JANE EISNER Odd pair come together in battle

Deep into a long and controversial critique of the environmental movement, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus make this salient point: "Environmentalists are in a culture war whether we like it or not. It's a war over our core values as Americans and over our vision for the future, and it won't be won by appealing to the rational consideration of our collective self-interest."
Shellenberger and Nordhaus' essay, "The Death of Environmentalism" (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/), now circulating on the Internet, has prompted a wave of reaction and consternation, and the above paragraph tells you why. These young environmentalists, who came to their conclusions after talking to dozens of leaders in their community, are unafraid to answer a question many have been reluctant to ask: Why has the environmental movement failed to win American hearts and change American habits?
Understanding the challenge as a culture war instead of an alarmist public education campaign shows Shellenberger and Nordhaus get it. They understand that effective environmentalism requires vision and values, not alarmism and sentimentalist nature-love.
They may pick up an unlikely ally.
Global warming
While their essay was creating quite a buzz among the "Save the Earth" crowd, a new group walked into the room. Meeting last week in Washington, some conservative evangelical leaders said they'd use their Christian voice and political clout to fight what they call the urgent threat of global warming.
This follows a position paper issued in October by the National Association of Evangelicals including a plank on "creation care." Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, also weighed in: "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps toward changes that protect our environment."
This could give a whole new meaning to the phrase culture war.
It's fair to say that these groups traditionally have viewed each other with suspicion bordering on contempt. According to stereotype, environmentalists are socialistic, pantheistic tree-huggers, interested only in extending the reach of suffocating government regulation, while conservative evangelicals care more about someone else's sexual behavior than the state of God's creation.
Such stereotypes have a long shelf life. But get past them, and both sides may learn a lot from each other.
"Today, environmentalism is just another special interest," Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue. It has become easy to dismiss or demean, and often is reduced to support for incremental legislation rather than a broader vision of preserving precious natural resources while maintaining economic strength and a family-friendly lifestyle. Meanwhile, it's losing ground fast, as suggested by the Senate vote Wednesday in favor of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Let's be honest: Environmentalists could learn a thing or two from evangelicals about promoting values and vision.
Faith-based concerns
At the same time, some evangelicals worry that their focus on abortion and same-sex marriage has squelched their voice on other faith-based concerns.
"Hey, we're not two-trick ponies," Rich Cizik, NEA's vice president of government affairs, told NPR last Saturday. "You can't really talk about addressing, for example, global warming and climate change without understanding that it impacts people -- people who suffer overseas," he said. "We have to understand it's not just one or the other."
Of course, these agents provocateurs are already drawing criticism from inside their flanks. Columnist Cal Thomas wrote this week that a focus on global warming "distracts and dilutes the primary calling of evangelicals." Liberal evangelicals who ask, "What Would Jesus Drive?" may wonder whether their conservative brethren will really challenge the Bush administration on its policies.
Meantime, some environmentalist leaders (and their funders) contend that Shellenberger and Nordhaus misunderstand the politics and history of their movement. Fine. As long as this hot air doesn't affect the global climate, it can only be for the good. We need a values-based debate about environmentalism before we wake up behind the wheel of an SUV and find it's too late.
X Jane R. Eisner is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.