by David Lincoln, Geologist and Consultant
The seeds of
anti-environmentalism were planted unwittingly by the early hunter-
gatherers of the Environmental Revolution. These conservationists
tried to preserve land and resources for the benefit of man. They
believed that natural resources should be saved for the good of all
society. Concurrently, sportsmen and outdoorsmen promoted forest and
wildlife conservation primarily to improve the hunt. They thought
little of the modern environmentalist’s goals of saving the earth
and its animal and plant species for their own sake.
The battle between
conservationists and true environmentalists rages on. This split in
the ecology movement has been successfully exploited for decades by
the polluting corporations to minimize interference and maximize
profits. However, over the years the corporations have capitalized
on other weaknesses within the movement and their strategies and
tactics have been constantly adapted to take full advantage of those
vulnerabilities.
Preservationists, like John Muir,
were heavily influenced by the proponents of transcendentalism
including Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman. In 1872, they were
instrumental in establishing Yellowstone as the first national park
and Yosemite National Park followed in less than two decades. Muir
founded the Sierra Club in 1892 for the express purpose of
preserving the beauty of the Sierra Nevada mountain chain for the
Spiritual benefit of man.
Near the turn of
the century (1903), Muir persuaded Teddy Roosevelt to join him in
Yosemite to see the wonders of nature that the Sierra club was
committed to preserve. Within two years, Roosevelt had named Gifford
Pinchot, an economic conservationist, to head the National Forestry
Service. Pinchot wrote, “The first great fact about conservation
is that it stands for development… and the wise use of
natural resources... for the benefit of people who live here and now
” Thus were the weeds of the “Wise Use Movement” sewn in the
garden of paradise!
At about this time,
the National Audubon Society was formed to protect birds and
waterfowl. These new conservation organizations exerted pressure on
Roosevelt to prevent mining in the Grand Canyon and ultimately to
establish the National Park Service in 1916.
By the end of
Roosevelt’s administration, the National Parks and Conservation
Association had been founded and the Izaak Walton League
had been formed for game protection. In all, almost 170 million acres
of land had been set aside for national forests and parks.
All of these
conservation efforts were about gathering up and setting aside land
for the use and benefit of future generations. Unfortunately, those
generations now believe they have a legitimate claim to control the
use of public land for private purposes. As we shall see, they have
become increasingly militant in their demands for access to some of
these lands for commercial and recreational use.
The next leap
forward by the environmental movement came during and shortly after
the Great Depression Era of the early 1930’s. Franklin Roosevelt
was desperately searching for a way to alleviate the severe drought
and massive soil erosion that characterized the “Dust Bowl” in
the mid-west. In 1935 he established the Soil Conservation Service
and appointed Hugh Hammond Bennett, known as the “father of soil
conservation” to scientifically solve the problem with the wise
use of natural resources.
Also in 1935, Jay
Darling founded the National Wildlife Federation. That same
year Aldo Leopold founded the Wilderness Society. Leopold was
concerned with game management and believed hunting was a way to
re-establish a balance in some ecosystems after ranchers had
eliminated natural predators. Although he had previously worked for
the forestry service under Pinchot, he became convinced that
wilderness was the storehouse of genetic diversity. He went on to
write the guidelines for a conservation movement and later introduced
the concept of a “Land Ethic”. This ethic changed the role of man
from conqueror to citizen of the land-community.
Darling stood
against Leopold’s philosophy because he was afraid that they would
“lead to the socialization of property.” This became one of the
first major rifts in the environmental movement and it weakened
organizations on both sides of the debate. The “socialization of
property” remains a key argument which the anti-environmentalists
use to justify their position. It is also an important component in
their “divide and conquer” strategy.
Following WW II, the Defenders of
Wildlife was founded to protect wild animals and their habitats.
This group replaced the Defenders of Furbearers and the Anti-Steel
Trap League. Shortly afterwards, two natural scientists, Fairfield
Osborn and William Vogt each wrote influential books entitled Our
Plundered Planet and Road to Survival, respectively.
Both writers emphasized the devastating impact that mankind’s
rapidly growing population was having on the land.
The concepts of ecological balance
expressed in these publications quickly led to the formation of the
Nature Conservancy in 1951. Within 10 years both the Humane
Society, which fought for compassionate treatment of
domestic animals, and the World Wildlife Fund were
established.
Each of these Post-Depression Era
animal rights groups was idealistically formed to correct an
imbalance in nature caused by the ravages of man. The assumption was
that if you could scientifically show what was causing these
imbalances then it would be a relatively simple matter to correct the
problem. Implicit in this assumption was the belief that government
policies were largely responsible for this imbalance.
Consequently, only a political appeal for reason could correct these
problems. This belief system was about to be put to the ultimate
test.
David Brower, who became Executive
Director of the Sierra Club in 1952, had transformed the group from a
regional to a national force. He successfully opposed the Bureau of
Reclamation’s plans to build dams in Dinosaur National Monument in
Utah and in Arizona’s Grand Canyon. However, he lost the battle to
prevent the Glen Canyon dam in Utah. This defeat led him to the
conclusion that more militant tactics were needed to stop
environmental degradation. He favored this more militant strategy
throughout the remainder of his career.
In 1962, a year before the Glen Canyon
dam was completed; Rachel Carson published Silent Spring.
Success with her previous book, The Sea Around Us had allowed
her to quit her government job with the fisheries and concentrate on
writing full-time. She chose to work on pesticides because she was
concerned that the build-up of pesticides in the food chain was
having a devastating impact on the bird populations. Carson was a
voice in the wilderness trying to sound the alarm about the dangers
of DDT and other pesticides. While her book was widely read, its
controversial conclusions were denied by the chemical industry. It
took over ten years before DDT was phased out in the US but some
exports are still continuing.
The immense popularity of this book
led to an increased general awareness of the earth’s fragile
environment. Congress responded with a blizzard of new environmental
legislation including the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act, The
Water Quality Act and the Endangered Species Act. One can only
wonder if awareness alone was sufficient to move these bills through
Washington or whether intense lobbying from the rapidly growing
environmental organizations was necessary. The unprecedented growth
of the environmental groups certainly added to their strength.
Between 1960 and 1969 the combined memberships expanded nearly 700%
from 123,000 to 819,000. They would need all this support and more
to deal with the coming environmental crises.
Another environmental warning was
sounded in 1967 when a ship ran aground off the coast of England. A
Union Oil Supertanker known as the Torrey Canyon ran aground
on Pollard Rock, off Lands End. It was a 974 ft “jumboized”
tanker that was partly owned through a dummy corporation in the
Bahamas. The wreck didn’t receive much news coverage in the U.S.
although at the time it was the worst oil spill in history. The U.S.
media tended to downplay the consequences and didn't seem to realize
that over 750,000 barrels of oil had spilled onto Britain's shores.
(More than 3 times the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez). So much
oil was spilled that the Royal Air Force dropped bombs on the wreck
to break it apart and set fire to the oil. The slick spread from
Cornwall to Brittany and three weeks later, remnants reached all the
way to New Jersey and Cape Cod. Of course, the local population was
outraged, but there was little response in America. It is possible
that this disaster did have some influence on subsequent developments
in the legal profession.
A group of Long
Island scientists and lawyers banded together to form the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to stop the spraying
of DDT and save the osprey from extinction. Their motto of “Sue the
Bastards” was indicative of the prevailing attitude that only by
working within the system could one hope to effect real change.
Originally, the
lawyers had approached the National Audubon Society for financial
assistance. Unfortunately, the chairman of Audubon, Gene Selzer and
other directors had close ties to chemical companies so the request
was denied. EDF was subsequently funded by a start-up grant from the
Ford Foundation. As litigation became the preferred means of
environmental protection, two more firms were formed and quickly
joined the fray: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF). Each was
begun with its own generous contribution from the Ford Foundation.
The Ford officials introduced the radical young lawyers in NRDC to
Republican lawyers on Wall Street who together with Laurance
Rockefeller became the Board. SCLDF opened in San Francisco as a
lawyers only group who did not initiate lawsuits but only represented
clients.
These three
environmental law firms made impressive gains against Federal and
State regulatory agencies. One example was for the requirement to
reduce lead emissions in gasoline another was for the control of fire
retardant materials. However, the environmental litigation
eventually became too successful against companies which were closely
associated with Ford Trustees. When they delayed the construction of
the Alaskan pipeline for more than three years the Ford Foundation
took action. They fired Victor Yannocone, the founder and chief
spokesman for NRDC. Thereafter, all cases considered by law firms
who were funded by the Ford Foundation would be screened in advance
by a handpicked panel of five judges. In addition, the firms were
required to form internal review commitees which had to be approved
by Ford. Naturally, the number and controversial nature of the cases
declined precipitously
In hindsight, we
can now see that polluting corporations were well equipped to deal
with these legal challenges. They used their close personal and
funding ties to influence the supposedly independent foundations.
Simultaneously, they began training lawyers specifically in the arts
of environmental non-compliance. Since that time, CEO’s have
trotted out armies of lawyers to delay and obscure important health
issues while the offending companies continued their offensive
practices. Meanwhile, company sponsored scientists produced
mountains of reports to substantiate corporate claims. Only much
later did we learn that the studies were flawed or that the companies
had already prepared additional studies that proved that the products
were dangerous
By the end of the
60’s, the courts were clogged with environmental lawsuits primarily
against the federal government for failure to enforce its own
regulations. Although lawyers were flocking to Washington, there
were still only two full-time lobbyists for environment.
Nevertheless, these lawsuits awakened popular concern that America
needed to do more to protect its own heritage. As a result, the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act and National Trails Act were passed to protect
scenic areas from development. Then came the infamous California oil
spill and the environmental movement was forever changed.
In 1969, TV viewers
were bombarded by the images of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill. Unocal
was drilling a development well from an offshore platform in the
channel when something went terribly wrong. The company attempted to
shut-in the well, but it apparently fractured the reservoir and
seeped to the surface. Although only about 6,000 barrels escaped (a
relatively minor spill); it was portrayed as an ecological disaster
of unprecedented proportions. This was in part because the gooey
sludge was polluting one of the most beautiful beaches in the world
and partly because the LA news media was only an hour away from the
focus of the story. The media highlighted the thousands of fish and
birds that were killed. They daily reported on the cleanup efforts to
save the animals (which were almost completely ineffectual). The
well flowed oil for months until another relief well could be drilled
and capped. For months it was the lead story on the nightly news.
The reader might be
tempted to conclude that this event opened the eyes of the public to
the real dangers of oil spills in the marine environment. However,
this is only partly true. Many people apparently were more concerned
with the damage to their favorite beach than to the oceans. Consider
that at the same time that the Santa Barbara spill was grabbing
headlines nationwide, another oil spill of huge proportions occurred
off the coast of Massachusetts. For the third time in only two years,
another tanker, (The Keo) split open due to hull failure. This time
210,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the heart of our fishing
grounds. There was little national coverage of this incident.
Although clearly, it should have been treated as a major story
because it was a forerunner of many other environmental catastrophes.
However, because the oil didn't happen to come onshore it wasn't
considered particularly newsworthy.
The whole Santa
Barbara affair was made a thousand times worse when the CEO of
Unocal, Fred Hartley, was interviewed live on nationwide television.
As he was walking along the oil soaked beach with a reporter at his
side; he sidestepped a dying seagull and said "Ah Hell, What's a
Few Dead Birds When Compared with Progress". That was probably
the last time an oil executive expressed his true feelings on camera!
"Fearless Fred" as he was called within the company, was no
crackpot. He later became the head of the American Petroleum
Institute, and was one of the most respected men in the industry.
His comments evoked such an uproar that Unocal maintained a
relatively low profile after that. It was already too late. It could
be argued that the exact moment he spoke those words on the air, the
New International Ecology Movement was born.
From this point
forward, industry would rely heavily on public relations or PR firms
to convey their message. One of the most common PR companies
selected to salvage a corporate image after an ecological catastrophe
was Burson–Marsteller (B-M). Their brochure states, “Often
corporations face long term issue challenges which arise from
activist concerns or controversies regarding product hazards…
Burson–Marsteller issue specialists have years of experience
managing such issues. They have gained insight into the key
activists groups and the tactics and strategies of those who tend to
generate and sustain issues. Our counselors around the world have
helped clients counteract activist-generated…concerns.”
Eventually the oil
spill resulted in a moratorium on drilling offshore in California and
contributed to the ban on drilling in sensitive areas in Alaska. It
was perhaps the most costly public relations mistake the oil
companies ever made. It was a mistake which industry would not soon
repeat. As a result, The PR companies became potent weapons in the
corporate arsenal. The political fallout from the Exxon Valdez,
which occurred much later, was small by comparison.
Within a year after the Santa Barbara
spill, two of the most confrontational environmental groups were
born: Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Friends of
the Earth was founded by David Brower after he was asked to resign
from the Sierra Club Board. Apparently, his Board disagreed with his
more militant position and his opposition to a nuclear reactor in
California’s Diablo Canyon. Brower realized that the problems
caused by nuclear power and oil pollution were international in scope
and began to pursue a more global vision. His aggressive style was
well suited to the more controversial issues he tackled such as his
opposition to nuclear weapons.
Greenpeace was founded by a group of
so-called Canadian environmentalists, who decided to protest nuclear
weapons testing off the Alaskan Coast. In actuality, many of these
activists were really Americans who had fled to Canada to escape the
draft. They failed to reach the site and were unsuccessful in
preventing the tests. However, their non-violent, approach and their
belief in bearing witness struck a chord with many people throughout
North America. Their ranks quickly grew and membership growth
outpaced all other environmental groups. Greenpeace was the first
major organization to use the term “green” and the first to
utilize direct action as its primary strategy. Their reckless
crusade to stop commercial whaling by maneuvering inflatable boats
between whalers and their targets garnered tremendous media
attention. Greenpeace’s continued opposition to nuclear weapons
and their disregard for authority frequently resulted in fines or
detention.
By contrast, the
strategy of working within the system achieved considerable success
in 1970 with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act.
This Act required environmental impact statements for all federally
funded or regulated projects. This resulted in the formation of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and culminated with the
establishment of Earth Day.
The first Earth Day
was celebrated on April 22, 1970 and involved over 20 million people.
At the time, it was the largest demonstration in history and it
proved the enormous popular appeal of the national environmental
agenda. There were speeches, marches, concerts and teach-ins across
the country. In California, an automobile was buried symbolizing the
impending doom of the gas-guzzling cars. The Wilderness Society
supported Earth Day and provided money and office space. The
Conservation Foundation also donated $ 20,000 in desperately needed
cash. The National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society and
the Sierra Club were reluctant to participate for fear that it would
divert attention from their own causes.
The success of
Earth Day, caused people around the world to reconsider their
position with regards to the environment. They began to expect
positive action from their governments. Membership in environmental
organizations swelled with at least 300,000 new members added to the
rolls from 1969- 1972. Politicians responded with plans for the
first global environmental conference.
The United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden
June 5th – 16th, 1972. For two weeks, 1200
delegates from 113 countries met in this marathon session not to
discuss scientific or technological approaches to environmental
problems but to coordinate international policy. The Soviet Union and
the Eastern Bloc countries did not attend because E. Germany had been
denied full representation. Also officially absent were the more
than 1000 representatives of the non-government organizations (NGOs).
The reasons the
NGOs were not allowed in are somewhat complex but reveal much about
the subversion of the environmental movement. The conference was
called by the industrialized countries of Western Europe primarily to
discuss their concerns about increasing air pollution drifting across
country boundaries. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary General of the UN
was given authority to appoint a small Secretariat and a Conference
Secretary General. Although details are fuzzy, he apparently named
Rene Dubos to Chair the Commission. Dubos was a renowned
microbiologist and so-called “Philosopher of the Earth”. He also
named Maurice F. Strong, a self-professed Canadian environmentalist
and organizer of the International Development Research Center (which
had dubious links to the oil industry and commitments to the Alaskan
Pipeline project) as the secretary in charge of preparations. For 2
years preceding the conference, a 27-nation PrepCom committee
headed by Maurice Strong held four meetings to plan the event.
By special request
of Maurice Strong, the world science community met in August 1971 in
Canberra, Australia to bring together the new Scientific Committee on
Problems and the Environment (SCOPE) with the UN Advisory Committee
on the Application of Science and Technology to Development. They
“broke new ground in elaborating environmental considerations as an
integral part of the development process”. This was when the link
was forged between environment and development, a necessary precursor
to the recent concept of sustainable development. Note how from this
point forward whenever the UN uses the word environment it is always
with development. The development theme persisted in UN preparations
until shortly before the main conference was to open.
Just before the
start of the Conference, a book was distributed by Rene Dubos and
Barbara Ward entitled, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of
a Small Planet. Their book was intended in the spirit of global
ecology, which was to be the guide for the conference. To the
surprise of many, the Conference ended up being chaired by Maurice
Strong who steered the topics back towards development. As we shall
see, Strong has continued to dominate the UN ecology agenda to this
day, allowing little or no deviation from his development-oriented
policies.
After contributing
heavily to the Conference process, several NGOs were forced to hold
alternative meetings. This “counter-conference” consisted of a
number of scientific and political organizations, as well as
environmentalists, including Barry Commoner. He stated, “the
conference had failed to address the topics which were most important
to solving the current environmental crisis”.
One of the main
outcomes of the Stockholm Conference was the establishment of the
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). UNEP is tasked with
“coordinating environmental policies of nations, NGOs and other UN
agencies to protect the environment from further degradation.” It
was to be the “environmental conscience of the UN”. Where better
to locate this global “early warning system” than Nairobi, Kenya?
This is equivalent to sending the NGOs environmental concerns to
Timbuktu. As everyone is aware, Kenya has remained a troubled, third
world nation with poor transportation, poor communications and
unreliable power supplies. It is difficult and expensive to get to
and adequate accommodations are limited. If anything, conditions in
Nairobi have deteriorated in the past 25 yrs.
Who was selected to
run this supposed global monitoring station? It was none other than
Maurice Strong, of course. Strong officially held this position as
Executive Director of UNEP for two years, then he turned it over to
his Egyptian Deputy Director, Mostafa Talba, who retained his
position for an astonishing 17 years. Another Canadian, Elizabeth
Dowdeswell (presumably well known to Strong) held the position at
least until last year.
If this were the
end of Strong’s influence in the UN it would be enough. However,
as later events demonstrate, whenever international environmental
issues are involved in the UN his name re-surfaces. It wouldn’t
matter if he were an Einstein or a Carl Sagan, no one person should
be allowed to exert that much influence on global environmental
policy. Is it any wonder that the planet is still at risk?
The year of the
Stockholm Conference, DDT began to be phased out in the US. This was
considered a triumph for the environmental movement and a complete
ban was considered imminent. Little did they know that nearly 30
years later the US would still be exporting harmful pesticides and
then re-importing the produce in what has come to be called the
Circle of Poison.
In 1973, the Arab
Oil Embargo brought renewed interest in energy conservation. Long
gas lines and higher prices forced people to cut gas consumption and
to re-evaluate the need for fuel efficiency. This ultimately brought
Green groups into direct confrontation with multi-national energy
companies. More conflicts meant more lobbying and by the following
year more than 42 environmental organizations employed a total of 40
full-time lobbyists. These new lobbyists were partly responsible
for the passage of the Endangered Species Act and gathered support
for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Faunas and Floras (CITES).
By the Mid 70’s,
so-called Green Bans were instituted when a group of trade unions in
Australia protested the loss of nature conservation areas for new
building projects. The addition of trade unions to the equation
caused tempers to flare and violence was inevitable.
In 1975, the US
environmental movement took a left-handed detour towards anarchy and
drove right into the camp of the anti-environmentalists. Author
Edward Abbey wrote the Monkey Wrench Gang, an ostensibly fictional
and humorist account of four characters who take on the establishment
and try to prevent the loss of wilderness in the west. In doing so,
they abandon all common sense and employ economic sabotage or ecotage
to achieve their aims.
The problems arose
when readers couldn’t tell for sure whether Abbey was serious or
not. He dedicated his book to an 18th Century fanatic who
smashed factory machinery. He claimed that the novel was an
adventure story written for entertainment. Yet, he compounded the
problem, by going on lecture tours and announcing that concerned
citizens should “wage war against industrialization”. In doing
so, he forever blurred the distinction between intentional violence
and sarcasm. The book had such a profound effect on the
environmentalist psyche that more than ten years later; the author
was still being championed as the father of the eco-warrior splinter
groups.
Probably few
interpreted this satirical work initially as an outright call to
action. However, in the West, it certainly fueled the debate and may
have resulted in an outbreak known as the Sagebrush Rebellion.
The Sagebrush
rebellion was a minor anti-environmentalist’s backlash that began
in Nevada in 1976 and quickly spread to Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and
ultimately to Alaska. Ranchers in the West decided that the way to
protect their access to public lands was to have the government turn
over land rights to the states. Furthermore, they demanded the right
to use chemicals on grazing lands and to kill any predators on sight.
The movement gathered strength when President Ronald Reagan publicly
declared that he too was a Sagebrush rebel. The plans faded when the
ranchers realized the financial advantages in having the government
maintain the land at no cost and with virtually no enforced
restrictions. Its significance lies in it being a test case both for
public sentiment and for the refinement of tactics which would later
prove so effective in the fight against the environmentalists.
By 1977, the German
Green Party (originally called “Green Action Future”) had taken
shape. Also at this time other Green political parties began to
emerge in Europe, including Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland,
Austria and France. However these were by no means the earliest.
Tasmania boasts the first regional Green Party in 1972, but New
Zealand claims the first national Green candidates. The European
Green Parties expanded rapidly usually commanding between 5% and 10%
of the vote, but they particularly gained strength in the wake of
ecological disasters.
. In March, the
Supertanker, Amoco Cadiz, developed engine trouble off the coast of
France. The captain radioed for help, but the only tugboat within
range refused to come to his aid. Whether it was an argument over
price, a union dispute, or shear French obstinance was never
determined. What we know is that several hours later the ship crashed
ashore, near Portsall, spilling its entire cargo of 1.4 million
barrels of crude along the French Coast.
The disaster spawned a wave of
criticism by environmentalists about the safety of these Supertankers
and started a debate about the need for better maintenance, better
emergency procedures and more double hulls. All of which changed
absolutely nothing. The world had to wait until a major collision
occurred in American waters before the oil companies would take these
concerns seriously.
How bad was it
really? There are some scientists who claim the French marine
ecosystem will never recover. It dumped twice as much oil as the
Torrey Canyon, England's worst disaster, and more than five times as
much oil as the later Exxon Valdez.
Back in the US,
chemicals were discovered seeping out of the Love Canal near Buffalo
N.Y. This prompted one mother, Lois Gibbs, to take two EPA
inspectors hostage. Her son had become ill playing in the abandoned
Hooker Chemical site. Two days later President Carter declared the
site a disaster area. Of course, Hooker Chemical, a subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum, denied liability. When that didn’t work they
promptly declared bankruptcy. This left Uncle Sam holding the bag
(as usual) for the Clean up. Lois Gibbs went on to start the
Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes (CCHW).
In 1979, a nuclear
accident occurred at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Due to mechanical failure, coolant water flooded the
reactor and the containment building. This was supposed to be
impossible. The accident undermined the average person's faith in the
entire nuclear industry. Between 1979 and 1989 orders for new nuclear
power plants dropped from 40 to zero, ending the myth of cheap
inexhaustible nuclear energy supplies. Nevertheless the nuclear power
industry continued to argue for the industry’s safety. Once again,
they brought in B-M for PR and damage control while they stepped up
their attacks on the environmental groups. One of the results was
that the Citizen’s Party, a US Green Party briefly led by Barry
Commoner, never really gained momentum.
This may have
precipitated the formation of splinter group called Earth First!
Founded by Dave Foreman, an ex-lobbyist for the Wilderness Society,
the organization is opposed to compromise. Foreman advocated a
militant strategy and the use of Ecotage tactics suggested in the
Monkey Wrench Gang.
Another splinter
group, The Sea Shepherd Society also advocated the use of violence.
Formed in 1977 by Paul Watson, a former Greenpeace captain, this
group was intent on stopping whaling at any cost. They rammed
vessels and even threatened to blow them up while they were docked.
Watson eventually adopted terrorist tactics, including espionage and
demolition. As a direct result of these activities both he and
Foreman were put in jail on serious charges and are currently facing
lengthy jail terms.
On the personal,
level this is an extremely foolish and dangerous approach because it
instantly leads to an escalating situation where you will be holding
a screw driver while the opposition is pointing a gun. If you carry a
gun, your opponent will use an explosive ad infinitum. The only way
it can possibly work is if you remain invisible. In this information
age, this is an impossible goal and anti-environmentalists have been
known to post descriptions or license numbers of activists on the
web.
On a moral level,
these tactics are simply wrong and they go against everything the
early preservationists stood for. If we cannot justify our methods
in the court of public opinion then we have no chance of reaching our
goals. Each time an environmentalist resorts to violence we play
right into the hands of the anti-environmental establishment.
Finally, on a
corporate level these are stupid tactics. At the height of the
ecotage activity, it was costing industry perhaps $20 million dollars
a year for delays and equipment replacement. This is a puny sum when
compared with overall profits. It is certainly not worth the enmity
it creates among our potential followers. Besides, even if an
organization were successful in shutting down an entire operation,
the company would simply shift their emphasis to another operation
and maintain its bottom line.
In January 1981,
nine of the mainstream environmental organizations met together to
pool their resources. The group consisted of NWF, IWL, Sierra Club,
National Audubon, Wilderness Soc., NRDC, EDF, EPC, FOE and later
Nat’l Parks and Cons. Following Reagan’s Inauguration, the groups
assembled to discuss common goals and strategies. Little was
accomplished in that first meeting but the so-called Group of Ten
continued to meet on a regular basis. They were interested in
convincing corporate leaders to practice voluntary restraint and
positive action. This was like asking Tobacco companies to
voluntarily stop selling cigarettes. They subsequently met with
heads of some of the worst polluting companies including DuPont,
Exxon, Union Carbide, Dow, American Cyanamid and Monsanto. The
companies were concerned about the unfavorable publicity they were
getting. Out of these discussions eventually emerged An
Environmental Agenda for the Future. This report placed the blame on
overpopulation as the root cause for environmental problems.
Pollution was seen as a “technological rather than a political
challenge”. In almost every area of conflict with industry the
report recommended only further studies not specific actions. In
short, it was a sellout of the entire environmental movement.
Apparently, too many years of isolation in Washington and too many
polite discussions with industry leaders had removed the mainstream
CEO’s from the pulse of America and lulled the into a sense of
complacency. Considering that the environment movement was facing a
declared war with the Reagan Administration this was a sadly
inadequate response.
At least David
Brower responded to the challenge. He founded the Earth Island
Institute a group based in San Francisco. They are dedicated to
developing innovative projects for the global environment, including
human rights and peace initiatives. They are perhaps best known for
their exposure of dolphin slaughters by tuna boats. Recently, they
have been accused of taking large sums from the very companies they
are supposed to monitor.
Another possible
conflict of interest is surfacing at the UN. The World Resources
Institute (WRI) was founded in 1982 as an independent policy research
center for issues concerning the environment and development. It also
operates the Center for Int’l Development and the Environment. It
appears to have a revolving door policy when it comes to the elite
members of the environmental mainstream. In 1991 it was invited to
attend the Group of Ten Meeting and soon after accepted a $25,000
donation from Waste Management Inc, a company which has broken
records for EPA fines and violations. In 1994, it listed John Adams
as its Executive Director. Is this the same John Adams who for years
represented NRDC at the Group of Ten Meetings? Is it the same man
who more recently served on Pres. Clinton’s Council on Sustainable
Development? The Founder of NRDC, Gus Speth, also was with WRI.
Another member of the Group of Ten, Rafe Pomerance who represented
Friends of the Earth also ended up as an officer of WRI.
Furthermore, former
UNEP officials appear to wind up at WRI. This holds for Mostapha
Tolba former UNEP Director and for Maurice Strong who was shown as
Chairman of the Board of WRI in 1996. This is indeed strange since
the Biannual World Resources report is prepared in collaboration with
UNEP. WRI prepared a study in 1990 purporting to show that
undeveloped countries of the South pumped as much CO2 into the
atmosphere as the developed countries of the North. Although the
conclusions were challenged, this report will be used to formulate
aid and multinational lending policies for years to come. WRI, whose
support is almost entirely corporate, is listed as a non-profit
institution. In 1996 it listed a staff of 115 in 50 countries.
In 1984, another ecological disaster
with unbelievably lethal consequences occurred which focused the
world’s attention on the dangers of the Chemical Industry. The
Union Carbide chemical plant, located in Bhopal, Central India blew
up and spread poisonous cyanide and other toxic gases throughout a
helpless community. By the time the fire was put out, 3849 men,
women and children were dead. It was by far the worst chemical
accident or explosion in history. Later, it became a landmark legal
case that opened Pandora's box. The issue was what is the life of a
human being worth? The other issue was does an American company have
to compensate people in the same way it would in America or does it
merely reimburse for loss of earning power in India, ($200 per year.)
The company moved quickly to try to limit its liability and of
course it hired B-M to handle PR. Union Carbide offered the bereaved
families more money than they had seen in a lifetime, but only if
they would settle out of court. The Indian government had to step in
and demand reasonable compensation. People began to ask, “what is
a toxic chemical company doing in the middle of an overcrowded town?
This incident
accelerated the trend for environmental justice that was evolving in
many places as a NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) issue. It forced people
to think more globally towards a NIABY (not-in-anyone’s-backyard)
position.
By 1985, militancy
in the environmental movement seemed to be gaining the upper hand. It
was spurred on by Dave Foreman’s publication of Ecodefense: A
Field Guide to Monkeywrenching. Ecodefense discusses in
detail how to jam locks, make smoke bombs, destroy bulldozers and
spike trees. The effect was that the FBI labeled Earth First! a
terrorist organization and eventually Foreman was arrested on Felony
conspiracy charges. Predictably, it brought about a tremendous
backlash from timber cutters, ranchers, oil drillers and developers,
the nuclear power industry and other anti-environmentalist groups.
It galvanized these diverse interests and gave them an enemy they
could really hate. It also turned the general public and congress off
on the mainstream environmental agenda. Tree spiking alone probably
did more damage to the environmental movement than all the hate
propaganda that had come before. The only positive outcome of these
tactics was that several extremist organizations were now viewed as
moderate because they disavowed monkeywrenching.
One of the tragic
consequences of this militant attitude was the sinking of
Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior. France was angered by the group’s
campaign to make the south Pacific nuclear free. So on July 10,
1985, two frogmen from the French secret service entered the harbor
in Auckland, New Zealand and planted explosives. The resulting
explosion killed photographer Fernando Pereira and irreparably
damaged the boat. Reaction was swift with the international press
unanimously condemning the action. Subsequent investigations not
only proved France’s involvement at the highest levels but revealed
the existence of a French spy in Greenpeace’s New Zealand office.
Christine Cabon using the name Frederique Bonlieu had been sent in 4
months earlier. She was posing as an environment scientist although
she was actually an intelligence officer who had previously spied on
the PLO. She stayed only one month but gathered enough intelligence
to make it easy to carry out the operation. On July 25, 1985 New
Zealand detectives arrested the two saboteurs who pleaded guilty to
manslaughter and were sentence to ten years in prison. The resulting
scandal nearly brought down the French Government.
Initially in shock
and disarray following the incident, the organization briefly became
paranoid and started looking for spies elsewhere. The long-term
effects however were viewed as positive. Greenpeace as a result of
all the publicity became the world’s premiere environmental group.
As for the campaign, it was the beginning of the end for France’s
nuclear testing program.
This should be an
important lesson to environmentalists who believe that a little
violence will help them reach their objectives. Nothing is more
powerful than a martyr and even if a man drops dead of a heart attack
as a result of a violent action, the movement could be irreparably
harmed.
The following year,
one of the worst nuclear accidents in history occurred. This
resulted in an explosion at Chernobyl, near Kiev in the Ukraine,
which killed at least 31 people in the initial blast. However these
numbers don’t begin to show the magnitude of this tragedy. Hundreds
of thousands of people were subjected to excessive radiation. As far
away as Norway and Finland, herds of Caribou and Reindeer had to be
slaughtered and burned because their meat was not fit for human
consumption. A cloud of radioactive fallout spread across Europe
making hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for decades. All this
was basically the result of an economic decision because the Russians
have known for a very long time that the reactor design at Chernobyl
was fundamentally unsafe. There are still dozens of reactors of this
type just waiting for another accident like this to happen.
In 1989 another
ecological disaster occurred. The Supertanker Exxon Valdez ran
aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The 250,000 barrels spilled
was not a lot by world standards. As oil spills go, it didn't even
rank in the top ten, but the press coverage that followed and
the anger it provoked was truly unprecedented. There were several
reasons for this. Certainly it was the worst spill in American
history and it did impact in one of the most environmentally
sensitive areas of our coast. However, something else was happening.
As CNN spread around the world and its popularity grew, so grew the
popularity of America itself. Worldwide, instantaneous broadcasts
had the effect of homogenizing the views and expectations of the rest
of the world. What emerged looked decidedly American. So when the
world saw oil pouring onto the beaches of Alaska, they reacted like
it was their beach. The environmental movement had become a global
phenomenon and now they had focused on a single target to vent their
wrath. That wrath was directed squarely at Exxon and the oil
industry. When it was revealed that the pilot of that huge
Supertanker (Captain Joseph Hazelwood) was too drunk to navigate the
channel and had turned the task over to his first mate, the world
felt betrayed. The effect was very similar to what happened after
the Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident.
In spite of the previous years that
provided tons of evidence of negligence and complacency, people were
still in denial. These things just weren't supposed to happen! But
they did happen and with surprising regularity. As people set glued
to their TV sets watching more waves of oil rolling ashore, there was
a sense that we had somehow lost our innocence. As the thousands of
birds and mammals lay dying on the beach we felt as though we had
traded our environment for the comfort and convenience of
air-conditioned automobiles.
Naturally, Exxon did everything
humanly possible to rectify the problem, after it was too late. One
of the first things they did was call B-M the PR firm. From the
beginning, Exxon's primary concern appeared to be that they would be
the targets of a boycott. B-M stepped up their ad campaign and Exxon
pledged billions of dollars to the clean-up effort. As always they
portrayed the incident as one of those terrible unavoidable accidents
which we must accept as the price of progress.
What they didn't
advertise on TV was that there was nothing really they could do.
Booms were useless in preventing contamination of other beaches.
Detergents were worse than useless since they killed more wildlife
than they saved. In spite of all the hype about oil eating bacteria
and super adsorbent materials, they are still in the research stage.
For all practical purposes you can only vacuum up and resell what
remains on the water. Then you steam clean the rocks. This has a
wondrously cosmetic effect at least until the next storm season when
the rocks turn black with oil again.
Of course there are
a number of things that Exxon and the other companies could do to
prevent these recurring tanker accidents. Congress took a step in the
right direction with passage of the Oil Pollution Act requiring
double hulls by 2015, but there is much more that could be done. New
technologies provide a range of options which could make shipping
safer and more efficient. All of these solutions will require
investment and could eat into profits. They would also require
considerable time to implement. There still will be a few more
tanker spills while we wait.
Earth Day XX
celebrations was the largest environmental event in history. An
estimated 200 million people in over 140 nations participated with
more than a million in Central Park alone. Activities ranged from
planting trees and cleaning up roadways to a release of ladybugs to
protest pesticides. Denis Hayes, the organizer of Earth Day 1 was in
charge again. This time his budget had balloned to $3 million and he
had corporate sponsors standing in line to contribute. Many of the
worst polluters contributed funds. Money came in from Monsanto, BP,
Peabody Coal and Arco in what time magazine called a “commercial
mugging. In 1995, the White House offered $3.7 to sponsor the party.
Apparently Earth Day is also for sale to the highest bidders!
In response to
Earth Day XX, ultra-conservative Patrick Buchanan asked his friend
and propagandist Llewellyn Rockwell to write a critique of the
environmental movement. The resultant essay, “An
Anti-Environment Manifesto” was printed in Buchanan’s
newsletter …From the Right. In his essay Rockwell equates
environmentalism with communism and claims that it represents a
threat to free enterprise and individual liberty. He calls the
environmental movement a misanthropic religion that represents a
direct assault on Christian theology and values. He attacks data that
supports the ozone hole and global warming calling it all
pseudoscience. He advocates the privatization of all public
resources. He states, “only when private property are well
established will the proper incentives exist to make sure the
environment is not degraded”. “People Come First!” soon became
the battle cry for the new anti-environmentalists who call themselves
the Wise Use Movement. This land-grabbing rhetoric had a
tremendous impact on people in the west. Although the movement is
well financed by commodity industries, including mining, timber,
farming, and fur interests. Corporations like Exxon, Louisiana
Pacific, and Boise Cascade have donated large sums to ensure that
this movement successfully replaces the Sagebrush Rebellion.
Led by Ron Arnold,
a Sierra Club renegade, the movement is well organized, and media
savvy. Arnold’s agenda is to “destroy environmentalists by
taking their money and their members”. The plan is to move public
lands from federal authority to state, and finally to county
jurisdictions where it will be far easier to access. The movement is
not opposed to using violence and there has been an increase in
attacks on environmentalists wherever they are active. The Wise Use
movement is organized around well-funded umbrella organizations with
Green-sounding names like Evergreen Foundation, National Wetlands
Coalition and the Environmental Conservation Organization. Together
these groups probably represent the greatest threat the environmental
movement has ever faced.
As we’ve shown
the environmental movement sewed the seeds for its destruction by a
historical pre-occupation with the land and its value. It was
inevitable that land-grabbers would eventually adopt enviro-tactics,
but it is not pre-ordained that should prevail. Whenever the
mainstream environmental organizations are confronted with the
evidence that they are under attack, most Green groups prefer to
concentrate on increasing memberships rather than defense strategies.
The weeds have now infested the garden and are beginning to choke
the flowers. If this trend continues, there won’t be any
independent environmental groups for the Wise-Use movement to oppose.
On the
International scene, preparations for the Earth Summit began in 1990.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
was planned for Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Three years earlier, the UN
Commission on Environment and Development chaired by Norwegian Prime
Minister Gro Brundtland. Brundtland was hailed as the first
environment minister of any country to become to their leader.
(Recently, her support of Norway’s whaling industry in defiance of
the International Whaling Commission’s ban has raised serious
doubts about her commitment to the environment).
After 4 years
work, the Commission published its report “Our Common Future.”
In it they coined the phrase “sustainable development” and linked
environmental problems to social and economic systems. From this
point on sustainable development dominated the UN process. There is
little agreement on a detailed definition of sustainable development
or how it could be applied. One clause calls for the “maintenance
and improvement” of living standards In practice, this appears to
be a euphemism for perpetual growth; which is impossible. Yet, each
time the phrase is repeated it gathers momentum and strength.
Without doubt, the concept is an outgrowth of the early meetings that
Maurice Strong orchestrated in Australia.
The preparations
for the conference required Four PrepComs. The first was in Nairobi,
then two in Geneva and the last followed in New York. Twenty-one
issues were negotiated at these conferences. Notably, overpopulation
was barely mentioned because of opposition by religious groups.
Agenda 21, a 400-page document, spelled out the policies, law and
financing which would be necessary to fulfil an Earth Charter. In
effect, it was to be an environmental bill of rights for all people.
The Secretary of
the PrepComs, Maurice Strong, estimated that it would take $125
billion per year in aid to help the poorer nations of the world
protect their environment. Partly as a result of this estimate, the
US alone among the industrialized nations refused to sign a proposal
for mandatory stabilization of greenhouse gases, a biodiversity
treaty, the forest protection convention or the promise to donate
0.7% of GDP to less developed countries for environmental protection.
At the Earth Summit
in Rio, in June 1992, more than 35,000 environmental activists,
politicians, businessmen and 9000 journalists attended the largest
environmental conference in history. Dr. Suami Nathan was scheduled
to Chair the conference, but as the meeting began, Maurice Strong
(naturally) assumed the position and dominated the proceedings. Many
environmentalists felt betrayed. Once again the Global Forum of NGOs
was forced to hold their “shadow assembly” outside along the
beachfront. It has since been stated that the issues discussed and
the contacts were the most valuable part of the Earth Summit.
Once again, it
appears the Maurice Strong and his band of elite have hi-jacked one
of the most significant environmental forums of the century. One can
only imagine what role Strong and WRI played behind the scenes in
manipulating the data, influencing the politicians and controlling
the Agenda. One can only hope that early in the next century, a
world environmental conference can be called which does not have
development as its overriding theme; one which allows NGOs full
participation in the process and which is not controlled by Maurice
Strong or his cohorts.
While the ecology
movement is preparing to deal with problems in the UN they will have
to keep a watchful eye on the opposition. One of the ways the
corporations have insinuated themselves into the environmental
movement is through green marketing. Green marketing refers to the
companies desire to portray themselves and their products as
environmentally friendly. A survey by Abt Associates showed that 90
percent of American Consumers were willing to pay more for
environmentally-friendly products. Cash registers were suddenly
ringing in the minds of the CEO’s across the country. Not
surprisingly, a flurry of newly packaged products hit the market that
claimed they were “biodegradable, recyclable or safe for the
environment.”. The problem was that these products were not
regulated and the claims could not be substantiated. Both Mobil Oil
and British Petroleum were sued for misleading advertising. Attorney
Generals in 10 states called for greater accountability. The EPA and
FTC finally responded then issued standards for advertising.
The companies then
switched strategies and went for eco-labeling. These seals of
approval are voluntary, third party assessments of the relative
impact of the relative impacts of a product. In Europe and Japan
these eco-labels are government sponsored and government controlled.
The US however has refused to endorse this method. Instead, various
environmental groups have seals of approval, which they have applied,
to selected goods that pass their tests of environmental
acceptability. This places Green groups on a very slippery slope.
They not only have enormous financial clout in the market place, but
they are faced with a fundamental conflict of interest in trying to
endorse those corporations they are supposed to watching.
Inevitably this has
led to what is called “cause-related marketing”. This is when
companies promise to support moderate environmental organizations
like World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in exchange for a review and
assessment of their products. The writer witnessed this process
first-hand in 1996.
Unilever, a parent
company well known for overfishing and chemical pollution began
funding WWF and the Marine Stewardship Council to develop an
eco-label for its fishing products. At the same time it was
influencing the approval criteria in this country it was announcing
in England that 90% of its fish products would be eco-friendly within
5 years. Undoubtedly, the Corporation has both the money and the
influence to realize this self-fulfilling prophecy, regardless of
whether they alter their fishing practices.
The conflict of
interest between Unilever and WWF has become so blatant that at one
point when you accessed WWF Home Page on the web you could be
hot-linked directly to Unilever’s home page with advertisements for
detergents and chemicals. I seriously question whether children
looking for picture of endangered species on the web should be
subjected to soap commercials. Is this any way to train a new
generation of environmental activists?
As the narrative
above, demonstrates the environmental movement is in shambles. It
suffers from a lack of leadership, credibility and vision. Only at
the local, grass roots level can you still find authentic activists
willing to take risks and fight for the principles of environmental
justice. In the larger picture, corporations have cozied up to the
Green groups so successfully that it is sometimes hard to tell them
apart. Few, if any of the larger organizations can still be said to
operate completely independent of corporate influence. On an
international basis, the UN has been temporarily rendered impotent by
the very organizations that were supposed to protect the environment.
The founding
fathers of the environmental movement would no doubt be appalled at
this state of affairs. It is likely that they would see more of
their genuine fighting spirit preserved in the anti-environmental
movement than in any of established green groups today.
Where does this
leave us! The writer suggests that we should leave all the trappings
of Corporate America behind for the moment and let the children lead
the way. Every schoolchild and many college students have somewhere
in his heart a love of animals and an appreciation of nature. In the
past decades we have taught them to want to Save the Whales, Protect
the Forests and to Fight for Clean Air and Water. Across America and
perhaps around the world, students are voluntarily devoting their
time and energy to making this world a better place.
Outside of the
classrooms and off the campuses this effort is largely ignored. Why?
Because they don’t have any money! It is as though we have turned
the environmental community into an elitist club where you can’t
participate unless you have the price of admission. Big
organizations have huge organizations, with large staffs and
overheads, media budgets, lobbying costs, direct mail campaigns to
finance and boats to support. What is this all for? Is it to get
the message out to the most people or is it to raise funds so that
you can perpetuate an ineffective system.
We seem to forget
that the Vietnam War was stopped without a budget and without
lobbying Capitol Hill. What it takes is a genuine groundswell of
support for a passionate cause which people know in their gut is the
right thing to do. Where will we find these burning issues? Again I
say, ask the children. They are already working on the problems they
perceive as important and it is likely that they have sucked their
parents in along the way. All that is required is a little guidance
and direction.
The technology now
exists to contact and coordinate a vast number of High School and
College students at very low costs. Studies have indicated that at
least 60% of College students already have personal access to the web
and the numbers are constantly growing. More than 1400 colleges have
already published their websites and many High Schools have also. We
are now in a position to focus the energy of thousands of committed
young environmentalists towards a common cause. We can report on
their individual activities and we can share successes with the
entire world.
There is just one
catch. You can never ask them for money! You can’t sell them
products, you can’t sell or trade their names and most importantly,
you can never solicit them for contributions. Once you try to put a
price or value on their participation you destroy the spirit of
innocence and trust which you are trying to capture in the first
place.
If we are to
revitalize the moribund environmental movement these are the rules we
must follow. The goal must be a mass education program about a
topic/topics that concern all of us. The effort must always be
non-violent and non-combative in the sense that we cannot practice
the tactics that we denounce by the opposition. Finally, our primary
weapon must be information and the dissemination of truth.
What becomes of the
proud tradition of grassroots activists who have stopped the
environmental abusers in their tracks? This tradition should
continue, but only in a way that will have a real impact on the
company’s annual report. For too long environmentalists have been
mosquitos on the elephant’s back. We can have this impact without
resorting to tactics which directly threaten people or property.
We are living in
the information age where we have access to more data in days than
previous generations could examine in a lifetime. Some of this
information is not widely known and some of it is probably believed
to be secret. Now that many factory workers own computers it has
become increasingly difficult for corporations to maintain their
secrets. What ultimately brought the tobacco companies to the
negotiating table was not polite persuasion or political pressure, it
was seeing their most closely guarded secret memo’s appear on the
front page of the newspaper. Likewise what ultimately brought down
the Nixon administration was careful investigation techniques and an
inability to plug leaks in the White House.
How can we find out
what we need to know within the corporate maze? Why not ask them.
It is not necessary to hack into computers to find out what companies
don’t want the public to learn. As long as there are disgruntled
employees in the world there will always be sources of information
which industry cannot control. We could easily assign dozens of
people to research the financial and operational aspects of an
offending company. Eventually some of them will find gems of
information which will make a difference. If companies believed for
a moment that they could no longer protect their nasty little secrets
the whole face of industry would change.
Where will we find
the funds to finance an organization of this sort? That is the
subject of another paper?
David Lincoln
September 2, 1997
