Followup On the Death of Environmentalism

In the previous article More on What We're Up Against I mentioned UpstateBlog.Net's take on the "Death of Environmentalism" argument. I now think that they misrepresented the thinking behind the argument put forth by environmentalists Michael Schellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. They were not saying that the environment was no longer an important issue (far from it). Instead, they were arguing the importance of having a coherent overall progression vision, instead of singling out the environment:

"A critique similar to the one we've made on environmentalism could be made of many other movements -- women's rights, abortion rights, anti-war, criminal justice, labor, and so on. Each of those so-called movements has turned itself into a special interest in defining the problem narrowly and offering technical policy solutions instead of an inspiring vision."

On this topic, The Decembrist says

That's where I find the best argument for blowing up the whole "movement," along with the others. We can't possibly find ways to move society forward as long as everything is put neatly into boxes labeled "environment," "health care," "campaign finance reform," "low-income programs," "pro-choice," etc., and the coalitions that exist are made up of representatives from those movements. Trying to force environmentalists to think about health care doesn't solve the problem either. We need a whole new structure, built around a convincing narrative about society and the economy, and a new way to fit these pieces together.