Environmentalism cannot be described as a homogeneous movement, given the immense variety of currents that make it up, with different visions of the world, objectives and methods of action, ranging from the most radical proposals to the most innocuous, decorative and superficial, passing through those entirely sedimented in science and rationality to others that are completely intuitive and emotional, which often come into conflict and fight for different spaces. The link that unites them is, generally, the interest in preserving nature and establishing a sustainable way of life.[64][138][42]But, as Héctor Leis pointed out,.
The heterogeneity that characterizes environmentalism is considered by many of its members to be one of its strengths, allowing it to absorb a wide range of interests and knowledge and touch on the most diverse issues, but on the other hand it has opened the door to countless criticisms. regarding its alleged inconsistency.[64][140][72][138][42].
As an example, Rush Limbaugh, an influential American media figure and author of two controversial bestsellers,[141] said that environmentalists are often fanatics and hysterics who have exchanged facts for beliefs; that there is no reason to believe in global warming; that man is not responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer; that the Earth's ecosystems are not fragile and that man does not have the capacity to destroy them; that there are more forests in the United States today than in the last century, and that international regulations are not the best way to address the problem. [142] Similar opinions are supported by other prominent names with scientific training, such as Bjørn Lomborg, author of the also controversial and highly publicized The Skeptical Environmentalist , where he questions the excessive importance given to certain ecological challenges and the movement's priorities, stating that the population explosion is not a problem, that there is abundant drinking water, that the losses of forests and biodiversity are tremendously exaggerated, that the battle against pollution has already been won and that fighting global warming It is not worth it because it would be too expensive.[143][144][145]Other critics say that excessive concern for nature constitutes an impediment to economic growth and social well-being; that the movement is manipulated by political interests and that predictions of a global crisis are nothing more than an attempt to terrorize people in order to control them; that many of the theories presented are not consistent or do not represent the consensus of the scientific community; that studies indicating a progression of environmental damage are flawed or fraudulent or their conclusions are hasty; that human interference with nature is not as important as we would like to think and that the problems we face today derive mainly from natural and not anthropogenic processes, and that environmental proposals are generally naive, ill-informed or practically unviable, or that their costs would exceed the supposed benefits.[146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153] says that environmentalism is a "green mask" for a totalitarian and internationalizing program that threatens the freedom of people and the principle of private property, undermines the sovereignty of States and weakens their position in a highly competitive market economy;[152][154][155]that the movement unduly places greater importance on nature than on people,[152]and that international agreements are mostly rhetoric. [156].
It should be noted that a large number of reports have become public that a significant part of the anti-environmental campaign is financed by large corporations that have strong interests in maintaining their markets and exert pressure on public figures, influential politicians, governments and other bodies. to support its objectives,[147][157][158][159][160][149]having as one of its strategies the manipulation of environmentalist discourse with a scientific appearance in order to discredit it or minimize the importance of current problems, deliberately confusing public opinion, [147][148][161][64]which, according to research, is rarely well informed about the issue or does not believe in its seriousness, and can be easily influenced by propaganda.[147][157]Situations like these led the Royal Society, the United Kingdom's most respected scientific association, in an unprecedented move, to ask ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and a powerful lobby against environmentalism, in 2006 to stop funding studies that distort or question the solid evidence already accumulated indicating the reality of environmental issues. The company rejected the allegations and continued its investigation. [150][162].
However, to further complicate the situation, science is still not absolutely certain about many aspects of nature and completely unaware of the explanation of many others, but in the same way the old economic, political and cultural certainties turn out to be valid. doubtful, leaving important questions still without satisfactory answers for both sides of the discussion.[163][164][153][165][140][154][155]Taking this into account, a team of scientists assembled by the United States government, in a 2009 study, considered that uncertainty in science is not essentially different from the innumerable uncertainties that people face in their daily lives, and that it should not be interpreted as an impediment to decision-making.[166]But Giacomini Filho observed that the average citizen is usually perplexed:.
Many advances have been made, other corporations are beginning to consider the defense of the environment as a potentially profitable social capital and are investing in it, [158][169] in one way or another the topic is in the media almost every day and has been integrated into the school curriculum, there are already countless environmental associations, green parties, independent activists, academic research, conferences and international agreements, community actions, new legislation, and their number grows every day, but there are also setbacks at various levels, many demonstrations about problems ecological problems end in violence, the debate is often neither honest, nor fair, nor objective, political and economic interests generally take priority, and environmental catastrophes are no longer rare news, such as forest fires, animal deaths, extinction of entire species on a daily basis, illegal deforestation and accidents in nuclear power plants. [41][70][71][170][171][172][5][165][75][42][90][173]( see: Antinuclear movement).
The desired balance between man and nature has not yet been achieved on a large scale, permanently and sustainably, and the distance between discourse and everyday practice remains great. According to Igor Fonseca, studies indicate that the level of awareness of the population is high in several countries, but that this does not translate into concrete attitudes to the same extent.[173]In the opinion of Giacomini Filho, "in theory, everyone agrees with the loss of privileges for the benefit of the environment. But...neither citizens, nor companies nor governments want sacrifices to occur in their backyards."[174] Fonseca also warned about the possibility that, with the popularization of environmentalism, its concepts become trivialized and lose their ability to generate changes.[175].
Finally, although anyone can question the merit of environmentalist claims, or the accuracy of their predictions, or the viability of their proposals, the scientific community has already reached a broad and solid consensus that the phase of doubts and uncertainties about the reality and scope of the problems must be considered obsolete, given the volume of evidence indicating that man is effectively destroying the environment in which he lives at an accelerated rate, and in doing so acts against his own interests, although this is not adequately understood. The consensus is expressed concretely in the public and official positioning of high-profile international organizations, such as the World Bank, the United Nations and their partners, and in the numerous international conventions, declarations and programs established in recent years for the protection of the environment, which are based on studies prepared by large teams of scientists linked to prestigious academies and institutions, all of whom agree in stating that it is no longer possible to hide the enormous seriousness of the situation and the need for urgent large-scale changes, emphasizing that the threat of a generalized crisis is real and that the environment in many places is already irreversibly compromised, and many others are going the same way. path.[176][177][178][22][179][180][181][47][182][183] [184][185][79][186][187][188][47][189][95][86][190].
This international agreement of the greatest scientific and technical authorities is what gives solidity and credibility to the central demands of environmentalists. Sir John Lawton, former chief executive of the UK's Natural Environment Research Council, citing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, one of the most important environmental sciences today, said that "it is a very powerful consensus on the direction of the unsustainable situation in which most of the world's ecosystems find themselves." Today there will no doubt be those who say there are gains... but I would put them in the same category as those who say the Earth is flat and those who believe that smoking does not cause cancer." Angela Cropper, co-organizer of the Assessment, added that "the scale of the current responses does not keep pace with the nature, scope or urgency of the situation at hand." [95] This is even more worrying given the current population explosion, which has as an immediate consequence a continued increase in pressure on all resources and natural systems. On the other hand, it is also considered possible, with appropriate measures, to minimize or reverse much of this disastrous trend.[189][191][188][192]One of the most recent official UN resolutions, entitled The future we want"), from 2012, invoking and ratifying a long list of previous similar conventions, was explicit in saying that the way forward is that of sustainable development:.
The UN General Secretariat, in another document from 2012, stated that it is essential that humanity begins to understand itself not as owner of the Earth, but as its guardian, and that a large part of the problems, not only environmental, but also social, such as poverty, hunger and violence, are direct symptoms of the paradigm of domination that still prevails. [22] As the Earth Charter says, "the choice is ours: form a global alliance to care for the Earth and each other, or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life." [86].