As the Muppet Kermit the Frog observed (admittedly in a different context), being green is quite difficult. There are two basic dangers, I think. One is the obvious problem of avoiding being a preachy pain in the ass and thus turning possible allies off (I knew a couple of those and after listening to them rant on I was ready to shoot and eat a spotted owl) and the other is avoiding being a target for certain types of “progress” oriented left-wingers (don’t worry about the environment- just feed the people) or (most often lately) greedy corporatist conservatives (the bottom line is the only important issue.) In some cases a person’s life may be threatened and sometimes taken (See: www.theguardian.com/...) I would postulate that one does not have to be an ideologue of any stripe to be an environmentalist and that being an environmentalist is in fact being humanist in the broader sense and has little to do with being a Democrat or a Republican, or at least shouldn’t. In fact, being an environmentalist is a survival tactic that takes into account that we humans are (gasp) animals who’s mental and physical survival (barring catastrophic volcanism, earthquakes or meteor strikes) depends on doing all in our power to mitigate the effects of our burgeoning population and technologically induced pollution, including the current problems with Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Whether we can actually accomplish this is a question (despite our much vaunted brains), but while the Paris Accord was very likely too little and too late, it at least recognized the problem and promoted an intention to action. Without such intention we will have no chance at all. Fortunately many countries and some of our states and cities are vowing to continue the development of sustainable energy. It still may not be enough and it takes away our national leadership in the Free World and on the planet. We are not being made great again, but just the reverse.
One of the often overlooked practical functions of having areas of wilderness, or even relatively unkempt city parks, is the psychological need of humans to at least occasionally escape the rat race and reconnect with the earth. Sappy sentimentalism aside, I think from my own experience that my contact with the natural world has kept me at least somewhat sane over many years of difficulties. I am not unique in this. However, the more measurable services rendered to us inadvertently by the natural ecosystems of the planet (and I will include park land and non-factory farm countryside, as we are part of nature, even if we distain it!) are legion and if measured in dollars and cents (the only measure some people seem to understand) would be in the trillions of U.S. dollars annually. We evolved on this planet and we need this planet, despite the (I think) overly optimistic plan to place a city of over 600,000 people on Mars by 2117 (See: www.latimes.com/...).
Some people hate the whole idea of environmentalism, equating it with anti-progress and anti-human Neo-luddites. I find this to be a pretty vacuous argument and to be often voiced when no logical reasons can be had. Progress, as they define it (mainly to do with the bottom line), is absolutely to be desired (one reason I have problems with the word “progressive.”) I have been lectured by one or the other of these people on occasion and it usually comes down to the fact that I and my associates are fancy-pants academics, while they are real world common sense people who have been schooled by the facts of life. After Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, her book was attacked in another book, Bugs or People? by Wheeler McMillian. This book was based, as much as I can tell, on the argument that short-term human economic advancement was more important than the environment, which you could treat as a never ending source of monetary gain and salable commodities. Pesticides were always a boon to society and criticism of them was based on silly emotional fears. In my opinion, people who believe this should never be put in charge, but unfortunately our current government seems to be full of such fools.
Yes, there is a danger in being (or trying to be) “green,’ but our continued existence, until some natural disaster takes us out, may well depend on it. We are involved in a very unscientific experiment with a replication of one. If it was not so vital to our long-term survival it would be an interesting, if statistically unanalyzable, series of events. As Spock would say — “Fascinating.” Perhaps this is why we have never been contacted by alien civilizations — like us they don’t last long enough to travel beyond their home planet, assuming that they develop technology like our own and beyond. The other possibility is that any alien intelligence may think that we are too primitive and stupid to be interesting.
Thus it is my contention that the current administration needs to be removed as soon as possible and the voters have the best chance of starting that process in 2018. Unless Mueller finds enough fire that even the Republicans cannot ignore and the first successful impeachment and conviction occurs right after (I doubt that the Democrats would have enough votes to unilaterally accomplish this) our next step would be in 2020. It is not just our Democratic Republic that is at stake, it is our civilization.