Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Critique of mainstream's blindsiding of the environment., October 5, 1996
By A Customer
Perhaps the greatest weakness of individual environmentalists and the
environmental "movement" is the absence of public self-examination. While
political insiders may clearly see the difference between the National Wildlife
Federation and the Sierra Club, the public has few resources to gauge them.
Opening the doors is author Mark Dowie, a champion of local activism and the
integration of environmental issues with other social movements. Tracing the
origins and bureaucratization of the environmental movement, Dowie criticizes
the most recent surge of co-option, the "third wave" or economics-based
environmentalism.
"Regulatory flexibility and 'constructive engagement' with
industry have created some business heroes, but they can be counted on one
hand," he writes. "The rest, unfortunately, need to be regulated." This is not to
say this book is a rant against environmental business. There are no heroes or
villains in this book, which makes it a rarity in the environmental lexicon.
Instead, Dowie criticizes the corporate structure of environmental groups, and
portrays each organization with their individual merits and flaws. Compromising
Local Leadership Dowie reminds readers of the decision by the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Cultural Survival to negotiate with the
Ecuadorian government over oil drilling in the Yasuni Reserve. Arguing that oil
drilling would be inevitable, and "[w]ithout consulting the Huaorani people or the
appropriate Ecuadorian environmental organizations, [NRDC's] Scherr and
Kennedy struck a deal: Conoco could drill on the Huaoroni reserve in return for
a $10-million donation to an Ecuadorian foundation created by NRDC and
Cultural Survival, an indigenous-rights groups based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts."
The NAFTA debate saw essentially the same argument made: free
trade is inevitable, so environmentalists have to go along and get what they can.
NAFTA's "It's a win-win-win situation" argument was accepted by various
environmental groups. In the long run, the agreement and side provisions may
indeed provide resources and rewards for cross-border environmental planning.
But Dowie draws back to review the consequences of increased commerce.
"It
should be clear to any environmental thinker that free trade can only lead to the
globalization of massive, consumer- based economies that are, in the long run,
whatever the legislated safeguards, ecologically destructive. But mainstream
environmental officials evidently don't think a lot about the distant future. Like
the corporations they have come to resemble, they tend to be occupied with the
day-to-day imperatives of strategy, competition and survival." From a parochial
viewpoint, it would have been interesting had Dowie included a critique of the
way in which many D.C. groups finally "discovered" environmental problems
along the border and how most of these organizations lost interest in the border
after NAFTA passed.
It would also be interesting to document the criticism the
mainstream groups made of those local groups that disagreed with them on the
potential consequences of NAFTA. At the Center and Stumbling The problem
with mainstream environmental groups stems from their decisions in the 1980s to
focus energies on power plays in Washington, D.C., instead of reaching out to
state and community organizations.
Had the focus remained on "reaching out to
state, local and regional organizations," he writes, "the American environmental
movement today would be much stronger and more consequential than it is. An
explosive critical mass of national activism could have been formed. Instead, a
relatively harmless and effete new club appeared." Dowie suggests that the
disproportionate ratio of funding (70 percent to 30 percent) between mainstream
and grassroots groups remains an obstacle for community organization,
suggesting that "a 20-point shift, of $200 million would change the complexity of
the entire environmental community."
The publication of Losing Ground offers
readers an insightful view of relations among environmental groups, many of
which demand transparency in government and business circles, but not among
themselves or their colleagues. This is one of the most valuable guidebooks and is
one of the year's must-reads.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
What goes around, comes around., November 29, 2002
Although this book is now 7 years old, it seems more relevant today than when Dowie wrote it. I keep hoping for a new, revised, edition. The elections of 2000 and 2002 have shown that the mainstream environmental organizations in the U.S. have lost most of their strength in the political arena. Despite major attempts to influence elections. . .the Senatorial race in Colorado for example. . .their efforts were either not effective or salient to the electorate. The Green Party seems to have filtered off those voters who are primarily concerned with environmental issues and most indications are that those voters are not impressed with the mainstream environmental establishment in the U.S. The Green Parties of Europe seem to be making a resurgence, but progress in the U.S. is not evident. Dowie's main critique is of the established, major environmental organizations; those groups who enjoyed so much growth during the Reagan era as a reaction to James Watt and others in the Reagan Cabinet. While Gale Norton is from the same mold as Watt, and Christy Todd Whitman is not far removed, they do not seem to be provoking the same degree of unrest among America's electorate. Arguable the Administration of George "5-4" W. Bush is even worse than Reagan Administration in Environmental Policy, and seem to be drifting even further since the 2002 elections. However the major environmental organizations do not seem to be able to focus attention, or perhaps interest, on this issue. The reason for that may be changing social and cultural norms, but it also may be due to the perception that these organizations are not relevant. Dowie's book may be a bit out-of-date, but it is well worth the read. I think Dowie was right in 1995 and his ideas still ring true today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Critique of mainstream's blindsiding of the environment., October 5, 1996
By A Customer
This review is from: Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century (Hardcover)
Perhaps the greatest weakness of individual
environmentalists and the environmental "movement" is the absence
of public self-examination. While political insiders may clearly
see the difference between the National Wildlife Federation and
the Sierra Club, the public has few resources to gauge them.
Opening the doors is author Mark Dowie, a champion of local
activism and the integration of environmental issues with other
social movements.
Tracing the origins and bureaucratization of the
environmental movement, Dowie criticizes the most recent surge of
co-option, the "third wave" or economics-based environmentalism.
"Regulatory flexibility and 'constructive engagement' with
industry have created some business heroes, but they can be
counted on one hand," he writes. "The rest, unfortunately, need
to be regulated."
This is not to say this book is a rant against environmental
business. There are no heroes or villains in this book, which
makes it a rarity in the environmental lexicon. Instead, Dowie
criticizes the corporate structure of environmental groups, and
portrays each organization with their individual merits and
flaws.
Compromising Local Leadership
Dowie reminds readers of the decision by the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Cultural Survival to negotiate with
the Ecuadorian government over oil drilling in the Yasuni
Reserve. Arguing that oil drilling would be inevitable, and
"[w]ithout consulting the Huaorani people or the appropriate
Ecuadorian environmental organizations, [NRDC's] Scherr and
Kennedy struck a deal: Conoco could drill on the Huaoroni reserve
in return for a $10-million donation to an Ecuadorian foundation
created by NRDC and Cultural Survival, an indigenous-rights
groups based in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
The NAFTA debate saw essentially the same argument made:
free trade is inevitable, so environmentalists have to go along
and get what they can. NAFTA's "It's a win-win-win situation"
argument was accepted by various environmental groups. In the
long run, the agreement and side provisions may indeed provide
resources and rewards for cross-border environmental planning.
But Dowie draws back to review the consequences of increased
commerce.
"It should be clear to any environmental thinker that free
trade can only lead to the globalization of massive, consumer-
based economies that are, in the long run, whatever the
legislated safeguards, ecologically destructive. But mainstream
environmental officials evidently don't think a lot about the
distant future. Like the corporations they have come to resemble,
they tend to be occupied with the day-to-day imperatives of
strategy, competition and survival."
From a parochial viewpoint, it would have been interesting
had Dowie included a critique of the way in which many D.C.
groups finally "discovered" environmental problems along the
border and how most of these organizations lost interest in the
border after NAFTA passed. It would also be interesting to
document the criticism the mainstream groups made of those local
groups that disagreed with them on the potential consequences of
NAFTA.
At the Center and Stumbling
The problem with mainstream environmental groups stems from
their decisions in the 1980s to focus energies on power plays in
Washington, D.C., instead of reaching out to state and community
organizations. Had the focus remained on "reaching out to state,
local and regional organizations," he writes, "the American
environmental movement today would be much stronger and more
consequential than it is. An explosive critical mass of national
activism could have been formed. Instead, a relatively harmless
and effete new club appeared."
Dowie suggests that the disproportionate ratio of funding
(70 percent to 30 percent) between mainstream and grassroots
groups remains an obstacle for community organization, suggesting
that "a 20-point shift, of $200 million would change the
complexity of the entire environmental community."
The publication of Losing Ground offers readers an
insightful view of relations among environmental groups, many of
which demand transparency in government and business circles, but
not among themselves or their colleagues. This is one of the most
valuable guidebooks and is one of the year's must-reads.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
