Do green groups need to get religion?

Peter Lehner

“Americans actually do care about their health. They don’t want their kids have to be poisoned in order for them to get a job. They value their natural heritage.”

“One should not read what’s going on the House of Representatives as an indication of where America wants to be.”

That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people.

And yet the NRDC and its allies are getting nowhere in Washington.

They’re struggling to protect the EPA against unrelenting Republican attacks.

And, as Elizabeth Rosenthal wrote the other day in the Times, climate change–arguably the biggest problem facing mankind–has devolved into a non-issue. The “fading of global warming from the political agenda is a mostly American phenomenon,” she wrote.

Why?

That was the question on my mind when I met recently with Peter, who is thoughtful and smart, to talk about the politics of climate. That’s not my  specialty, but I came with an idea: The green groups that try to persuade Americans that environmental protection is good for their jobs and pocketbooks–that is, that green is in our self-interest–have missed opportunities to frame the environment and especially climate as moral issues, in ways that would appeal to our higher and better selves. Put another way, the big NGOs that focus on policy are not as comfortable talking about culture and religion.

So I wondered what the NRDC had learned from the failure of cap-and-trade—the scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that was rejected by Congress—and whether its leaders are rethinking their message.

As best as I can tell from Peter, the answer is no or at least not yet, anyway.

He offered several explanations for the defeat of cap-and-trade, most of them familiar and arguably true. Enviros were outspent by polluters, he said, who succeeded in re-branding the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the house as a “job-killing energy tax.” (According to the Center for the American Progress Action Fund, “Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other special interests like the American Petroleum Institute combined spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying lawmakers and filling their campaign coffers.”) It’s very difficult to pass major legislation of any kind during an economic downturn, and few complex and sweeping pieces of legislation are enacted on their first go-around. (Although cap-and-trade has been talked about in Congress.) Maybe cap-and-trade was too complicated; maybe a tax on carbon pollution, with the money rebated to people, would be simpler.

“If you look at history,” Peter said, “the fact that we didn’t get this big bill through in the face of enormous amounts of money, during a recession and on the first try should not be a surprise.”

So what now? Build bridges, he says: “To take on strong interests, we need a broad alliance of voices.” Public health groups and parents can be enlisted to talk about the health effects of pollution. National security and military people can talk about imported oil. Business leaders can talk about the clean energy economy.

“The environmentalists can’t carry this ball by ourselves,” he says. Again, this is true enough, but those groups were enlisted as allies during the 2009-2010 debate. The trouble is, none worked very hard.

Time may be the green groups’ best ally. “Eventually, reality will win,” Peter said. “Those who claim the climate isn’t change are eventually going to be seen as ostriches with their head in the sand.” What’s more, as businesses and consumers save money with energy efficiency and adopt clean energy, they will see that “you can actually have a better life through a lot of the solutions we are talking about.” Again, this makes sense, but time is short. And, while some people may get excited by the smart grid or solar rooftops, others don’t want transmission lines or wind farms in their neighborhood.

It’s easy for policy-oriented organizations like the NRDC to forget that we’re driven by emotion as well as logic–and that there’s nothing wrong with that. Some people get involved with environmental issues because they want to leave their children a better future. Others do so because they love the outdoors and don’t want to see it trashed. Those with a strong sense of fairness are troubled when polluters cause harm,  and not held accountable.

Protecting the earth is fundamentally a moral issue, I suggested to Peter, and perhaps environmentalists should do more to enlist religious allies. Of course, he agreed.

“I would hope that the faith voices would make it a more important issue,” he said. “Some are.”

Yes, some are. [See Interfaith Power and Light, the Evangelical Environmental Network, and COEJL, a Jewish environmental group.] But not enough.

When our conversation ended, I gave Peter a book called Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves by Adam Hochschild. It’s a riveting account of the British movement to end slavery, which was the world’s first grass-roots movement. The parallels to the environmental movement are at best imperfect – abolitionists did not have to contend with Exxon Mobil or Fox News – but the 19th century global economy as dependent on slavery as today’s economy is reliant on fossil fuels. (And, while people will have to pay more for electricity if dirty coal gives way to solar and wind power, our ancestors presumably absorbed rising prices when slaves were replaced by workers who were paid for their labor.) The anti-slavery movement was at its heart a moral and religious crusade. So, of course, was the 1960s civil rights movement.

Environmentalists today desperately need a movement, and while you can find the beginnings of one if you look—see 350.org or Tar Sands Action or maybe even OccupyWallStreet—it’s hard to build a movement without religious voices.

350.org in San Francisco

Comments

  1. Great questions raised here, Marc, as always. The Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group, comprised of 7 international conservation NGOs working in Africa, have been exploring collaborations between conservation and faith groups. Our resources can be found at http://www.tinyurl.com/ABCG-Faith-Cons. Another terrific resource is the Alliance for Religions and Conservation (www.arcworld.org), based in the UK.

  2. paul hess says:

    Hi Marc,
    Yes, there are many good arguments for including religious groups and independent spiritual people in books like Michael Lerner’s, The Left Hand of God, Habits of the Heart by Bellah, and the Sojourner Truth magazine. On the importance of moral framing there is George Lakoff’s books, and the Spiral Dynamics theory that examines numerous moral perspectives.

    I agree with health as a key issue to mobilize people around, I just wrote an articlea about making sustainability human focused around health.

  3. Here are thoughts relayed to me by Alan Mairson:

    Your post — and Peter Lehner’s challenge — reminds me of EO Wilson’s book “The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth.” The book was an attempt by Wilson to reach out to religious people, for whom he has shown little more than contempt over the years. Problem is, Wilson can’t save the planet if he thinks most of its inhabitants are fools. So while “The Creation” seemed to say we’re all in this together, Wilson also effectively said that when we all get together, the scientists will continue to hold the gavel and run the meeting.

    Wilson’s problem — and perhaps the hurdle faced by enviro groups like NRDC — is less about framing the challenge as a moral one, and more about understanding the worldview of religious people. To that end, Peter Lehner & friends should read Wendell Berry’s “Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition.” It’s a beautiful refutation of Wilson’s mechanistic worldview — and an inspiring embrace of another way of seeing.

    http://www.amazon.com/Life-Miracle-Against-Modern-Superstition/dp/1582431418/

  4. Lewis E. Ward says:

    The language for discussing ecological issues must come from the spiritual, ethical and moral core values most of us share. Unfortunately, activists often take the moral high ground and actually vent anger at and shame the offenders. My own path has been sinuous in finding the voice that can reach others. We can only reach others from a place of compassion in understanding the three poisons Desire, Aversion and Ignorance that cloud our thinking and our acting effectively.
    Over 40 years ago I was drawn to Buddhist ideas by Gary Snyder’s great love and understanding of nature. I also discovered our New England thinkers, Thoreau and Emerson who provided an essential connection to the land. During that period I discovered Wendell Berry, he being a writer and a farmer who had generations of accumulated experience farming that provided a literal grounding that the environmental movement lacked. I must add when I have been less compassionate, I have struggled Wendell Berry’s subtle Christian focus.

  5. Also keep in mind that the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, http://www.iccr.org brings a faith-based message to debates on climate change and many other environmental stewardship issues, and the National Council of Churches has an eco-justice program.

  6. The AGW movement was presented as both authoritative (the ‘scientific’ consensus), and moral (save the future for our kiddies) from the get-go.

    The authoritative element collapsed under the weight of the lies of Mann, Jones, Hanson, Briffa, etc. etc. Oh, and the perfect lack of, you know, evidence (as contrasted with endless reams of pseudo-science, and yet more lies.)

    The moral element never had much traction, because the incredible degree of both hatred and derision the hippies have towards Christians rendered belief in the good intentions of the hippies impossible. Which is, well, sane.

    In short, the premise of this article is very wrong, if not borderline delusional. The leftist inter-faith groups are already in your camp: as for those people who are so stupid as to be Christians… well, they think you can all go fly a kite.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] [Oct 2011]:  Do green groups need to get religion? That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people. [...]

  2. [...] [Oct 2011]:  Do green groups need to get religion? [...]

Speak Your Mind

*