Supporting them in their endeavor are such reputable organizations as the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, and the California Oak Foundation. The tree-sitters even have a website for their cause: http://www.saveoaks.com.
On the surface, the action of the protestors could seem like a bold, principled action to protect an important terrestrial ecosystem. Indeed, the felling of a mature oak grove is not an act to be celebrated. However, due to unintended consequences of the protestors’ actions, they are greatly damaging the cause of environmental protection, and producing a net loss to the environment.
How are the protestors unintentionally hindering sustainability efforts?
1. Promoting Sprawl: Wherever buildings are constructed, preexisting ecosystems are altered or destroyed. Construction of the athletic center on the oak grove site would preserve walkability, while an alternative site would likely involve oil-fueled, pollution-spewing transportation, and destruction of other ecosystems or natural habitats. Preservation of the of the oak grove with the consequence of a distantly-located athletic center would accomplish nothing for the environment at best, while at worst would directly harm the environment.
2.
3. Alienating Potential Allies: Highly publicized tree-sits foster ill will and misperception of environmentalists and of sustainability, by projecting an image that environmentalists stand for plants over people, trivialities over significance, their own sense of importance over substantive accomplishments. To mobilize the public to support their interests, environmentalists need to present themselves as leaders of practicality, purveyors of sustainable solutions to that will better the world. As with any war, The Green War will be won or lost by people; therefore, to win, we must unite our potential allies towards the goal of a greener, brighter future.
4. Protest Over Progress: In the early years of environmentalism, protest was an important tool. However, protest itself does not produce solutions, and therefore is used only by the disadvantaged and powerless. Today, we can do better than protest. True greens now have the chance to become the majority, to gain unprecedented influence on the future direction of the world through traditional institutions and exercise of power. We must drive the world to a better future, because we are the only ones with the necessary knowledge and will to guide it. If we stand in the way of progress, we will perish in the ensuing fray. We must exchange protest for progress.
In my following posts, I will examine the details behind the preceding points.
Furl this page 
6 comments:
As someone who was just removed from the Bear Mountain tree sit in BC, I find your post highly offensive and disturbing.
That this is where the mainstream enviro movement is heading is even more disturbing.
Your sell-out compromise attitude towards development speaks volumes about what you truly believe in.
Who says that building NEEDS to be built. 38 trees are damn well worth more than any piece of crap building our culture throws up.
And don't presume to tell other people what you think is a better use of their time. Turn off your computer and take direct action for the places you care about. Letters to the editor, rallies, emails, petitions are not working. Direst action is called for when all else fails.
Diversity of tactics, my friend. Or are you my friend? It seems you are more than willing to play into the divide and conquer tactics of the police state culture and dismiss and entire movement of people who you need to start treating as allies.
At this stage, it matters little what the public think of tree sit actions. They buy time for the mainstream to get their sh%$ together and get something done. The public is too apathetic and cowed into the capitalist authority game to be any kind of change anymore.
We're screwed really, and desperate actions are being taken sometimes just to get the message across that sometimes we just refuse to see any more destroyed.
Whether you like that or not, you do way more damage to the movement by alienating people than any of our actions ever can.
vicfan,
Thank you for your feedback – I appreciate the amount of thought you put into your position, and your passion for protecting the environment. I would like to clarify a few points, which will also be elaborated in my following posts.
First, I am not condemning all tree sits, only this specific tree sit in Berkeley, for the following reasons: (1) The environmental value of the end goal that Berkeley protestors are trying to accomplish is dubious at best. Regardless of whether the university SHOULD, it WILL build the building somewhere, and the alternative site could cause sprawl and might cost the lives of more than 38 trees; (2) The protestors could save more than 38 trees if they used their time differently; (3) In the long run, alienating people who could help us is an unwise strategy; and (4) In this era, environmentalists can do better than protest.
Your anger is understandable. I’m angry, too. I lived in China for over a year. Every day I choked on the pollution-drenched air, and saw them destroying every part of every ecosystem that could sustain life. It made me sick. It makes me sick that much of that pollution was excreted to produce short-lived consumer goods that we in North America buy and trash. It makes me sick that our forests are being razed to produce junk mail catalogs that are thrown out in seconds. The question is, what to do about it? What do we do with our anger?
Protest is only Step One. Protest calls attention to the problem. But protest, by itself, does not solve the problem. If we only protest, the riot squad will eventually invade, the trees will eventually be cut down, and business as usual will resume. We must do better than that, and we can.
Like it or not, (1) our economy is capitalist (communism is actually worse for the environment – look at all former and present Communist nations as examples), (2) government is the authority, and (3) the ruling majority wants development. Nothing short of a violent uprising ending in full-scale continental bloodbath, which you don’t even have the numbers to initiate, and which would be far more environmentally destructive than the status quo, will change that. Instead, given that (1), (2), and (3) will be true for the foreseeable future, we need to figure out how to use these facts to get what we want. This is what my subsequent posts are intended to cover.
If you believe in no compromises and direct action, then figure out how to live without a computer, a car, heat, or anything you cannot create yourself without harming the earth. See how well you like that life – my guess is that you make compromises yourself, just like everyone does. And if you really think we are screwed, then why not just give up? If the chainsaws will move in anyway, then what difference does it make? What I advocate is using our knowledge of the world to work within the system, and around the system, to make change.
Changing the world will not be easy. It will involve conflict, which I am sure you can appreciate. My blog isn’t called “The Happy Green Path to Sustainable Utopia”; it is called “The Green War”. Our enemies are everywhere, and challenges are at every turn. If we can fight smarter, we must – that is my main point. My future posts will explain further.
Hi David Green,
I think I understand your point. The environmental issue is no longer isolated battles to protect bit and pieces of the planet. It is a war, which will determine the survival of the entire human society. So, the environmentalists have to look at the big picture and find a way to win the entire war.
Of course, we should not offend the Green people, like vicfan. They are the most valuable assets on this war.
I wrote an article called, What is a Sustainable Society? I hope both you and vicfan could agree. Here is the link.
http://www.sustainablesocietyclub.com/forums/content/General-Green-Topics/11/What-is-a-Sustainable-Society-/
“The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”
- Albert Camus
Certainly the integrity of the activists in the trees cannot be criticized. They have beliefs--whatever they may be--about the nature of the planet, campus, politics, and the trees they suffer to protect. Those beliefs have led them to respond with drastic action, which I can only assume is primarily in hope to incite a change in the strategy of the administration and its building plans, among other awareness objectives detailed by www.saveoaks.com.
In spite of the cautious admiration I have for anyone who will respond nonviolently and strongly as have the activists, it seems to me that there is a disconnect between the intent/action and the attainability of the desired outcome.
For this reason, I am inclined to agree with David green's assessment of the situation. While this building project certainly matters in the context of those specific oaks--if the building is built, they die--there are many sub-outcomes that could be more harmful to the environment in aggregate if the oaks are saved. Understanding the environmental revolution needed to save this planet as just that--a revolution--we must target our efforts on a grander, more attainable scale.
With all due respect, just think how many trees the activists could have planted, how many solar panels they could have installed, hell, even how many hours of education they could have received or imparted in the time they’ve spent up there! Thanks for your analysis of this situation. I look forward to future posts.
I am not a member of the green movement, but one thing the university has agreed to do is plant three trees for everyone removed therefore you get more trees in the end. resulting in a net win to your cause. And as the author writes these people do not give a outsider a good impression of your cause. the people in those trees are no example to the world and above all they are violating property rights and trespassing, also 70,000 people show up every saturday during football season while thousands more watch nationwide looks like the people have spoken for what they really want. You guys would be better off fighting the rapid development of the farmland in the central valley then wasting your time on a small bit of infill in a major metro area.
while i'm still appreciative of and amazed at the well-intentioned dialogs that are possible on the internet these days, i'm only here to engage for a moment. there are more than a few points i simply could not ignore here:
1. "While this building project certainly matters in the context of those specific oaks--if the building is built, they die--there are many sub-outcomes that could be more harmful to the environment in aggregate if the oaks are saved. Understanding the environmental revolution needed to save this planet as just that--a revolution--we must target our efforts on a grander, more attainable scale."
...or, we need to recognize that the Sierra Club is doing their thing, the Earth Firsters are doing theirs, and the reality is, those of us on the computer are ... on the computer. Action is action. Talk is talk. The grander, more attainable scale is nebulous and philosophical. The oak grove is specific and real.
2. "... just think how many trees the activists could have planted,"
you might want to look at the ecological significance of old growth versus seedlings that would be planted. furthermore, just because a tree is planted does not mean that it is immediately of the same quality as old growth, let alone that it will survive in the long term.
3. "... how many solar panels they could have installed,"
where do you think the raw materials for solar panels come from? americans really have to get over this idea that if we just buy the right new THING that we'll be saved in the nick of time. new stuff, even solar panels, requires energy consumption, raw materials (or significant shipping and processing and shipping again).
and also...
d-tails said...
"I am not a member of the green movement,"
wait, shit, was i supposed to sign up somewhere? i don't have my membership card handy right now.
"but one thing the university has agreed to do is plant three trees for everyone removed therefore you get more trees in the end. resulting in a net win to your cause."
no, a net win is maintaining old growth, not 114 neglected genetic clones planted in lines. a net win is an informed, passionate local populace. a net win is clearly winning one battle such that other tree sitters and empassioned activists are inspired and have faith to continue their struggles elsewhere and learn from each campaign.
"the people in those trees are no example to the world and above all they are violating property rights and trespassing, "
don't trust me. go do some research on how american companies regularly violate property rights at home and abroad. what about the property rights this country has violated since 1492. this country has a long legacy of both violating rights and of noble rebellion to stop those violations.
"also 70,000 people show up every saturday during football season while thousands more watch nationwide looks like the people have spoken for what they really want."
yeah. despite all of the faulty logic, you're right. football, teevee, and plastic wrapped cheeseburgers eaten on the freeway while talking on the cancer phone really, genuinely are what people are choosing. it's scary.
"You guys would be better off fighting the rapid development of the farmland in the central valley then wasting your time on a small bit of infill in a major metro area."
frankly, we'd probably be better off just grabbing a greasy burger and having a beer at one of your tailgate parties. maybe if we started going to church and getting our souls saved before the environmental armageddon, we'd feel a little better about our current spiritual places being plundered.
and for the record, i know i'm being angsty and snippy here. i'm pissed-no-i'm heartbroken. but to be fair and responsible, i am in no way associated with the treesit (even though i did say "we" rhetorically) so don't pin my panties-in-a-bunch syndrome on them.
thanks for reading and thanks for the forum.
Post a Comment