Bronze-level articleAnti-environmentalism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by 12.68.160.24 (talk) to last revision by 71.97.75.45)
(DDT)
Line 48: Line 48:
 
*[[Pagan]]/[[Satanic]] cults
 
*[[Pagan]]/[[Satanic]] cults
 
*[[Abortion|Population control]]
 
*[[Abortion|Population control]]
 +
*[[Genocide]] against [[African]]s due to a ban on [[DDT]], even though the supposed "ban" left exceptions for fighting [[malaria]].
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 01:04, 15 June 2013

A bunch of tree-huggers

Environmentalism

Wigoworld.svg
Save the rainforests!
Watch that carbon footprint!
Not just a river in Egypt

Denialism

Icon denialism.svg
A dirty dozen gems
Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.
—1969 Brown & Williamson document[1]

Anti-environmentalism is a term referring to the political reaction and industry backlash against the burgeoning environmentalist movement of the mid-20th century. The rhetorical tactics used by anti-environmentalist groups are sometimes referred to as "green-baiting" in reference to the tactic of red-baiting and the style of argumentation is often referred to as "tobacco science" in reference to the tobacco industry's notorious denialist campaigns. The trend is also sometimes referred to as "brownlash," a play on "backlash."[2] Anti-environmentalist figures and organizations rarely, if ever, use this term. They prefer to either present themselves as "skeptics" or as "concerned environmentalists" trying to refute "alarmist" elements within their ranks, more or less concern trolling actual environmental groups. Anti-environmentalism is, essentially, environmental denialism.

Contents

Notable campaigns

In the United States, there were a number of notable anti-environmental campaigns:

Denialist

  • Denial of cancer risks from smoking and second-hand smoke.
  • Denial of risks related to DDT.
  • Denial of acid rain.
  • Denial of the role of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in creating a hole in the ozone layer.
  • Denial of global warming.

Anti-wilderness

The Sagebrush Rebellion (1970s-1980s) and Wise Use (1990s-present) movements. Not denialist per se, these were movements to oppose federal wilderness designation and National Park expansion, and calling for existing public lands to be opened up to logging, mining, ranching, off road vehicles and oil drilling. Especially popular in western U.S. states, like Alaska during the height of local opposition to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona; and more recently the Pacific Northwest during the northern spotted owl controversy. The Wise Use name came into usage and replaced the Sagebrush Rebellion name after the 1988 Multiple Use Strategy Conference organized by Ron Arnold, but was essentially a continuation of the same movement.[3] These groups remain active and popular in parts of the west, and it could be argued that something similar is happening in the east as well with such groups as West Virginia's Friends of Coal.

Techniques and rhetoric

Astroturfing

  • Heavy use of astroturf: When a scientific consensus becomes apparent, corporations bankroll experts for hire to spread propaganda through front groups. These are often established think tanks or ones set up for the express purpose of denialism, often having Orwellian names like "Science and Environmental Policy Project" or "Friends of Science." These projects tend to fund "research" by the few remaining contrarian scientists who stand against the general consensus along with "policy experts," sometimes employing generous amounts of credential-fudging. This is sometimes mockingly referred to as the "denier-industrial complex."[4] One study found that over 90% of books published in the past two decades espousing "environmental skepticism" were published by conservative think tanks.[5] ExxonMobil has played a large role in funding denialist think tanks and political initiatives.[6]
  • Use of said front groups to publish their "research" rather than going through the academic peer review process and heavy use of PR tactics and FUD campaigns. (See also uncertainty tactic.)
  • Lobbyist groups buying politicians to vote against environmental regulations and hype their propaganda. This can also involve regulatory capture and the use of "soft money" to help stack governmental regulatory and scientific organizations with industry-friendly "experts" (e.g., Dubya's suppression of climate science.)
  • Greenwashing and promotion of dubious "solutions" like "clean coal." Some of the really cranky types will hype abiotic oil.
  • Use of SLAPP suits against environmental groups and scientists.

Stereotyping

Frame-flipping

Conspiracy theories

Hard right conspiracy theorists also view environmentalism as a front for any number of the following:[9]

See also

External links

References

  • Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Review
  • The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, Website
  • Doubt is Their Product by David Michaels, Review

Footnotes

  1. B&W memo
  2. Manipulating Public Knowledge, Sharon Beder
  3. The Perversion of 'Wise Use', The Brooklyn Rail
  4. Organized Climate Change Denial "Played a Crucial Role in Blocking Domestic Legislation," Top Scholars Conclude, Climate Progress
  5. The Propaganda Machine and Climate Change, Mano Singham
  6. Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air, Union of Concerned Scientists
  7. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this as well as the recent "war on light bulbs."
  8. Watch Rush Limbaugh deny most of the major environmental problems of the last few decades in one fell swoop.
  9. Earth Worship: Environmentalism seen as police state precursor, Southern Poverty Law Center
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support