[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Define eco-terorrist

(Re: Enviro-mich group blast)
I agree that those who work on Michigan environmental campaigns have been mislabeled as "terrorists" by conservative, Republican, corporate interests in an attempt to sway the middle.
This whole "eco terrorist" thing got me thinking beyond the fact that those individuals, corporations and politicians who destroy the environment are just as much of a terrorist as some kid who blows up an SUV or burns down a McMansion that will, of course, be rebuilt using all new materials all over again.
Most of us are relatively balanced emotionally and don't feel the need to get physical or tantrumy when something doesn't go our way. We know that on the surface it might seem like we are alone, but in reality, there are many others like us and we just need to do our best to reach them and inspire them to vote with their ballots, dollars and actions.
But it doesn't help matters when you have stinky hippies yelling angrily at some poor girl in a mall for carrying a plastic Starbucks cup instead of using a veggie plastic cup from the mom-pop coffeehouse.
We have a terrible image problem with "environmentalism" stemming from the middle of clueless, "busy" America not knowing who to believe or emulate - the angry, stinking, greasy stick-on dreadlock wearing suburban "students" who chastise them - or the angry, blowhard, white collar "suits" who alternately scare and soothe them.
It's the MIDDLE of America that are so easily swayed, not the ones who are for or against.
Right now, as we speak, there's also a huge backlash in environmental marketing taking place and it has advertisers and green companies worried. The consumer is forgetting why they signed up for the environmental belief system after a while. They are losing the initial high. They are not understanding the financial value of their purchase.
"Prius, the environmentally friendly car from Toyota" Excuse me, stop. We aren't supposed to be buying the Prius for "environmental" reasons. They save an enormous amount of gas and money! That's why we're supposed to buy them. Otherwise we should just buy an electrostatic filter and call it a day if should just buy things "for the environment". We have a war going on and soon another and another just because we waste fuel. Then there will be wars in Africa over minerals and oil. Just because bombs aren't landing here doesn't mean we shouldn't work to end the need for oil and war NOW ahead of global warming.
Ending perpetual energy/material war should be the number one priority and you do that with smart energy use, plug-in hybrids, renewables, tough building codes, smart meters and smart grids. And it saves MONEY. Global warming is automatically addressed by smart energy use. The "environmental" part is a perk that you get anyway, not a reason to purchase.
Besides, we have a huge market of conservatives who would like to buy a money and soldier saving car, but don't want the "environmentalist" image attached to such cars. It's a missed opportunity. We could get one problem taken care of so we can move on to the others. Unless of course, we don't really care about the soldiers since "they knew what they were getting into when they joined". Is that the sentiment environmentalists have? Deep down? Subconsiously? Is that why saving oil lives is less of a proirity than the saving "the environment"? Is that why many environmentalists I talk to a the mom-n-pop coffeehouses would rather blather on about the "bush administration" than talk about what they are doing about the problem? I wonder what Freud would say....
This polarization is why those same conservatives who "support the troops" but "hate environmentalists" are lining up to buy the Chevy Volt, while the "I did it for the envoronment" people wait for the plug-in Prius. But both cars and buyers accomplish the same thing in the end. Why continue to polarize?
If we don't refocus environmental marketing around financial benefits of clean energy use with the perk of "the environment" mentioned last, our arms are in effect flailing around throwing money at various "save the whale" causes and not ending the issue of soldiers and civilians dying for oil which also happens to be good for "the environment". Period.
We've been going about it all wrong. Walking backwards in the right direction. The marketing for compact fluorescent bulbs, Energy Star homes, solar power and hybrids should have never been about flower power, it should have been about MONEY - a sentiment that LASTS. We can't ask people to switch over to a new God, "the environment" and put all their hopes in that basket because there are too many competing influences after the church service is over and we are back at home confronted with the temptations of big titties and liquor, having to remind ourselves "wait, WHY was I supposed to do this again?"
The "environment" should be elaborated on in marketing as well because when you honestly grab somebody and question them about where everything they buy and use comes from, especially transportation and heating fuels and electricity, they don't know. They just echo a sentiment - "I bought it for the environment" which is hollow because they don't have any facts to back it up. And that's a foundationless belief system to stand on. And when times get tough, you go back to the sinful "non environmentally friendly" purchase because, well, you had no real good reason other than getting caught up in "the belief" to buy the environmentally friendly thing in the first place.
The "environmentally friendly" product ad should list, in order: performance, financial benefit, material/energy source and social/world/indirect tax benefits and maybe not even mention the overhyped word "environment" at all. Ads should EDUCATE not preach.
I don't like the ELF and it's kind representing me and my ilk of environmentalists who want to make this whole sustainability thing a reward rather than a punishment. I don't want to be thought of or have environmentalism or sustainability thought of as some sort of bunch of sour looking, doom n gloom, perpetually upset, angry, self flagellating, fascist, controlling, Republican-like, borg-like, Soviet bread line customer service, body odor emanating, authenticity damaged, stick on dreadlocks wearing caucasians masquerading as "the common man" or "the rasta within".
"Hey! I resent that!" said the ELF poseur. "I'm a rebel, I'm edgy".
No, you're a child, you're from Lord Of The Flies.
Mike Cohn
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Anna Kirkwood Graham <grahama9@msu.edu> wrote:
Enviro-Mich message from "Anna Kirkwood Graham" <grahama9@msu.edu>

"Ecoterrorist" is just a label that conservatives use to make it seem like domestic terrorism is equal opportunity, when we all actually know that domestic terrorists tend to be right-wingers, like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, who have it in for anyone who wants to: 1) provide or seek abortion services, 2) interfere with their guns, 3) be homosexual, or 4) ban polygamy.  I can't remember the last time anyone was actually injured by an "ecoterrorist"; although I guess it used to happen in logging protests.
Not that any of us should condone property damage, but there's absolutely no comparison between what individuals from the right do and what individuals from the left do in terms of loss of life ...  I had to laugh when the Bush ad. announced that they were stepping up on their campaign against domestic (= eco, for them) terrorism, until the penalties for setting fire to SUVS were greater than for setting fire to all of those predominantly black southern churches a few years ago, and at that point, they seemed absolutely clueless about the anthrax attacks, which tended to be against liberal targets ...
The well connect developers and industry polluters use their  Republican politicians to rewrite and gut environmental protection laws  (Washington & Lansing), harass local governments and watersheds trying to  protect the environment (Acme Twp, Nestle), and then split the outdoor sports  network against each other (hunters/fishers/hikers and others), and  finally use their Internet blogs to brand all environmentalist protecting  environment as some form of eco-terrorist!
 Isn't the environment being terrorized and destroyed by the  developers and polluters acting as eco-terrorist?  The Republicans are  always rewriting definitions.  To be fair&balanced, crimes have been  committed by the ELF and ALF should not be associated with all the organizations  trying to protect the public trust and environment legally.
  Question:  Define eco-terrorist.  Is a eco-terorrist an anti-environmentalist or  pro-environmentalist?
 The anti-DNR/DEQ anti-environmental sportsmen for Bush network is  always active.
_http://www.theoutspokensportsman.net/aconthesierraclub.htm_ (http://www.theoutspokensportsman.net/aconthesierraclub.htm)  
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.      (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )

Anna Kirkwood Graham, J.D., Ph.D.
"There is no trifling with nature; it is always true, grave and severe; it is always in the right, and the faults and errors fall to our share."
-- Goethe

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All views and opinions presented above are solely those of the author or
attributed source and do not necessarily reflect those of GLIN or the Great Lakes Commission.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *