Is environmentalism dead?

[maddog]

In recent times, environmental groups have wielded significant influence over Australian politics, achieving substantial victories in conservation and enjoying widespread public approval. However recent legislation to allow recreational hunting in NSW National Parks, has been followed by renewed calls to reintroduce bounties for the culling of feral animals. Environmental regulations are being reviewed with an emphasis on ‘slashing green tape’, and organisations such as the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have incurred savage budget cuts and ministerial criticism.

Environmental groups, and many academics, have expressed outrage at the direction of Government policy. However, this opposition appears to have been unsuccessful in influencing Government, or in generating widespread community concern. It would appear that the environmental zeitgeist is shifting, and the meaning of conservation is being re-invented. So is ‘environmentalism’ as we know it dead? Is this a good thing, allowing the environmental movement to re-invent itself as a more traditional conservation movement? Or is this something we will come to regret? And where did the environmental movement go wrong?

Last edited by maddog on Tue 22 Jan, 2013 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[russell2pi]

And where did the environmental movement go wrong?

IMO one area it went wrong is by alienating large segments of the population, by having The Greens as its public face. The Greens are much more than an environmentalist party, and their policy agenda is seen as threatening to many people. That's not a criticism - after all, that comes with the territory of being progressive. But it means that environmentalism gets tarred with the same brush, even though many people would be more than happy to support it, if only it didn't come with all the baggage.

It may be only one or two policy stances that gets on people's goat or it may be the whole assemblage of policy - as it would be for a large proportion of the population. No, it's not rational to write off environmentalism just because of the other positions that tend to come along with it. But people aren't rational.

On the other hand, the baggage might be what repels 85% of the population, but it's also what attracts 15% of the population to vote for them. If they were just a single issue environment party, they would be far less successful and the environment movement would suffer from that as a result. So, a bit of a catch 22.

For me the sad thing is that it sets up a city-vs-country divide and drives away many good people who would otherwise support the environment movement.

[Rob A]

and organisations such as the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have incurred savage budget cuts

And wheres your RTA registration sticker gone?

[wayno]

the novelty wore off?
the sense of urgency wore off?
the movement isnt sexy enough? (not enough scantily clad women involved and thre werent enough booze fueld parties or barbies to go to?)
being involved was going to takemore time and or effort and or sacrifice than peole were willing to put in?
it threatened peoples livelihoods?
people got sick of being told you must do this , don't do that?
people get sick of being politically correct?