Environmentalism is NOT a Religion
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 02.23.07
Al Gore hit Toronto the other day, and scalpers were selling tickets at$ 200 a pop. To its discredit, The Globe and Mail decided to treat it like a Green Moonie convention with an article titled Eco-pilgrims gather to 'heed the Goracle'- Hundreds pack hall in show of devotion to climate cause. "They came in their hundreds to hear him speak, and even those left standing outside the crowded hall would not be deterred from lingering in the proximity of the Baptist prophet from Tennessee." Reporter Anthony Reinhart interviewed the usual flakes and flotsam that follow in the wake and built his article around them. "From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall. "The religion for this group is doing something for the environment." And another: "It was not our intention to have a religious approach," ecoSanity group founder Glenn MacIntosh said, "but it was our understanding that it was that kind of movement that people were craving; that kind of spiritual connection in their gut."
When you google the words "environmentalism" and "religion" the first thing that shows up is a quote "Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists"- from the official website of Michael Crichton in a speech in 2003. The third item that comes up is David Roberts in Grist on the subject, in 2005. This theme has been around for a while but now that Al Gore is attracting crowds, the anti-gore bloggers are calling his presentations "revival meetings" and cranking up the religious analogies significantly.
John Kay in the Financial Times went so far as to describe it as the successor to organized religion and marxism. "Environmentalism now fulfils for many people the widespread longing for simple, all-encompassing narratives. Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist."
We are not Green Moonies. It is time to push back.
When normally sensible writers think the idea of Al Gore as tent revivalist is original and cute, we should complain.
We should adopt David Roberts' idea that "environmentalism is in our self-interest" - "Living in accord with nature, reducing our waste, using energy more efficiently, preserving ecosystem services like clean water and air, preventing climate disruption, etc.: These things will will make us happier and more prosperous. They are things people do in service of other people. People who don't do them are causing harm to other people."
We should go all Ayn Rand objectivist on them and say that I am doing this for me and my kids- we want fresh air, clean water and working ecosystems. After all, "Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at achieving knowledge about the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings" and "that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest." (wikipedia) which sound like perfectly good reasons to fight climate change.
We should become the new conservatives, the defenders of the status quo. We like things the way they are- cold winters, tolerable summers, stable water levels, cute polar bears. We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it (like coal plants, low density suburbs and big SUV's).
Most of the people I see going to Al Gore fests are a lot like TreeHugger readers- they like technology, are generally optimistic that we can actually do something to save the planet from unpleasant change, and voted overwhelmingly in our last poll to say that they are green to "Protect the planet for future generations."
That's not religion, that's common sense.
I fall under the category "urban atheist" yet I have no problem with the idea that environmentalism is my religion, as long as religion means "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" (Dictionary.com). I'm not a fanatic or a fundamentalist, but I do incorporate environmentalism/ecology/sustainability into my life every day - for selfish as well as more altruistic and intangible reasons.
Additionally, I disagree with the assertion that "we should become the new conservatives, the defenders of the status quo." I do not like things the way they are - pollution, environmental injustice, uncommon ground in language and shallow politics, etc... I want there to be more trees, more and continuously evolving species, a shift in moral values, greater communication, etc. I want environmental progress. I want change.
In the 19th century, many people approached modern technlogy with religous awe. They thought it was the solution to all of the world's problems. It certainly filled a space in some people that religion could no longer fill. After all, science explained the world, and technology solved its problems!
And technology DID solve a lot of problems. It ended the domination of the feudal elites, empowered the middle class, and virtually eliminated poverty.
The world wars showed how cock-eyed that optimism was. We can only truly use green ideas for the better if we understand their limits!
If environmentalism is lived religiously, there will be the same setbacks.
I don't know. My Objectivist friend calls the environment my religion. And yes, I am an urban athiest :).
Thank you for this post. Labeling environmentalism or conservationism religious seems like one of the most powerful rhetorical devices against the acceptance of its (very practical and totally non-religious) principals.
I would urge even those people for whom environmentalism *feels* like a religion to refrain from describing it as such. Religion prototypically evokes notions of faith, and environmentalism is (or should be) grounded decidedly in fact.
Calling environmentalism religious also sets it in opposition to other religions that might otherwise consider teasing out environmental principals from their own faith. Christian environmentalism could be quite a force, indeed.
I would also like to advocate for the reappropriation of the term conservative for those of us who are resource conservationists, landscape preservationists, and fiscal stewards (as opposed to our current political conservatives who are really just morally reactionary, fiscally irresponsible, and environmentally vampiric). If not the term conservative, then some equally banal but descriptive label, as I am afraid that the mission of greening the world may not be successful enough if it retains the stink of radicalism. Indeed, as the author points out, environmentalism's principals are neither religious nor radical: they are simply in the interest of self preservation.
"We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it ...
Then you must be pretty miffed at the last ice age. If you are truly "against change", you should direct your complaints to the Sun.
This has to be one of the more bizarre and perverse misreadings objectivism I've ever seen. Then again, the sum total of the author's knowledge on the subject seems to derive from "wikipedia".
Heh, I just noticed the author claims to be some sort of architect. I wonder which character in "The Fountainhead" he most resembles?
LA: I used to be like Peter Keating, but since I discovered the internet I decided I want to be Ellsworth Toohey and build a career to end up as the internet's Gail Wynand.
Saying environmentalism isn't a religion, doesnt make it any less of one.
Some commenters here spoke from the heart and conceded the fact.
Your suggestion, to urge those people to refrain from such descriptions, only reenforces that reality.
I only hope I live long enough to see this farce become the joke that the last crisis/fad (coming ice-age) is.
I'm also curious to see what will displace it.
The Sun is more powerful than we specs are. Maybe we should all go back to worshipping it.
@Anonymous Coward #2 - Neither someone's claim that environmentalism is a religion (even if she is an environmentalist), nor my request to refrain from describing it as such negates the scientific, factual basis for practicing and promoting conservationism.
Environmentalism, as it is popularly promoted, such as on this website, and conservationism, are two distinctly different things.
The "science" on which popular environmentalism claims to be based, is increasingly as scientific as the "creation science" of a rival fundamentalist cult.
Selectively embracing sketchy affirmative data as though it were conclusive proof, while ignoring and dismissing all contradictory data, hardly constitutes science.