[GreenYes] Response to Chris Cloutier

[DavidOrr@aol.com]

On 4/3/01 2:01 PM, chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us wrote:

>Using David's logic, he should soon be renouncing his US citizenship b/c
>the US gov't is at least as environmentally damaging as the members of the
>AF&PA. Doesn't the same ethical conundrum (read: strawman) apply?


No, Chris, it's *your* logic that's faulty here.  Being a citizen of the 
US is a condition that I was born into.  That is absolutely not analogous 
to someone voluntarily taking a job with an environmentally harmful 
industry or industry PR front group.

Environmentalists can and should avoid putting themselves into 
compromising situations.  Recognizing that not everyone has a choice of 
where they work, it is certainly understandable that some 
environmentalists could find themselves in a situation where they feel 
like they have no choice but to go to work for a polluting corporation or 
PR group.  

But from an ethical standpoint, environmentalists need to avoid putting 
themselves in a position where they promote, wittingly or unwittingly, 
the interests of the industries that are driving environmental 
destruction.  Environmentalists need to be united in condemning 
environmental destruction if we are to end it.

Industry LOVES to use nice people as PR fronts.  It matters not a whit to 
industry how well-meaning the front people are; the industry will not 
change other than as a response to public pressure.

How many people believe that the AF&PA will change its mission and stop 
representing the timber industry's interests because they employ a few 
enthusiastice advocates for recycling?  Keep in mind that the AF&PA 
exists because of, and derives all its funding from, the very 
corporations that fight mightily (and successfully!) AGAINST recycling 
and FOR unfettered logging.