I find myself in a difficult spot. When starting this blog I intended to steer clear of political issues. I lecture regularly and my slide shows are willfully apolitical. I try very hard to keep politics out of discussions regarding the environment and the actions I believe are needed to correct two centuries of incidental industrial age consequences. I prefer to stay away from politics because it quickly becomes partisan, disintegrates into name calling, and eventually falls into a predictable debate of conservative vs. liberal ideology. That kind of conversation – and I’m using the term very loosely – usually goes nowhere. Environmental issues are not inherently political, but they typically become just that. Dig through the comment thread of an environmental news post and the language becomes vitriolic within the first five comments.

The events of the past week are hard to ignore, and it’s even harder to stand on the side lines without offering an opinion. For the last four days I’ve been trying to see the resignation of Van Jones as anything other than petty partisan politics. Why are the principal public voices essentially sore losers – on both sides? Under the guise of doing what’s best for the country, both right and left prefer to cut down members of the opposing party rather than engage people in reasonable dialogue. Yellow journalism seems to be the norm – sensationalized stories, attention-getting headlines, cherry picking facts to prove a narrow point of view, selective use of images and video to support preconceived beliefs, and more. Are facts and truth really just a question of political ideology and perspective? In all the furor in the past two weeks, I never once heard those pressing for the removal of Van Jones talk about his visionary message. In his book The Green Collar Economy (reviewed here) he suggests that there will be no green economy if green jobs exclude minorities and the poor. The existing industrial gray economy knows all too well how to use their labor. That system has two hundred years of experience in doing so. It’s a vital part of the industrial age business model. If green jobs are only accessible by the wealthy and the majority, then we will never be able to move from gray to green. And I’ll take this line of thinking one step further – this country has no economic future if it’s not green.

Is that radical? Perhaps, but not politically radical, not ideologically radical, just radical because we have so much to accomplish in such a short time if we want to guarantee the U.S. has a place at the table in a world that’s rapidly shifting toward green thinking and planning. The European Union, China, and Brazil are all going green faster than the U.S. and aren’t waiting for us to figure it out. What would have happened if the same kind of obstructionism had occurred at the start of the industrial revolution? What if one political party proclaimed the internal combustion engine to be evil and detrimental to our republic? What if the same sentiment were expressed at the start of the space race? What if there were a vocal fringe who maintained that space exploration was an attack on the constitution? With hindsight it seems unthinkable, but those are the kind of yellow claims voiced about Van Jones in his effort to develop green jobs that are inclusive rather than exclusive. Yes, terribly radical and dangerous.

I’m a huge fan of free speech – everyone is welcome to their opinion and free to express it in any way they choose. But yellow journalism does us all a disservice. It debases a critical issue, distracts fence sitters who are looking for guidance, and wastes valuable time. The smear campaign perpetrated against Van Jones is unfortunate for Mr. Jones, but tragic for the nation. There was no dialogue about whether he was a suitable candidate for the job, or whether he had the requisite knowledge and experience to advise the president on green job creation. Instead, there was a tirade of misinformation. In the midst of all this, Fox News rarely disclosed the fact that Color of Change, a group founded by but no longer run by Van Jones, is behind the boycott of Glenn Beck’s advertisers because of his race-baiting comments. Not doing so raises questions of their motivation and suggests that they waged an unethical crusade driven by revenge. By not informing the audience of potential ulterior motives indicates that the truth was irrelevant since it would have only been an obstacle to their cause.

This week, yellow journalism won out over green jobs. The lesson I learned is that my hope to keep environmental issues and politics separate is terribly naive. A transition from industrial to sustainable age thinking won’t be a conversation, it’ll be a no-rules dirty fist fight. I took the Van Jones resignation hard because I think this country can learn so much from him. I hope that his replacement is ready for the continuing battle, and that Van Jones keeps pressing his message, even if the radical right isn’t ready for it. What do you think about this issue?

Here are a few interesting articles covering this issue – grist 1, grist 2.

related posts:

• April 22, 2010 -- Earth Day origins (0)
• March 13, 2010 -- water wars at MiaGreen (4)
• October 22, 2009 -- national vs. global interests (0)
• October 7, 2009 -- the valley Hannity forgot (2)
• September 17, 2009 -- from industrial age to sustainable age (1)