On the June 26 episode of the Glenn Beck Show the host cut open a watermelon while discussing the Waxman-Markey bill with Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity. They both mused that the bill is like a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside. They suggested that climate change legislation is merely surface concern for green issues as pretext for red communist intentions (see video here). Opponents to green jobs are using the time tested strategy of red fear to sway public opinion. A new McCarthyism is playing out right before our very eyes. I can’t decide which is worse, their terribly myopic perspective or their total lack of imagination. Is a return to cold war era fear of communist imperialism, personified by the USSR, their best play? It suggests an inability to fight an opponent without gaming the system to their advantage. Instead they resort to cheap carnival tricks and props. Unfortunately, as a visual it was powerful.

The slogan – each according to his ability, each according to his need(s) – is often attributed to Carl Marx as a fundamental tenet of communist ideology. The slogan actually can be traced back earlier than Marx. Some believe the idea captured within was part of an earlier European Utopian socialist movement. Still others can find yet older traces as far back as the bible. There are too many passages to list where the ideal distribution of food, wine, or other should be based on individual need. It’s a philosophical perspective with several thousand years of lineage. Although it’s an ancient idea, it’s only important to this discussion as a foundational belief of communism, through the writings of Carl Marx. What commentators like Glenn Beck and Phil Kerpen often overlook is the degree to which the current U.S. economy they tout as the great example of capitalism and free market economics is actually far from its capitalist roots.

In 2006, annual USDA agriculture subsidies were $13.4 billion, and total $177.6 billion over the past twelve years. It’s estimated that $1.3 billion of that (10%) goes to farmers who don’t farm their land. Farm subsidy programs were originally intended to assist small individual farmers and small family farms. In reality, the majority of all that taxpayer money goes to large agribusiness or industrialized farming. On top of that, some of direct and indirect subsidies are received by companies to utilize unsustainable water management practices – such as growing water-intensive crops like rice, alfalfa, and nuts in dry arid desert climates. As part of a government sanctioned ‘cheap food’ strategy industrialized agriculture consumes water for the wrong crops in the wrong location, farmers are paid not to farm, water resources are depleted in ways that will surely burden future generations with scarcity, soil nutrients are diminished at a rate that can only be maintained with oil based fertilizers, and ecosystems are seriously harmed. Although the ends are positive – cheap food – the means to that end are fraught with trouble. Aside from being terrifically inefficient, the current farm subsidy program is more communist (red) than any green job or clean energy proposals? There’s no better example of Marx’s slogan. Agriculture in this country is subsidized by massive amounts of tax dollars. That’s redistribution of wealth or goods on a massive scale – from the poor to the rich – each according to his ability, each according to his need.

Conservative politicians are also using false information in their attempt to scare the public. Several prominent congressman have erroneously cited a 2007 MIT study on the financial impact of cap and trade legislation on American families. Even after the study’s author tried to correct them, certain lawmakers have continued to intentionally use false figures. It wasn’t a small discrepancy either. One key figure being used by politicians was more than forty times larger than stated in the study.  That’s a willful effort to frighten the unsuspecting through corrupt methods. Conservative pundits have also been citing a Spanish study produced by a Libertarian think tank that has received funding from Exxon Mobil which claims 2.2 traditional U.S. jobs will be lost for every green job created. Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Energy dismantled the report and exposed its drastically flawed argument. But that hasn’t stopped others with questionable motives from using it as proof that a green movement will be destructive to the U.S. economy. Add to all this the fourteen counterfeit letters sent to key congressional decision makers fraudulently representing themselves as grass roots organizations voicing their opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill. It was later reveled that the PR firm Bonner and Associates sent the letters on behalf of the powerful coal lobby.

Why do I think this is important? Using the visual of so called ‘watermelon environmentalism’,is an attempt to re-brand the entire sustainability movement as radical, with communist underpinnings, and out of touch with the American people. A race to craft an easily digestible mental image, and a framework for understanding environmental issues, that can be presented in memorable sound bites has begun. It’s time to step up our game. We need to brand the sustainability movement in an equally memorable yet positive way that is clear, concise, and compelling. We cannot allow those terrified of change and the future to manipulate perception and control the public debate on such a critical issue. We need to define and brand sustainability before they do.

related posts:

• September 17, 2009 -- from industrial age to sustainable age (1)
• September 16, 2009 -- branding sustainability (0)
• April 22, 2010 -- Earth Day origins (0)
• March 13, 2010 -- water wars at MiaGreen (4)
• October 22, 2009 -- national vs. global interests (0)