@SpencerFier said: 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 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.
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.
Charlotte I really love your example of the green new deal in relation to this conversation. I think that the GND and the Sunrise Movement as a grassroots organization show the important other side to these large NGOs, as a grassroots movement gaining momentum both as a social and political movement. While the actions of large environmental organizations are tied to their path dependency, and inability to transform their goals or even unite to form a stronger cohesive movement. In order for these organizations to change they must admit an error in their past, which I don't see them having the strength to do. However, grassroots organizations have the freedom to question our entire political system, which the Sunrise Movement does in promoting the green new deal, a policy platform which acknowledges not just the environmental inequalities in our society, but the issues with income disparity, affordable housing, and healthcare that go along with the systemic causes of environmental injustice.
@ccstein I kind of want to go off topic for this fun extra comment and talk about what you're saying in response to @SpencerFier about the "environmental utopia." So much in political discourse (or even just online forums like these) questions of feasibility and realism shoot down hopes people had for the future. I think this issue of what's feasible keeps these NGOs in power. I don't want to exonerate them for the ways they've coerced indigenous people and just generally failed on the diversity front, but I do think some of the people in the mainstream environmental movement really thought it was the way to make a difference, and that even if the future utopia fails, we can do what's feasible. I've always been a big fan of the quote "Be realistic, demand the impossible!" I feel like what's realistic is being idealistic given the absurd rate of environmental degradation, climate change, etc. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, how do you weigh the small changes versus the big ones and do you think there's any place for these big NGOs to get to the "environmental utopia?"
Charlotte I love your question and I think it brings up a really interesting point of discussion! I can't recall what reading this idea came from, but a concept was introduced earlier in this course of needing to reach radically left in order to avoid the fate of meaningless compromise. While it's unlikely to achieve a radical reform, starting from that base point pulls a compromise closer to your ideal. I full heartedly believe in this concept, and believe in reaching for what may seem far off and unreachable. I believe that as long as you keep this idea in mind, and ensure all your efforts in some way promote that greater purpose, that the impossible becomes far more feasible. And I think that same reasoning is why I don't believe in the power of the large NGOs, they never made one common goal, one trajectory to unite a movement. Instead, a group primarily made up of well educated white men decided to continue pushing their same individual agendas, ensuring the fate of the movement right there. I feel as though NGOs stuck the first nail in their coffins right there, in postponing finding one unifying mission. Every action since that has only furthered their separations, united only along their miscalculated approaches to lobbying for power.
Also as a side note, this debate has really been on my mind today, as Bernie dropped out of the presidential race, making Joe Biden the Democratic candidate. While electability was a really important aspect of this race, I felt like it often overshadowed other important debates. Bernie was a candidate who took on the radical left, and while many criticized his inability to compromise, I believe that was an unfair assessment. He stood his ground, likely in the hopes of one day pushing compromise a little farther, asking more of his fellow politicians, and moving us further in the direction of a more just future. Sorry to pull in unrelated politics, but again, was just really on my mind!
@ccstein said:
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.
You mentioned the diversion away from fossil fuel will ultimately begin slowing climate change. I think this is absolutely correct, I used to think that with growing renewable energy and it becoming cheaper, this would happen naturally. However we've touched on it in class, the market currently does not work this way, with lobbies essentially artificially creating the demand. I do however, (to kind of give a counterpoint to your argument) believe that in order to combat these large corperations and lobbying firms some sort of large player must exist. Maybe I'm mistaken but I do not see a grassroots movement taking fossil fuel lobbies down. I think really (and unfortunately) it comes down to money and grassroots movements (because of their values and nature of their existence) will never be able to produce enough money to truly fight the fight. This is unfortunate, really, because I agree with you in that it is very hard for an organization with a large amount of money to operate primarily on morals.
Comments
Charlotte I really love your example of the green new deal in relation to this conversation. I think that the GND and the Sunrise Movement as a grassroots organization show the important other side to these large NGOs, as a grassroots movement gaining momentum both as a social and political movement. While the actions of large environmental organizations are tied to their path dependency, and inability to transform their goals or even unite to form a stronger cohesive movement. In order for these organizations to change they must admit an error in their past, which I don't see them having the strength to do. However, grassroots organizations have the freedom to question our entire political system, which the Sunrise Movement does in promoting the green new deal, a policy platform which acknowledges not just the environmental inequalities in our society, but the issues with income disparity, affordable housing, and healthcare that go along with the systemic causes of environmental injustice.
@ccstein I kind of want to go off topic for this fun extra comment and talk about what you're saying in response to @SpencerFier about the "environmental utopia." So much in political discourse (or even just online forums like these) questions of feasibility and realism shoot down hopes people had for the future. I think this issue of what's feasible keeps these NGOs in power. I don't want to exonerate them for the ways they've coerced indigenous people and just generally failed on the diversity front, but I do think some of the people in the mainstream environmental movement really thought it was the way to make a difference, and that even if the future utopia fails, we can do what's feasible. I've always been a big fan of the quote "Be realistic, demand the impossible!" I feel like what's realistic is being idealistic given the absurd rate of environmental degradation, climate change, etc. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, how do you weigh the small changes versus the big ones and do you think there's any place for these big NGOs to get to the "environmental utopia?"
Charlotte I love your question and I think it brings up a really interesting point of discussion! I can't recall what reading this idea came from, but a concept was introduced earlier in this course of needing to reach radically left in order to avoid the fate of meaningless compromise. While it's unlikely to achieve a radical reform, starting from that base point pulls a compromise closer to your ideal. I full heartedly believe in this concept, and believe in reaching for what may seem far off and unreachable. I believe that as long as you keep this idea in mind, and ensure all your efforts in some way promote that greater purpose, that the impossible becomes far more feasible. And I think that same reasoning is why I don't believe in the power of the large NGOs, they never made one common goal, one trajectory to unite a movement. Instead, a group primarily made up of well educated white men decided to continue pushing their same individual agendas, ensuring the fate of the movement right there. I feel as though NGOs stuck the first nail in their coffins right there, in postponing finding one unifying mission. Every action since that has only furthered their separations, united only along their miscalculated approaches to lobbying for power.
Also as a side note, this debate has really been on my mind today, as Bernie dropped out of the presidential race, making Joe Biden the Democratic candidate. While electability was a really important aspect of this race, I felt like it often overshadowed other important debates. Bernie was a candidate who took on the radical left, and while many criticized his inability to compromise, I believe that was an unfair assessment. He stood his ground, likely in the hopes of one day pushing compromise a little farther, asking more of his fellow politicians, and moving us further in the direction of a more just future. Sorry to pull in unrelated politics, but again, was just really on my mind!
You mentioned the diversion away from fossil fuel will ultimately begin slowing climate change. I think this is absolutely correct, I used to think that with growing renewable energy and it becoming cheaper, this would happen naturally. However we've touched on it in class, the market currently does not work this way, with lobbies essentially artificially creating the demand. I do however, (to kind of give a counterpoint to your argument) believe that in order to combat these large corperations and lobbying firms some sort of large player must exist. Maybe I'm mistaken but I do not see a grassroots movement taking fossil fuel lobbies down. I think really (and unfortunately) it comes down to money and grassroots movements (because of their values and nature of their existence) will never be able to produce enough money to truly fight the fight. This is unfortunate, really, because I agree with you in that it is very hard for an organization with a large amount of money to operate primarily on morals.