top of page
Search

Radical Responses

Writer's picture: Kevin BerendKevin Berend

Updated: Nov 16, 2024




Radical Responses: Climate Activism in the Post-Environmental Era


A properly radical environmentalist

position is in no way anti-human."

– Gary Snyder


Post-Environmentalism

              My generation owes a lot to environmental advocates of the 1960s and 70s. By exposing the ecologically destructive and dangerous practices of industry, they mobilized a rambunctious and disillusioned generation to clean up pollution, protect endangered species, and value environmental stewardship. They did so in a way that was politically feasible, capitalizing on underlying demographic tensions to bring about maximum change.


Given our predecessors’ success, it's tempting to think of recent decades as a time of progress on environmental issues, although this impression ignores the fact that humanity has yet to seriously address the greatest environmental challenge it has faced. Despite the reports, despite the money spent on public awareness and ad campaigns, we seem to be no closer to solving the crisis of climate change. In fact, public support for government interventions (such as cap and trade) has waned while the world’s largest carbon emitters have refused to sign legislation agreeing to significantly reduce output. Among environmental groups, infighting and lack of vision have stalled efforts to refocus the movement into a coherent force.

In 2004, at the meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, founders of the Breakthrough Institute, a research center focused on technological solutions to environmental and developmental challenges, delivered a talk titled “The Death of Environmentalism”, which questioned the assumptions of modern climate activists and policy-makers. Longtime friends and consultants to environmental groups, Shellenberger and Nordhaus caused a stir when they announced that modern environmentalism is not capable of dealing with climate change. They pointed out that leaders of environmental groups, while largely in agreement about what must be done (i.e., reduce emissions, restructure the global economy), have not delivered a vision for the future compelling enough to bring about widespread change. Meanwhile, in the minds of average citizens, climate change has become a peripheral issue.


Since “The Death of Environmentalism”, similar criticisms have become more frequent; the tone among activist circles has become darker. A lecture titled "Is Earth F**ked?” was presented at a conference. Leading climate scientist James Hansen and writer Bill McKibben were arrested outside the White House in a protest over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which if installed would have carried some of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, marking the "nail in the coffin" for the climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has even begun to publicly acknowledge that it's probably too late to stop many of the worst consequences of climate change: droughts, floods, sea level rise, and widespread extinction. Furthermore, the rapidly-deteriorating political climate in the United States makes the signing of any large-scale legislation virtually impossible. With predictions like these, it's no surprise that the hallmark of today’s environmentalism is desperation.

Acceptance by a significant segment of activists that we have passed the “point of no return” has caused a serious and diverse set of reflections, responses, and rebuttals that is a movement of its own. This paper highlights three individuals involved in the climate movement who expressed their concern in different and unique ways. While all agree that the world in which we are currently living in is soon to be radically different in terms of agriculture, politics, economy, technology, and social structure, their varied responses, which range from militancy to revolution to resignation, may offer a glimpse of what the future holds for the movement, and Earth.


 

Tim DeChristopher

              In December 2008, Tim DeChristopher, 27 years old and freshly graduated from the University of Utah, walked into a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) auction room in Salt Lake City. Up for sale were 77 parcels of land near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, totaling some 150,000 acres. He was handed a paddle and ushered to a seat, where he began to bid, driving up prices. Then, accidentally at first, he began to win. For the remainder of the auction, DeChristopher scarfed up the remaining parcels, some selling for upwards of $240,000, never intending to pay. He did so, he said, to disrupt natural gas development on some of the last pristine landscapes of the West – drilling that would exploit some of the continent’s last reserves and threaten the lives of future generations. If solutions to the climate crisis are to remain within reach, he believed, drilling could not proceed.

             

DeChristopher was indicted on two felony counts, and instantly became a strong and controversial voice in climate activism--called a punk, hero, sacrificial lamb, an anarchist, an ecoterrorist, and a martyr, to name a few. A captivating speaker, DeChristopher used his newfound fame to advocate for civil disobedience as a tool to drive governmental action climate change. Through his group Peaceful Uprising (or PeaceUp), he has worked to inspire grassroots involvement in environmental issues destruction and what he has termed “climate justice”. “We are no longer protesters,” one PeaceUp volunteer declared at a rally, “We are soldiers of the resistance!”

             

DeChristopher’s trial was a nationally-publicized event. PeaceUp protesters, wearing orange armbands as a symbol of solidarity, filled the courtroom and the street. DeChristopher's words were powerful and emotional: “This is not going away. At this point of unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks like. In these times of a morally bankrupt government that has sold out its principles, this is what patriotism looks like. With countless lives on the line, this is what love looks like, and it will only grow.” DeChristopher was convicted on two felony counts (making false statements and violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act) and sentenced to two years in prison, where he passed the time writing, walking a dirt track, and reflecting.

             

Motivating much of DeChristopher’s action has been the nagging impression that the climate movement of the recent years, for all its urgency and terrible predictions, has been losing. Specifically, he saw the movement’s insistence on “raising awareness” – assuming that people will come around if exposed to the facts – unproductive and self-defeating. “If we are serious”, he said, “we need to change tactics and move faster.” DeChristopher, in standing up to fill the void he saw, has been promoting direct and emotionally-driven action ever since.


DeChristopher does not see his activism as trying to halt all development or “solve” the global climate crisis. Instead he is concerned with small victories, such as disrupting mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia or blocking natural gas development on federal lands. By gaining ground in the public consciousness, such actions may help to inspire larger-scale movements or catalyze a paradigm shift in how people relate to and use natural resources. True change will never come about from within the system, DeChristopher says – from politics or bureaucratic institutions – no matter how good the intentions. His faith lies in civil disobedience and the power of uncorrupted speech.


After release from prison, DeChristopher enrolled in Harvard Divinity School, where he is studying to become a Unitarian minister. Humanity's current crisis, he feels, is primarily a spiritual and ethical one. In the next stage of his life, DeChristopher hopes to find a way to reconnect people to basic moral principles that will change the way we relate to the Earth. 

             


David Holmgren

David Holmgren is an Australian-born writer and thinker. Educated at the College of Advanced Education (Tasmania), Holmgren was strongly influenced in his youth by the “natural farming” practices of Masanobu Fukuoka and the writings of Stewart Brand, which deepened his interest in environmental stewardship. Along with fellow Australian and mentor Bill Mollison, Holmgren developed the central tenets of Permaculture, a back-to-the-Earth movement which gained international attention in the mid-1970s.


The goal of Permaculture is to reintegrate humans into sustainable living by designing livable landscapes that mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature. Permaculture combines aspects of architecture, ecological design, water management, and sustainable agriculture in a philosophy of “working with, rather than against nature”. With the increasing appeal of local and organically-grown food, Permaculture and related movements (such as Transition) have become leaders in the global push for sustainability.


Holmgren has written several books about Permaculture, green energy, and other environmental topics, becoming a well-respected thinker on those issues. In 2007’s Future Scenarios: How Communities Can Adapt to Peak Oil and Climate Change he acknowledged that the future of human life on Earth is one of “energy descent”. Either we choose to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels or the fickle nature of the global energy market will do it for us. This transition may take one of several paths, he argues, from gradual (smooth and planned, called Green Tech) to abrupt (chaotic and crash-based, called Brown Tech), depending on the decisions we make in the next few decades. In Holmgren’s view, because the climate change is inextricably linked to the energy economy, a fundamental restructuring of the global economy in the near future is inevitable.


In 2013, Holmgren published a paper called “Crash on Demand: Welcome to the Brown Tech Future", in which he argued that since virtually no action has been taken to address climate change on a global scale, the Brown Tech world he described in 2007 is already a reality. Furthermore, the economic shifts predicted based on this scenario are happening sooner than expected. There is strong evidence, Holmgren says, that the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 has marked the “beginning of the end of global economic growth”. Further economic contraction and the breakdown of middle-class consumption are likely to follow (Holmgren has rated the chances of global economic collapse within the next five years at an astonishing 50%).


Policy professionals have begun to worriedly brace for this scenario, doubtful that there is anything more that can be done to prevent global economic and ecological catastrophes. In fact, many have even begun to hope privately for economic collapse, with the idea that it would save humanity from the worst impacts of climate change. “Severe global economic and societal collapse”, Holmgren says, “could switch off greenhouse gas emissions enough to begin reversing climate change”. An argument could be made, therefore, for taking actions aimed at intentionally precipitating a crash, inflicting short term pain for the benefit of the future of mankind.

Such a crash could be started simply, Holmgren says. By getting a small proportion of the global middle class to make a significant behavior change (cutting fossil fuel consumption by 50%), energy suppliers would feel the strain of unpayable debts and worthless assets. The energy economy is a bubble market after all, and all bubbles burst eventually. Alternatively, action could be taken to destroy faith in the current financial system, causing people to anxiously withdraw their money from banks and stocks, ultimately having the same effect.

It's understatement to say this conclusion by Holmgren has been extremely controversial. But it has generated conversation, and reevaluation of the situation. The most notable criticism has come from Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Network, a UK-based organization that provides support for communities interested in preparing for a low-impact future. The idea that boycotting the global economy will swiftly bring it down, Hopkins argues, is both naïve and irresponsible. We shouldn’t be quick to take dangerous actions, he says, without fully considering the range of human consequences.


Holmgren acknowledges these criticisms, countering that he expects those who advocate (or even hope) for economic collapse to be labeled fringe radicals or terrorists. But it appears, he says, that mainstream climate policy may be already pursuing this strategy. With no action likely to come from within "the system" that is enabling climate change, the only option we may have to mitigate its impacts is to take down the system itself.

 


Paul Kingsnorth

In 1992, the British government finalized plans for a massive road-building project that was to be the largest in decades, creating highways through previously untouched land in the English countryside. Work came to an unexpected halt, though, when protesters began showing up at a site called Twyford Down, in southern England, which was to be bulldozed to make way for a freeway. The protests, largely student-led, were passionate and visceral, inspiring a nationwide grassroots opposition movement from a wide swath of social classes.


Paul Kingsnorth, an Oxford student at the time, among the initial protesters at Twyford Down, spent weeks chanting, waving signs, and singing songs in an effort to save the hill. In his time spent at Twyford, Kingsnorth fell in love with the idea of putting himself on the line for a cause, becoming (in his words) “radicalized”. At one point, he and fifty others were arrested for chaining themselves to a bridge. Kingsnorth credits the success of the road protests to mobilize action with their underlying theme—that some things, like trees, birds, and wild landscapes, are worth saving for their own right. Sometimes, the protestors argued, no amount of utilitarian value is worth the loss of a beautiful natural place.


Kingsnorth would carry this message to his later life, which involved (at various times) newspaper writing, non-profit work, and several books, the topics including the anti-globalization movement and the demise of small businesses in England. All the while reading and learning, he began to see climate change less of “a problem that can be solved” and more as a “predicament which must be endured”. The idea that a green technology revolution could save humanity from dramatic global climate change began to seem more and more like wishful thinking.


Kingsnorth began to question the assumptions that many within the climate movement had for so long taken for granted—that emissions reduction and economic growth can occur simultaneously; that technology and environmentalism can co-exist; that in dealing with global climate change, the ends justify the means. He began to see in vivid clarity that we are not, in fact, in the grips of a global energy crisis—we have more than enough for our needs. The problem, rather, is civilization itself and its voracious appetite to consume the world and its resources in the name of “progress”. Is a future, he asked himself, where every hilltop, desert, or shoreline is converted into a wind farm, solar array, or hydro-wave generator ultimately worth the price?


These insights led Kingsnorth to conclude that a low-carbon future and environmental conservation are ultimately incompatible. He feels that today’s environmentalism is pursuing a path that undermines its founding principles—respect for wilderness and its creatures and recognition of their intrinsic value. By pinning their hopes to a “sustainable” future, therefore, mainstream climate policy advocates have sold out, becoming a part of the machine that is responsible for environmental degradation. “Destruction minus carbon”, he says “equals sustainability”.


In 2012, Kingsnorth articulated these views in an essay called “Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist”, in which he announced his retirement from climate activism. “I withdraw from the campaigning and marching”, he said. “I withdraw from the arguing and the talked-up necessity and all of the false assumptions. I withdraw from the words. I am leaving.” He started this new stage of his life by moving his family to rural Ireland, hoping to teach his children the agrarian skills they will need to live in a post-industrial world.


Kingsnorth retreated into reflection and writing, trying to piece together a vision for moving forward, to find a way to save what still can be saved. Fueling this search was a sense of profound loss, a deep mourning and despair for the world and the period of “ecocide” we are currently living through. He vowed to be honest with himself about his grief, acknowledging that “path of great loss and suffering” is ahead for mankind. Perhaps, as we stand trembling on the edge of the climate cliff, the best course of action might be to try to peer into the void below, to let our eyes to adjust to the dark. 


Out of this period of turmoil came the Dark Mountain Project. Kingsnorth, in collaboration with author Dougald Hine, solicited the contributions of writers, artists, musicians, sculptors, and poets for the creation of a new genre that embodies a revised environmental ethic. Their work, bound in (now twenty-five) elaborately illustrated journals, emphasizes the emotional journey involved in coming to terms with the ecological, economic, and social crises facing humankind. Dark Mountain, then, is essentially an aesthetic response to the crisis of climate change. It’s an open forum where honest and emotional assessments about the state of our world and its beings can be aired.


Kingsnorth has drawn a great deal of criticism from the mainstream climate policy community, which has labeled him among other things a nihilist, a catastrophist, and a provocateur. By stepping back at a time when the world most needs effective communicators of science and policy, they argue, he has committed a near criminal abdication of his moral duty. Kingsnorth, who has described his views as “ecocentric”, disagrees, however, that the well-being of humanity is any more important than that of the rest of life on Earth. His concern lies with the continuation of the phenomenon of life and all living beings as they exist holistically. Kingsnorth argues that withdrawal—refusal to contribute to further destruction—may in fact be the most moral position available.

 


Conclusion

              The positions taken above reflect the profound range of both emotional and practical responses of a generation that has inherited a world in peril. Their thoughts and actions are helping to shape the development of a new global community, one that will be crucial in maintaining social, economic, cultural, and political bonds in the climate change world. They are by no means, however, the only answers we have.


Young people around the world are developing new philosophies, movements, and environmental ethics every day, blending elements of scripture and science into revised interpretations of humanity’s place in the world. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, New Age philosophy, and Occupy Wall Street, among many others, all with the aim of questioning the fundamental assumptions around which our society is built. They have begun to ask important questions about social justice and equality, power structure, and the proper role of humanity in the biosphere without resorting to cynicism or violence. If the lives of the individuals described above can teach us anything, it may be that although little is certain when it comes to how future generations will deal with a rapidly changing world, humanity will undoubtedly find ingenious and surprising ways to carry on.


 

Can we rely on it that a “turning around” will be accomplished by enough people quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but no matter what the answer, it will mislead. The answer “Yes” would lead to complacency, the answer “No” to despair. It is desirable to leave these perplexities behind and get down to work.

– E. F. Schumacher




Bibliography


Holmgren, D. 2007. Future scenarios: How communities can adapt to peak oil and climate change. Chelsea Green Publishing. White River, VT.


Holmgren, D. 2013. Crash on demand: Welcome to the brown tech future. The Simplicity Institute.


Hopkins, R. 2014. “Holmgren’s ‘Crash on Demand’: Be careful what you wish for”. Rob Hopkin’s Blog. Transition Network. Accessed 5/12/14. <http://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/rob-hopkins/2014-01/holmgren-s-crash-demand-be-careful-what-you-wish>


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Report, 2014. United Nations Environment Program/World Meteorological Organization. Geneva, Switzerland.


Kingsnorth, P. 2012. Confessions of a recovering environmentalist. Orion Magazine: January/February 2012.


Kingsnorth, P. Dark ecology: Searching for truth in a post-green world. Orion Magazine: January/February 2013.


Kingsnorth, P. and D. Hine. 2009. Uncivilisation – The Dark Mountain Manifesto. Bracketpress. Lancashire, England.


McKibben, B. 2013. Your turn, Harvard. Sojourners Magazine. December 2013. Accessed 24 April 2014. <http:sojo.net/magazine/2013/12/your-turn-harvard>


Mollison, B. 1990. Permaculture: A practical guide for a sustainable future. Island Press. Washington, DC.


Moyers, B. 2013. Why Tim DeChristopher went to prison for his protest [Transcript]. Moyers & Company. Accessed 21 April 2014. < http://billmoyers.com/segment/why-tim-dechristopher-went-to-prison-for-his-protest/>


Peaceful Uprising – Defending a livable future through empowering nonviolent action. Accessed 11 May 2014. < http://www.peacefuluprising.org/>


Sessions, G. [Ed.] 1995. Deep ecology for the 21st century: Readings on the philosophy and practice of the new environmentalism. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston, MA.


Shellenberger, M. and T. Nordhaus. 2004. The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world.


Smith, D. 2014. It’s the end of the world as we know it… and he feels fine. The New York Times Magazine. Accessed 24 April 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine>

Stephenson, W. 2012. Hope in the age of collapse: An exchange with Paul Kingsnorth. Thoreau Farm. Accessed 24 April 2014. < http://thoreaufarm.org/2012/04/hope-in-the-age-of-collapse/>


Stephenson, W. 2013. Tim DeChristopher: There is no ‘neutral’ in the climate fight. The Nation. Accessed 24 April 2014. <http://thenation.com/blog/176498/tim-dechristopher-there-is-no-neutral-in-the-climate-fight>


Streep, A. 2011. The trials of bidder 70: Profile of environmentalist Tim DeChrisopher. Outside Magazine. Accessed 24 April 2014. <www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/naure/The-Trials-of-Bidder70>


Williams, T. T. 2011. Tim Dechrisopher’s message. The Progressive. September 2011: 13-15.


Williams, T. T. 2012. What love looks like: A conversation with Tim DeChristopher by Terry Tempest Williams. Orion Magazine: January/February 2012.

25 views4 comments

Recent Posts

See All

4 Comments


rlb125
Jun 05, 2024

Interesting and sobering.

Like

Unknown member
Jun 01, 2024

Much to think about, Kevin. Did you first encounter "The Death of Environmentalism" in Global Environmental Issues? Back then I was challenged by that paper - still am - but that was (and is) a good thing. However, I do think that the Nordhaus and Shellenberger approach/thesis has its own profound problems, including a romance with technology and neo-liberal capitalism: https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough. Still, the world grows hotter and in many places drier. Progress is so slow and it's hard to be at all optimistic.

Like
Kevin Berend
Kevin Berend
Jun 30, 2024
Replying to

Yes, I first encountered "The Death of Environmentalism" in that course. I agree that our dialogue should be nuanced and realistic, which is why the article was so engaging --they were trying to think outside the box. It's disappointing to see, though, another example of good intentions becoming warped by perverse incentives, whether they be money or influence or notoriety. Since DOE, Shellenberger has taken a very contrarian "skeptic" approach that seems to be at odds with his own proclaimed desire to find solutions to the climate crisis.

Like

sailwest
May 27, 2024

I try so hard... I eat no mammals, have solar panels on my roof and an electric car but.... China building more coal power plants than ever and American youth seem to be leaning to letting Trump become president again by sitting out the election. A friend said that if young people don't vote for Biden they will get the future they deserve... I am 60 so I'll miss the catastrophic climate disasters that WILL come if the young of the world do not stand up to Trump, Putin and China's desire to destroy humanity.

Like

©2020 by My Site. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page