Any new environmental movement that can successfully challenge our short-term evolutionary impulses is likely to have the following four characteristics:

(1) Systemic. It will focus on the systemic threats to the biosphere we face -- that is, global warming, biodiversity loss, ocean pollution, etc. -- rather than such local issues as cleaning up a toxic waste dump or saving a patch of wilderness.

(2) Long-run. It will mobilize people to make long-term investments that will produce great wealth over the long run but not immediate, tangible benefits. CNN reports that "there is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future food supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe." Solving this crisis will cost us money but yield us few immediate tangible benefits.

(3) Human. It will concentrate on touching the deep psychological cords that connect one generation to the other, grandparents to children and grandchildren, rather than continuing to focus on preserving the wilderness or animals.

(4) New constituencies. It will mobilize new supporters and groups of supporters rather than rely on present ones.

An obvious objection to this proposal is the following: Why should we believe that Americans who have rejected less alarming environmental claims, ones open to short-term and tangible solutions, should accept far more alarming and much more abstract warnings -- even though the fate of their children and grandchildren is being evoked?

There are several responses to this. First, the public will find it increasingly difficult to remain in denial about the catastrophic threat to the biosphere as the scientific consensus around global warming -- including Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency -- continues to grow, and events in the real world like the melting of the icebergs continue to occur.

Second, there is significant reason to believe that people are willing to make greater sacrifices for their descendants than for anything else. Adults today make enormous sacrifices and investments in their children and grandchildren's future. Most parents who can afford it do not put their kids on half-rations to maximize their own consumption. The costs of raising a child, including college tuition, is a major portion of most household budgets. People bequeath their fortunes to their children and grandchildren, and the wealthy leave bequests to universities and other institutions. Even those without religious faith often find a transfiguring or unifying meaning in the love they have for their children.

Finally, keeping the debate in the present inevitably dooms us to failure. It is always cheaper to consume in the present than to invest in the future. It is only when we shift the debate more radically, to the existence of a future for our descendants, that we have a chance of winning.

But while there is much reason for hope, we can only realize it if we are willing to make a massive effort to reach people using the most powerful message we have. An organization here or initiative there is unlikely to succeed, given the power of those pushing short-term economic thinking.

A successful campaign would require a sophisticated and large-scale effort that includes creating a message focused on the threat to our grandchildren, a strategy to take this message into every home in America, and tactics capable of mobilizing the millions of people necessary to force the politicians to make long-term investments in our future. It would focus particularly on reaching the young people who will be paying the price for our profligate actions.

Given the limited amount of money available for environmental funding, part of such a campaign would see existing environmental organizations shift a portion of their present scientific and technical effort to a more sophisticated psychological approach focused on the human issues involved.

In addition, it will be necessary to create entirely new organizations. From their founding, they would be focused on educating the public about the threat to future generations and on building support for measures that can save them.

Our present legal system, for example, gives representation only to those now alive and leaves future generations at our not-so-tender mercy. Since we are the first generation to so threaten our descendants, we have an urgent need to create legal protection for them. One way might be to create Public Advocates for Future Generations in every city in the nation and to give them the budgets and power to represent the coming people of the earth.

All of this does not imply, of course, that existing environmental efforts should be abandoned. They are necessary to educate people about the threats facing their grandchildren and future generations. All those involved in the movement dedicated to saving this planet have done an honorable job and have nothing to apologize for. But new objective conditions require a new movement. As Joseph Campbell said, there is no shame in climbing down our ladder and moving it to a new wall when conditions warrant. We err only when we remain on it despite the overwhelming evidence that the wall on which it rests is crumbling.

It is clearly time to move our ladder.

Recent Stories