Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
5. Green Greed
Reminder: Zoom Today
Dowie, Mark. 1995. “5: The Third Wave,” Losing Ground.
Spash, Clive. 2017. “Environmentalism and Democracy in the Age of Nationalism and Corporate Capitalism,” Environmental Values 26(4):403-412.
Chapin, Mac. (2004). "A Challenge to Conservationists," WorldWatch Magazine. 17-31.
Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have MNCs Captured Conservation?
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/way-beyond-greenwashing-have-multinationals-captured-big-conservation/
(optional) Watch Silence of the Pandas https://redd-monitor.org/2011/07/27/wwf-scandal-part-1-bears-feeding-on-toxic-corporate-waste/
(optional) Dowie, Mark. 2005. “Conservation Refugees,” Orion (Nov-Dec): 16-27.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) have their detractors. To add a personal touch to this discussion, a friend of mine working with low income African-American families that have dramatically reduced the ecological footprint of their communities by using their land for a tradition of local organic farming have been displaced by the TNCs land grab in the area surrounding Chicago. I’ve heard horror stories about them all over the world. The WWF as well, was implicated in passing surveys of strategic resources (underground reserves of silver, copper and gold) to governments ultimately playing a role in the war between Ecuador and Peru in 1995. Both TNC and WWF projects have often deployed a model where they acquire land, displace indigenous people, then “pay for conservation” by allowing oil or some other extractive activity to happen on a certain portion of that land. Even national governments and the UN have played parts. In Chiapas, the Mexican government established the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve in order to displace indigenous peoples so that the Governor’s cousin could use a portion of the reserve for his cattle ranch.
Given that the CEO of TNC came from Goldman Sachs, it should be no surprise that he believes in wholeheartedly in “green economics” integrating environmental goods into market analyses by putting a dollar sign on them. He wrote a whole book espousing the strategy. Unfortunately, in practice, green economics tends not to do a very good job of preserving the green. Dowie does a good job of showing some of the ways that market-oriented approaches fail or become co-oopted, but there’s a ton of literature on it.
Dowie, like many others who study social movements, describes the environmental movement in terms of “waves”. He believes the “Third Wave” (eg. this green economics crap) was just a phase that will be replaced by a “Fourth Wave” that was precipitated in part by consciousness-raising done by the EJ movement (discussed tomorrow). Unfortunately, what really happened was the Third Wave was too lucrative and the movement simply split between a well-funded mainstream environmentalism (Third Wave type orgs) and social movements who have been pushed (or push themselves) further to fringe. (I would argue that we’re seeing the same thing happen: regressions to earlier waves in the mainstream of a variety of social movements: feminism, anti-racism etc. while the fringes split and further radicalize).
My personal opinion is that, as evil as these organizations may be, wholesale rejecting the mainstream is a mistake. NRDC (which Dowie takes to task throughout the book) at times still plays a valuable role when invited into coalitions with EJ groups. TNC and WWF… well their positive impacts are far rarer but they do on occasion happen. What do you think? Should mainstream groups be ignored? Reformed? How? Should we try to take back the mainstream environmental organizations? How would we go about doing that? Or should we just make angry documentaries like Silence of the Pandas and try to attack their reputations? What’s your take on all of this? Feel free to disagree with me.
Comments
I think realistically, mainstream groups will hold onto their relevance, especially with the amount of funding they get, as the Big Three Dowie talked about. Ignoring them does not seem like a likely strategy as their social media campaigns are quite extensive, and I, for one, did not know about their negative image and was brainwashed as a kid into their cute 'adopt' an endangered animal fundraising strategy. Sadly, I know I am not the only one. We have discussed reform of boards from their corporate-heavy tendencies to more inclusive ones, but as Chapin points out, governments are also close to these organizations. If the reliance on government funding can somehow be minimized, then there is one less bundle of restrictions on how to use the funds on the organization. Ideally, the mainstream organization would distribute the money to more localized teams in the field to manage. Even then a hierarchy is in place...
So I believe that if we tackle the problem of impartiality by organizations towards industry in the way Chapin suggests, through "a series of independent, non-partisan, thorough, and fairly objective evaluations," (Chapin 30) we can perhaps 'take back' the organizations for the people. Publicizing damning reports on the true motives of environmental organizations can cause demand for reform. Furthermore, it can create followers from the people to grassroots movements who do not compromise morals in a third-wave fashion. I think that angry documentaries are not practical tools unless they are clear about their motives for making the film and the source of their funding; if not, then they are no better than the mainstream environmental organizations.
I don’t think mainstream groups should be ignored because I think they can't be. The reality is that they have a wide reaching arm and same as @a_hipp, I had not been exposed to any criticisms of them prior to this class. I do think there is positive influence from this. Growing up the WWF and organizations as such campaigned everywhere and it got me interested in the environment because it was my first exposure to it. I would imagine I am not alone in that.
I believe in terms of taking back the mainstream environmental organizations, I just don't think it's feasible. The amount of resources and time that this would take would take away resources from other projects that can be done. I really believe the power and the future lies in grass-root movements. That’s not to say I believe that there's no point in trying… social pressure can be incredibly impactful, I just think that those efforts should not overtake efforts going toward helping the environment. It's really important to not lose sight of the original goals: protect the environment!
I just watched about the first half of Silence of the Pandas.
1) It made me think of a Netflix docu-series that was #1 on Netflix last week when I watched it (I'm not sure if it still is) but its called Tiger King. It's focused on the zoo/personal ownership aspect of big cats and it's really interesting.
2) It seems like attacking a general reputation is not very productive. Especially for the environmental movement as a whole, as getting people to dislike the classic NGO's and turn their backs on environmentalism in general seems counter productive. I'd prefer people support the NGO's than do nothing at all. That being said, attacking something specific being done within the organization does seem beneficial to me.
Those of you who watched the whole thing, you'll have a much better perspective of this than I do, which takeaway did the film give you? Critique of the general WWF or some of its specific actions?
Nonetheless, I did watch the last couple minutes and there was no reference of what steps the viewers can take to help change the horrendous things discussed. That is faulty to me.
The article by Jonathan Latham explored in clear examples the failure of the third wave to actually address environmental issues. Similar to Dowie, who argues that "The fact that the rate per individual polluter may decrease creates a misleading impression of progress.”(109) I think it gives environmental movements a false idea of achievment, when we clearly need to be doing much more to reduce our carbon footprint. There is no way that the COP21 agreement aiming to keep global warming below 2°C could be achieved within green development, and that was proven. And since we prefered to keep green capitalism in place, many countries and mostly islands will literally be lost after the 2°C increase (such as the Marshall islands).
I completely agree with @caroline22 point that is counterproductive to point finger at each other within the environmental movement, but I also wonder what is that a result of? At least from personal experience, sometimes this "angry" documentaries also show how these organizations themselves are counterproductive to social movements and grassroots movements/organizations. I believe because is easier for a corporation to ignore these movements and grassroots cooperation when they are green washed and supported by environmental organizations.
As Latham expressed: "Old-fashioned activist strategies, of shaming bad practice, boycotting products and encouraging alternatives, do work. The market opportunity presently being exploited by WWF and company resulted from the success of these strategies, not their failure. Multinational corporations, we should conclude, really do fear activists, non-profits, informed consumers, and small producers, when they all work together"
I guess that is why I like some organizations like Amazon frontlines, which their focus is not their own agenda but literally just giving a platform to grassroot movements to rise their voices and therefore even rise money when needed for actual root changes.
I think your bringing up the resources, both monetary in terms of counter-campaigns and the temporal with spending hours strategizing against the mainstream environmental organizations is an important point. While criticism between groups in the larger environmentalism movement is inevitable and can be constructive it is also exhaustive of manpower and not preemptive of major reform. At the same time, I think it is important for individuals or smaller groups to air the dirty laundry of their mainstream neighbors so there is social pressure from the general public who may not be informed of the underlying politics of the movement. However, this should not be the top priority of non-mainstream movements who have other concerns such as fundraising and community collaboration. It would be interesting for there to be social media campaigns by the journalism community that can devote time to covering grassroots movements over larger environmentalist organizations that have PR teams already.
@a_hipp, I completely agree with your first paragraph, but find your second overly optimistic. As much as I'd love to see these massive NGOs reformed through public outcry and exposure of their wrong doings, the fact remains that they are effectively run by large corporations. This may seem to be an overstatement, however, from what we've read it honestly seems pretty accurate. I have no faith that even after being thoroughly exposed they and their corporate backers would suddenly have a change of heart. It seems that these organizations, even if their goals are otherwise, are very valuable to those who fund them and stock their boards. Until the link between them and MNCs is thoroughly severed, I have little faith they will earnestly change their ways.
I do think it's fair to say that documentary is pretty catty.
@caroline22 I hate to follow one pessimistic comment with another, but I, the same as you and @a_hipp was also ignorant of the abuses of these large NGOS, see their affect on young people that you find to be harmless quite damaging. I see the inspiration that you pointed out as trickery at best and brainwashing at worse. I remember myself, my friends, and my classmates honestly caring about the plight of our planet and wanting to do something about it, but being duped into supporting these largely useless efforts (considering the scale of change necessary). It took a couple years of a very expensive education accessible to very few for me to learn the truth about these organizations and other bullshit environmental efforts like voting with your dollar. However, the majority of people will not get this education and many of these critiques are doomed to echo within the halls of academia. I don't raise this point to say that no complexity can be brought to social movements and that scholarly truth cannot become successfully popularized. I raise it to highlight the damage that these NGOs can do, taking passionate young people and misguiding their effort and intelligence, ushering it away from undertakings that could actually threaten their corporate backers. Knowing that that potential for change is being duped makes me very angry, and I believe does very real damage to the ultimate goal of finding a way for humans to live and prosper on this planet without doing so at the expense of all other life.
I personally don't see a lot of value in time/money spent on damaging the reputations of the big NGOs. However, I really see a ton of value in their role in the environmental movement going forward either. I think that the "constituency" of these NGOs is really limited in terms of class, race, and nationality, for all the reasons Chapin and Dowie laid out (aka concerns with maintaining the market status quo and blatant disregard for indigenous people). Maybe there doesn't have to be a dramatic downfall. Instead, I would hope that more EJ centered social movements or grassroots orgs are able to occupy the space in media, and get the public's attention the way these NGOs have. It's tough because of the sheer amount of wealth people are up against, but being able to speak to a broader coalition of people could also mean more of the population engaged and turning to your side (which ethically should be happening anyways). Oil and gas corporations I think should really be the target here, if NGOs' reputations fall apart in the process that happens, but like @cara said it's important to keep the goal in mind. I think one of the most important ways to achieve the goal here is to take down corporate power, not the NGOs.
The Latham quotation that @Julieta used in her post "Multinational corporations, we should conclude, really do fear activists, non-profits, informed consumers, and small producers, when they all work together." perfectly encapsulates why I believe that these NGOs must either be reclaimed, or shamed out of existence. Not only do their greenwashing efforts trick people who want to act in an ethical way, but their very existence as the largest and least earnest advocates for "environmentalism" draws passion, talent, and money away from issues that matter. One of the greatest threats to the future of life on our planet is apathy in this critical moment. The peddling of ideas by media largely amenable and uncritical of MNCs ranging from denial, to the fact that its too late, to distracting us with other news and not adequately covering the climate crisis is bad enough. But the fact that, in spite of all that, there are still people who want to put their time and money towards the seemingly impossible task of saving the planet and are gobbled up by the ineffectual and damaging efforts of WWF and TNC is horrifying. To me that, among all the other awful things we've read about, is the greatest damage these organizations are doing.
Spencer, that is true, it is optimistic. I am usually a cynic and decided to switch it up a bit; it is exhausting, focusing just on the corporate sway behind organizations, yet I do not want to be an ignorant bystander to their influences. I think that that exposure through the media is not a solution, but it is helpful to the general public to know where their money is going so they can give funds to organizations they feel strongly about. Maybe through research, they can find grassroots who do not have these corporate ties. This is also very hopeful as most people will not research or care what the organizations are being funded by. I find solace knowing that through social media, anybody, including individuals like ourselves, can join the discussion, as little as our voices may mean in the larger scheme of the movement. I agree with your final point about severing the link between environmental organizations and MNCs. Still, I am struggling to propose ways to go about that/if it is possible at all.
But to what extent are those discussions in social media (also like this one), or the donations we make to our "favorite" organization actually making a meaningful change or just making us feel better? Isn't that exactly what Dowie meant when he said that we have a misleading impression of progress that is making our envrionmental movement fail completely?
I think that we would be remised to dismantle all the mainstream environmental organizations. Even if we were to reallocate that money or influence to a grassroots organization, the complications would likely transfer too. Therefore I think that reforming mainstream environmental organizations radically is the best choice. From reading Dowie's chapter 5, I think a lot of this reform would need to come at the legislative level and then be incorporated by organizations.
I see what you mean, however I feel a different way. You mentioned you don't think there is value in spending energy damaging reputations of big NGOs and also assert what a large role they have on the environmental movement going forward. I find you're second point the driving rationale behind you first point. Because big NGOs have a strong grip in the environmental movement, they should be the most heavily investigated and criticized.
Julieta, I would agree that Dowie's explanation of a misleading impression of progress which will ultimately lead to the demise of the environmental movement can be referenced for optimistic opinions of the status quo. What level of disillusionment is necessary to change the environmental movement? I see the potential of optimism on the subject but I sway on the pessimistic side. Hope in the current environmental NGO makeup can have a stabilizing effect and ultimately subdue change.
I agree with you and I think you bringing up education is a good point. It shouldn't take an expensive education or the luck of having a teacher like Josh to learn about what these companies are actually doing. I think reform of the groups from the inside is unreasonable but I think education of the public is not and this could lead to legislative change. Some sort of campaign to teach the public about what these organizations are doing behinds the scenes would be impactful. I think CC students are a good example of how this is needed. A lot of you said you weren't aware of what these organizations were doing and I only knew a little bit before my last class with Josh. CC students typically care about the environment but so little know about this and I've seen so many WWF stickers (people still actively supporting them). Looking through criticisms of WWF a lot of them are from the early 2010's so I think a new wave of information would be great.
How do you think legislative change could happen? Companies like BP, Shell, and Coca-Cola are large donors to the mainstream environmental organizations but they also can have a large influence in politics.
I was curious about salaries so I looked up CEO salaries for the big 3 and they are all at least half a million. I think this is ridiculous, but I also have a problem with Jill Tiefenthaler making $700k+. I don't think these salaries are necessary.
I think theres a differentiation to be made about spending time/money on damaging reputations vs spending it on enlightening the public of really unethical, unacceptable things the NGO's are doing. I agree that I don't see value in spending resources on just attacking the NGO's as a whole and their reputations as a whole. I also don't think its very possible, or at-least easy, to change general public perception of the big organizations. They have limitless resources to counter such attacks and spread propoganda- whether true or not. However, what @ccstein was saying in the last post about having the public as a third party is applicable. If the organizations aren't going to be transparent, there's benefit and an obligation to force transparency as much as you can.
I don't think it's realistic to ignore the mainstream environmental organizations, they have far too much power and history to just disappear. I do think working to expose the injustices they are apart of is beneficial and will hopefully provide pressure on these groups to change out of a fear for losing support and power. I think more articles need to be written like the Chapin's work and the Greenwashing article. Maybe I am just not paying enough attention to these issues but before this class I had a positive view of groups like the WWF and shift in the media could put more pressure on the groups to change. I also think changing these groups comes back to the conversation about who is an environmentalist and who is influencing the role these organizations take. Right now it seems like big corporations a money are the influencer for these organizations. This needs to change for their agenda to change. I think we need a diversity of voices within theses groups making decisions to have a larger agenda that takes into consideration both people and the environment.
These groups have the power and the names that have been recognized by the public for generations. Reforming these groups could have a greater beneficial environmental impact compared to if they were completely ignored. The reality is that they have the money and money is needed to make a lot of these changes, they just need to completely reform their goals and interruptions of conservation.
Do you think it's actually possible that they will ever be shamed out of existence? I feel like we are learning about these horrors, but we are a minority. We've elected to take an environmental anthropology class as a great college and it isn't until this class that I've heard of any of these disgusting things the NGO's are doing. It just seems like such a huge thing to try to compete against the immense resources of these huge companies. In my mind, they will always have the last say in the media.
To put it in perspective though, I definitely see lots of benefit and impact that comes from shaming big NGO's. I just wonder if it could go as far as to ever fully "defeat" them.
Yeah that's super fair. Now that I think more about it I guess I feel that once corporation's grip on environmental progress is more exposed, environmental orgs which have ties to them will also have to radically change or be subject to intense scrutiny. Thanks for pointing this out!!
I really like you last point about focusing on taking the larger NGOs like the oil and gas companies instead of the NGOs. At the end of the day they are the ones with power and the money, their contributions to the NGOs are the reason these groups are so well funded and powerful. Unfortunately, as long as there is still oil and gas and our society is still dependent on it I think those companies will have the power. I don't see these corporate powers going anywhere until there are some serious changes. We also live in a world where money is powerful and having that money in these NGOs could be used to the benefit of the environment. Therefore, I disagree with your point about damaging the reputations of these NGOs. I think we need honest reporting on what they are doing and hopefully the public will act in a way that forces change. For example, maybe a boycott of soy products would cause the WWF fund to make changes that actually benefit the environment. Consumers need to care for large corporations to care.
While I do think it is dangerous for large companies to control green reform I do think that it has the potential to be effective. Although we have seen these large corporations using 'green economics' take a greedy approach while doing actually little to preserve nature, if the leaders of said corporations are benevolent, they have the most power to do good. Like how 'evil' corporations have a ton of power, the same power can be used for 'good'. It reminds me of the saying that goes something like the ideal government is a benevolent monarch. Currently I believe we are run by a select few, and if these few were to actually be benevolent, (namely these green organizations) the world could be much better off.
I agree with you, I think it's nearly impossible to "defeat" them but I do think that small changes can be made within the NGO's little by little. With enough awareness and legislative changes I think reform is possible, although I don't see it happening anytime soon. It's unlikely that companies will rise above the big three financially or in how well known they are but it would be an interesting comparison to see a company do this while being completely transparent and honest (but the big three are so successful because of all of the bad things they're doing so it's super unlikely).
I think your point about the big corporations having major influence in the the political world is a good problem to bring up when addressing the question of policy. I also don't think policy will change unless there is a major push from the public. One way I think the public can best force big change to both large corporations and policy is through consumer habits. If we really took the time to learn and educate the public about the reality of the impact of these corporations we could potentially cause major change. I think this could work for everything from oil and gas companies, to grocery stores to clothing brands. The issues here is getting the consumer to put the environment so high on their priority list that they are willing make big sacrifices to promote change. But I do think if there was this kind of large scale interest in the environment big corporations and the NGOs would start listening.
I totally agree and think that awareness raising campaigns need to be coupled with some kind of alternative or call to action. Part of the problem with NGOs is also that they promote this kind of idea of green economics and technology being effective or even the only solution. Latham exemplifies this really well explaining the RTRS. People are led to believe that these greenwashing campaigns really are working. I think it's important to not only expose the NGOs wrongdoings in relations with MNCs and their interference in the global south, but also the way they mislead the public about solutions to environmental degradation. I guess this is why I find legislation like the green new deal appealing. It's not going to solve everything but it's a more coherent way of understanding the forces that replicate degradation, rather than tackling it one crop at a time. The problem is legislation like that doesn't seem possible in our current political staus quo, which NGOs helped to create and have motive to maintain.
oops wanted to clarify I meant to say "I really don't see a ton of value in their role..."
I see what you're saying here. I think I see the fact that these organizations are run by the few as a fundamental problem with them, not really one that has the power to do good, even if they were run by benevolent leaders like you're saying. Personally, I would like the leaders of environmental organizations to be really freaking pissed off about the state of the world, the word benevolent doesn't exactly what I have in mind but maybe that's just personal preference. I'm also thinking here about the quote "power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't think the consolidation of power in the elites within NGOs has done them or the world any favors. I think on the whole some people really feel like the environmental movement isn't something they are welcome in or will ultimately benefit them because of the image of NGOs and consolidated power.
I believe that large environmental organizations do not currently have a role to play in environmental issues. They can continue to produce their donors and line the pockets of the few politicians who will listen, but overall they will continue to be ineffective, and are too stuck in their ways to adequately adapt. But, that is not to say that they will not play a crucial role again in the future. We are living through a political window, in which there is a rare opportunity to make real systemic change, and environmental policy reformation must be a part of that. I don't believe that large environmental organizations have the political flexibility for the type of action that must happen in order to slow climate change, which begins with divesting from the fossil fuel industry. I think that Latham made a really astute point that in situation where large scale consumer shifts have worked, such as the organic movement and ethically produced meat, they have been driven by a coalition of farmers organized through grassroots, and not large environmental organizations. Grassroots have the unique opportunity to truly define their own values, motivations, and create a movement that accurately represents their goals without answering to a higher authority. As they build a following, and gain social power, then I believe environmental organizations can once again play a role. The power must be in the hands of the people (grassroots) and supported by these organizations and their financial backers.
I agree with aspects of both of your arguments. I think that Spencer you bring up a good point about feasibility of creating this type of overarching judgement board, and this is an issue I too had when Chapin proposed this solution. However, I think that Amalie brings up a really crucial element in the power that grassroots organizations can have in shifting the values of these large scale corporations. Environmental organizations do still at least partially rely on the donations of supporters and volunteers, and whether or not they rely on them financially they definitely still require public support in order to function. If a grassroots movement were to grow to the point of drawing in the supporters of these organizations, then I think a board of this sort could hold a place somewhere in the future for the environmental movement. But I do think that it fits more into the environmental utopia we all hope to see some day rather then a means to achieve that goal.