Exploring criticisms of 'Neo-environmentalism'

Having read Paul Kingsnorth’s article regarding ‘new environmentalism’, which was published yesterday in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/01/neogreens-science-business-save-planet#start-of-comments, I would like to pick out and discuss a few points.  Firstly I would like to state now that I both agree with some points made by the author and disagree with others, infact I think that the author confused himself by treating two different views towards conservation as mutually exclusive whereas in fact they are not.  Secondly, I will be reiterating points which I have already made and will therefore include references to other blogs.

The author uses the term ‘neo environmentalists’ to denote scientists which ‘speak the language of money and power’ to create a ‘business friendly’ argument for conservation.  He states that conservation has failed to changes society’s values as economic growth still dictates the outcome of decisions which have environmental impacts.  In short, I believe that the author is referring to scientists who have recognised that in order to bring about effective conservation they must demonstrate to governments and large businesses that such conservation is economically viable.  For a good example of such a piece of science, here is an article posted on the BBC website on the 31^st of July http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050796.  I think that it is useful to deem this approach to conservation a top down approach as it attempts to alter the decisions of a few institutions (by better informing these decisions).

The author contrasts this top down approach to conservation with his favoured approach, one of reconnecting people with nature.  He suggests that if people are exposed to nature as a part of their everyday lives then they will come to value this nature and therefore will be more inclined to conserve it.  In this way I believe the author is promoting a bottom up approach to conservation which focuses on altering the attitudes of individuals.  In reading the article I gained the impression that the author feels that the two approaches are incompatible as one promotes an economic valuation of nature and the other an intrinsic valuation of nature.  However, suppose an individual values nature for its own sake and therefore wants to conserve nature.  If this individual feels that they will be most effective by taking a top down, economic valuation approach then promoting an economic valuation of nature and holding an intrinsic valuation of nature are not exclusive.

I would also like to pick up on a few phrases which I believe the author used sloppily.  Firstly he states that under ‘neo environmentalism’ ‘the value of nature is measured by what we can do with it’. This is wrong.  The value of nature is based upon what nature does (and has always done) for us.  Secondly the author states that ‘neo environmentalists’ believe that growth has no limits.  This is not true, such scientists aim to ensure that economic growth is not pursued at the cost of natural capital. 

Lastly I would like to discourage the view that humans and scientists will act as ‘Gods’ managing the planet ‘rationaly’.  This view of nature as a garden created by and for humans does not reflect the current conservation movement which is towards large scale ‘re-wilding’ projects which aim to restore nature to a more pristine state.  If anything these projects move away from the role of humans as Gods present in historical conservation where small sites where micromanaged to achieve very specific (pristine like) habitats which would not occur without human intervention.

I have previously written blogs exploring attempts to value nature economically (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4254055270310485372#editor/target=post;postID=7495951196544968614) and the importance of humans learning to value nature by being immersed in it (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4254055270310485372#editor/target=post;postID=6075429287993672434 and http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4254055270310485372#editor/target=post;postID=8039094925610903687) and I would encourage you to read one of those if you found this blog interesting.  I may also pick up on some other points made in the Guardian article at a later date.