This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.
Americans are reclaiming ‘environmentalism’ from the radical left.
Certain words and phrases take on new meaning as time goes by, often due to the politicization of our language. A clear example of such evolution is in regard to what it means to be an environmentalist.
Decades ago, concern for the environment largely centered on keeping the land free of clutter, the water protected from contamination, and the cities unpolluted by soot and smog. One of the major environmentalist movements of the 1960s was fronted by then-First Lady “Lady Bird” Johnson, who initiated a campaign to “Keep America Beautiful.” Johnson explained that her passion for beautification was in perfect concert with other important objectives.
“Getting on the subject of beautification is like picking up a tangled skein of wool,” she wrote in a 1965 diary entry. “All the threads are interwoven – recreation and pollution and mental health, and the crime rate, and rapid transit, and highway beautification, and the war on poverty, and parks – national, state and local. It is hard to hitch the conversation into one straight line, because everything leads to something else.”
The campaign to clean up the national landscape was bolstered by a heavy rotation of public service television ads showing litter along highways, waterways and parks, and imploring people to “Keep America Beautiful.” Most famous in the long-running campaign was an early 1970s ad ending with a closeup of actor Iron Eyes Cody, a teardrop falling from one eye as he surveyed a polluted environment. (Cody turned out to be an Italian American, not a Native American as portrayed, but that’s another story.)
But as the “global warming” movement came into vogue, the definition of environmentalism began to shift. Leftwing media, politicians and organizations began to define environmentalism almost solely on the basis of adherence to its greenhouse gas theories and its demonization of the fossil fuel industry. In their world, anyone supporting our most reliable and dependable energy sources – natural gas, fuel oil and coal – disqualified themselves as environmentalists. In fact, they were accused of being “anti-environment.”
Too often, the left’s political targets played right into their hands, struggling to defend themselves and sometimes even downplaying or ridiculing the importance of a clean environment. By allowing “environmentalism” to be redefined and coopted by the radical left, true environmentalism was lost. Fortunately, a recent action by President Trump will help reverse course.
While the passage and signing of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” grabbed most of the attention over the Independence Day weekend, an executive order signed by Trump on July 3 may have an even more lasting impact. The president’s “Make America Beautiful Again” order, “establish(ed) a council tasked with conserving public lands, protecting wildlife populations and ensuring clean drinking water,” as the Washington Post described it, while adding that the order remained “silent on climate change.”
While the Post and other leftwing news outlets cling to the “climate change” definition of environmentalism, Trump’s executive order is a first step toward reclaiming the term and unifying the country around the concept of a cleaner world.
Trump’s order decrees that all federal land management agencies will “promote responsible stewardship of natural resources while driving economic growth, expand access to public lands and waters for recreation, hunting, and fishing, encourage responsible, voluntary conservation efforts, cut bureaucratic delays that hinder effective environmental management, and recover America’s fish and wildlife populations through proactive, voluntary, on-the-ground collaborative conservation efforts.”
Trump’s order was inspired by the years-long efforts of 27-year-old Benji Backer, a “conservative environmentalist” who leads a group called, “Nature is Nonpartisan.”
“This issue needs to get out of the culture wars,” Backer told the Post. “People just are so divided over President Trump, right? But if he could do one thing that brings people together, and it’s protecting the environment, it would change the course of the issue forever.”
By returning “environmentalism” to its original purpose of protecting the air, land and water, the Trump administration will open the doors for those targeted by the left as environmental villains, welcoming everyone – right, left, middle – to actively engage in real environmentalism.
Those who provide America and the world with our most affordable and reliable energy sources have long cared about preserving the environment, in particular by investing in new technologies that make traditional energy cleaner than ever.
For example, advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies used to extract natural gas have allowed the United States to lead all major industrialized countries in carbon reductions. Home heating oil burner emissions have been reduced to near zero levels, while the sulfur content has been reduced from 1% to about 0.5%. And rapidly evolving coal plant technology means that modern pollution controls reduce nitrogen oxides by 83%, sulfur dioxide by 98%, and particulate matter by 99.8%.
As Benji Backer says, it’s time to move environmentalism out of the realm of the culture wars. Americans across the political spectrum love the environment and understand the need to protect it. Led by the president’s “Make America Beautiful Again” commission, the day is here when we can once again declare in unison that we are all environmentalists.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
______________________________________________________________________________
For God’s sake quit buying into the “Carbon” emissions scam.
If you don’t like what the left has done to environmentalism,
then stop allowing them to choose your words for you.
While I don’t disagree with your reason-based point, sometimes, when arguing against a fanatic, where even accepting their premise allows you to present your argument, it’s sometimes productive do so (pretend to buy into their premise).
When I ‘discuss’ the issue of climate change with believers, simply asking “then why do none of the suggested cures (windmills, solar) address the issue? Why does almost no-one endorse nuclear?” usually stops them in their tracks. If that soaks in, only then does one maybe attack the premise of CO2 being bad. Maybe.
One step at a time.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will no doubt continue to pipe up when people unconsciously use the language those wonderful liberals dream up to further their agenda.
One of the newest attempts: Liberals don’t like it that the so called main stream media is getting tarnished by having their heavy handed propaganda & lies of omission pointed out. So they’re trying to rebrand themselves as “The Legacy Media” And you know what, I’ve seen people who should know better here on WUWT use that term. Because why? Do they think it makes them look hip, smart and with it?
Climate Change hysteria is a propaganda war of words.
Control the language, control the ideas.
— 1984 (if memory serves)
By using “their” language and definitions, it is my position that all we do in increase “their” credibility.
To communicate in science (and engineering), concise language is essential.
To communicate in politics, context (aka the word means what I say it means at the moment I speak it, subject to change if I speak it again) is the driver, which is why often you walk away not knowing exactly what they said.
Thinking about it more, here’s a way to distinguish between your approach and mine:
Your approach is best for the general public. Such as in a newspaper article, podcast, or other mass-market venue.
When dealing with individuals (where you may not want to break bonds in your local community, for example) you take the more individual, nuanced approach.
We’re all trying to fix the public’s view. How you approach it depends on the audience,
All the best.
I think the legacy BS is backfiring on them. If I ever refer to the legacy media, I go with “legacy, aka dead” media. Same with the Inflation Reduction Act – the Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act. We’re always behind the tribes of parasites, but we always catch up in the end, so they always have to come up with new BS.
Perhaps the change from “main stream media” to legacy media” is because we’re forcing the terms “lame stream media” and “misleadia” into the conversation?
To me, the term Legacy Media means the old and stagnate media and not very smart. But they use it as a positive term? Weird.
I like the method of first acknowledging their goals, then ask them why they limit the potential solutions.
For example:
If your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, why do you reject natural gas? Natural gas is the reason why the US was able to reduce it’s CO2 emissions …
You frame the argument in a way they can relate to, without inherently agreeing with their definitions.
Thank you.
Maybe it’s not buying into the carbon thing- but just showing there are reductions of emissions when that’s not even the goal by properly exploiting fossil fuels. I say that about proper forestry. Well managed forests result in more carbon stored in the forest over time when it’s not even the goal- compared to poorly managed forests. It’s a way to try to hook in those fearful of the evil chemical carbon. It would be better to always argue that carbon emissions isn’t a problem- but first it might be better to show that wise use of resources doesn’t contribute to climate change. Then let them draw the conclusion.
Lady Bird deserves to be honored for her billboard restrictions that both beautified our highways and made them safer.
The reaction of environmentalists to whale, bird, and bat killing wind turbines says it all.
I would call the Climate Caterwaulers “fake environmentalists”, because for them, “saving the planet” supersedes everything else. Additionally, since they hate life-giving planet-greening CO2, that makes them the exact opposite of “green”. And they are fine with having manufacturing and mining go overseas, to places where environmental standards are way behind ours. So no, in no way are they environmentalists, in fact, just the opposite.
You forgot the suffering of kids and others in forced labor to run those mines.
Then there’s “green” hypocrisy like Apple with their products that are glued shut and they keep making them ever more difficult to repair. Plus they make it near impossible to use their products second-hand if the original owner doesn’t unlock them from Apple ID and Find My Device.
Pawn shops should require all Apple devices to be fully unlocked before making loans on them. Otherwise they have useless junk if the pawner doesn’t pay the money back. Before Apple started this I was able to fully unlock an iPad for a pawnshop so it could be sold. About a year later someone brought me a slightly newer iPad he’d taken as part trade for something. It was impossible to unlock. There was a hack to access a janky Chinese domain name server so the internet could be used on it but no apps could be used because it was locked to someone’s Apple ID.
In contrast, Chromebooks have a “power wash” function to completely wipe their data so they can be used. Buy a used one or find a lost one, you can wipe it and use it. That is “green”.
Ferenc Miskolczi concluded exactly this:
“The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of the CRE (Chandrasekhar-type radiative equilibrium). Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible. Let us emphasize the overall conclusion:
The Arrhenius type GE (greenhouse effect) of CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs (greenhouse gases) is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing. Without scientific proof the debate on the CO2 GE based catastrophic AGW (anthropogenic global warming) should be abandoned and policymakers should focus on the more urgent environmental and social issues of humanity. The recent worldwide energy crisis is a warning sign that the promotion of the so-called green energy is neither solving energy shortages nor helping to protect the environment from pollution. The climate does not need protection, but the clean environment does.”
04/05/2023 Ferenc Miskolczi: Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05
Oop, there it is.
In a sense, at least according to Wiki (and I’m surprised that the cultists haven’t deleted this), Arrhenius seems to have been the Michael Mann of his time, working the insider-science game. Although he also said that burning coal was a GOOD thing and that it would prevent the next ice age.
About 1900, Arrhenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1901. For the rest of his life, he would be a member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry. He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van ‘t Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev).[15]
I have noticed that CNN is longer referring to climate change as resulting from “greenhouse gas emissions.” It is now fossil fuel pollution.
I think most of CNN’s viewership is when Greg Gutfeld is taking the p!$$ out of them on Fox.
…. and when is YouTube going to get rid of their juvenile disclaimer on anything climate-related?
No real environmentalist could EVER countenance wind farms anywhere. !
Solar industrial estates should only be in zoned industrial areas, NEVER on farmland where, if damaged, can leave silicon glass fragments in the earth for animals to swallow.
It really goes back to before dear Lady Bird (and her campaign against billboards on highways).
Early environmentalists were closer to Teddy Roosevelt than to Micky Mann.
My first exposure to “environmentalism” was working with the Genesee Conservation Club, Rochester NY) which was composed of sportsmen, including hunters who made use of their firearms range over an abandoned quarry; with a club house adorned with fish and game trophies.
They sponsored a BSA troop of which I was a leader. The club led a countywide effort to clean up streams and roads on the first “Environment Day” in 1973; following the example of the Sierra Club to “address natural resource depletion and protect natural landscapes”. (Quite a change from their current mission.)
Even before climate change was a glimmer in any socialist’s eyes, they had already begun to redefine environmentalism.
They were defining it as the complete locking away of all resources and public spaces.
National parks were to be looked at, preferably from afar. Hiking and camping, as little as possible. Trees were never to be cut. Mining or drilling, never, under any circumstances.
Here’s one of those early socialists speaking in November 1989
OMG , lack of knowledge of history.
Thatcher came up with that bovex during a battle against coal unions.
And recanted it later.
You STILL haven’t shown any evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
The only thing that enhanced CO2 has done FOR the planet is enhance plant growth.
As you have repeatedly shown, here is no scientific evidence it has changed “the climate” in any way whatsoever.
Read Thatcher’s autobiography for the full story of her using the fledgling “scare” to kick the crap out of the miners and then stating CO2 induced climate change was BS.
In her autobiography ‘Statecraft’ she said that she “regretted handing the green marxists their agenda on a plate”.
But by that time the damage had been done.
Very nice, let’s keep moving forward.
How about a revival of the “Pitch In” anti-littering campaign?
I see that now- I get the e-newsletter from the US Forest Service. Before Trump, it was always nothing but carbon and climate change and how to NOT managed forests. Now, it’s all about real forest stewardship including managing for wood products and economics WHILE protecting soil, water, wildlife, etc. And now they’re going to step up harvesting, significantly.
I was a Boy Scout in the ’70s and every year our troop would deploy multiple times to the wilderness to do various projects like brush clearing, trail building/maintenance and whatnot, most of which was hard labor. Meanwhile, the officially recognized “environmentalists” were hanging out on the college quads smoking dope, thinking big, playing hackey sack and the guys were looking to score with easy liberal women.
With modern Progressivism, it’s always up to someone else to do the real work.