Tam Hunt: We Are All Environmentalists Now

A different kind of climate change is sweeping the nation and society

By Tam Hunt, Community Environmental Council | Published on 04.11.2009

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (23)
    • Share

It’s about time. Yes, it’s about time the mainstream of America joined this party. For decades now, self-identified environmentalists have constituted about 20 percent of the population. Whether it’s due to reticence to label ourselves, or being turned off by the more extreme type of environmentalism, for some reason most Americans have not described themselves as environmentalists.

Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt

So what’s changed? Well, awareness is changing — which leads to behavior change. So even if people don’t want to label themselves as environmentalists, most of us are now acting like environmentalists. There’s a new paradigm in town and this paradigm is serious. (OK, sometimes a bit too serious.) I’m talking about concerns about climate change, of course. For most Americans, the debate over the need to take action on climate change is over. Our very own Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in 2006: “We know the science. The debate is over.” And it’s heartening to see that even those who don’t agree with particular plans, like those presented by Schwarzenegger or President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal, aren’t offering criticism on the grounds that we shouldn’t be doing anything. Rather, they’re criticizing these plans on the grounds that they’re the wrong remedy or will cost too much, etc. This shift in approach is in itself a sea change.

A similar sea change occurred recently with the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. County staff brought before the board a set of “climate change principles” and a request to create a plan to reduce the county government’s own emissions 15 percent by 2020 — in line with California’s goals. On a board that is famously split between North and South, the vote was unanimously in favor of these two items! A third item, a request to create a plan for 15 percent county-wide emissions reductions by 2020 received just one dissenting vote.

For those of us who have been working on these issues for many years, it was a moment to be remembered. So what caused this change?

Many factors were at work, as they are in all complex policy discussions. But it seems that key elements were a growing awareness in the public about the need to mitigate climate change at the local level, combined with the state’s pending regulatory hammer, combined with billions of dollars in new federal funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, smart growth and better transportation. And we can thank Obama’s follow-through on his campaign promises for the last factor. We can also thank everyone who voted for him, giving him the chance to put his campaign rhetoric into action.

We can also thank Obama for showing how environmentalists can be effective: calm, reasonable, reassuring and understanding. Too often environmentalists and other activists become overly frustrated with lack of progress on their key issues: “why don’t they get it?” we ask ourselves. What is so clear to us simply isn’t first on the minds of others who have a multitude of other concerns facing them.

This article is not meant to be a paean to our new president, however. Rather, it’s a paean to a growing awareness and concern for our environment among all Americans. It’s about time — but it’s certainly not too late to really make a difference.

As we celebrate Earth Day on April 19, we can expect environmental awareness to grow even higher. Please come to Alameda Park and join the Community Environmental Council as we celebrate our planet and the progress made in addressing climate change and achieving our “fossil free by ‘33” goal for our region. As we explore this year’s theme of “Life After Oil,” check out the green home we are building in the park for a Tea Fire family, see the new Tesla electric car and an array of other electric, advanced and alternative-fueled vehicles, and learn from hundreds of vendors how we can make the world a better place. Listen to some great music on the solar stage, have a drink at our new beer and wine garden (if you’re of age, of course) and share your stories about how best to achieve the change we know we need.

Click here for the latest information on the 2009 Earth Day festival.

— Tam Hunt is energy program director and an attorney for the Community Environmental Council. He is also a lecturer in renewable energy law and policy at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UCSB.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» Realist on 04.12.09 @ 04:03 AM

Extreme Environmentalism and the spending, taxation and resource sacrifice associated with it is ruining the economy of the U.S, and putting us at a competitive and military disadvantage with countries that don’t give a rip about the environment. It will lead to the the enviro-fascist dictators in government eroding personal liberties with enforcement by the enviro-police. I am leading the anti-environmentalist trash the planet backlash movement. The more you succeed at this the more we trash the planet. Anybody with me? I am passing out torches and pitchforks to those who wish to string people like Tam up in the public square. Now stop being haters.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.12.09 @ 04:11 AM

This is such BS. If you want a true view of the mainstream attitude toward the environment look at the recent Floatopia event at UCSB during which UCSB students took to the ocean leaving all of their trash and broken beer bottles in and on the beach. It is all hypocrisy. It is “do as I say not as I do”. That is the only difference - we now have a mainstream of people and companies joining in the “green”  fad to be cool and hip with their customers and friends along with endless propaganda and scolding of others while doing nothing themselves to help. The only difference between today as opposed to yesterday is that the greenies won’t shut up about it when they preach, but nothing has changed when it comes to action.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Mike Hackett on 04.12.09 @ 06:14 AM

I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Hunt’s observations.With the growing awareness of the devasating inmpacts of climate change, coupled with increased costs of fossil fuel and our economic troubles, we all have to support development of renewable energy projects - and here in our area. It is a matter of self-preservation and good government - a partnership we should all support, whether we call ourselves environmentalist - or just good citizens.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Juliana on 04.12.09 @ 08:20 AM

Dear Realist,
It costs nothing for my son to pick up a piece of trash when he sees it as he passes. This is something he does automatically without needing a reason or a reward. He does it because he knows it is bad for the animals which he loves. He loves nature, the earth and the ocean. Because of education he picks up someone else’s careless trash. How can that not be a move in the right direction? Please have a little hope for my son’s future rather than anger. Please envourage rather than discourage with your words.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Publius on 04.12.09 @ 12:56 PM

Dream on, Mr. Hunt. There once was a time when many Republicans were staunch
conservationists (“environmentalist” hadn’t been coined). Those days are in the Republican party’s increasingly distant, centrist past.

Conservatives of the “contemporary” school follow Rush and Mike Huckabee. To them, even Nixon, Ford, Goldwater were “softies”.

Their Flat Earth Society views still prevail. Don’t be naive enough to confuse a change in the voting majorities in County government, Congress, or the White House, with wide-spread, non-partisan national support.

If 95% of trained physical scientists believe Global Warming is the defining issue of this century, the Loyal Opposition still slavishly follows the 5% who work for energy companies, or aren’t sure yet.

And a happy Earth Day to you, Mr. Hunt.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.12.09 @ 02:09 PM

Juliana you took me wrong. My comments were in no way directed against anyone, especially a child, who picks up trash. Please continue to encourage him to do so. It is when politicians begin to legislate what we can or cannot do or what we can or cannot buy in the name of the environment that I have a problem. Plastic bags have been outlawed in many cities, inconveniencing everyone, including the weak, disabled and the elderly, and Mayor Blum has been making noises of doing the same for political expediency. Everybody “feels good” and the problem is not solved. Plastic bags are only the tip of the iceberg of the plastic problem. By all means do what you can, I am only saying it does little to solve the larger problem, but in the meantime creates a huge inconvenience for many and is just one more step toward limiting personal freedom. Soon the enviro-police will be obtaining search warrants to check your thermostat. Education is fine, legislation based on capitalizing on the latest green fad is a whole ‘nother deal.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.12.09 @ 02:15 PM

Also, things such as cap and trade cost companies money, increasing costs for everyone, and put us at a competitive disadvantage with countries that don’t care about the environment. It simply makes manufacturing too costly here and pushes pollution elsewhere on the planet.. to our economic disadvantage. Net gain? zero.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.12.09 @ 02:17 PM

On the side, has anyone realized yet that coal and oil have to be burned to create electricity for those supposedly “clean” electric cars? Except it’s worse because of the loss in energy of transmitting the electricity to your vehicle. What about the “clean” biofuel vehicles that contribute to deforestation and loss of food crops further starving the third world? The trees that are cut down no longer are helping to absorb that horrible greenhouse gas- carbon dioxide. It’s all such mentally lazy thinking. Happy earth day, let’s all feel good again while accomplishing nothing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Speak for yourself Tam on 04.12.09 @ 03:03 PM

There are still those of us who think for themselves about the Great Global Warming sham and don’t follow the chicken little crowd. Don’t get me started.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» The sky is falling on 04.12.09 @ 03:06 PM

The two great scientists, Al Gorelioni and Arnold Schwarzen-strudal say the debate is over, so therefore it is so. The problem is there was never any debate.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Aaron Shaw on 04.12.09 @ 03:25 PM

I wonder if these articles were ever considered in the “debate” that is “over”? Can you answer that, Tam? Of course not, nobody wants to hear the opposing view, it would put too many out of business.

Less Than 1/2 of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

NASA data shows ocean’s cooling
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA

Global warming doubters rise because world is . . . cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+Arctic+Happy+News+for+Mankind/article12882.htm

31,000 scientists reject “global warming” agenda
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Greenland ice yields hope on climate
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/

Global warming? It’s natural, say experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER SAYS GLOBAL WARMING BIGGEST HOAX IN HISTORY http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

I’ve got plenty more ...anyone want an actual debate? I didn’t think so.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Global Chicken Little on 04.12.09 @ 03:49 PM

Is this the “debate” Ahh-nold was refering to?

Al Gore doesn’t want to debate Global warming
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/18/al-gore-doesnt-want-to-debate-global-warming/

Or was it the one that he avoided recently at the ECO:nomics conference at the Bacara recently with Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and European Union who “expressed disappointment that he was not allowed to debate Al Gore on stage”?

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/mar/06/economics-conference-concludes-bacara/ One thing is for sure - Gore is making a mint on this hoax.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» You wish on 04.12.09 @ 04:30 PM

I think the comments to most of your opinion pieces quite clearly refute your premise that “we are all environmentalists now” Tam the Sham. Stop propagating the myths.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Craig Whan on 04.12.09 @ 09:45 PM

As an Atmoshpheric Scientist I am always interested in literature on the subject of climate change.  But the references provided by Aaron Shaw above actually in large part seem to support climate change. A closer look at Mr. Shaw’s references reveals some interesting details in their content:

Less Than 1/2 of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
**** The title of this article is actually misleading about the true story contained in the body of the article. The article says that while scientists are in agreement that the earth is warming, there are many new questions about the nature and course of global warming mechanisms, and that new information is widening the debate rather than settling on concensus.

NASA data shows ocean’s cooling
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
**** this article is actually about NASA scientists seeing ocean temperatures suddenly cooling because of all the melting glaciers around the world (!!!), with cooling expected to be a short term occurance.

Global warming doubters rise because world is . . . cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+Arctic+Happy+News+for+Mankind/article12882.htm
**** the reference title could not be found in the link provided.

31,000 scientists reject “global warming” agenda
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
**** this web site admits that of the 31,000 signers only about 10% have any formal training in the earth sciences (– at least they are honest!)

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
**** this reference appears to only be an opinion piece on an admitted “conservative” web site, and offers no scientific discussion against global warming.

Greenland ice yields hope on climate
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/
**** this article says that the glaciers of Greenland may not melt away entirely, but interestingly cautions that, “Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly,” said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. “Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia.”

Global warming? It’s natural, say experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
**** This article is about two men that are putting together a book saying that the earth goes through a warming cycle every 1500 years due to variations in the sun radiation (it is to be noted that one of the authors is a “fellow of the Hudson Institute, an independent U.S. thinktank that tends to side with big business.”

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER SAYS GLOBAL WARMING BIGGEST HOAX IN HISTORY http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
**** this is an opinion piece by the TV weatherman, John Coleman, trained as a journalist,who does not appear to be actively engaged in climate research or offer any research data himself, but does interestingly mention his negative attitude towards PhD academics.

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories http://newsbusters.org/node/13948
**** this is only a politicized blog with condescending comments interwoven with selected quotations from the Boston Globe article on the Greenland Ice Cap referenced above.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Aaron Shaw on 04.13.09 @ 05:47 AM

Thanks for your analysis Craig. I don’t see much of a refutation of the presented facts, here, only attempts to discredit or dismiss the authors and take a few excerpts out of context with your own non-factually backed opinion added.. If you are accepting a debate challenge, I suppose we should start with discrediting the credentials of the primary supporters of the idea that “the debate is over” - Al Gore, who is too unsure of himself to debate, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is equally or less qualified than the people you dismiss here. Let’s start with your own credentials, since you claim to be an “Atmoshpheric Scientist” (I am guessing you were drunk when you wrote that). As for me, I don’t claim anything more than a strong engineering background and a heck of a lot of common sense and skepticism. I’m not one to follow the commonly held beliefs. It saved me a heck of a lot of trouble and fear during the Y2K doomsday scare and the global cooling conjectures of the 70’s.

You have already flagged this entry.

» tom becker on 04.13.09 @ 09:13 AM

For any rational person the statement that gives away the “environmentalist” quack agenda is the quote by Schwarzenegger, and a similar quote by Al Gore, that the debate is over and we must not question the “science” of global warming. This is like the Inquistion telling Galileo to stop talking about the Earth moving around the Sun.

“Environmentalists” like Tam Hunt have very weak arguments for their extreme positions and are easily refuted in calm debate. That’s why they want to end all discussion of their “science”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 04.13.09 @ 12:40 PM

Two things: One, the globe is warming and has been since the last ice age. No debate there. Two, the climate is changing, no debate there either, that is what climates do on our planet, lest we end up like Venus with a very stable and unchanging climate that is completely hostile to life.
No the question is not whether it is happening or not, but whether we are at the root or if we can do anything about it anyway. It is this nasty little area where Al Gore’s religion has flourished. First he uses certain truths to reel in unsuspecting “environmentalists” like Tam. Then he uses obfuscation and outright lies to convince his converts that we must destroy the western civilization in order to “change” climate change. So far he has convinced most people with his “sky is falling” rhetoric that living an ascetic lifestyle is the answer. Yet I find it rather disturbing that no one calls into question whether or not this is a wise course of action. We are running the risk of going the way of the dinosaurs, not because of what we did to the environment, but rather for not trying to adapt to changes in it. This is the real rub. If we expend all our financial, scientific, industrial, social and spiritual energy on trying to stop something that began long before modern industrial civilization, what then, will be left to adapt? Would that not be the ultimate crime against humanity if we were to do everything possible to stop anthropogenic causes to climate change only to find we did not and then not have any resources left to adapt to the change? Think about that one for a moment folks. Think of GW as rising tide. You expend all your energy trying to stop the rising tide from swamping your hut on the beach. Only to find that after exhausting yourself to the point of physical incapacitation the tide swamps your hut anyway, when all you had to do is move your hut to higher ground. Adapt or die.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.13.09 @ 07:27 PM

Bravo AN50! Excellent point and analogies, but how dare you? Have you not heard that the debate has been deemed to be over?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 04.14.09 @ 08:16 PM

No Realist. The debate is only over for the converts to the new religion.
My question now is to Craig Whan. As an atmospheric scientist I assume you are familiar with the mechanics of how our planet warmed up after the last several ice ages. Studies and data show that this last episode of warming (the one we are in now) began in the southern hemisphere. The temperature rise preceded CO2 rise by some 1000 years if I’m not mistaken, the warming trend gradually moved north and then the CO2 rise caught up and passed the temperature rise in the northern hemisphere (long before any anthropogenic sources were even possible). Do you know of these studies? Do you know of the studies being done now that actually refute CO2 being a GHG at all? Why would burning fossilized sources of hydrocarbons be a bad thing, when after all, those hydrocarbons are the result of biological sequestering of atmospheric CO2 to begin with? Surely, putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere can’t be all bad if it was there to begin with, right? Now I know some biologist would warn that we are doing it at an accelerated rate, a rate that most life on earth could not adapt to. But how can we be so sure? Evolutionist are already taking a second look at the theory that evolution occurs in spasms and fits rather than slow gradual steady state adaptation. So wouldn’t anthropogenic acceleration of a naturally occurring cycle just be another fit or spasm in the evolution of life on our planet? Why do those who consider human beings to be nothing more than evolved apes, see everything we do as foreign and hostile to our planet? Are we not part of the environment and don’t we do pretty much the same thing all other life forms do, survive, procreate and try to dominate? Should we not look at other life forms that contribute to GHGs, like the largest biomass on the planet, termites, and try to alter their behavior to slow GW? Are you, as a scientist, willing to buck the “jump on the band wagon” trend and argue for a little healthy skepticism from your colleges? Most of us amateurs are just looking for the science community to embrace the hallmark of good science and question these things (and after a little research myself I’m happy to say that most scientists are). I know I have thrown a lot of more philosophical questions at you than scientific, but please do enlighten us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.15.09 @ 04:44 AM

Sometimes visualization is the best way to get a point across rather than words. I invite anyone supporting the global warming hoax to view this illustration - which shows the relative size of the Sun proportional to the other planets. The Sun is a beachball - the Earth is a pea. Then let’s try to guess what is the true and more likely cause of climate change. - Variations of temperature of the sun , eccentricities in the earth’s orbit perhaps?

http://media.photobucket.com/image/sun vs earth/cornelious/planets3.jpg

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 04.15.09 @ 09:35 AM

Noozhawk’s software removed some underscores to that link

try this one:

planets3.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y224/cornelious/planets3.jpg

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Linda Buzzell-Saltzman on 05.05.09 @ 09:33 AM

I came across a quote recently that says it all: “The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.” In other words, our economy depends on the “free” services of a healthy environment.  And we all want a healthy economy, right?  Which proves Tam’s point: we are all now environmentalists.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» macsobel on 06.20.10 @ 10:30 AM

@Aaron Shaw, way to take a reasonable debate and resort to petty name-calling.

Like any points of logical vulnerability: religion, political affiliation, our decisions have already been made on the topic and it is near-impossible to change them. Some people simply cannot comprehend that with even all of our industry worldwide, man could have something to do with the faster-than-usual climate change that is occurring on the planet. That is reasonable, quite honestly- this is a complicated science that is still evolving but still very well developed with decades of solid peer-reviewed research.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, all the efforts being put forth to combat climate change are bringing a multitude of benefits in other areas: greater national security, energy independence, better human and environmental health, cost-savings, local job growth, and a general theme of sustainability.

The work to reduce our impacts on our one and only home are moving forward anyway. Some of the world’s best and brightest are working night and day to fix the problems. Society will evolve, just like it always has and we will all be better off… and just like evolution, you don’t have to believe in it for it to be the truth.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

More Local News »

Tam Hunt: In Defense of Philosophy

The bottom line is that the boundaries between philosophy and science are rather arbitrary and, arguably, even illusory

Tam Hunt: Spirituality in the Information Age

A search for the divine turns up some surprising personal discoveries along the journey

Tam Hunt: Significant Solutions for High Gas Prices Are Right Before Us

At a time of severe pain at the pump at home, a ban of U.S. gasoline exports could have a dramatic effect

Tam Hunt: A Move Toward Energy Literacy Critical to America’s — and World’s — Future

To successfully wean ourselves off fossil fuels we must first educate ourselves about energy

Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will

Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?

Weather: Fair 59.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive