Debating the movement's future.

I read your cover story "Is the Green Movement in the Dumps?" (May/June 2005), and I have some feedback as a lifelong green, educator and policy guy. George Lakoff has it right, but if he has to be paid $350,000 to "re-frame" the issues in plain English, then we are already dead. We are so out of touch with regular folks outside of the college campus and liberal cities that it is sad.

Environmentalism became popular through identifying, fighting for and winning on local issues--not global ones. Americans do not think locally now and may never. Let's deal with it. The U.S. green agenda began to lose steam and the respect of mainstream Americans when everyone stupidly jumped on the "global warming" agenda. While the science may prove short-term effects of warming, that's all it does. It cannot prove future catastrophes, which are being prophesized to death by green scaremongers. If it gets cold for five years will the warming have ended? No, but the environmental movement will have ended.

Also, the fused-at-the-hip connection between environmentalists and the Democrats has been a horrible idea. Democrat politicians in my area (the Hudson River Valley) are largely pro-growth, "damn the tree-huggers." Aligning with them is a lose-lose. When they are in charge they do next to nothing in this tight economy; when the Republicans are in charge they take revenge on the green agenda for having supported the Democrats. Environmentalism should be practical, non-partisan, ecumenical and dogmatically apolitical, pushing its agenda to the general public.

Pete Seeger understood that 40 years ago. He met with everyone, sang for everyone, and the Hudson River got everyone's support and got cleaned up. And an environmental alliance with the unions: are you kidding? Did you ever talk to the "rank and file" about environmental issues? Stop picking on Bush The Bad and start pushing localized, easy-win battles. Get some momentum back and save $350,000.

Harv Hilowitz

Kingston, NY

Thank you for your thoughtful coverage of the recent debate over the future of environmentalism. Shellenberger, Nordhaus and Adam Werbach tell us that environmentalists need to join forces with other progressives. But too few environmentalists have taken issue with this. While a compelling vision is crucial to success, the environmental vision need not be a progressive one. I argue that the failure of environmentalism to make headway on climate change is due to its increasingly anti-conservative bent.

I'm a liberal, and proud of it. But I was once a card-carrying conservative, and my shift was one of values (though not green ones). I know many environmental goals can be accomplished through liberal or conservative policies, or framed for either ideal. Take climate change. It can be accomplished through regulations, and framed as measures to prevent the rich from hurting the poor, or, it can be accomplished through fiscal reform, and marketed as measures to prevent current largesse from infringing on the rights of our children.

President Bush's administration is anti-environmental, but Republicans need not be. If environmentalists promote political flexibility and a vision for embracing human needs, they will win favor among conservatives and propel the movement into the mainstream.

Kai M. A. Chan, Research Associate

Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University

Stanford, CA

In your recent cover article "Is the Green Movement in the Dumps?" you refer to Democrats having "science on their side when it comes to global warming." The statement is more true than anything the Religious Right could claim. But the truth needs action. Science education could be the galvanizing strategy the greens are seeking toward revolutionizing the hearts of generations to come.

Currently, science carves out the smallest portion of a student's required course load. In elementary schools, the 50 states ask teachers to barely scrape the surface of science education. Although teachers are often green supporters and have themselves developed units in river preservation or organic gardening, their efforts are often considered enrichment activities.

The sexy science courses at the high school level (only two years are required for graduation in most states) are genetics and biotech, both insidious, dollar-driven areas of study. Few schools have forestry programs or marine biology, both of which typically take students out of the schools and into the world. The environmental movement needs to support the growth of high school programs that teach green values.

More urgent than global warming is the education needed to recognize global warming. The environmental movement must mobilize to include education as a party, platform.

Christina Roux 

Weeden Foundation Trustee

Seattle, WA