W: It’s a wasteland. The Chinese industrial area that is.

The reminder is that the industrial wastelands are in China, not USA, because the Green Movement objected.

My personal view is different. The “Vehemists” from Oregon notwithstanding (radical fringe), and the Deep Ecologists notwithstanding (interesting – and more serious – but still fringe), and the AGW crowd notwithstanding (egregious over-reach but ultimately a trend that should be monitored and tracked) – despite the missteps of the environmental movement, I submit it has done more good than harm.

So far. In my second breath, I would also argue that the Movement 2.0 has been corrupted by political interests with agendas quite distinct from sustaining an environmentally healthy planetary ecosystem.

The Chinese “wasteland” is not a failure of the environmental movement so much as it is a failure of the Chinese government – and, by extension, the Chinese people. Same for the shipyards in India. (How long before the Chinese and the Indians have their Book of Job Moment and begin to object to the effects of industrial pollution?)

The whole thing has a baby-bathwater quality about it. The movement should not be condemned for the failure of sponsors who have co-opted the agenda in a rather clever way to achieve an alternative set of objectives.

Teasing the two movements apart is not impossible, but it does require a certain level of insight, wisdom, and sophistication. I’m thinking BP.