So...out of the approaches covered by the readings for Green Democracy, I have to say that I disagree most with the "Earth First" approach. I think that by provoking anger in such a way is in-fact counter productive. With the ultimate goal of equality among species and the greatest possible health of the biosphere, we are not going to get anywhere by blowing up equipment. In order to even begin to approach the goal I mentioned above, the entire human population must have a relatively equal understanding and commitment to the goal.
That is why I found the Ten Key Principles of the Green Party the most useful out of the concepts in Green Democracy. While I think that it may be true that minorities are often the recipients of environmental injustice, it is ultimately useless to focus on the immediate impacts of pollution, etc on these populations only. In line with the Green Party Values, impacts from waste & pollution, while felt locally at first, are in fact global. Additionally, the DECENTRALIZATION value of the Green Party addresses most of the grievances described in the Bullard reading - because minorities are only minorities on a national scale. Within states, minorities are quite often majorities.
The only issues I might take with the Green Party is the numbering of their values - Does this order of values reflect relative importance or urgency? Surely they think that one or several of their core values are the most poorly represented in today's society.
Oh - and Yes - I already voted for local Green Party candidates in the election last year.
In regard to your stance on the Earth First! activists, I do agree with you. However, just to defend their interests, who's to say they do not want equality among species like you? They might just want to make an immediate physical impact that they can see and appreciate. In regard to your numbering of their values, I do not believe that they are listed by urgency. Also, I find it very cool how you voted Green in the last election.
ReplyDelete