Rivers Unlimited

"The Death of Environmentalism" is a fascinating document about why the environmental movement has not succeeded with legislation to reduce global warming, to avert terrible catastrophe.

It says environmentalists appear as a special interest. We have not framed our issues in terms of the unions, the auto makers, about jobs, we have not emphasized the positives, looked at the real causes of why we haven not made headway. That our solutions to global warming have been technical, not political, that we have not presented a grand vision. To address this failure (which I see as being unfairly attributed to the environmental movement) there has been founded the New Apollo Project.

ECO has done superb work with very little money and support. We work with the immediately affected public, with unions, with management if possible, maybe even with the city councils and the enforcement community. The Death of Environmentalism does not represent the history of ECO at all.

One of the reasons for founding ECO was that the Environmental Advisory Council of Cincinnati, for various reasons, was no longer an effective force in Cincinnati. Perhaps it was too academic, it liked to study things but did not know how or feared to be activist or was threatened by city control over its works. But ECO has been doing the work the EAC should be doing. Perhaps ECO should make more noise and provide a monthly advisory to Cincinnati and other City Councils.

ECO began and continues to use the paradigm shift of the bigger picture, making the coalitions. There may be some other tools out there.

Going after polluters can contribute to job creation in the region. As a society we are very interested in quality of life. That includes clean air, clean water, attractive surroundings, security against toxics, explosions, industrial fires, radiation, noise and commotion. We have evolved from a primarily manufacturing community to a recreational and residential service industry one where quality of life is king.

A year ago the Cincinnati Post carried our guest editorial on how to revive Cincinnati by making it attractive to the young and well-educated: by cleaning up our air and water quality and toxic waste sites. People with a choice go where it is nice. Where they do, property values rise, tax base rises, we can spend more on schools, public services and parks. Then your place becomes a magnet for development. ECO can use this argument.
This is borne out by a new book, The Flight of the Creative Class, by Richard Florida.

For ECO and air quality, besides enforcement of the Clean Air Act, perhaps there is a way to emphasize the benefit/cost ratio of enforcing the Act. Until a recent tightening of particulate standards, the economic benefits of pollution controls were over 40 times their costs. What a terrific investment! The estimate for the new tighter standards is 4 to l, truly excellent. And I do not know if these calculations even include tax base appreciation.

Reciting these benefits from the studies and applying them to our polluting factories could strengthen our case for vigorous enforcement. We can say these people are hurting our health, our quality of life, they are chasing others away, they are costing the community! Obviously we should enforce all possible!

An early example of bringing together allies in an environmental pursuit was in 1975 when American Rivers tried to get the New River into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The ally here was unions. When Walter Reuther headed the United Auto Workers he was a strong environmental advocate. He said the outdoors were playgrounds for his union members. But we were fought tooth and nail by the real estate industry. They feared loss of the option to buy and sell in the region. We won the battle, and two years later the realtors would have become our biggest ally, because land values along the river had increased from $350 an acre to $30,000 an acre, by a factor of 90. Just because of the new image presented by a National River

Thus dollars are a way we have of selling environmentally desirable changes. We can show them that if they clean and pretty it up it will pay. Not just because it is the right thing to do but because the community will make money from it.

In our Rivers unlimited work back in 1984 I was reminded that restoring a city waterfront can bring great economic returns. Look at Newport and Covington. Even Cincinnati is better.

Then we looked at restoring rivers running through small towns, and the thought came, we do not have to invoke the environment, just the economic benefit, to interest the decision makers. They have the responsibility for spending public tax dollars. They want bigger tax base. We want more scenic river corridors and cleaner waters. If we can show them that economic, read dollar, benefits to the community will exceed costs to clean up and restore the river, we have accomplished our environmental purpose by giving them the tax base and income they want.

On Tuesday night I am addressing Loveland City Council on this, by invitation of a council member. My message will be: The more attractive and park-like you make the river and its corridor, the more they will visit Loveland, settle there, play there. The more it will become a residential and recreational amenity. It iss clean, it is beautiful, you are on a National Wild and Scenic River, what more could you ask, keep it that way, you are blessed!

In the River Resource Economic Studies of Rivers Unlimited, since 1997, when a community is interested in a study of its river, we first ask them their vision of what they want the river to be, to do for them. Do they want a park, a bikeway, an operative septic system, cleaner river water, more access, do they want to get rid of a dam, a dump, abandoned derelict buildings, or to restore eroded streambanks? We study the river and determine the benefits and costs of each investment.

They design our study. It is total buy-in. All interests agree. It is their river, for their good.

So the paradigm shift is seeing environmental improvements in terms of recreational and property value upgrades. A different approach.

A last example. I did a 12-pager on Diet, the U.S. Economy, the Federal Budget, Public Health and the Environment. When I found out that 2/3 of our cropland is used to feed animals that we eat and the milk and eggs they provide, I was amazed (I am a near-vegan for 13 years now). While it would be great for us all to change our diet, direct advocacy would be an instant loser.

What would a diet free from animal-derived foods mean? There are many special interests that would benefit from such a change:

-we would not have to spend $1500 per GM car for health care. Auto companies and unions would be pleased
-animal rights groups would be joyous, as there would be no more slaughter
-AARP would be happy we would live longer
-We would make lots of land free for redevelopment. New communities, park land, forests, biomass for fuel, wind farms
-Going to war for oil would be less attractive. Religious and peace groups would endorse.

What could cause the nation to consider diet change?

Our paradigm shift was to look at the costs and benefits. No moral freight, no selling it because it is good for you. Just the costs. Fund studies on land use change, energy savings, health care costs, food costs and environmental savings.

What we know now tells us we are looking at longer life expectancy, higher quality of life for much lower cost, toward sustainability. With an enormous coalition. And with opponents having immense power!
posted by Mike at 11:09 AM