news!

from the BBC...

G8 vows to halve greenhouse gases

Earth to America! This is...earth!

Skeptical of the global warming hype? It’s hard not to be. People, advertising,the media: they all bombard us with contradicting messages about the state of the environment. There’s a problem, but all of this talk can make it difficult to analyze our global situation. Others wish to avoid it all together.






Unfortunately, it seems that we can't rely on rumors or even the media for a good account of what the scientific community is saying; and while trying to avoid all biases is impossible, we can get closer to the facts. An Inconvenient Truth is a good start. It's a film that documents Al Gore’s campaign to expose the “myths and misconceptions” that surround global warming. In the film Gore points out a pretty shocking discrepancy:
The percentage of peer-reviewed scientific papers that propose doubt about global warming: 0%
The percentage of mainstream publications that propose doubt about global warming: 52%

If you have the time, I suggest renting An Inconvenient Truth, or click here to check out the Companion Educational Guide to An Inconvenient Truth. Because I know all of you have an infinite amount of spending money, go buy it and let your friends borrow it.

The reality of our global environmental situation is something you have probably heard before: pollution is causing the warming of the earth, abnormal weather patterns, the melting of ice shelves and glaciers, and countless health problems for humans. Pollution is a problem.





How did it get this way? After World War II, the emerging U.S. economy was the chief mechanism of the global economy's expansion. By the 1960s, the U.S. had become a primarily urban country, and the waste industry was created. As expected in a capitalist economy like ours, because the manufacturing and management of waste was such a hugely lucrative industry, waste companies fought the implementation of reduction and recycling programs. Companies such as these were single-mindedly interested in profit and global viability. The environmental regulation of the next 40 years failed to protect the environment from destruction and this destruction became a central element of the liberal-capitalist economy of production, consumption, and disposal. Because of this, ultimately, large corporations have power over legislative policies and they use them to protect profits.

Some facts:
-In 1987 75% of “permitted land disposal facilities were not in compliance with EPA requirements for groundwater, were leaking, or in a condition unknown to the agency.”
-Clean-up technologies are ineffective. 68% of remedies for these landfills "failed to use any treatment whatsoever on the source of contamination."
-The chemical industry accounts for 10% of the U.S. GDP from manufacturing.
(Killing Me Softly, by Eddie J. Girdner and Jack Smith)
Click here to visit the EPA's Hazardous Waste Query Form. Enter your zip code and you can search for all of the toxic waste emitters in your area.



To What Extent is the United States a Contributor? The map on the right provides the percentages of global greenhouse gas emissions of 10 regions. The blue regions are industrialized, the green are developing regions. The U.S. is the largest contributor; emitting over 30% of greenhouse gases.

The average American's annual carbon emissions is 4.6 tons above the global average, according to the World Resources Institute. Click here to calculate your yearly CO2 emissions on the CarbonFund.org Website.


What are we Doing About it? The Kyoto Protocol is a proposed international agreement, affiliated with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol establishes goals for 37 industrialized countries along with the European community for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries that ratify it agree to reduce their overall emissions of greenhouse gases so that they are 5% to 8% below 1990 levels, depending upon current emissions.

This map indicates the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.
Green: Signed, Ratified
Yellow: Signed, Not Yet Ratified
Red: Signed, Ratification Declined
Grey: No Position

Australia joined Dec. 3, 2007, after the map was created, leaving the United States as the only wealthy country to shun the Kyoto Protocol.

During his candidacy, George W. Bush promised to reduce U.S. carbon emissions. After he became President in 2001, he withdrew his backing for the Kyoto Protocol and declined to submit it to Congress. Bush proposed a different plan: to offer incentives for businesses to voluntarily decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 4.5% by 2010. The U.S. Department of Energy determined that the Bush plan would actually cause a 30% increase of greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to 1990 levels instead of the 7% decrease the Kyoto Protocol necessitates. The President was not alone in his abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol ideals. Years earlier, the Senate passed a resolution that stated that the U.S. ought not to sign anything that did not include obligatory goals and timetables and that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Click Here to see the entire text of the Kyoto Protocol, provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Website.





What Does all of This Mean? This is the environmentalist's case: we, the public, need to do something about environmental destruction and weak waste regulations. The environmental movement has so many layers that it is difficult to cover everything in one blog. However, I think it is apparent that environmentalists have a convincing case.


What can I do About it? Here's 10 easy ways to be more environmentally friendly:

1. Carpool to work or school, take public transportation, or ride a bike.
2. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
3. Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
4. Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones
5. Maintain your car properly to increase efficiency
6. Turn your lights/water off as much as possible
7. Start a compost pile
8. Help others to conserve
9. Ditch old appliances for efficient ones
10. Plant a few trees

This blogger has a longer, more detailed list of things you can do to decrease your carbon footprint.

Research. Decide for yourself. ...Perhaps even protest!

BRACELETS & BONO-IZATION

Activism today is blatantly Bono-ized.

-Susan G. Komen for the Cure says that buying their “gift items” “support[s] [their] promise to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”

-The ONE Campaign says that when you buy their t-shirts, you provide “life-saving AIDS treatment to Lesotho factory workers.”

-RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) claims you can buy “gifts that fight rape” in their online store.

These kinds of organizations are making radical claims about their products, and, as Klein points out, our “Pro-Logo” generation is buying into it, under the guise that these products are a form of protest. But, this “corporatized” protest isn’t making the strides that organizations promise or that its consumers likely expect. While these kinds of “protests” may help to raise funds for causes or awareness (through the display of goods like “rubber wristbands” and pink ribbons”), they are much less effective. The success of a movement is directly related to the value of its tactics. It seems that wearing a bracelet might be useful for displaying one’s support for a cause or opening conversational channels, however, I sincerely doubt that if every American wore a pink bracelet that the government would see breast cancer as an irrefutably urgent cause that needed to be addressed. Bracelets simply do not create the kind of political climate that is needed for legislative action by the government. These “bracelet protests” are truly “less dangerous” than movements of the past; they lack direct action tactics like picketing or rallies. There are no real consequences to face when choosing to wear a bracelet, except maybe that your accessories won’t match your outfit.

How did our generation get here? Why is activism today so different from the activism of the Freedom Riders and the anti-Vietnam War protestors of the past? It is likely that the changing power structure of government has something to do with it, as lobbyists and monopolies are making less room for the “little guy” to have a say. In modern America, power resides in the hands of corporations more than ever.

Corporate America has the power to influence legislators with great effectiveness through the use of lobbyists and elite relationships. It seems a very far reach from the public to those in power without these central means of communication and influence. In Hequembourg and Arditi’s article, they emphasize, “resistance means to transform the categorizations of power from within that power” (665). Bono’s Product Red is a result of the corporate power structure that exists today. If it becomes too difficult to oppose a powerful entity like a corporation, then movements must attempt to restructure components of that entity. So, our generation's “irony of consuming to end poverty," may be due to the cognitive imprisonment of knowing just how little the average person influences the government.

Although this kind of consumerist aid is often less effective and less dangerous, I still think it has the potential to be powerful. Corporatized protest could open the doors to massive movement involvement. There are about a million causes out there, but if every person who added a "save Darfur" bumper sticker to their Facebook profile took that protest a few steps further, it might generate the momentum to actuate change. Getting people to know about and accept a situation as a problem is half of the battle. We can easily discredit the small efforts of our Pro-Logo generation , but perhaps we should recognize their promise and look for ways to tap into it.

Check out what Paul Vallely, one of the organizers of Live 8, had to say about Bono-ization during an interview with On the Map News. The segment presents both sides of Pro-Logo protest quite well.

MOVEMENTS & THE MEDIA

When I want to read about U.S. events, foreign affairs, or the Iraq War, I usually use the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) as my news source. Somehow, I feel like I will be reading “more accurate” news stories that are less skewed by the U.S. media’s relationship with government and elites. Perhaps the distance that the observer (the BBC) has from the observed (the U.S.) allows for a more trustworthy portrayal of events. It is not difficult, as Gitlin discusses, for the “observer [to change] the position of the observed.” The media unavoidably distorts the events that they present to the public. They can and do place events through countless filters, perhaps with the aim of expanding or maintaining their readerships or viewerships. In the case of the New Left during the 1960s, the media changed the position of the observed so much so that it caused a “sharp break” within the movement (Goodwin & Jasper, 303). The media’s distortion and sensationalist representations single-handedly unraveled the New Left’s infrastructure.

As long as the media have covered the stories of social protest movements, they have altered these movements in some ways. These alterations can be positive, negative or neutral in terms of the goals of the movements and it is tough to measure the degree to which the presence of media coverage plays a role in protests. Since the 1960s, the media have become a more influential source of information and modern movements are more influenced by them than movements like the New Left. In researching the environmental movement, I have discovered that it is so affected by the media that the success for failure of the construction the environmental problems is prescribed almost completely by the media.

In his book Environmental Sociology, John Hannigan discusses the necessary factors for the successful construction of an environmental problem. Identifying environmental situations as “problems,” is an integral part of the success of the environmental movement. Hannigan asserts that “media attention in which the problem is ‘framed’ as novel and important” is one of the key factors for success (Hannigan 78). He goes on to say that “media visibility is crucial” and that “without media coverage the odds are low that an erstwhile problem will either enter into the arena of public discourse of become part of the political process” (Hannigan 79). These are the goals, after all, of the movement, and the media almost completely determines their success.

Likewise, the media can determine the failure of the environmental movement’s goals as well. “Movements must work industriously to broadcast their messages without having them discounted, trivialized, fragmented, [or] rendered incoherent” (Goodwin & Jasper, 311). It is no longer adequate for environmentalists to use the publication of information as their chief tactical tool. As the media are likely to overstate differences in scientific assertions, environmentalists must employ “’popularisers’” who can bridge environmentalism and science (Hannigan 78). Environmentalists must offer scientific authority in order to overcome the challenges that the media present. In response the media’s influence on the movement, environmentalists also use the symbolic and visual embellishment of problems as a tactic as well. If the media is to be an effective tool, than environmental news must be attention grabbing in order to receive the interest of the media.

It is obvious that “the media [are] far from mirrors passively reflecting facts found in the real world” (Goodwin & Jasper 302). To be a part of “the news” is to be interpreted and portrayed by the biased editors, producers, and newsworkers that make up the media. If these stories serve the movements they cover, they may only provide brief surprise, rather than deeper awareness of an issue or legislative actions. In a book called Canadian Environmental Policy: Ecosystems, Politics, and Process, edited by Robert Boardman, two writers point out what happened after Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle exposed the deplorable conditions immigrant workers in meat packing plants faced:

“His dramatic example of a man falling into a machine and being minced with the meat led not to a better protection for workers but rather to meat inspection laws, a reform the meat [companies] wanted to help them compete in European export markets.”

RADICAL TACTICS

(click the image to make it larger)

When are Radical Tactics too Radical?

Within any protest movement, there are bound to varying degrees of action taken by its members. In some movements, these actions can be peaceful, but in others, they can become unconventional, outrageous, or even violent. It is difficult to determine in which cases these “radical” tactics and practices are acceptable or what circumstances can make them acceptable in the first place.

Like all actions, there are two sides to every radical protest tactic. The first is the side of the protester, who likely performed the action because of a lack of response to his/her issue. At times, it may seem that government and society are extremely difficult to reach, and engaging in radical action is the only way for one’s voice to be heard. What if the founding fathers never acted radically? Would the patriots have had a chance to escape the oppression of their English ties?

The second side is that of those outside the movement who are affected by the action. How exactly will the action affect them? In the case of the Clothesline project, the names and reputations of people were “on the line,” whether there was merit to the accusation or not. The project could, as the Baltimore Sun article noted, “unintentionally encourage young women to make spurious accusations.” Is it worth risking false accusations for social change?

A radical action can be a danger to the interests of innocent people; yet, without radical action, necessary change may never take place. In the same sense that both Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s protest tactics were influenced by past experiences and therefore appropriate to their individual goals, the validity of radical tactics should be considered highly circumstantial. There can be no prescribed situation in which radical actions are justified, or unjustified, for that matter.

Whatever the political climate, I think the main aspect that should be considered in the justification of radical actions is the effect the actions might have on the innocent. In conjunction with the “innocent until proven guilty” notion, it is quite different to expose the hazardous toxic waste habits of a corporation than to publicize the name of a suspected sexual offender. In her interview on the gay rights movement, Madonna discussed the “outing” of publicly known individuals by members of the gay rights movement. In this case, the movement used supposed personal information to engage in protest, a deed that disregarded the innocence of these individuals. Individuals who may not have even been enemies of or in involved the movement. Although gay rights protestors were seeking equal rights, this kind of act compromised the rights of others, and thus invalidated their purpose and motivations altogether. They are, in a way, performing the very action that they are protesting against: the mistreatment and oppression of an innocent group of people.

In contrast, the pro-life sidewalk picketers are a good example of a group of radical protesters that do not compromise others’ rights. Although sidewalk picketing could be considered a sort of “in your face” action, it allows those targeted to choose whether or not they are influenced by the actions. Picketers do not target abortion clinic doctors; they provide information regarding the malpractices of clinics and grievances of previous patients. While you could argue that these protesters do not respect the privacy of the individuals visiting the clinic, their actions are not invasive or forceful. Of course, sidewalk picketing, like any other form of protest, could radicalize to a point where it became invasive. In terms of radical action, the most important circumstance is that of the target. If the rights of others are compromised in the pursuit of one’s own rights, society would become caught in a cycle of oppression.

(Check out this New York Times article, "Who Killed Privacy" by Rodger Rosenblatt:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DA1039F932A05752C0A965958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/T/Television
Here's a short (but relevant) exerpt:
"The practice of 'outing' homosexuals implies contradictorily that homosexuals have a right to private choice but not to private lives.")

EMOTIONS & TACTICS

The "Face" of the Environmental Movement

The environmental movement as a whole seems to be an exceedingly unemotional one. Scientific discoveries and research are its main argumentative tools. However, there are powerful and influential emotions working both within and without the movement that are significant to its protest strategies. Both “affective” and “reactive” emotions have an effect on the dynamics of the movement, and thus permeate into the movement’s goals and actions (157). The most prevalent affective emotion encouraged in the environmental movement is loyalty, towards one’s self, one’s family, others, and nature. This kind of solidarity “can lead to action on behalf of the group or category” and strengthen resolve for a cause (159). Environmentalists encourage an attitude that emphasizes each person’s obligation to themselves, others, and the planet, hence fostering the sense that individuals should protect the right to a clean environment and prevent the destruction and pollution of natural resources. Secondarily, the movement wholly strengthens each of these ideas by reinforcing a reactive sense of suspicion towards government, big business, and perhaps authority on the whole. This mistrust can “lead to indignation and articulation of blame” and stir further incentive to defend the environment against “corrupt” institutions (159). Though loyalty and suspicion are quite different, they work collectively to form the emotional structure of the movement. In addition to these specific emotions, overlaying moods of compassion (towards humankind and nature) and cynicism (toward capitalism) are also cultivated and maintained within the environmental movement. These function in the same way, providing basis for actions and sentiments.

Because “movements are themselves a distinct setting in which emotions can be created or reinforced,” the actions a movement takes in order to reach their goals are heavily shaped by these emotions (160). Feelings of loyalty and compassion are, expectedly, behind members’ involvement in the movement and are therefore a source of motivation for their tactics. While emotions may not incite a specific action, these feelings can act as vehicles for any or all protests within the movement. Other related emotions that may occur within the movement like respect (for nature), outrage (towards lack of results), or fear (of the consequences of environmental hazards) play a similar role. The primarily reactive emotions, suspicion and cynicism, directly influence political and economic action taken by individual members and the group as a whole. The movement targets legislation as an important mechanism to influence because they do not trust that government will solve environmental problems on their own. If members become mistrusting of corporations, perhaps in particular those that pollute heavily, this directly influences which goods they buy. Thus, the environmental movement’s boycott tactics are likely enabled by these emotions. Emotions are the tools that environmentalists use to construct their strategies.

Emotions within a movement can differ from the emotions they project towards the public. The “face” the environmental movement presents to the public, however, doesn’t differ from the one it presents to potential or current members. Environmentalists’ main aim is not to “change the broader culture of their society” so much as it is to change the culture of capitalism (158). While the movement is concerned with convincing others that its values are substantial and important, environmentalists likely do not feel a need for approval or tolerance within society. The most considerable “identity [used] for empowerment” is probably the “little guy” mentality that protesters take on (237). Again, assertion of identity is not the movement’s goal, but this mindset is simply a source of motivation and a sense of cohesiveness within the group. All of the emotions and tactics that make up the environmental movement oppose another major worldview that exists within society. Loyalty to humankind and nature and mistrust of government feed into a common call for change. Contradictorily, the largely capitalistic social structure that surrounds the movements emphasizes trust in government and business to “take care of things” and represent the interests of the common people. Essentially, it is this difference that makes the environmental movement a protest and not just a cultural attitude.

(This perspective article, "Will emotion or policy drive clean-tech movement?" by Steve Westly, Kevin Klustner, and Severin Bornestein claims that the "conventional wisdom tells us [the "clean technology movement"] is not an emotional technology revolution."
http://news.cnet.com/Will-emotion-or-policy-drive-clean-tech-movement/2010-11392_3-6205589.html
Are they right?)

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

(click the image to make it larger)

Women's Rights: 2008 and Beyond

The ideal figurehead for the future of women’s rights would be a woman as diversified as the women she would lead. It is important that this figurehead be a woman, as it would be somewhat contradictory to have a male lead a female movement. In some cases, the members may be specifically protesting against male-dominated institutions or sexist conventions, putting them in direct opposition to their leader in terms of societal status. While a male leader might be helpful in gaining the support of other men for the movement, it is to be expected that he would offer little to its members.

We live in a world where and increasing number of people have more than one cultural background. Accordingly, I think the face of women’s rights would be mixed or bi-racial. A bi-racial woman has the ability to experience life from the perspective of three races. For instance, a half Caucasian and half African-American woman may be viewed and treated as a white person, a black person, and bi-racial person. This means she would likely have been a victim of not only the “intersecting patterns of racism and sexism,” but also the intersectionalities of being a woman who is “three” races (Crenshaw 2). Bi-raciality would allow her to relate to more than one circumstance, and such a woman could potentially and drastically broaden the frame of the women’s rights movement. One problem with this type of iconic figure, however, would be her inability to fully relate to individuals of one race. African-Americans, for example, might feel that a bi-racial leader could not understand the complexities of being an African-American woman, and such would be true for Caucasians. Chicanos might feel alienated from the movement altogether was the leader not Chicana. Yet overall, I think the individual experiences of the members would decide the appropriateness of such a leader.

The women’s rights figurehead I imagine for 2008 going forward would have a religious stance, but she would not make it part of her leadership, and it would therefore be an unimportant aspect of her character. An effective women’s rights icon would doubtfully be of a faith like Mormonism that places “emphasis on women’s subordinate status,” but religion would otherwise play a very small role in the movement (Young 4). The same neutrality would fall upon her political stance as well. “Left wing” and “right wing” labels are convoluted and foggy. Her views on women’s issues may place her on “the left,” but this would be her only political opinion of any weight. This is the opinion she would share with the members of the group. Both religion and politics could steer radicals or conservatives away from the movement; however, I think a modern women’s rights leader would be a women who would expand the frame of the movement in every way possible.

The experiences of a women’s rights leader would instill in her the drive to wholeheartedly lead the movement. Age is an integral characteristic of a leader. I think the iconic face of the movement would be a woman who has not reached middle age, but who has experienced the problems that members of the movement have as well. Students are an important constituency for a movement to gain, and a young leader would more easily relate to young members. This could present some problems for older members, who might feel as if a younger leader could not understand the evolution or origins of the movement nor represent the same causes. We can see this division in Paul Hendrickson’s article when he addresses the notion of those who protested before Rosa Parks, but never became icons. Claudette Colvin protested in that same way Rosa Parks did, but she was “a highly emotional 15-year-old 11th-grader,” while Mrs. Parks was a respectable and “righteous symbol” (Hendrickson 2). Perhaps the civil rights movement called for a leader that could arouse the compassion of those who were not already part of it, and Mrs. Parks fit the bill. Nevertheless, had Claudette Colvin become the figurehead of the movement, it is probable that she would have thrust the movement into the hands of young America. The outcome is difficult to predict, but student protests would likely be a very effective and integral part of the movement as a whole. She may have ended up a civil rights icon if perchance she was seen as a young, passionate leader, rather than just a “crazy girl” (Hendrickson 12).

Note: I used the PDF file page numbers in my citations so that the quotes would be a bit easier to find.

IDENTITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

Framing the Environmental Movement

The environmental movement has a complex collective identity. What distinguishes environmentalists from the rest of society is not largely their knowledge of environmental jeopardy; it is the application of these environmental ideas to their lives (75). It is difficult to place a specific frame around environmentalists because there are as many environmental groups as there are environmental problems. Since there are a considerable number of paradigms and avenues to express these environmental beliefs, the modern environmental movement is made up of groups that vary greatly, from localized one-issue groups to national non-governmental organizations. Despite this diversity, all environmentalists disagree in some way with America’s predominantly capitalistic ideals, and as such, they share the role of “political outsider,” disputing the ambitions and principles of the governing class. This is the movement’s largest frame.

(Check out the 56 environmental groups listed on the Natural Resource Defense Council’s (NRDC) Website: http://www.nrdc.org/reference/environGroups.asp)

Both the environmental movement and the pro-life movement are interest groups that have fundamentally different worldviews concerning the environment and abortion, respectively. Environmentalists share the rejection of capitalism and pro-life supporters share beliefs about the “roles of the sexes, about the meaning of parenthood, and about human nature…” that differ from the general public (134). However, these groups also differ greatly in that the pro-life movement is in direct opposition to the pro-choice movement, while environmentalists are fighting a social and political convention that has evolved over many years, there is no opposite movement.

The Environmental movement lacks an iconic “face” like Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr. because it is so faceted. This may be a disadvantage, as the movement cannot rally around the teachings of one individual. This does, however, allow for the environmentalist frame to be based solely upon environmental values, rather than gender, race, religion, or age. The environmental movement relies on social networking and the worsening of environmental problems to attract and retain members. As environmental problems and affected areas continue to grow, so do members of the movement. Yet, as most of the general public is probably aware of some of these problems, polluted rivers and eroding beaches lose their shock value. This is why people who are passionate about protecting the environment must attract new members with attempts to alter the way they view these problems. Perhaps it is as simple as convincing others that when the environment is affected, they are as well. While environmental problems that simply affect the environment are not present in the values of the general public, environmental problems that affect the individual may be. Stories of successful battles waged against capitalism may offer a form of “cognitive liberation” to non-members. Whatever the means, it is clear that the significance of the issue to the individual is key.

Those who have been primarily responsible for framing the movement have been those that have made information about the degradation of the environment available to the public. Before this information was available, the modern environmental movement did not exist. Events like the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring infused the general public with knowledge, and thus helped to create the frame that divides environmentalists from the rest of society. Members’ viewpoints counter the general public in that members feel that “our current society is bad: the way we behave is against nature, our children will suffer, and time is running out” (75).

Like most movements, those who are most apt to join are likely individuals who are acquainted with environmentalists, those whose values are characterized by a relationship with nature or humankind in general (such as farmers or a social workers). Mothers seem like viable candidates, as they are, in general, more likely to view the state of the environment as an important issue because it will affect their children. The most prominent characteristics of members of the environmental movement, however, are not specific and deal mostly with political and worldviews. Environmentalists are principally derived particularly from the middle class; their concerns and ethics distinctly differ from other industrial society factions. Environmentalism is usually a manifestation of the concerns of people who are part of the non-productive class, which puts them on the fringe of the conventions and practices of a capitalist civilization. The movement is interested in gaining the rights to contribute to the political influence of their constituency. Environmentalism is in opposition to isolation from the political process and the “depoliticalization” of environmental problems through the monopoly of political influence by “experts” that exist within the prevailing economic standards (76). It is the intersectionality of subordinate position and values that is the foundation of an environmentalist’s stance. This poses the challenge of exclusivity. The framework of the environmental movement presents a barrier to those that rely on industry for employment. Were the environmental movement framed to invite those individuals subordinate of the system that still rely upon industry for occupation to become involved, perhaps they could work together towards improving industry and creating new sustainability-based jobs.

(Peruse the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) Union Website: http://www.iww.org/
Organizations like this are banning workers together to improve working conditions in industrial jobs. In turn they are helping to more industries greener along the way.)

RADICALISM, ASSIMILATION, AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Radicalism vs. Assimilation

During the Vietnam War, war protesters became motivated by the civil rights movement. In their eyes, it became plausible that everyday citizens could influence the decisions that the "elite" lawmakers made. As a whole, the movement was non-violent, using sit-ins, marches, protests, rallies, and demonstrations as their tools. Some men involved even refused the draft. However, various supporters of the movement also adopted more radical methods of sending the anti-Vietnam War message. Violent uproars sprang up at college campuses, and as in the case of Kent State, the outcome was sometimes tragic. While they shared the same sentiments as their more peaceful counterparts, these radicals often felt that nonviolent protests were not enough to change the government’s feelings about the war.

Both the “women’s rights” and the “women’s liberation” movement faced less tragedy than the anti-Vietnam War movement. Even radical feminist groups steered away from violent approaches to making their message heard. In terms of radicalism, the “women’s liberation” sect of the movement was considered more extreme, but this merely meant that its structure and hierarchy, or lack thereof, was less conventional.

A gay rights movement existed before, the mainstream gay rights movement seemed to emerge with somewhat violent beginnings, starting with the Stonewall Inn riot. The gay rights movement was sometimes considered “radical” simply because its mobilization methods included provocative displays that non-gays found extreme, but most of its supporters rarely reverted to violence. Perhaps there was a divide between those already involved in the cause before the Stonewall Inn incident and those who joined after.

Like the anti-Vietnam war, women’s rights, and gay rights movements, the Chicano protest movement was born into an America where protest thrived and the civil rights movement inspired those protests. The Chicano protest movement was characterized by political activism and student and young Chicano involvement. Common to its protest involvement were student walk-outs, which were direct objections to the questionable Mexican-American history being taught in public schools. Although there was a heightened sense of Chicano pride during this time, the movement as a whole was not unified and existed on many levels.

--------------------

Neither Dr. King’s nor Malcolm X’s protest strategy seems more valid in the case of the civil rights movement. Considering the utterly atrocious disparity that they both faced in segregated America, it is almost impossible to place more validity upon either method of protest. Both of their strategies stemmed from the experiences of their childhoods and young adulthoods. Dr. King was working toward equality. He wished to unravel racism, start fresh, and move on. Malcolm X wished for a more drastic outcome, one that would force the white community to pay for their past wrongdoings and reconcile for the future. His aims tended towards the idea of retaliation, rather than just change.

The Black Panther Party (BPP), inspired by the sentiments of Malcolm X, validated protest as a part of their right to “self-defense” and a declaration of black pride. Information was one of the most powerful weapons in the BPP arsenal. This group mobilized their protests on every level possible. In Sundiata Acoli’s article, she points out the BPP’s use of “mass rallies, speaking tours, slogans, posters, leaflets, cartoons, buttons, symbols, graffiti, political trials, and even funerals.” Using the standards of Malcolm X, the BPP was fighting for their cause in the every way they could. Yet, sometimes protesters became violent and attempted to bomb buildings or even gun down police officers.

Dr. King took a more practical approach to rationalizing protests. His main stronghold was federal law, and his right to peaceably assemble. Although in places like the south, these laws were generally disregarded, Dr. King expected just laws to be upheld and was willing to face the consequences of breaking unjust laws. Dr. King executed his protests thoughtfully. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he explains how he and his supporters “endured postponement after postponement” of the Birmingham protest. He didn’t want the protest to “cloud” electoral issues, so he delayed it. Not only were his methods nonviolent, he was committed to “self-purification” before direct action, conducting nonviolent workshops and challenging his followers to “accept blows without retaliating.”

Civil rights supporters looked to both leaders for guidance and examples of methodology. Both Malcolm X and Dr. King had to choose between radicalism and peaceful protest. Despite their different beginnings, each had the same goals of equality and justice everyhwere. It seems that despite Malcolm X’s more militant views, both parts of the movement could be reconciled and, though they didn’t necessarily need to assist each other, taught how to coexist. Malcolm X's aim of racial spearatism and Dr. King's aim of equality were actually not that different in that they both called for a place where blacks would be respected and treated as equals. Had these leaders been allowed the opportunity to continue to work together, they may have established a means of bringing civil rights to all Americans even sooner than thought possible.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

Chronology of the Environmental Movement


Although conservationist groups, like the Wilderness Society existed before World War II, the events that most distinctly shaped the environmental movement took place after the war. World War II sparked the emergence of a massive chemical industry. Military inventions, like nylons and plastics, were soon available to the masses, along with other "miracle products," like DDT. By this time, the U.S. was mostly an urban society. Soon, a lucrative waste industry emerged and repressed recycling and other conservation methods. Soon the idea of sustainability was trumped by the capitalist agendas of corporations.

The environmental movement soon became less about conservation and preservation and more about damage control. The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 really marked the beginning of modern environmentalism. It was the first time the harmful effects of pollution and toxic waste were made available as public information. Rachel Carson soon became known as the “godmother of modern environmentalism.” This may have been the first time that many Americans realized the downfalls of their industrial society. The effects of pollution were clear and they hit close to home.

During the 1960’s, the movement gained enormous momentum. Events like the 1965 New York City garbage strikes and 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill solidified the environmental movement as a worthy cause. The increasing urgency of the state of the environment brought communities together and jump-started a grassroots movement across America. Senator Gaylord Nelson announced the birth of Earth Day in 1969, and the first Earth Day in 1970 enjoyed momentous success. This marked the beginning of mainstream environmentalism (Silveira 507). By the 1980’s, however, the federal government had turned its attention to its own fiscal issues. While the government neglected environmental issues, support for the cause only grew stronger. Environmentalists had to mobilize in order to be heard.

President Reagan’s apathetic attitude toward environmental issues stimulated an increase in grassroots support for the movement. In addition, the 10 most powerful environmentalist groups had joined force. Known as the “Group of 10”,” or the G-10, they were the forefront of environmentalism. Although this meant more power to sway legislature, it caused those not involved to feel alienated and thus added more fuel to the grassroots fire. This strong grassroots foundation has continued to be the stronghold of the environmental movement. With information concerning the environment and industry becoming more and more available and America's environmental situation worsening, the cause has become truly mainstream.
Silveira’s Article is Available at:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_2-3/07_TXT.htm
(For a more detailed timeline, check out the interactive one at: http://www.worldwatch.org/brain/features/timeline/timeline.htm)


Key Events That Affected the Movement

1. (1962) The publication of Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. The book was the first major publication that revealed the threats of toxic waste to humankind and the environment.

2. (1970) “Earth Day” is founded by Senator Gaylord Nelson. A huge support turnout at the grassroots level caused the event to be a huge success. Read what Senator Nelson himself says about Earth Day: http://earthday.envirolink.org/history.html

3. (1990s to present) The U.S. “Oil Crisis” draws a huge amount of attention. Rising fuel costs affect the common citizen and the concept of alternative fuels acts as a “starter cause” for the environmental movement.


The Environmental Movement in Terms of Social Movement Theories

The environmental justice movement was born out of the need to regulate capitalism's effect on the environment. Since the early 1900's, corporations, along with the government, the "elites" of society, have manipulated the masses into ignoring industrial effects on the environment. Commoners are often kept in the dark concerning the consorts of corporations and legislators and this privacy is coupled with a "leave it to the experts" attitude that often discourages the questioning of "elitists'" practices. This, combined with the lack of a mediating entity, may have helped to generate part of this movement. The adverse effects of nearly unregulated waste practices by corporate America easily became the target of a society that generally had different interests than corporations. This was especially true in the 1980’s, when the G-10 alienated grassroots supporters and the Reagan administration ignored the environmental cause.

After the founding of Earth Day and other highly publicized events concerning the environment, environmental justice awareness only grew. Major formal organizations like the Greenpeace Foundation were able to gain membership, and thus gain monetary support. The G-10 gained membership and merit at they went to bat for the environment. In this way, resource mobilization also played a role.

Aside from money, the movement was also able to gain legislative ground. With events like the Vietnam War consuming the government, acts like Clean Air Act and the Air Quality Act were able to be passed in the late 1960’s. Following the Vietnam War, political scandal and public unrest with inflation and “social spending” in the 1980’s may have also made room for the Endangered Species act and the Clean Water Act.

Much like the animal protection movement, the environmental movement arose due to a change in sensibility of society (Goodwin and Jasper 13). The urbanization of American and accumulation and publication of knowledge in regards to the dangers of pollution allowed society to recognize environmental problems. Although an agricultural society may never have faced the same environmental issues as an urban one, certainly an agricultural America would not be conducive to the formation of community-based grassroots groups. Instead, urban America was forced to deal with the results of the chemical industries they themselves had bought into. American's urban setting was the ideal cradle for the birht of the environmental movement.

The cultural and emotional approaches best explain the environmental movement. American culture underwent a huge shift in the way it experienced nature after World War II. Capitalism began to exploit the very resources it needed to consume to survive, technology made the exploitation of these resources efficient, and the effects were finally made known to mainstream American in the 1960’s. Thus, the environmental movement fire was sparked.