David Suzuki: The fundamental failure of environmentalism
Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.
We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which documented the terrible, unanticipated consequences of what had, until then, been considered one of science’s great inventions, DDT. Paul Mueller, who demonstrated the effects of the pesticide, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. In the economic boom after the Second World War, technology held out the promise of unending innovation, progress, and prosperity. Rachel Carson pointed out that technology has costs.
Carson’s book appeared when no government had an environment department or ministry. Millions around the world were soon swept up in what we now recognize as the environmental movement. Within 10 years, the United Nations Environment Programme was created and the first global environmental conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden.
With increasing catastrophes like oil and chemical spills and nuclear accidents, as well as issues such as species extinction, ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rain, and global warming, environmentalists pressed for laws to protect air, water, farmland, and endangered species. Millions of hectares of land were protected as parks and reserves around the world.
Thirty years later, in 1992, the largest gathering of heads of state in history met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event was meant to signal that economic activity could not proceed without considering ecological consequences. But, aided by recessions, popped financial bubbles, and tens of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy neoconservatives to support a cacophony of denial from rightwing pundits and think tanks, environmental protection came to be portrayed as an impediment to economic expansion.
This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale.
In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere—air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.
When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.
It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.






A Green government would not come about no matter what they said; most of the population is utterly ignorant of the issues and I have no reason to believe there would not be rampant cheating if the draconian laws necessary for meaningful change were made.
Maybe you're right but I don't think that "environmentalism" is a partisan political manifesto. Environmentalism is a subset of survivalism, the same drive for safety behind seat belts, baby food regulation and hockey helmets. There's no party in Canada that would run on a platform that if you elect us we will poison the earth, increase cancer, and deplete energy. The difference is not ideology but methodology. Some politicians will advocate for more government oversight and regulation, others will argue that the consumer should make a free choice, others will say that there is no point in the western world bankrupting itself to do all of the environmental heavy lifting, and so on.
I think every approach has merits. What is needed is not a particular way of doing things, a particular platform, but all of these platforms to get top priority. And that is a social drive, a populist movement if you will, that is going to have to push against some highly entrenched social beliefs, which a political party is going to be loathe to do if it is even possible.
We are all losing, as the article points out, even those who are fighting to help the other side 'win' are going to be losing out.. but by the time it's obvious enough for them to get it, it'll be that much more too late to stop.
With our own need to contain economic disasters on a family scale, these global challenges are two or three fires farther away from us than the smouldering piles of bills that even the most dedicated environmentalists have on their kitchen tables. I'm sure it's no excuse, but this ring is in everyone's nose, and it makes the work harder and harder to commit a lot of energy to.. just as it gets more and more critical that we do so, just the same.
It means being the neighborhood 'do-gooder'.. It means being uncomfortable. It means being seen by some as a freak, and being told to 'get over it'... It also means stepping back and looking at facets of the problem with fresh eyes, with creativity, and with courage, no matter how hopeless it seems.
They have told us my daughter's school has been a "Failing School".. we all know its BS, and it's both unnecessary and unhelpful to frame it that way. It's now the first Public School in the US to change to Teacher Led, and it's been a great experience.. the teacher morale is high, the parents are engaged. Use language responsibly..
there must be a way to replace all of the useless toys and gadgets and junk being crammed down our throats with a product that gives back, that enriches the earth and it's inhabitants in some meaningful way.
that's the paradigm shift that we're looking for.
David Suzuki has become a partisan propagandist, who doesn't live the way he preaches. For this, I don't respect him. The way to be good stewards of the Earth is to take care of what we have and not waste resources. How about having fewer gas-guzzling global summits? Technology should make communication fast and easy. The biggest mouths, spouting green rhetoric, are often high-living celebrities who expect the peasants to do without while *they* live like kings.
Environmentalism has gotten pretty far already, it is a motherhood issue. The challenge is to keep plugging away at it. And to acknowledge the very real, practical objections raised by people who aren't ready, like you are, to throw away all of our political systems, which is another way of saying that you have given up caring, are only fit for sniping and spreading cynicism and defeat, and are useless.
And by you, I of course mean you and everyone who thinks like you, that the system is incapable of allowing meaningful betterment when I have just shown several practical, tangible changes in the last couple of decades.
People expending electricity to heat the water used to wash the crud out of last night's tomato sauce container to recycle it.
Styrofoam that cannot be recycled despite the fact that a recycling number is stamped into it. WTF?
You know what? For a guy who wants to do the right thing, it's awfully hard to know just how far to take this and what are the right things to do.
Unless everyone in North America stops tomorrow and adopts a holistic approach to environmentalism we cannot cry foul to India, China, and other countries are are becoming hyper-consumer nations.
Confusion, greed, lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of resources are challenging our basic need to not only slow down the poisoning of our Earth but to actually improve things.
Great points.
We need a courageous environmental leader who can lay out that paradigm shift for us, what it really looks like, to give us a chance to buy-in. Because everyone knows that recycling isn't gonna save us.
How about this: "Look, Canada. Our tax base and economy depend on forestry, oil and gas, mining, farming and fishing. We can TOTALLY cut these industries in half through enviro regulations, but this is what it's going to mean. Health care dollars will be rationed. Classrooms will get much larger. No more army. Highways: rougher. Jobs: reduced dramatically. Now - who's up for subsistence farming in the frigid North?"
I just can't see the true "green" future looking like 30 million individuals (day traders? graphic designers?) living in separate condos, in a place like South East False Creek.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999. "Catch all" legislation to assess and regulate toxic substances.
All of the major environmental groups do share a very well-defined ideology based in the field of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics is a branch of the field of philosophy. Any first year philosophy student who is taking an environmental ethics course will tell you this field developed from the work of a Norwegian philosopher, Arnie Naess, in the early 1970s. Subfields within the field of environmental ethics include ecocentrism, biocentrism, zoocentrism, ecofeminism and ecojustice. A common term for people buying into this ideology is deep ecologists.
The Encyclopedia of Ethics, by Lawrence C. Becker, is an authoritative academic text on the subject of environmental ethics. It describes the primary goal of environmental ethics as rethinking moral philosophy and reformulating ethical theory so that nonhuman natural entities and nature as a whole may be directly enfranchised.
Becker further states:
Ecocentric environmental ethics, eco-justice theorists claim, will remain a mere academic pastime until it unites with an equally new and revolutionary economic and political theory that offers an alternative to the prevailing identification of development with industrialization, freedom with unrestrained consumption, and democracy with corporate oligarchy.
Why don't you tackle this subject again, Mr. Suzuki, only tell us in the proper context what you really think?
Suzuki lost my respect when he supported the BC Liberals and their faux carbon tax!