Eco-bloggers multiplying like bunnies; bamboo (the new eco-correct fiber) in nearly everything money can buy; Leo DiCaprio succeeding Al Gore as this year's big screen prophet of global warming. With all this latest attention to green, you'd be forgiven for thinking that environmental concerns have finally seeped into the consciousness of everyday America.

I'm not so sure.

Environmental issues, particularly global warming, might be showing up in spheres as seemingly unlikely as corporate boardrooms and shareholder meetings, and the Evangelical Christian movement. But they haven't been much in evidence at this year's umpty-ten presidential candidate forums and debates. Historically, environmental issues are non-starters in presidential campaign politics, falling well below issues like the economy and national security in voter's concerns. So if the candidates are not talking about climate change now, over a year before the election, it's unlikely to become a central issue next year when the campaign is underway in earnest.

In Monday's issue of The New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof blamed
global warming's absence from the nation's mainstream politics in part on fellow journalists:

I can’t help feeling that we in the news media are part of the reason that steps to battle climate change aren’t on top of the national agenda. We’re good at covering things that happen on any one day — like a tornado or hurricane — but weak at covering complex trends, like climate change. And we tend to cover disputes by having a dutiful quote from each side, without always explaining where the scientific consensus lies.

That rings true for much climate change news coverage of the past 20-odd years (and environmental journalists will tell you that almost any enviro-beat story is a hard sell with the average editor). But lately there's been some great reporting, such National Public Radio's global warming series, last year's prize-winning Altered Oceans series in the Los Angeles Times, and a host of other stories and series on television and radio, and in print.

So where's the missing link between popcult phenomenon and policy imperative? Maybe it's in grassroots party politics. Right now, the presidential wannabes are working hard to consolidate and sustain support in the most activist parts of their constituencies, with the people who care enough to get involved now in a candidate's campaign, and who'll be sure to participate in the straw polls and turn out for the primaries.

In my experience, eco-activists are contrarians. They're not the most likely people to get involved in party politics at any level, preferring to work for change from outside the system -- the Naderite mantra of the 1970's-80's. Once upon a time, I was one of those people myself.

But anyone who wants global warming on the national agenda may want to look to the not-distant past for a demonstration of how this strategy can backfire. In the early 1990s, with the Pacific Northwest "timber wars" in full swing, the movement to preserve ancient forests seemed unstoppable: the Spotted Owl got listed as an endangered species, ultimately locking up hundreds of acres of pristine forests; Clinton and Gore took the White House; the logging industry seemed to be in retreat. But by 1996 or so, forest advocates were back in the trenches, back to saving the forests seemingly one logging permit at a time. By and large, the ancient forest movement stayed outside the system, including local party politics...and lost influence when their allies in statehouses and Congress lost re-election campaigns.

I still get to be a contrarian, because now I'm a journalist, and the ethics of the profession demand that I observe and report rather than join. But I hope today's eco-advocates are updating their mantras to reach out to grassroots party activists, and maybe even dig into the dirt themselves.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007156.html