pedro san pedro
6th September 2004, 07:13
New Scientist vol 183 issue 2462 - 28 August 2004, page 4
Chaining yourself to bulldozers and throwing paint over company executives is
more likely to influence environmental policy than schmoozing on Capitol Hill.
So says an analysis of the impact of the green movement in the US between 1960
and 1994.
The study compares the number of bills passed by Congress with tactics
employed by green groups in the same year. Jon Agnone, a sociologist at the
University of Washington, Seattle, found that sit-ins, rallies and boycotts
were highly effective at forcing new environmental laws. Each protest raised
the number of pro-environment bills passed by 2.2 per cent. Neither effort
spent schmoozing politicians nor the state of public opinion made any
difference.
But conventional politics does play a part. Environmental legislation is 75
per cent more likely to pass when Democrats control both houses of Congress.
And it gets a 200 per cent boost in congressional election years, presumably
because politicians see it as a vote winner.
Agnone, who presented his results on 17 August at the American Sociological
Association's meeting in San Francisco, says protest groups lose their edge
when they become part of the system. Their most effective weapon is disruption.
"If you make a big enough disturbance then people have to recognise what you
are doing."
This is no surprise, says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace
USA. "We know that unless a politician feels real pressure, or a chief
executive senses a threat to his market, everything else is just talk."
Chaining yourself to bulldozers and throwing paint over company executives is
more likely to influence environmental policy than schmoozing on Capitol Hill.
So says an analysis of the impact of the green movement in the US between 1960
and 1994.
The study compares the number of bills passed by Congress with tactics
employed by green groups in the same year. Jon Agnone, a sociologist at the
University of Washington, Seattle, found that sit-ins, rallies and boycotts
were highly effective at forcing new environmental laws. Each protest raised
the number of pro-environment bills passed by 2.2 per cent. Neither effort
spent schmoozing politicians nor the state of public opinion made any
difference.
But conventional politics does play a part. Environmental legislation is 75
per cent more likely to pass when Democrats control both houses of Congress.
And it gets a 200 per cent boost in congressional election years, presumably
because politicians see it as a vote winner.
Agnone, who presented his results on 17 August at the American Sociological
Association's meeting in San Francisco, says protest groups lose their edge
when they become part of the system. Their most effective weapon is disruption.
"If you make a big enough disturbance then people have to recognise what you
are doing."
This is no surprise, says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace
USA. "We know that unless a politician feels real pressure, or a chief
executive senses a threat to his market, everything else is just talk."