Green with Envy?
By: Andrew Scott, Political Philosophy Senior Staff Writer

Environmentalism is my bête noire. At least it used to be....

An Affair Gone Bad

You see, Environmentalism and I had a thing back at the turn of the century. That is, until she broke my heart. We were going steady for about a year or two there when all of a sudden I discovered her creeping with another man. What could he give her that I couldn’t – I mean, sure, he had his fancy Corvair but come on – Ralph Nader? I’ve been taking the loss pretty hard for the past seven years and it comes as no surprise that my jealousy prevents me from respecting her anymore. Worse yet, she’s moved on as if nothing ever happened! She ruined my life, and now look at her – everybody in the world wants something to do with her. It seems everywhere I go I am constantly reminded of the time environmentalism and I shared long ago.

Never before have I been so angered at a political faction, let alone one that shares ideals coincidental with my own. The political circus that was 2000, led by ringmaster Ralph Nader, made green a shade uglier. Each player did their own thing: Nader running as a single issue candidate, and the Green Party doing their part in trying to enact some sort of revenge on Gore for “turning his back” on the party’s sole purpose. End result: a loss for all as Nader leeched the few votes Gore needed to win, causing an imminent loss for the Green Party, and an even bigger loss for any who gave the smallest consideration to Earth’s property.

From 1999 until just recently, I have been very bitter towards environmentalists – salty, if you will. Yet, like a jilted lover, I have realized that I must move on as no one is going to slow down to console me. As the “tree huggers” and “earth friendly” individuals morphed into sensible politically savvy citizens, I began to realize that Green had become the new Blue. I was being left behind by the party I once adored. My anger, jealousy, and resentment did little to slow their momentum. Yet something has sparked a legitimate movement among the supporters of Mother Earth that has taken the ideals of Nader and the like to a new level.

Rest assured, we are not looking at the Green Party under Nader’s leadership anymore. Environmentalism has manifested itself into almost every political platform, creating a whole new image for modern American politics. Never before has a single issue been so prevalent and meaningful to a campaign. Sure, there was civil rights in the 60’s; abortion in the 70’s; taxes in the 80’s; healthcare in the 90’s. Yet stable civilizations have existed for centuries without major attention given to such topics. No civilization has survived without paying their dues to Mother Nature. It seems ironic; as we advance technologically, seemingly turning our back on nature, we realize that our existence relies on our upkeep of the environment.

Green Invasion

Every day when you listen to the news, there is talk of oil/gas prices, wild fires in California, floods across the Midwest, hurricanes surrounding the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. Even the focus of the presidency has shifted to environmental issues. Surprised? Arguably, the two most important events of Bush’s presidency are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. Both have environmental implications. Hurricane Katrina was in and of itself an environmental disaster, plaguing the Gulf Coast. Yet even worse, the aftermath of the storm devastated farmland and forestry, causing in excess of 200 million dollars worth of damage to farm owners along the coast.

Along with damage to farms, Katrina ripped through cities and countryside, destroying buildings, railroads, forests, swamps and the like indiscriminately. The tragedy even created a new oil crisis as it expelled a bulk of its turmoil on the Gulf Oil Patch, knocking out the oil supply to much of the area.

Being the liberal skeptic who questions political action indiscriminately, it comes as no surprise that I will attempt to tie oil into the most important event during Bush’s tenure: 9/11. During the aftermath of this tragic event, conflict ensued throughout much of the Middle East. Despite one’s justification or lack thereof for this war, there is no doubt that it has had a widespread effect on our most valuable natural resource. Oil prices have skyrocketed since 2001, rising from about $25 a barrel on 9/11 to over $60 a barrel as of last year.

Evidence from such events as Katrina and 9/11 exemplifies the equally devastating influence that direct and rather remote events have had on the environment, and the influence those events have on our everyday life. Sometimes the events are natural disasters, like wildfires, floods, or hurricanes, but more often the environment is affected by indirect causes, such as a war or other policies made by the State. It is these policies that have sparked the Green revolution.

The Truth Comes Out...

Environmental policy at the turn of the millennia was headed mainly by activists and radicals. Before that, however, a little known environmentalist was making his headway into politics. Al Gore, long before he was Vice President, even before he invented the Internet, was in the forefront of environmentalism. He wrote books serving a truly environmental purpose. Before 2000, he could have been considered a tried and true “tree hugger.” The moment he entered politics for himself, however, his affinity for the environment disappeared and the Gore of old was left in the shadows of history. It is funny how politics can take a person’s most passionate resolve and erase it. Moreover, it did just that in the election.

As Gore pushed forward into the primaries, he was hesitant to come across as an environmentalist – he certainly wished to avoid the appearance of being a single issue candidate. But one man was willing enough to fill the void left in the Democratic Party. Ralph Nader saw no problem in being the single issue politician Gore sought to avoid becoming. And thus a dichotomy presented itself in the left. The environmentalist broke ties with the liberals and even more so, the Democrats.

The picture is fairly clear. Al Gore had support on all fronts, that is, except for that from an environmentalist faction of his own party. His competitor on the left had nothing but support from this faction. Both candidates sought to defeat Governor Bush, but their passions fueled a result of mutual destruction and presidential loss. Nader pushed forth with his environmental platform, and as he did he further sifted Green from Blue. In the end the result is known, as Bush prevailed by a small margin; small enough that support stolen from Gore by Nader would have guaranteed a different result. Perhaps this was Nader’s fault; at least I like to look at it that way – but most likely Gore brought this upon himself. By choosing to separate himself from the environmental group, he was able to focus his attention on other major political support. But he lost his base. A trick that every great politician possesses is the ability to attract support from all around while maintaining the majority of his base support. By breaking away from environmentalism, Gore failed at pulling this trick off. Worse yet, he allowed the support to go toward a competitor with mutual goals, forming a triangulation against then Governor Bush.

For seven years now, I have disliked environmentalist politics, not for the underlying principles, but for its self-centered conceit. It was an Aesop moment, as the grapes had never tasted so sour for environmentalists when the man who could have changed the world was cast aside because a lesser known candidate (for all intensive purposes, someone who would not win the presidency) championed their cause more.

My hatred comes from their general lack in common sense. Clearly, Gore cared about the environment; he probably would not have dedicated his life to affecting environmental change if he didn’t. Of course, turning his back on the environmental movement circa 2000 was a bad political move, but how in the world could an environmentalist think for a minute that by voting for Nader, some greater cause would prevail? If it was to prove a point to Mr. Gore, then well done. Point taken: our environment is not thriving under oil, smog, ozone depletion, and oppressive heat. If it was to merely utilize the right to vote for a third party, then: Bravo! A third party received a substantial part of the vote!

Therefore, if just a fraction of environmentalists who voted for Nader had an ounce of common sense back then, they would have gotten what they wanted – a better world to live in. But of course, Gore’s passionate environmental actions wasn't enough, and the stronger environmental factions turned to Ralph Nadar as their go-to guy.

I'm Trying to Forgive, Really

Clearly my saltiness is still there. All it would have taken was a little common sense and some generosity and environmental concerns could have been addressed and resolved back in 2000. Voting for a third party for your belief in diverse interests is a great ideal to strive for, but when it comes to voting for a man you love by risking the election of the worst case scenario – the logic is unclear. When environmentalism left me seven years ago, I was hurt, and I still am, but she has moved on and perhaps it is time to forgive her and once again be together.

As my frustration has begun to wear thin, I have finally allowed myself to see the change they are trying to create. Granted, it took seven years of destruction, ridiculous gas prices, natural disasters and the like to provide an impetus for the change in their façade, but nonetheless it has arrived. With Gore long gone from the political scene, he is back into the environmental movement – furthermore, he is once again leading the way. Interesting too, how the moment Gore leaves politics he reassumes his throne in environmentalism.

Before us lies an interesting paradox. Environmentalists seem to make terrible politicians and politicians usually make terrible environmentalists. However, the environment has never been so prevalent in American politics. So how do environmentalists and policy makers reconcile this situation? How do the hopefuls of 2008 introduce environmental concerns into their platforms without creating party chaos like Gore did in 2000? Just as a jilted lover must move on with his life, so should all those who share my sentiment of the environmentalist of old.

Green has taken a new shade, and it is much more vivid this time. Green no longer only stands for environmental concerns – rather its new manifestation has lent itself to incorporating almost every political issue into its agenda. Perhaps I will love again, but for now I am officially entering the final stage of grief: acceptance. With just over a year left until another election approaches, the time is drawing near for all those who have been hurt by the environmental cough up in 2000 to do the same. Harboring anger, resentment, jealousy or the like toward this faction of the left will merely result in the same outcome that created the sentiment in the first place.

By accepting the fact that the environmental movement has moved onward, the electoral priorities of 2008 have become clear. Needless to say, we can’t exist without a functioning environment. Despite the setback we have incurred over the past decade (yes, that includes mishaps in the Clinton administration – particularly air quality standards), the next year provides us with an opportunity to get caught up and back on track . To take advantage of this opportunity, no personal grudges against the former façade of environmentalists can be upheld. We must take the shade of Green today and move forward with it. As noted earlier, the momentum with which the environmentalism is moving is impossible to slow down, much less to stop. Therefore continuing to fight and resist acceptance will do nothing other than increase the chance that similar results to 2000 will ensue.

It is time to allow the new environmentalist movement to apologize for what I consider past transgressions and rather ride the wave of the new green revolution. This might be the first time that injected green into the race for the Presidency might work. The election of 2008 will focus on several issues, but the environment must be integral in any political discourse. There is always a rough grieving period after a break up, but more importantly, there comes a time when the victim needs to grow up and realize what lies ahead.