Time's "Green Century" Advice: Less Environmental Activism

From Extra!
2002

Time's August 26 cover feature on "The Green Century" promises to explain "How to Save the Earth." The answer, according to a prominent article inside: blame environmentalists for a lack of environmental progress.

Andrew Goldstein's "Too Green for Their Own Good?" begins with this question: "How come, at a time when the environmental movement is stronger and richer than ever, our most pressing ecological problems just get worse?" One answer might be that the strength of the environmental movement is a testament to the public’s concern for the declining state of the environment. But for Goldstein, it seems to be almost the opposite: Environmentalists are partly to blame, since "it's easier to protest, to hurl venom at practices you don't like, than to find new ways to do business and create change." He writes that the "dogma of traditional green activism" might be what's wrong, as it "has done little to save the planet."

Goldstein offers plenty of advice for green groups-- like "Embrace the Market" and "Business Is Not the Enemy"-- while presenting remarkably little evidence to back up his opinions. "For starters," he writes, "when companies make efforts to turn green, environmentalists shouldn't jump down their throats the minute they see any backsliding." As an example, a former Greenpeace executive turned corporate consultant criticizes environmental groups for opposing Ford Motor Co., "arguably Detroit's most environmentally friendly carmaker," during the debate over fuel-efficiency standards. But as Goldstein parenthetically notes, Ford was lobbying against raising those standards, which have not been increased since 1985. Is it really "dogma" to think that 17 years later, standards should be raised?

It's true that Ford has made a special PR effort to enhance its green reputation. One tactic: sponsoring another major Time magazine environmental series, "Heroes for the Planet." The magazine was very upfront about how Ford's sponsorship would influence its reporting: Time's international editor explained that the series would be unlikely to address auto pollution, since "we don't run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes" (Wall Street Journal, 9/21/98). Ford has two full-page ads in the August 26 issue.

Goldstein also chastises environmental groups for not supporting a Clinton-era emissions trading proposal to reduce emissions by allowing power plants to trade "pollution credits" with other companies. Environmentalists blocked the plan, he says, because they viewed it as a ruse for companies to avoid cutting back on emissions. The result of such opposition was clear to Time: "Result: Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has no ability to regulate carbon, and the old, pollution-spewing plants are still in operation."

Contrary to Goldstein's assertions, some major environmental groups, like the Environmental Defense Fund, did in fact endorse emissions-trading plans in the 1990s; such a plan was enacted to limit acid rain in 1990 and expanded in 1995. While some green groups are skeptical that such plans are the most effective way to reduce pollution, the most important opponents to the Clinton proposal were global-warming skeptics in Congress (New York Times, 11/12/00).

More importantly, Goldstein neglects a more direct interference with the EPA: the Bush administration's well-publicized decision in March 2001 to remove carbon dioxide from the list of power plant emissions that the Environmental Protection Agency would regulate. This decision was linked to the concerns of energy companies, not pressure from environmentalists (Associated Press, 4/26/02).

Goldstein has similar advice on the fight over genetically modified foods, advising environmentalists that "it's time to raise the white flag and ask the world's bioengineers for a seat at the bargaining table." Suggesting that biotechnology is the key to ending hunger, he explains, "What could be better for the environment than a cheap, simple way for farmers to double or triple their output while using fewer pesticides on less land?" That sounds nice, but the notion that biotech dramatically improves yields while lowering pesticide use is nothing if not disputed. For instance, some studies have shown that farmers planting bioengineered crops like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy use as much as five time more herbicide than farmers using conventional crops (Rachel's Environment & Health News, 2/15/01). Studies of crop yields show marginal increases in production, which in some cases do not make up for the increased costs of the genetically modified seeds (USDA Economic Research Service, 5/16/02).

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that biotech is unambiguously good at increasing farm production, would that really feed the hungry? The anti-hunger group Food First has calculated that the world's farmers already produce enough to provide every person 4.3 pounds of food per day, if only it were distributed equitably (www.foodfirst.org). Rather than address such analysis directly, however, Goldstein dismisses critics of biotechnology as "crop tramplers and lab burners."

The magazine closes by recommending that green groups and "an environmentally friendly media" should stop using "scare tactics" and rely instead on sound science and honest analysis. Goldstein's use of vague, misleading anecdotes to bash environmentalists isn't particularly helpful to the environment-- but it is friendly to the corporate advertisers, including auto makers and oil companies, who sponsored Time's "How to Save the Earth" issue.

ACTION: Encourage Time to hold its reporting on environmental activism to a higher standard. "Too Green for Their Own Good?" relies on weak anecdotal arguments to bash environmentalists, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that would challenge the article's thesis. Ask Time whether corporate sponsorship of its environmental coverage influenced its journalism, as it did in 1998.