Let’s start with the Deep Green Resistance movement because who could listen to Derrick Jensen and not feel the love for and call of the wild?
Yet, from their own Guiding Principles, this one is #5 of 5:
Deep Green Resistance is a radical feminist organization. Men as a class are waging a war against women. Rape, battering, incest, prostitution, pornography, poverty, and gynocide are both the main weapons in this war and the conditions that create the sex-class women. Gender is not natural, not a choice, and not a feeling: it is the structure of women’s oppression. Attempts to create more “choices” within the sex-caste system only serve to reinforce the brutal realities of male power. As radicals, we intend to dismantle gender and the entire system of patriarchy which it embodies. The freedom of women as a class cannot be separated from the resistance to the dominant culture as a whole.
If you don’t agree with this principle, don’t bother to join you won’t be allowed.
I will forever believe that Derrick Jensen cares about the ecosystems of Earth more than just about anyone else in the public eye so this isn’t meant to throw shade on him but his DGR isn’t tolerable when it attacks men as a class.
The Green Party itself does very little to focus on “Green” politics. From their recent Party Power Survey:
What are the immediate issues the Green Party should be championing? Click all that apply.
- Affordable housing/Gentrification
- Anti-oppression solidarity such as #BlackLivesMatter”
- Anti-War and militarism
- Democracy crisis in the U.S.
- Living wage and worker rights
- Immigration justice – support for sanctuary cities and non-cooperation with Feds
U.S. imperialism/global justice
- Creating a new economy (e.g. worker-owned cooperatives, land trusts to control housing prices and community development, participatory budget, public banks)
- State violence/repression
There are a few which have indirect impact on environmental matters, like “Creating a new economy”, but not a single one very specific to climate change, environmental degradation, water quantity and quality, food integrity, mass extinction, animal cruelty and exploitation, etc etc etc.
There are examples ad nauseum of this situation in politics and corporatism. It’s called GREENWASHING. It’s using the public affection and concern regarding environmental matters to support an alternative agenda.
Wildlife Organizations are not much better. Take the case of the Defenders of Wildlife selling out to – Read this from The Huffington Post
Our jaws dropped when we read Jamie Rappaport Clark’s blog post on Huffington Post titled “Defenders of Wildlife: Protecting and Recovering Wolves.” Ms. Rappaport is the president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife.
Defenders of Wildlife did not perform their due diligence as an environmental group when it came to protecting the family of 11 wolves known as the Profanity Peak Pack in NE Washington state. They let a repeat offender rancher get away with putting his cattle on pristine, rugged public land right on top of a wolf den, which provoked predation and led to the state authorizing all wolves in the pack be killed. Two wolves were gunned down by helicopters on August 5, four more were killed by August 26, and the remaining are slated for death. This is happening in a state that has barely 90 wolves.
WWF International, the world’s largest conservation group, has been accused of “selling its soul” by forging alliances with powerful businesses which destroy nature and use the WWF brand to “greenwash” their operations.
The allegations are made in an explosive book previously barred from Britain. The Silence of the Pandas became a German bestseller in 2012 but, following a series of injunctions and court cases, it has not been published until now in English. Revised and renamed Pandaleaks, it will be out next week.
• Poor fact checking. Programme is replete with errors, many of which could have been easily checked with readily available material online or simple queries. In some cases documentary team was in possession of factually correct material but chose not to use it.
• Poor background research. The programme displays little familiarity with the background of even some basic elements of the topics covered.
• Lack of balance. The programme set out to vilify WWF. Material that did not fit into this story line was avoided or ignored.
• Distortions, possibly deliberate. WWF was held responsible for decisions of governments, actions by unassociated companies and alleged events in places where it has not worked. Interviews in Bahasa Indonesia were grossly mistranslated into German and English and inserted into false contexts. Descriptions of the film-makers approaches to WWF were false. The roles of WWF personnel were misrepresen
This weekend on BBC World there was a conversation about sustainability versus environmentalism, I think – I just caught the end of it but basically the environmentalist was saying something like: Of course we can’t expect everyone to give up everything or else life would be very hard for very many. And at the end of the day that’s exactly it. No one wants to give up their comforts, their profits, their goals and dreams and everything everyone has been programmed to believe in for generations.
I believe (for my own sanity?) there are groups that are still worth supporting: Sea Shepard is one. The Dolphin Project is another. Local Community Sponsored Agriculture efforts is yet another. But today it is very very hard to parse through the words and get to the root of what’s really important to the organization – you must separate their actions from their words and study the former in depth.