At a time when the morale of the environmental
community is at such a low point, why do Ray Ring and the editor
wish to feature a story casting aspersions and fomenting factional
bickering? One is led to believe that behind every issue,
especially here in Montana where I have lived and worked as an
activist for almost 30 years, there is an obstructionist
tree-hugger thwarting consensus and peaceful resolution. The
assertion that “if environmentalists had gotten involved anytime
earlier than 1999, they could have helped start the cleanup (of
asbestos in Libby, Mont.) sooner” is akin to saying blacks were
responsible for segregation because they didn’t start the
civil rights movement soon enough (HCN, 2/21/05: Where were the
environmentalists when Libby needed them most?).
Ring is
trying to achieve some sort of “balance.” But there is one
essential aspect of the overarching analysis which you don’t
mention, and that is the macroeconomic structure that determines
our social, property, class and power relations: Capitalism. It
contains within its design and function inherent contradictions at
the root of every environmental issue you have highlighted since
your inception, and yet it remains outside the boundaries of the
conversation.
At some point someone, somewhere, will have
to take on the dominant narrative that says, “We can have it all
— unlimited prosperity, a clean healthy environment, peace
and justice for all — and it will all be painless if we will
only learn to ‘compromise.’ ”
David
D. Jones
Hamilton, Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline It’s capitalism, stupid.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
