Environmentalism Is Bad?

Sarah Matthews
English 1301
Essay #4
Environmentalism is bad? Is the environmentalist approach for a good environment a helpful or hurtful one? Environmentalists state that their plans are designed to improve the environment; however, there are others who see those plans as harmful. Each side will argue convincingly that the environment needs their help, because it will not get better on its own; yet the environment has been getting along all by itself for millenniums without assistance. There are good and bad ideas help by people on all sides of this issue which need to be examined in detail in order to come to a final conclusion. An issue that is discussed involves the “bad” actions of environmentalists. Environmentalists always believe what they are doing helps the earth, but plenty of people from these “eco-friendly” groups use violence, vandalism and also interfere in business activity. This leads to many regular Americans upset. One would think that these groups of environmentalists would be the first people to want to stop these violent acts, because the whole environmental movement would be tarnished (Berlau 777). These horrible people are what we call “eco-terrorists” and they have drawn swastikas on Ronald McDonald, tried to blow up a ski resort and placed spikes in to trees in order to keep trees from being cut down but the person cutting them ended up getting hurt (Berlau 773-774, 778) Sadly enough, “some mainline environmental leaders have publicly said that eco-terrorism enables the green movement to pursue a good cop, bad cop approach to getting what it wants” (Berlau 777). Jensen and McMillan also agree that the environmentalist approach is not the best idea, simply through their comic strip. The two girls argue back and forth about what they can do in order to help the environment, but using the environmentalist approach will not change the earth because it is already destroyed. In fact, “the problem really is the whole system” (Jensen and McMillan 729). There is almost a middle man between the two arguments called reality. In the comic strip writing by Jensen and McMillan, the environmentalist approach thinks that change is necessary in order to preserve the way of life. One of the girls goes on about replacing light bulbs, walking more, showering less and the changing thermostat of a house hold to save more carbon dioxide (Jensen and McMillan 716-720). While the other girl responds with a more negative approach towards the actions that could be done. Towards the end of the comic strip animals come in to the picture, because these two girls want help with saving the earth. Each animal or plant has an idea about what to stop in order to help the planet: stop removing all the forests, remove all dams from the rivers, stop burning things that put poisons into the air and give back instead of just taking and taking (Jensen and McMillan 739). The realistic approach looks more among the idea that what we are doing is obviously not helping, so in order to make change- go out and do something about it rather than complaining and making up idea.
Environmentalists see all of those opinions differently. These groups of people look at small problems such as a waterfront and make a positive feel for what it could be like if everyone cleaned up the polluted area making the horrid site into a breathe-taking view (Velazquez 771). Velazquez describes the district she lives in as polluted and poor because of the lack of others caring for where they leave their residue. Environmentalists simply fight for others to see the damage they do to the planet and strive for them to change their ways. Velazquez wanted legislation to restrict all of the big contributors to polluting so much in poor area, because no one can do or say much of anything (Velazquez 770). Eco-friendly people seem to see what change can be done in order to fix everything as soon as possible.
There are extremists on both of these sides along with more moderates. All of these sides have good ideas. Communication needs to be open between them all in order to have workable solutions. This would end up in the world enduring all of our previous mistakes.

Work Cited
Berlau, John. “Our Unhealthy Future under Environmentalism.” Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin\ 's Press, 1992. Print. 772-784 Rpt. "Eco:Freaks: Environmentalists Is Hazardous to Your Health" (2006). Print.
Jensen, Derrick and McMilian, Stephanie. “From as the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial.” Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin\ 's Press, 1992. Print. 715-743
Velazquez, Nydia M. “In Search of Justice.” Velazquez Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin\ 's Press, 1992. Print. 764-784 Rpt. "Sustainable planet: solutions for the Twenty-First Century" (2002). Print.

Cited: Berlau, John. “Our Unhealthy Future under Environmentalism.” Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin 's Press, 1992. Print. 772-784 Rpt. "Eco:Freaks: Environmentalists Is Hazardous to Your Health" (2006). Print. Jensen, Derrick and McMilian, Stephanie. “From as the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial.” Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin 's Press, 1992. Print. 715-743 Velazquez, Nydia M. “In Search of Justice.” Velazquez Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Eighth. Bedford Books of St. Martin 's Press, 1992. Print. 764-784 Rpt. "Sustainable planet: solutions for the Twenty-First Century" (2002). Print.