This is a society where actions speak louder than words, especially to young people....MTV is right in it's marketing decision that confrontation and action draws more attention than plodding dedication.

Too bad for your friend not to get recongized for his good work, but that's not the goal or what MTV is about...they want to "rile up" a generation on this issue and create more activist.

Therefore I don't think their choice is bad...it's more effective...as any one in sales or marketing will tell you the first thing you do is "put people in the picture".

Good for you Scott Paul. Just the right tone to protest an overblown image of environmentalists who are infinitely more serious than our government and concerned about the world and life we will leave to those who come after us.

MTV is interested in one thing, ratings, not a political agenda. They want the most out-there, commmitted person, on the show. People will end up laughing at these people rather than taking them seriously.

I think instead of an ecoactivist, MTV would probabbly like to have some ecoterrorists. At least that would drive up the ratings.

In 2004, Wangari Muta Maathai won the nobel peace prize yet she and her group burned bulldozers and tree-cutting equipment in 1998...not really that peaceful.

I agree with Scott's perspective -- I think it's important not to polarize or stereotype the environmental movement, which is what I feel MTV is (perhaps unknowingly) doing. Yes, there are many very dedicated radical environmentalists out there who are "sleeping in forests" and "chaining themselves" to their causes, drawing attention to their causes, and making change. And, I understand Carroll's viewpoint that MTV knows that by showing the radicals they will have a more "interesting" show and perhaps more people will watch - and maybe get more people involved.

However, as an average American citizen who is environmentally conscious but would like to be inspired, seeing those kids chaining themselves or sleeping in trees or getting arrested "for their cause" does not "rile me up" or make me feel as though I could be part of the solution. It further alienates me from the process of environmentalism and eco-activism because I am not in the position in which I could or would do those things. Personally, I believe MTV's show would be more effective to perhaps show the radical kids, as well as people like Josh, and especially people who are making personal daily choices that can't be measured in Congress or by police records. Such as giving up their car or changing their lightbulbs; making the choices to live more deliberately.

Environmentalism and eco-activism should not a "fad" for MTV to exploit, and by only showing only the radical protesters as representative of eco-activists, I fear that they will polarize and alienate those who would and could make significant change in other ways.

"Green Jackass"

.

"or make me feel as though I could be part of the solution. It further alienates me from the process of environmentalism and eco-activism because I am not in the position in which I could or would do those things." Personally, I believe MTV's show would be more effective to perhaps show the radical kids, as well as people like Josh, and especially people who are making personal daily choices that can't be measured in Congress or by police records. Such as giving up their car or changing their lightbulbs; making the choices to live more deliberately.

Environmentalism and eco-activism should not a "fad" for MTV to exploit, and by only showing only the radical protesters as representative of eco-activists, I fear that they will polarize and alienate those who would and could make significant change in other ways.

Posted by Becca at May 12, 2007 02:10 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree that showing different kinds of activist would be good.
But I don't get the statements above. Why would you be dissuaded from doing what you are able to do just becuase others are doing something different?

I think those who can be "radical" probably should be in some circumstances. One personal instance comes to mind. The Park Service was going to "put down" the stallions in our OuterBanks wild ponies herd because they didn't want to be "responsible' for their upkeep which consisted of nothing more than vaccinating the herd every few years...this would have eventually made the herd extinct. A local group had committed to take over that chore with vet's volunterring their services. The Park Service wouldn't consider it. Our congressman was "slowly working on it". On the day the Park Service showed up to put down the stallions a bunch of us literally physically confronted the park sevice. They could beat up a bunch of citizens or they could leave. They wisely choose to go instead of being caught on tape manhandling a group of mostly women...and the picture of the incident appeared in the local paper. After this incident our congressman went into overdrive since he realized we were dead serious and passed an immediate bill to protect the ponies and save a national treasure and part of our heritage. Not one "paid organization worker" or employee or gov. heritage agency or "official" enviromental group put one minute or one dime into this, not before or after. To this day a local group of citizens and volunteers rises money to pay for the herd maintance and monitors the health of the herd and the ecology of the islands they roam on.

I could point to some other 'radical" groups like Greenpeace who if not for their "radical" confrontations against commerical net fishing that issue would not have been on anyone's radar, much less the public's and the seas would well on their way to losing a lot of species like dolphins.
Same can be said of the really "radical" PETA who hits one thru the ball park every now and then and is mainly responsible for a lot of corps who now "do no animal testing"...meaning blinding bunnies and doing things to other furry creatures to test their vanity products.

So let's not disparage others because it's not your particular mode of activism. There is a place for everyone in the enviromental movement.

If you feel you personally are not getting any appreciation for your non radical efforts go to you local newspaper and get them interested in doing a story on the postive impact you and others are having on the enviroment with your disciplined day to day efforts...that would inspire people who can't or don't want to do the radical thing to follow your example.

"... but that's not the goal or what MTV is about...they want to "rile up" a generation on this issue and create more activist."

My only concern is that this type of exposure can be used by those who seek to dismiss global warming activists as "kooks". MSM does a piss poor job of informing and covering the good work done by people like Josh Tulkin.
I have serious doubts that this type of MTV program will encourage young people to take global warming seriously and become active.

Thanks for writing about this, Scott. I was forwarded Zoe's email exchange with MTV and had the same reaction. If they want people on the front lines, people like Josh or the kids in our Agents of Change program would be perfect... but they don't realize that the everyday activism that actually affects change isn't of the chain-me-to-something brand. They should be excited about the opportunity to profile young people involved in international policy, but no, they'd rather perpetuate the stereotype. Unfortunate.

Erin
SustainUS

Thank you, Scott, for eloquently elaborating that the MTV's approach would incorrectly depict how and what our generation of environmentalists are striving to achieve.

Please keep us updated on how this unfolds.

Jin

A timber company has a proposal to develop a fairly large portion of their holdings near Greenville, Maine. This is Maine forest land... rugged, little populated, beautiful, mostly used by the locals, fishermen, hunters, snowmobilers in winter. Plum Creek wants to develop resort areas, condos, open up areas up until now accessible to only those adventurous enough to withstand the blackflies, bad roads, and lack of services.

Some radical enviromentalists, whom I sympathize with to a point, vandalized some of the Plum Creek offices in the area, using blood and entrails to make their statement. It caused a significant stir in Maine, prompting some in the legislature to craft legislation which included the term "enviromental terrorism." I believe it failed in the last legislature, but there was much debate about how these folks had gone too far, damaged the cause, and prompted this over the top legislation.

Plum Creek is revising its plan but not because of the vandalism. The vandalism brought the issue into the public's eye briefly, but those responsible were seen more as too radical, and too over the top. Acts, like spiking trees, which poses a physical danger to loggers, should not be condoned under any circumstances. Non-violent, civil disobedience ought to be the guiding principle in this type of "action" work. At the same time, the slow, legal intervention work of education, persuasion, and advocating sound policy is just as important. MTV, if it wants to be helpful should focus on the whole enchilada, not just the radicals. There are young folks turned on by policy work, as there are some turned on by camping out in a tree.

Pandering to empty-headed guerilla marketing gussied up as activism? Not the MTVs!!1!

call me on 3773462

younger generations choice to speak and push ideas is justified,
the older generations who helped drive us head long into an un-
certain future should (unless offering helpful advise on how to save
the life of billions) stop using yet more energy by sending mail...
just goes to show why MTV are casting!