INFORMATION ABOUT THE U.S. GREEN MOVEMENT

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

The earth is at present facing a set of interrelated problems--from global warming to ozone depletion, acid rain, air pollution, water pollution, toxic waste disposal, deforestation, desertification, overfishing, and declining food production--which our present political and economic institutions are simply incapable of dealing with. The root cause of each of these problems lies in a global economic system which is geared towards the overproduction of inessential consumer goods for a rich minority of the earth's population while the basic needs of the majority go unfulfilled. Such overconsumption can only be supported by drawing down both the renewable and nonrenewable resources of the Earth and generating pollution at levels that exceed the Earth's capacity to absorb them. Governments throughout the world continue to pursue the goal of increasing economic growth despite the fact that the present world economy is clearly unsustainable. In Beyond the Limits, an updated version of The Limits to Growth, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that if present trends continue economic collapse is possible within the next 35-50 years (1)--despite all the technological advances (pollution control technology, alternative energy sources, genetic engineering, eco-cars, and the like) currently being tauted as "solutions" by those who have a vested interest in keeping the present system as it is. Environmental deterioriation affects not only the quality of human life, through increased health risks and a lack of natural amenities, but also the continued existence of other species. At present human activities are causing approximately 25,000 species to go extinct each year--the natural rate of extinction is 1-10 per year. (2) It is estimated that up to one-fifth of the earth's species could be extinct by the year 2020, and perhaps as much as half by mid-century. (3) The present system puts profits ahead of sustainability and erroneously equates human well-being with consumerism and unsustainable levels of material consumption.

Proponents of the present system argue that economic growth is necessary if social justice for the poor is to be achieved and poverty overcome. Given current research indicating that it would take at least two additional planet Earths to provide the resources necessary to sustain the current world population at North American standards of living, (4) such a view is clearly utopian. Its hypocrisy is further exposed once it is recognized that current efforts to "help the poor" not only commit the imperialist error of thinking that developed countries have a burden to help "them" become like "us," but are also specifically intended to strip developing countries of their resources and labor by developing economies based on the export of natural resources, agricultural products, and manufactured goods from developing to developed countries. Despite the rhetoric that development helps the poor to "catch up" with the rich, much "official development assistance" is not intended to help the poor at all, but rather simply helps the first world gain further access to third-world resources, labor, and markets. After four decades of concentrated efforts to help the third world "develop," the gap between the richest 20% of the world's population and the poorest 20% has actually increased from 30 times more wealth in 1960 to 82 times more wealth in 1995. (5) The ratio was only 1.5:1 two hundred years ago. (6) Developed countries, which make up one-fourth of the earth's population, presently consume about three-fourths of the earth's resources at a rate per capita that is 15 times that of most people in the third world. (7) At present the 400 richest Americans have as much wealth as the combined GNP of India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangledesh where more than one billion people live; the three wealthiest Americans have more income than the 48 poorest countries. (8) The theory of "catch-up" development is a failure, even by its own standards.

It has become increasing clear that uncontrolled economic growth is a cause of rather than a solution to the problems of environmental degradation and global poverty. Instead of making food and goods to supply their own basic needs, the poor are locked into a global system specifically designed to supply the overconsumptive wants of the rich. Not only are more raw materials and goods flowing from South to North than are flowing in the opposite direction, but more capital is also being transferred from South to North through debt repayments than is being transferred from North to South in the form of new loans and development assistance. It is estimated that by following the current development paradigm it would take Sri Lanka, for example, 902 years to catch up with the fully developed nations; the 49 poorest countries, including Kenya, India, and Peru, would never catch up. (9) On the other hand, if the overaffluent reduced their per capita resource consumption at least 80%, the problem of global poverty could be overcome within a mere decade or so. (10) Reducing overconsumption on such a scale does not mean that we must go back to living in caves; rather it means that in a world of ecological limits parity between rich and poor at levels of material affluence that both meet basic human needs and are ecologically sustainable cannot be achieved through more economic growth but only by sharing resources more equitably--not just by redistributing wealth but also by dismantling an exploitive global system which permits a minority of the world's people to enjoy wealth and luxury, but only by forcing others into dehumanizing poverty, creating unjust inequalities, and destroying the environment. In the words of a popular slogan, the rich must learn to live more simply so the poor can simply live.

Neoliberal arguments that "free trade" and the creation of a "global market" increase prosperity for all are patently false. Current trends toward deregulation simply allow large transnational corporations, which control as much as half the world's assets and which by definition do not belong to any country, to act in their own interests rather than for the public good by avoiding any form of democratic political control. The argument that giving freedom to transnationals "creates jobs" is belied by the fact that jobs are actually being lost through restructuring at the same time that corporate salaries soar. In the 1970s the average American CEO made 35 times more money than their companies' lowest paid worker; by 1998 that figure had soared to 419 times more. (11) Transnationals frequently close down operations in first-world countries, leaving behind a wake of unemployed workers and devastated communities, only to reopen them in third-world countries where wages are lower, environmental regulations are lax, and taxes are negligible. Globalization portrays itself as promoting peace and international understanding when in fact it simply recreates on a global scale the same Dickensian working conditions which labor unions in the developed countries have spent more than a century fighting against. Nike shoes sell for as much as $135 in the U.S. but cost only $5.60 to make in Indonesia, where workers are paid as little as 15｢ an hour, housed in company barracks, subjected to mandatory overtime, and not permitted to strike or form unions; the $20 million basketball star Michael Jordan received in 1992 for helping to advertise Nike shoes was more than the entire annual payroll of the Indonesian workers who actually produced them. (12)

This "new world order," which reflects the interests of global elites in both the North and South while working against the interests of ordinary citizens in both spheres, is undoubtedly not one that would be freely chosen by an informed global citizenry and, in fact, it can only be defended through military force and excessive military spending which keeps citizens in their place and further channels precious resources away from humanitarian concerns. Global institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization also do not reflect the democratic interests of the majority but are rather dominated by an elite minority of investors and corporations, who in the pursuit of their own profit and gain have the power to shut down entire economies, as evidenced in the recent "Asian economic meltdown." Only an estimated 5% of the $1.5 trillion traded daily on global currency markets is used for productive investment; the remaining 95% is speculation, allowing those who contribute absolutely nothing to the production of goods and services to be become billionaires while the situation of the workers who actually produce those goods and services continues to deteriorate. (13) Business interests have also coopted many mainstream environmental groups through financial donations and board memberships, as well as many international forums for environmental debate, such as the Rio Conference and the Kyoto Protocol. Largely under pressure from corporate lobbyists, the Kyoto Protocol, for example, called for the United States to reduce CO2 emissions by a mere 7%, despite the fact that scientists have recommended reductions of 60-70%. (14) The U.S. Senate found even this miniscule amount unacceptable, voting 95-0 against ratifying the treaty. (15)

There is the widespread impression that people are more concerned with material prosperity than with environmental issues. In fact, a 1995 Gallup Poll indicated that two-thirds of the Americans surveyed agreed with the statement that "protection of the environment should be given a priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth." Other surveys have indicated that a majority of Americans want the government to do more to protect the environment, through increased government expenditure and tighter regulations, even if taxes are increased and prices become higher. (16) By failing to do more to protect the environment, politicians clearly reflect the interests of corporations more than they do the concerns of the majority of Americans.

The media, dominated as it is by the dictates of corporations which own, advertise in, and influence its content both directly and indirectly, fails to give the public an adequate view of the current social and ecological crisis. (17) Television carries hundreds of advertisments for automobiles, for example, but little or no in-depth reporting on how automobile use depletes natural resources, increases air pollution, and contributes to global warming. Public opinion is further manipulated through public relations and "greenwashing" campaigns that downplay the antisocial and antienvironmental behavior of corporations while allowing these same corporations to portray themselves as socially concerned and environmentally sensitive. As a result people are lulled into a false sense of security that most of our current social and environmental problems can be solved simply through more economic growth, technological advances, and "free market" policies--strategies which in fact simply allow corporations to conduct business as usual and do nothing to change the systemic problems of the current world order. What is needed is a global perspective and local action ("think globally; act locally!") which exposes the inherently antidemocratic, ecologically destructive, and socially unjust nature of the present system and replaces it with a new social order which provides for the human needs of all in an egalitarian and environmentally sensitive manner.

SO WHAT DO THE GREENS INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?

American Greens are part of an international Green movement which aims to transform the present global system from one dominated by global elites to one which reflects the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens. The Greens do not, like many radical parties of the past, seek to change the world by taking control of the present system and imposing its will on the rest of society in top-down fashion. Rather, the Greens seek to create a political process which devolves power out of the hands of elites and establishes more genuinely participatory forms of democracy. The goal is not so much to take charge of the present system in all its decrepitude nor to protest against it, but rather to transform the system in ways that provide for genuine human well-being and environmental integrity. The Greens are neither reformist nor revolutionary, but transformative, seeking, in the words of an old IWW slogan, "to build in a new society in the shell of the old." Transformation involves changing the way we act and think about the world as individuals, changing the structure of society in more socially just and egalitarian ways, and changing the way we relate both as individuals and societies to the environment we inhabit.

The Greens are often thought of as an "environmental party," but in fact the Greens are committed to a comprehensive political agenda which includes, but also extends far beyond, environmental concerns. The Greens are attempting to create a broad-based alternative movement which brings together environmentalists, human rights activists, consumer advocates, supporters of worker and consumer cooperatives, fair traders, labor advocates and union members, feminists, minority groups, gays and lesbians, and individuals pursuing various alternative lifestyles--indeed all of those whose agendas cannot be effectively pursued under the present system. It includes people who adhere to a variety of ideological and theoretical perspectives, including bioregionalism, deep ecology, social ecology, social libertarianism and anarchism, radical environmentalism, ecofeminism, ecological Marxism, Jeffersonian democracy, and various religious perspectives, as well as those with more conventional views who nonetheless feel that the present system is out of control and that there is a need for fundamental change. The Greens are not a party of followers who blindly toe the party line, but rather a group of independent-minded thinkers and activists who nonetheless seek to work together on problems of mutual concern. Managing so much diversity is not always easy and there have been many heated debates among the Greens over principles and policies, some of which have led to factionalism and major splits within the movement. Various groups have articulated different sets of principles and values for themselves. For many Greens, however, the purpose of a political party or group is not so much to reconcile any ideological differences which may exist between individual members as it is to provide a forum in which individuals who adhere to different ideologies and are pursuing a variety of strategies for social change can share their perspectives with each other and join forces on common projects they feel are important.

On the whole, the Greens cannot be located on a conventional "left-right" political spectrum (in the words of a popular Green slogan, the Greens are "neither left nor right but straight ahead!"). Greens reject both the historic tendency of communism to centralize power in the hands of the state (contra the expectations of Karl Marx) and the historic tendency of capitalism to concentrate power in the hands of a wealthy elite (contra the expectations of Adam Smith). Instead the Greens advocate decentralized forms of both political and economic power. They aim to combine the Democrat's traditional emphasis on equality and social welfare with the Republican's traditional emphasis on liberty and personal initiative, while avoiding the concentration of power in either "big government" or "big business." In a paper circulated among the U.S. Greens John Rensenbrink argues that "liberty" for Republicans has ceased to mean liberty for the average citizen and has instead come to mean liberty for corporations to form quasi-monopolies which take only their own interests into consideration while disregarding the larger interests of society. As for the Democrats, "equality" has ceased meaning compassion for the poor and oppressed, and has come to instead to mean government largesse and the "equal right" of every group to entitlements. Rensenbrink writes, "The vision of the Republicans is one of freedom in a plastic consumer paradise where the consumer is at liberty to be governed by the corporation or their representatives. The vision of the Democrats is of equality in a uniformized bureaucratic existence dominated by State." (18) The vision of the Greens, by contrast, is to restore the concepts of freedom and equality to their orginal meanings, and in particular, as Rensenbrink has elsewhere been quoted as saying, "...to redefine the purpose of government and business from profit maixmization to meeting the needs of people consistent with the environment [and] to relocate power away from the elites and the federal government and return it to the communities." (19)

Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader has argued that the United States is no longer a genuine democracy but rather a "corporate state" dominated by large corporations acting in very close alliance with authoritarian political trends. When big business is combined with big government the result is government "of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and for the Duponts." (20) The goal of the Greens is the very American one of restoring government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that if a government no longer represents the will of its citizens, the citizens have the right to change it; he also suggested that for democracy in America to renew itself, a revolution would be necessary every twenty years. It's been more than 200 years now and we're about due! And just to set the record straight, income equality is also a part of the American tradition. Jefferson believed that democracy could only flourish in a society in which both economic and political power were widely distributed, and it was the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, not Karl Marx, who wrote, "The accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence." (21)

COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE GREENS ACTUALLY DO?

While trying to get Green candidates elected to public office is indeed an important part of the Green movement, American Greens are pursuing a variety of different strategies to create a more ecologically balanced and socially just world. The following is a brief and highly selective summary (more detailed information on electoral work can be found in USGA Infosheet #10, "Information about Green Electoral Work and Candidates"):

- Conducting direct action campaigns against nuclear facilities, toxic waste dumps, garbage incinerators, and other socially and environmentally harmful facilities.

- Creating economic alternatives in the form of alternative job training, the creation of cooperatives and food circles, alternative currencies, and support for the workplace democracy/worker ownership movement.

- Adopting personal lifestyles based on voluntary simplicity and self-sufficiency.

- Working to eliminate all forms of hierarchy and domination, whether these be constructed on the basis of class, race, gender, or sexual orientation, in an effort to create a genuinely egalitarian society in which every individual is able to reach his or her fullest potential.

- Opposing military actions such as the NATO bombing of Serbia, calling for reductions in military spending, and attempting to stop the U.S. from training soliders on behalf of oppressive foreign regimes.

- Engaging in educational activities such as study groups, street theater, and public lectures aimed at increasing awareness about our current social and ecological crisis, and the alternatives that are available.

- Supporting the alternative press and other alternative media, as both readers and writers, as well as conducting media campaigns in the mainstream media.

- Doing research on current issues, such as genetic engineering, nuclear energy, and biodiversity, and writing policy papers on a wide variety of topics.

- Engaging in theoretical work aimed at advancing a specific Green perspective in the fields of economics, political thought, philosophy, and other areas of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.

- Fostering the development of various forms of Green spirituality, within both historic religious traditions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Shinto, and in more "New Age" forms of spirituality.

- Advocating more increased democratic participation in local communities through town meetings, municipal assemblies, citizen initiatives, referendums, and the like.

- Supporting campaign finance and electoral reforms aimed at making a more level playing field for third-party candidates, including participation in public debates and a system of proportional representation.

- Networking with other third parties, such as the Natural Law, Labor, Socialist, and Peace and Freedom parties, to achieve common goals (such as electoral reforms) and explore possibilities for collaboration.

- Promoting both biological and cultural diversity by working in solidarity with indigenous people, particularly in the Western hemisphere, to protect the bioregions they inhabit and their cultural traditions from the threat of corporate intrusion backed by government force.

- Supporting the efforts of other oppressed groups in their struggle for freedom and dignity.

- Organizing opposition to the North America Free Trade Agreement and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments proposed by the OECD, as well as protesting against the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank.

WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?

Given the open nature of the Green movement it is not necessary for members to agree with or support all of the particular ideas and strategies that have been presented here. If you do, however, feel that there is a need for fundamental change on a local, national, and global scale in the direction of a society which is more ecologically sustainable, socially just, and democratic, we ask that you consider becoming a part of the global Green movement. Information about Green groups in the United States is included in a series of Infosheets prepared by the U.S. Greens Abroad; for non-U.S. citizens a partial list of Green Parties worldwide is also available. To contact us write to Richard Evanoff, 1933-8 Hazama-cho, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo 193-0941 Japan or e-mail <evanoff@sipeb.aoyama.ac.jp>.

REFERENCES

(1) Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, and Jｿrgen Randers, Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse or a Sustainable Future (Post Mills: Chelsea Green, 1992).

(2) Richard B. Primack, Essentials of Conservation Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer, 1993), chap. 4.

(3) E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (Cambridge: Belknap, 1992), p. 278.

(4) Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Philadelphia: New Society, 1996), p. 15.

(5) "Poor and Rich--The Facts," New Internationalist (March 1999) 310:18-19.

(6) Frans J. Schuurman, Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory (London: Zed Books, 1993), p. 10.

(7) Ted Trainer, Abandon Affluence! Sustainable Development and Social Change (London: Zed Books, 1985), p. 3.

(8) David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World (London: Earthscan, 1995), p. 108.

(9) Joel Jay Kassiola, The Death of Industrial Civilization (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), p. 255.

(10) Trainer, pp. 248-249.

(11) "CEO Pay in '98: Insanity Marches On," Too Much (Summer 1999):3.

(12) Korten, p. 111.

(13) "The Global Economy: The Facts," New Internationalist (January-February 2000) 320:24-25.

(14) Ross Gelbspan, "Global Warming: The Heat Is On," Alternative Radio, broadcast June 22, 1999.

(15) Ibid.

(16) Sharon Beder, Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism (Totnes: Green Books, 1997), p. 233.

(17) See in addition to Beder above, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).

(18) John Rensenbrink, "The Green Idea Concerning the Recovery and Transformation of American Political Parties," a paper presented to the APSA national meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA on August 31, 1985, p. 12.

(19) Quoted in Matthew Rothschild, "Is it time for a third party?," Utne Reader (Sept./Oct. 1990), p. 59.

(20) Quoted in Rick Wilcox and Richard Evanoff, "Countering the Corporate Goosestep: Ralph Nader and Grassroots Strategies," Japan Environment Monitor (April-May 1997), p. 12.

(21) Quoted in John Keane, Tom Paine: A Political Life (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), p. 426.