of th
try's environmental movement. Regardless of how one assesses institu
activity—organization numbers, personnel, membership, income—it is diffi
dispute the claim that the well-being of people has consistently been an
emphasized facet of American environmental activism. A brief thought e
ment helps to demonstrate the point. Try to envision major groups expendi
same energy and resources to reduce childhood asthma as they have spent o
paigns over the years to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Re
N & ENVIRONMENT / March 2006

Given this particular set of priorities, it should not be surprising t

mentalism has fallen out of favor with the public. It is actually possible
movement's slide into death back to the early 1990s. The leading envi
organizations define their own effectiveness, at least in part, in terms o
pass federal legislation. Using this metric, the last major victory came w
of the 1990 round of Clean Air Act amendments. This bill had been per
more than a decade and it was no small accomplishment to finally get it
law. Immediately afterward, however, the signs of pending death started
apparent to anyone who cared to look around Washington. The eviden
cially palpable during the lead up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which
mate change and sustainable development to the fore. The American e
tal movement, because of its historic disinclination to talk about dis
questions, proved completely unprepared for globalization and, to this
to seriously grapple with its implications. Nonetheless, the signs of ill
into remission, at least for a time, after the election of President Clin
resultant appointment of many of the leaders of the nation's largest env
organizations to formal positions of power.
In one of their first forays into environmental politics, the Clintonites
on a proposal to implement what was, in effect, a national carbon tax
treated rapidly from this arena. Vice President AI Gore, the environm
ment's chief political patron, was subsequently frozen out of the high
House councils and initiatives under his direction, such as the Partner
New Generation of Vehicles, lost momentum. In the final days of Cli
term, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt reportedly marched into the Ov
deliver a scorecard that creatively indexed the administration's unrem
ronmental record against that of Theodore Roosevelt (Jehl, 2001 ). This
tic grabbed the president's attention and motivated him to spearhead a
ment of preservation measures championed by the land-and-wildlife-
mainstream of the environmental movement. Although this infusion
pression that environmentalist ideals had political traction, other key
the agenda—most notably controlling industrial emissions—remained
During this time frame, the most prominent air quality strategy centered
of lawsuits against large coal-burning electric utilities. Then, in anothe
reversal, this time at the end of his second term, Clinton was again pr
action by a fateful desire to leave a noble environmental legacy. Durin
weeks in office, he embarked on a frenzied push to codify by executive
jumble of initiatives that had languished for nearly a decade.
The most conspicuous failure of this period—and the most glaring s
the environmental movement's atrophying political influence—was its
make any progress on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Although
States was not alone in this regard, the voluntary provisions of the Fram
vention on Climate Change signed in Rio in 1992 proved to be utterly
and initial endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was an unprece
rhic victory. The Senate repudiated the treaty and the White House
inclination to expend its dwindling supply of political capital to make
ratification. For all of the high drama in which leading environment
tions had been enmeshed for more than a decade—from the momento
secure passage of new clean air legislation to campaigns to counter th
mate Coalition—it is ironic that the nadir of their descent was brough
 Cohen / THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALEM 77

vidual acts of quiet contemplation. Unable to close ranks in support of AI Go

ing the 2000 presidential campaign, a few thousand anonymous Floridians w
into their respective polling stations, defiantly cast their ballots for Ralph
and ultimately dashed the vice president's prospects for victory. When the h
of post-1970s environmentalism is written, it will likely be this event that wil
the end of the era.
It ultimately took 4 years to prepare an obituary for the American environm
movement and, through a peculiar turn of events, S&N have emerged as its un
authors. I personally commend them for acknowledging the limits of the
reform strategies that have been at the center of organized environmentalism
United States for the past few decades. Although a long and distinguished
tory set the trajectory on which the environmental movement alighted dur
early 1970s, that particular way has come to an end. There is now quite a bit o
aging going on to find a new path forward and it may take time to decide o
best to proceed. My own ruminations are drawn from an emergent nexus d
ing at the interface of science and technology studies, innovation management
environmental policy.
Surely, the most pressing requirement is to cast off strategies predicated
sively on legalistic and technicized tactics that have, at best, the potential to a
unexceptional improvement at the margin. S&N are quite correct in insistin
environmentalists must begin, as an unavoidable first step, to construct new,
ing visions of alternative futures. It is concomitantly essential to recognize th
challenges of the next century are immense: a doubling of global populat
massive increase in greenhouse gas production, an energy crisis of epochal p
tions, and a seemingly relentless march of all-encompassing consumerism
problems cannot be adequately addressed by an uncoordinated array of smal
efforts to, say, reduce toxic releases by 20% or to double the recycled cont
toilet paper.
A newly invigorated environmental movement must chart a path that begins to
fundamentally change how contemporary societies use scarce materials while
simultaneously recognizing that we are in the midst of a process of global transfor
mation that likely cannot (or arguably should not) be reversed. To foster meaning
ful engagement, it is necessary to realign our conceptual categories so that they
more closely depict the complex sociotechnical systems that characterize prevalent
configurations of production and consumption. The existing notion that environ
mental problems are scientific conundrums that can ultimately be resolved through
the application of technicized expert knowledge ignores the incontrovertible real
ity that these issues are situated at the intersection of inseparable social and
technoscientific systems. Moreover, efforts to innovate toward more sustainable
systems of provision—what some scholars have begun to refer to as transition
management—will require a high degree of coordination among markets, gov
ernments, and civil society organizations and be cast as an ambitious task that will
extend over a time frame of a generation or more (Elzen, Geels, & Green, 2004;
Martens & Rotmans, 2002; Raskin et al., 2002).
Such an approach echoes some of the same themes that Luke (2005) outlines in
developing the notion of "public ecology."2 This recommendation counters S&N's
emphasis on "public-private partnerships" and Luke is skeptical of their claim that
political reinvigoration rests on emulating the tactics of conservative adversaries.
He is justifiably critical of unbridled markets and unchecked statist intervention
and advocates an arrangement in which civil society organizations articulate a pub
N & ENVIRONMENT / March 2006

lie understanding of ecology to cultivate novel forms of resistance kno

can "harness together a new mixed ecological regime." Although sch
transition management has not to date focused a great deal of attenti
nance per se (however, see Kemp, Parto, & Gibson, 2005), the pluralist
Luke advocates would seem to be a prerequisite for policy programs pr
such principles.
Whether any of these largely European-based discussions hold any
for the United States is, of course, a very tricky question. The obst
multifold. Industrial corporations operate in accordance with a heavily
and ultimately destructive, understanding of public responsibility. M
country's governance institutions lack democratic legitimacy and, as w
progressive civil society is fragmented and weak. Under these inausp
cumstances, it is difficult to muster much optimism. It may ultimate
movement toward transition management and public ecology is incomp
current capabilities and the most effective strides will be made elsewh
2004).
Taken in the round, part of the problem resides in concerted attempts over the
past few decades to stifle discussion about "the future" and, as a consequence,
Americans lack the cognitive skills and institutional capacity for thinking in such
terms (Brand, 1999). The reasons for this situation are easy to identify. Collective
consideration of where we are going and how we might get there conflicts with the
tenets underpinning neoliberalism: free-market enterprise, short-term gain, and
speculative opportunism. Careful consideration of the future requires respect for
public planning and critics, with remarkable success, have derided such pursuits as
pointless and worse. Within academic circles in recent years, serious study of the
future has had about the same standing as numerology.
Under this onslaught, we have lost much of our resolve for engaging with the
future. We tend to turn away from the temporal horizon rather than try to judi
ciously peer over it. The last rigorous national initiative to take a measured and far
sighted look was the Global 2000 Report undertaken during the Carter administra
tion, but this exercise was cast to the wind even before the ink was dry.3
A walk through the Internet reveals that S&N have been subjected to plenty of
scorn for their purported audacity and impudence. Such an outcome was inevita
ble. By embarking on a mission to stridently challenge the perquisites of
entrenched environmentalism, they, perhaps purposefully, put themselves on a col
lision course with their colleagues. Nonetheless, it is probably true that institu
tional reinvention will not force all the organizations that carry on the workaday
tasks of ensuring some semblance of environmental integrity to close up shop.
Prominent groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense
Council will persevere, perhaps at substantially scaled-down size, providing im
portant public services. The process of normalization that has been ongoing for
some time will continue. These groups, for better or worse, will become more like
the National Parks and Conservation Association and gear themselves to work on
standard issue problems rather than represent the leading edge of a movement for
social and political change.
At this point, it may be useful to step back momentarily for some historical per
spective. The Boone and Crocket Club that inspired conservationism more than a
century ago probably strikes most contemporary readers as a quaint relic. Regard
less, the 19th-century aristocrats who made up its membership were emblematic of
a certain brand of reform politics and their activities were socially relevant in much
 Cohen / THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALEM 79

the same way that the National Wildlife Federation is representative of

recent era. To chart a new generation of environmentalism founded on ro
vation and political modernization, it will likely be necessary to create
different array of institutional resources.
The above interpretation is hardly the only way to tackle claims all
death of environmentalism and I do not mean to implicate others in th
have taken here. It is in this spirit of open dialogue that contributors to
symposium have assembled themselves. In an effort to elucidate some o
cations of the S&N essay, a panel discussion was organized last summ
junction with the annual conference of the American Sociological Asso
invited group of social scientists gathered in Philadelphia to consider t
the environmental movement in the United States in light of recent c
alleging its death. The panelists subsequently revised their original presen
take into consideration the views aired during the highly animated disc
followed. The remaining portion of the symposium makes up three oth
The second contribution in this collection, by Robert Brulle and Crai
begins with a review of the work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff t
informs "The Death of Environmentalism." This research contends tha
advantage is achieved by using a salient masterframe to structure constit
into a coherent discourse. The success of conservative political interest
to Lakoff, is due to their effective deployment of this rhetorical strateg
liberal politicians and organizations have relied on an incoherent gra
proach. Brulle and Jenkins interpret the New Apollo Project as an init
seeks to restructure the rhetorical politics of environmentalism with
tively altering the political economy of contemporary life. The author
that S&N fail to appreciate the diversity that characterizes the contemp
ronmental movement and underestimate the costs of adopting policies
greenhouse gas emissions. The final point of their critique charges that
of Environmentalism" perversely advocates the same kind of arrogant
its instigators seek to overturn.
The symposium's third piece by Riley Dunlap interrogates the publi
data on which "The Death of Environmentalism" is premised. Drawing
sults of the Gallop Organization's annual Earth Day survey, he contends
is reason to be skeptical of S&N's allegations of a pattern of eroding civ
for environmental protection. Dunlap demonstrates that it is problema
environmental sensibilities in isolation of other political currents. Pub
polling has found that environmental commitments in the United State
tently overwhelmed by other considerations and that expressions of s
highly contingent on the specific format of survey questions. He argue
that for a range of contemporary policy issues, it is necessary to interpret
of opinion polling within the context of large shifts in the post-9/11 p
scape and the way in which the White House and Congress have pursue
on terrorism." Dunlap proceeds to describe the complex web of organ
linkages that makes up the intellectual foundation for S&N's researc
values and raises questions about the veracity of these methods. He con
speculating that the weakening the Bush administration has experience
months due to scandal, flooding, and strategic errors in Iraq could p
renewal of public environmental attentiveness.
The final offering by Lynnette Zelezny and Megan Bailey focuses on
of "The Death of Environmentalism" to consider the gendered dimensi
N & ENVIRONMENT / March 2006

vironmentalism. By devoting attention exclusively to the large natio

zations that embody the mainstream of the movement and advocating
private partnerships as the basis of a reinvigorated environmental pol
maintain that S&N ignore an accomplished and distinguished tradition
led activism. Zelezny and Bailey furthermore draw on an extensive bod
cal research in environmental psychology to assert that women have a
sense of ecological responsibility and that political renewal should ac
aggressively seek to harness the unique features of this ethic of care bef
to untested alternatives.
The authors who have lent their voices to this symposium offer differ
and engage with tenets of the original essay in a variety of ways. This
perspectives is largely a result of the tremendous ambitiousness and im
the task that S&N have launched. Although all the contributors are in
ways critical of "The Death of Environmentalism," there is a palpable
that sweeping change in how the environmental movement pursues its go
necessary and inevitable. The specific paths to be pursued will likely em
a lengthy and spirited debate.

NOTES

1. Grist, an electronic environmental newsmagazine, has been the primary

commentary about "The Death of Environmentalism" (http://www.grist.org
ber 2005 issue of American Prospect is also devoted in large part to discussion
Shellenberger and Nordhaus essay (http://www.prospect.org).
2. This notion of public ecology shares some similarities with what has been,
contexts, referred to as "democratic expertise" (Cohen. 2006b; Hoppe, 2005; Wo
Nieusma, 2001).
3. The Millennium Institute issued a revised version of the Global 2000 Repo
that is available at http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/publications/G2R.html.

REFERENCES

Brand, S. (1999). The clock of the long now: Time and responsibility.
Books.
Brülle, R. (2000). Agency, democracy, andnature: The U.S. environmental movement from a
critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, M. (2006a). Ecological modernization and its discontents: The American environ
mental movement's resistance to an innovation-driven future. Futures, 38(5).
Cohen, M. (2006b). Sustainable consumption research as democratic expertise. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 29(1).
Elzen, B., Geels, F., & Green, K. (2004). System innovation and the transition to
sustainability: Theory, evidence, and policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and
science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis, 3,
199-215.
Jehl, D. (2001, January 18). How an interior secretary helped to encourage a presidential
"legacy." The New York Times, p. A31.
Kemp, R., Parto, S„ & Gibson, R. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving
from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 12-30.
Luke, T. (2005). The death of environmentalism or the advent of public ecology? Organiza
tion & Environment, 18, 489-494.
Martens, P., & Rotmans, J. (2002). Transitions in a globalizing world. Exton, PA: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
 Cohen / THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALISM 81

Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopi'n, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R„ & Swar
(2002). Great transition: The promise and lure of the times ahead. Boston: Stockho
Environment Institute.

Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2004). The death of environmentalism. Retrieved f

http://www.grist.org
Woodhouse, E., & Nieusma, D. (2001). Democratic expertise: Integrating knowle
power, and participation. In M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W. Dunn, & J. Ravetz (Ed
Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis (pp. 73-
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Maurie J. Cohen is an assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry and Environmental Sci
and the Graduate Program in Environmental Policy Studies at the New Jersey Institute of Techn
(NJIT) in Newark, New Jersey. He also holds affiliations with the Division of Global Affairs at Ru
University and the Urban Systems Program jointly administered by NJIT, Rutgers, and the Universit
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. His most recent book ( with Joseph Murphy) is Sustainabl
sumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences (Elsevier, 2001). His other books include
in the Modern Age: Social Theory, Science, and Environmental Decision-Making ( Pal grave, 1998
The Exxon Valdez Disaster: Readings on a Modern Social Problem (Kendall-Hunt, 1997). He i
rently the editor of the e-journal Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy (http://ejournal.nbii.org

This content downloaded from

129.12.18.72 on Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:43:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms