What the Green Movement Got Wrong

What the Green Movement Got Wrong is the title of an environmental documentary which exposes the errors of environmentalism. In the documentary, opinions are given of how environmentalists’ oppositions to accepting technological advancements have had negative consequences on the health and wellbeing of the human population and ironically the Earth itself. A contributing speaker in the documentary, Adam Werbach, who is the author of the book Strategy for Sustainability: A Business Manifesto and who works for the global agency Saatchi & Saatchi, voices his critiques: “After decades of work, after billions of dollars spent, the environmental movement has failed to achieve job one, which is to protect the planet” (Werbach, 3). Werbach believes the environmental movement has failed based mainly on their rejection of genetically modified organisms and nuclear energy; food aid was prevented from reaching starving people in developing countries for fear of the genetically modified seeds contaminating the local seeds, and in not implementing nuclear energy more fossil fuels are being used, contributing to climate change. He suggests that the environmental movement has somewhat lost its perspective, and believes it should “rethink its most basic assumptions…Environmentalists need to start seeing people as the solution, not the problem” (Werbach, 7). In this article, Werbach argues that the environmental movement has failed; environmentalists should alter their policies and behaviours in order to have a significant standing in the future, and to achieve this they must incorporate our increasing human population and technological advancements into their solutions. However, Werbach makes a weak argument due to his lack of sufficient and different types of evidence and simply including a few examples to support his claims.

Part of Werbach’s claim is that the environmental movement has failed in protecting the planet. To support this argument, he introduces the examples of disregarding the starving people of the world to prevent seed contamination and being unsuccessful in finding a solution to climate change by opposing nuclear power. This claim is not strong because there is not enough evidence to support this argument, and the examples alone are not strong enough. If environmentalism involves protecting the planet, it would include all life forms on the planet: species, ecosystems, sentient and non-sentient organisms, and human beings. In the first example, by rejecting genetically modified seeds, the environmentalists are protecting ecosystems and non-sentient organisms. In the second example, environmentalists are concerned with the negative effects of nuclear energy on all life forms. Thus, Werbach’s claim that the environmental movement has failed in protecting the planet is weak because he does not consider all the components of the Earth or other examples of which environmentalists have protected a certain species, organism, etc. Rather, he unfairly looks at the two controversial examples and makes the generalization that because humans and the environment in the examples are not benefiting, the environmental movement has made no progress. His examples used and argument made are exaggerated.

Werbach’s main argument is that it is necessary for the environmental movement to change and modernize to adapt with the changing times; environmentalists must take into account the world’s booming population and must eventually embrace technological advancements. Again, using his two examples involving genetically modified organisms and nuclear energy, Werbach ceases to consider the negative effects of genetically modified crops and nuclear power – essentially the reasons why the two topics are debated in the first place. Instead, because he is for GMO’s and nuclear power, he sees them as the solutions in solving the problems of starvation and climate change. Environmentalists on the other hand believe in alternative and more sustainable solutions. In this case, Werbach’s argument is weak because he does not take into account any supporting facts of either side of the debatable solutions and simply states that technology is our solution.

Because Adam Werbach is expressing an opinion, it is natural for his arguments to be biased. Werbach raises interesting considerations; however his arguments are not strong enough because his evidence is not strong enough. A main reason why this article is not strong is because the author neither anticipates nor addresses any objections to his argument. Thus he also does not have evidence to argue any opposition. In my opinion, a strong argument would have solid points with strong evidence for each claim (such as facts, statistics, examples) and would also consider opposing arguments and be able to argue it. This is especially applicable in this article since Werbach criticises the environmental movement on not helping the human race and encouraging the use of fossil fuels through the rejection of genetically modified organisms and nuclear power, when these two topics are very controversial and would definitely arise arguments against them. In doing so, the author could have shown that he understands and has considered the views of the environmentalists regarding the technologies; however he could have convinced the reader that their benefits outweigh the risks and make his argument stronger. Werbach’s argument that the environmental movement has not been successful in protecting the planet and that their policies and behaviours should change to accept technological advancements is weak, due to his lack of variety and sufficient evidence and a disregard for considering objections to his argument.

Werbach, Adam. "Debating 'What the Green Movement Got Wrong' - Adam Werbach -

Culture – The Atlantic." The Atlantic. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 08 Nov. 2010.

.

By: Sarah Law