The Green Earth Society always needs volunteers. Nature can’t march in demonstrations and the earth can’t cast a ballot, so if there’s any cause that needs advocacy in the political process it’s the environment. It’s always been a belief of yours that education is the key to a healthy democracy. People need to be informed enough to understand all the factors at play if they’re to make responsible choices.
Of course every interest group has a different idea of what information people need to make the ‘right’ decisions, and a different version of the truth to fit their agenda. An automotive company may tell you that their vehicles are more efficient, leading to less emissions from the tailpipe. But what they won’t tell you is that more people driving larger cars more often means that our total emissions continue to rise. The utility company may boast that they’re closing all of their coal burning plants in favor of clean burning natural gas, but they won’t tell you that the gas comes from hydraulic fracturing sites where millions of liters of toxic chemicals escape into the ecosystem. As they say: a little bit of information can be more dangerous than none at all.
The strategy of the Green Earth Society is three fold: First and foremost you want to educate people about what’s at stake. Every statement must be fact checked and backed up by meticulous research. That’s how you build up a bulletproof reputation and why your arguments hold so much weight. Secondly, you need to publish alternative policy papers, showing what the government could have done, so that people can see that you have solutions as well. Again you need to appear credible or you’ll just be dismissed off hand. The information you present is highly critical of established truths so you need to ensure it will stand up to the scrutiny it’s sure to receive. And finally you must reach out to people, get them involved in the change, show them what they can do to help, but they won’t listen if they think you’re all a bunch of radicals that want everyone to go live in caves. Alternate perspective with realistic goals and practical information, that’s what it takes.
That’s why you’re stoked to volunteer for a local water quality data collection team. Your job will be to travel up a nearby river once a week, checking out connecting streams and tributaries to look for evidence of dumping at the site of every drainpipe and storm sewer that empties into the watershed. This means you’ll be spending hours on a boat every weekend taking water samples. You can’t think of a better way to spend your summer for a better cause.
Your first trip out on the water is on a warm summer day. The gentle purr of the zodiac’s four stroke engine pushes you upstream through lush green vegetation that grows along the river’s edge. Never mind the plastic bags and bottles that litter the shore, the birds are chirping overhead. You try and focus on the beauty. After all that’s what you’re here to protect.
A half an hour later and the current is a little bit stronger. Jessie, the team leader, points out a filmy layer on the water’s surface.
“That’s a bacterial bloom caused by sewage and agricultural runoff upstream. It’s harmful, but the river can recover from it quickly, so it’s not what we’re after. I still wouldn’t drink it though. The pollutants we’re looking for are invisible, and far more dangerous because they don’t break down. Heavy metals, and persistent bio-accumulative toxins. Some of these have been banned for years and yet we can still detect them in fish and other animals higher up the food chain like human beings. That’s right, these chemicals are used in products we consume every day. They’re used in the manufacturing process, and even in agriculture. A fungicide is a toxic cocktail designed to prevent things from growing. It’s sprayed on our food and runs off into the watershed. They’re trapped in lipids so it’s almost impossible to avoid these compounds even if you eat organic and drink spring water. They say that even a mothers’ breast milk is contaminated these days. They’re hard to detect too. So unless people look for them they wouldn’t even know until they get thyroid problems or stomach cancer. But that’s what we’re here to do. We’re going to expose the dirty little secrets, and get people to make their government get tough on polluters right? We’re coming up on a major fork in the river so it’s a good place to take samples and start narrowing the search for the source or sources.”
You arrive at the river’s split where Jessie demonstrates the procedure for taking a sample and correctly documenting the location, time, and date, to be entered into a database that feeds a piece of interactive mapping software.
“We have be very cautious about our documentation or all of this hard work will be for nothing,” the team leader says.
***
Throughout the summer months you use this procedure to collect samples and send them to the lab for diagnosis. After plugging the results into a database, the software enables you to see the locations and concentrations of pollutants over time, and in turn, isolate the source of contamination. This, along with your hours spent in the field, gives you an acute awareness of the river’s state of health.
Over time, you gain an intimate knowledge of the watershed and the many lifecycles that depend upon it. Like many things in life, this greater understanding leads to a greater appreciation of this dynamic system. You develop a relationship with the river as multilayered and beautifully complex as any human relationship. You become aware of the spawning routes of fish, the wetland habitats, the habits of local birds, the harmonious relationship among them, the insects, the aquatic life, and dozens of species of plants. And you begin to see all too clearly how easily this can be thrown out of balance by the damaging effects of urban sprawl, which in some cases has completely redirected the very path of the river.
This simply underscores the importance of the work you’re doing. People need to know how we’re affecting this important life supporting system. And so, through exhaustive data gathering, you and your team have accumulated clear, compelling evidence that demonstrates the exact source of several prominent pollutants: an industrial park that lies atop of what used to be a bog until it was filled with gravel to serve the city’s “light” manufacturing sector.
The next step is to go public, present the evidence to your legal team and see if there’s anything the courts can do about it. After all your hard work you anxiously anticipate their legal interpretation of your report.
On a bright late summer day you enter the office to find the usual morning chit-chat somewhat muted. People are humming about over several sheets of printed paper. Someone hands you a copy of the legal team’s letter. You feel a deep disappointment as your eyes scan the pages.
Although the data that you helped to collect confirms your suspicions that the river is indeed polluted. There are no laws in effect that can prevent these chemicals from entering the environment. The toxins in the samples are used in numerous products that even the average person may find in their house, from paints to cleaners, industrial lubricants and solvents. Leaks from machinery and small spills are expected, and even permitted by law. There is no legal recourse that can rectify the problem.
“How can they even say that those heartless bastards?” you demand. “They’re essentially saying that it’s ok to pollute.”
“Now, now. Don’t get all worked up. We expected as much,” responds Jessie, cool headed as usual. “The work we’ve done is not in vain. These chemicals are not prohibited in a court of law, but the court of public opinion has its own laws, and what we have here is the foundation of our next campaign. We’ll go public with the information we have, and use the reaction to educate people about the non-toxic alternatives to the products they currently use.”
“But I’ve seen the damage to the creatures that live in this river, the unfertilized eggs, dwindling populations and the spin-off effects this has on other organisms in the eco-system. We need to do something for them.”
“And we will. Nothing changes overnight, but in time, people become aware of the situation. Their attitudes towards the earth will change, and the water quality will improve. Now who wants to volunteer to communicate with the media? We need writers, we need a press liaison.”
“Excuse me,” you interject, “but water quality worldwide has been going down not up. This is happening in our own back yard! We have to do something more than write a press release.”
“We need to mobilize people, make this an issue in the public discourse, and not just take unilateral action. It takes a whole society to make change, and we are but one small yet crucial part. Now our job is to speak the truth. So let’s get over our anger and get out there and inspire people.”
The motivational pep-talk has its desired effect and people start bustling around, busying themselves with the logistics of today’s course of action. “I guess that’s why they’re the team leader” you think to yourself as you pensively sulk about, considerably less pumped than everyone else.
“There is one thing we could do,” a low hushed voice interrupts your thoughts. Inquisitive, you look up into the eyes of one of your co-workers who standing close enough that only you can hear what they’re saying.
“And what’s that?”
“Let’s take a walk.”
The two of you stroll out of the office into the yard where the GE society has a bunch of hybrid cars parked and a couple of zodiacs sit on their trailers beside a shipping container used for storage.
“So what’s your idea?” you ask eagerly trying to guess what they’re about to say.
“We could block the drainpipes with cement.” Their casual manner of speaking betrays the seriousness of their words. “It would be easy.”
“But that could undermine the ability of the Green Earth Society to act as a credible, legitimate organization. That’s one of our greatest assets, people take us seriously.”
“How seriously are people going to take yet another press release from a bunch of whiny environmentalists? Eh? But if eco-saboteurs single-handedly stop poison from being dumped in the river? What then? The issue gets way more media play, and we stop the pollution at its source, all in one swoop.”
“I’m not sure, we’ve got to be careful,” you shake your head. “The government and industry already try to characterise us in the environmental movement as Luddite terrorists. If we start monkey-wrenching we only play into that stereotype.”
“You know that the Luddites were not against technology, they were against its use as a tool to further disenfranchise the worker instead of liberate them from the banality of manual labour. Many of the self-proclaimed Luddites were themselves machine operators who knew from first-hand experience that technological progress could not be reversed once it had been applied. But they used sabotage to make their point.”
“And ultimately they failed because they did not win the hearts and minds of the public. You do not reach out to people through extremist ideology, you alienate them. Look, the work we do here may be slow, frustratingly so, but we meet people where they are, and we win them over with cool-headed arguments, not rash impulsive actions.”
“Phew. That’s a relief,” they say with a nervous laugh. “There’s a lot of wing-nuts out there, and I wasn’t sure you weren’t one of them after you questioned the team leader. I’m sorry we doubted you, let’s get back inside.”
When you get back into the office all of the cool volunteer posts as media liaisons have been taken but you’re pretty happy to join an outreach team that will give presentations at schools. Children are the future and the biggest stakeholders when it comes to the environment, you think as you begin to sketch out the materials you’re going to need. In your mind you picture yourself standing at the front of a classroom saying just that in front of a bunch of eager kids. You come back to the present as Jessie hands you a package of printed material and a flash drive containing multi-media graphics.
“Here’s a list of speaking points to cover during your presentation,” says your team leader in a way that makes you feel as if they recognize how hard you work and actually appreciate it. “We’ve had a lot of experience with this and have developed a pretty dynamic format. But please feel free to add any additional material of your own if you like.”
“Thanks,” you say, “I’ll take this home with me and read it over tonight.”
“That’s great. I know you’ve put a lot into this already, so take some time, and get familiar with the material. We’ll pair you up with a partner and try to get you into the classroom as soon as you’re ready.”
Back at home you boot up your computer and load the memory stick. You still feel a bit disappointed that there’s no legal recourse that can be taken against the polluters, but you realize that the legal system reflects the opinion of the status quo, and we are all contributing to the degradation of clean water the whole world over. So until people have a change of heart in regards to their relationship with nature, the law will continue to put the environment second. It feels good in the meantime to be working on something that will help people to realize that. Just one more little voice against the amplified, televised mantra of the dominant culture, limitless growth at all costs.
The next day you’re cooking supper with the radio on when something pricks your ears. The news anchor is talking about the health of local rivers, and you can’t help but feel a little proud as they refer to the damning report based on new research issued by the Green Earth Society. It’s gratifying to hear your work getting serious attention from the media. You half-heartedly anticipate the response from industry scientists. But the following day the headlines are reporting something else altogether. You can hardly believe your ears as the anchor reads the news.
“Several local manufacturers have been the targets of an eco-terrorist campaign. According to police sources, a wave of sabotage has caused multiple businesses in the Heartland Industrial park off riverside drive to temporarily close while repairs are made to their facilities. This on the heels of a report from the Green Earth Society on the high levels of contaminants threatening the health of the river. A spokesperson for the GES could not be reached to comment.”
It’s just about then that your phone rings and you can pretty much guess what about.
“Glad to get a hold of you. Have you seen the news?” It’s Jessie of course, trying franticly to co-ordinate a unified response to last night’s unilateral actions. “We need to hold an emergency meeting ASAP.”
“Certainly,” you concede, “I’m available, what time?”
You clear up the details and agree to attend this evening’s planning session at the office. Then you go online immediately and read what all the different news outlets are saying. Most of the articles are from established news agencies that have full time paid staff on hand to cover stories as they’re developing. So first you pay attention to them. It’s amazing how homogenous the coverage is. From left leaning reporters to right wing pundits, the analysis is nearly the same:
“We all know that polluting is wrong but that doesn’t mean that people can go outside the law and damage property. The same rule of law that protects private property also places just limits on what you can do with private property and those include provisions that protect the environment. If environmentalists don’t want to respect the law what’s to say that polluters will respect the law. All sides must respect society’s rules whether they agree with them or not, otherwise what we have is total anarchy.”
All of the paid reporters from the for-profit media were reporting the same story more or less despite their editorial bias. Perhaps they can see what side their bread is buttered on and know that their corporate sponsors depend upon the acquiescence of property law to protect their private assets. But the NGO community is repeating the same message on their blogs too. Perhaps their directors are afraid of scaring off their funding by appearing too radical or losing their status as a non-profit. When you think about it, even the NGOs have a vested interest the status quo. If things change too much there goes the mandate for the organization, and it’s the job of the CEO to take care of all the jobs for the paid staff.
Finally you come across an article on a news website that is co-operatively owned and community funded. The title of the article: “An Anti-Capitalist Analysis of Eco-Sabotage.” It reads:
“There is an erroneous and inherently capitalist concept behind the ‘right’ of private property. In fact, when we consider that all human life arises temporarily from the earth and that, in time, we shall return there, we can make no such claims upon the earth that we so briefly visit. The idea of ownership entitles people to act destructively in their own self-interest. It is through investment in private property, from which people expect to collect interest, that we end up with an economy of limitless growth within a finite eco-system. In contrast if we view ourselves as belonging to the earth, then collectively we can create systems by which we govern our own behaviour while we exist on this earth we call home.
“This is in complete opposition to the core values of western individualism which views private property as a right, enshrined in law by the Constitution and even written into the International Declaration of Human Rights as a cornerstone of liberal democracy. This same legal concept facilitated the colonization of the Americas by placing land titles into the hands of European settlers. It also led to the development of trans-national corporations and neo-colonialism wherein private property is again used to buy up resources in foreign lands. The owners collect the profits while indigenous people experience little economic benefit. Human rights are abused, and the earth is exploited, valued only for what financial gains can be reaped from it.
“Private property as a legal right is the tool by which the elite centralise wealth into their hands, becoming more powerful in the process and gaining greater sway over the law. The earth is not represented in our so called democracies at all. The earth is not subject to our laws. The earth is greater than our laws. Until the earth is taken into consideration with equal or greater importance than ourselves under the law, then sabotage and other illegal activities are completely legitimate as a course of action for those who speak for that which has no voice in our society.”
It is as refreshing as it is startling to hear such a different perspective and it sure makes you think. You resolve to give it more thought while you sit down over a cup of coffee, so you head out the door to the local co-op bakery. When you get there it’s not very busy so you decide to ask the server at the counter if they’ve heard of the attacks.
“Attacks?” they say. “You make it sound like you’re talking about some NATO bombing campaign or something. All they did was a little monkey wrenching.”
“So you think it was the right thing to do?” you ask.
“Ha! I’m not going to say I would have done it, but I don’t think it was wrong. I mean they stopped the polluters, and raised more awareness about the issue than there ever would have been otherwise.”
“But don’t you think it de-legitimizes the work of other environmentalists?”
“I don’t think that people who willingly dump chemicals into our rivers take anything environmentalists have to say very seriously. This way they have to listen. If anything it makes the Feds more willing to make deals with moderate environmentalists, if the alternative is dealing with the radicals.”
You sure have a lot to think about as you sit down with your coffee. You gaze out the window, the warm cup between your hands while human traffic drifts by in and out of shops along the street. Over the past couple of weeks you’ve personally borne witness to events that literally affect every single person in the city, and now you face a major decision: you’re certain you know who was involved in the sabotage, and if you say nothing you are morally complicit by facilitating someone who broke the law to evade prosecution. While you agree with the motivation behind the acts you enter dangerous territory once you step outside the law. For is it not the same legal system that regulates industry, controls dumping and emission standards and enforces compliance to protect the public and the environment? On the other hand, you’ve seen yourself how hard the law can come down on your fellow citizens, and how comparatively lax it is on industry. The few token pieces environmental legislation don’t even come close to offering enough protection to the earth. If anything they enable corporations to carry on exploiting the earth even while we face ecological catastrophe. Given that, doesn’t it make sense to step outside the law? After all money talks and big business will always have more sway over law makers who shed crocodile tears while mines tear into the ground, tailings ponds contaminate the water, and CO2 levels are rising higher each day.
You’ve got a meeting with the other volunteers this evening and you have to make up your mind before then.
Do you:
Expose the likely saboteur to protect the legitimacy of the Green Earth Society. (click here)
Keep your mouth shut. While their path is not your own you know who the real enemies are and they’re not people who are fighting to protect the earth. (click here)
Original photo by: Jan Michael