Integrating Environmentalism: Finding Motivation through Translation

Recent political concessions relating to the environmental movement has prompted environmental leaders to reexamine the methods by which they expect to effect change. Among the prominent voices calling for a new look at environmentalism are Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, authors of the essay, The Death of Environmentalism. The essay has sparked a debate among environmentalists that is of critical importance.

Our essay follows Shellenberger and Nordhaus in examining what is and should be done within the environmental movement. By looking to the 1970s, a time in which the environmental movement found much political success, we show how the genesis of the current environmental framework has set the terms and limits of modern environmentalism. Before offering a revised strategy for environmental change, we discuss the meaning of a term that is at the center of much of the present debate: values.

The environmental movement has predominantly relegated itself to a narrow segment of the population by speaking of the environment in global terms that are not motivating to most individuals. Even the new, values-based, environmentalism is in danger of making the same mistakes. We posit that, by understanding and translating environmentalism within a diverse range of motivating perspectives, a larger population can recognize environmentalism as an actionable value.

The 1970’s were the golden age of environmentalism. Vast cultural support pushed numerous protectionist bills into law. In terms of politics, environmentalists were winning. Whether the period represented a true success, however, is debatable: Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that the framework formed during the ‘70s actually set a course that would eventually lead to failure. If this is the case, it is important to see how the environmental framework developed in the 70’s might be crippling today’s efforts.

The foundation of environmentalism is, by necessity, ecological systems science. This understanding of the environment allows for descriptions and solutions to environmental problems that are uninformed by human motivations. Like all problems in systems sciences, the issue is one of functional fit: if humans are not fitting into the biological web of life, changes need to be made to remedy ill-fitting (or unsustainable) human behavior.

The socio-cultural situation of the ‘70s allowed for a solution-based environmentalism. Vast cultural support (present for reasons variously described elsewhere) provided enough leverage to pass laws that regulated unsustainable human behavior. In these times, the largest barrier to change was crafting the policies behind which the culture would gather. Today, we find environmental policy proposals in overwhelming numbers, tackling broad issues from climate change to habitat restoration to resource use. Few are finding large-scale political success.

Environmental policy failures are due to a loss of culture that cannot be regained by pushing harder with technical solutions. Today, the barrier lies not with devising solutions, but with gaining the cultural support that was once so prevalent. Shellenberger and Nordhaus: “[Environmentalists] are so certain about what the problem is, and so committed to their legislative solutions, that we behave as though all [they] need is to tell the literal truth in order to pass our policies.” Countless strategies, unnecessary in the ‘70s, have developed to produce cultural support. Most prominent among these are the multi-million dollar environmental foundations.

The environmental framework has gone unquestioned, ensuring that most proposals consist of legislative fixes to biological problems. The framework, having no consideration for human valuation, is unsuited for the task. Depicting man’s failure to fit into the biosphere suggests that environmentally conscious behavior requires sacrifices. In the presence of the myriad other concerns facing Americans today, what is needed is an environmental framework that has the power and reach to motivate the public. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus state, “Environmentalists are in a culture war whether we like it or not.”

Reformists claim that the way to address the culture war is an environmentalism built on “core American values.” These environmentalists have rightly acknowledged that gloom-and-doom scenarios of biosphere destruction do not motivate the majority of the population. Values-based frameworks use an understanding of diverse values and motivations to develop solutions that appeal to a broader segment of the population. These frameworks, however, have the tendency to concede potential support by slighting environmental values and altruistic motivations in favor of more prominent ones. While this does not indicate a total failure, it points to a shallow understanding of the situation that can be recognized through a closer examination of values-based frameworks.

One strategy for employing a values-based environmentalism is commonly seen among large environmental foundations. This strategy acknowledges the vast array of values existing in our country including family, security, health, financial security, faith, the environment, and social justice. Many reformists suggest that, because the majority of the population is unmoved by appeals to environmental values, environmentalists should reframe their solutions along more prevalent values. Demonstrating the non-environmental benefits of environmental solutions elicits values that are more immediate and visible. For instance, by highlighting the new jobs created by action on global warming, environmentalists hope to garner the support of labor movements.

While this strategy may be effective in some situations, it is important to recognize that the problem of motivation still exists. The burden of motivation has merely been passed from environmental values to non-environmental values (for labor, security, family, etc.). Taken to an extreme, environmentalists act as if the environmental values are simply not present in the majority of Americans. This seems too dismissive to be true. Are there no situations in which the environment is motivating? Are there citizens who are genuinely unconcerned with the environment?

Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest improvements to values-based environmentalism in The Death of Environmentalism. Their reformed environmentalism emphasizes a progressive vision and greater investment in progressive institutions. This strategy contrasts sharply with more prevalent environmental strategies that focus on legislation against things (e.g. anti-pollution, anti-globalization, anti-global warming). Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ proposal calls for the “death” of current environmental institutions that lack the ability to tackle issues that transcend the realm of traditional environmentalism. Environmentalists, they say, “try to win one issue at a time.”

Again, the extremity of the suggestion that environmentalism must “die” is indicative of ambiguity. Is there really so little value in the current environmental culture and institutions? Today, millions of people contribute their time, money, and effort to the environmental cause. “The Death of Environmentalism” slights the commitment of these environmentally conscious people.

To reiterate, the situations above are only meant to be indicators of the difficulties associated with values-based strategies. Our argument does not preclude the usefulness of appealing to non-environmental values as a tool for environmentalism. Likewise, articulating a vision and utilizing achievement drives can be very beneficial. The situations above are meant to illustrate the importance of recognizing the tendency of values-based strategies to dismiss avenues of potential cultural support. If provisions that address these tendencies can be built into the framework of environmentalism, the framework will be much stronger.

We have argued that the common values-based strategies for environmentalism tend to make unnecessary concessions of potential avenues of cultural support. Values-based environmentalism seeks cultural support by linking the environment to non-environmental values. We suggested that this strategy tends to neglect the myriad environmental impacts that are easily recognizable and unfavorable to the majority of Americans. Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ strategy promotes a vision and an achievement orientation to create environmental change. In doing so, we argued, this strategy might end up ignoring the dedication of those currently involved with the environmental movement.

The concept of motivating perspectives provides tools for a stronger values-based environmentalism. In Spiral Dynamics, Don Beck and Chris Cowan describe this vital concept for understanding values and motivations. Based on research by Dr. Clare Graves, Beck and Cowan have identified eight “core intelligences” that describe how an individual views the things in his experience. These intelligences can roughly be approximated as egocentric (views things in terms of how they affect him), ethnocentric (views things in terms of how they affect his family/tribe/nation), and worldcentric (views things in terms of how they affect the global commons).

This understanding adds a vital new dimension to the current discussion of values. The problem with environmentalism based on ecology is that most people are not motivated by global concerns, yet ecology-based environmentalism speaks in global terms. This is not the only scale on which environmental problems are caused or experienced. Many people value the health of their local environment, even though they may not value the global commons. The necessary change is not from environmental to other values. What must change is the language that is used to appeal to those values. A valuation for the environment exists across motivating perspectives.

The same consideration alleviates the need for the death of current environmental institutions. Our environmental institutions are a representation of globally minded citizens: they are progressive. However, they generally lack the ability to function usefully within a society that is less globally minded. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest, environmentalism must develop the capacity to operate within today’s achievement-oriented market. There are justifications for environmentally conscious behavior that are active on smaller than global scales. The benefits of environmentally conscious behavior are numerous. It is the task of globally minded individuals and organizations to market these benefits to diverse value systems within the context of the market.

This task requires that environmentalists develop a language of meaning to translate complex ecological systems understandings. With this new language and a new understanding of strategy of marketing environmentalism, we can begin to speak in terms that matter to people. We can craft solutions that support current values instead of speaking to values that we wish were there.

Bibliography

Beck, Don and Cowan, Chris. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Leadership, Values, and Change. Blackwell Publishing. 1996.

Shellenberger, Michael and Nordhaus, Ted. The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World. Shellenberger and Nordhaus. 2004.