Madam, - Dr William Reville's article in your edition of June 26th is a grossly unfair assessment of the Green movement. It contains many half-truths and simplistic arguments, which is especially disconcerting given that his column is headed "Under the Microscope".
For instance, the claim that the Green movement "believes in God, or more precisely in a Goddess called Gaia" is utterly ridiculous: Dr Reville is using the unproven theory of the otherwise well-respected scientists Lovelock and Margulis, which is universally regarded by climatologists as an over-simplified account of one of the most complicated phenomena known to mankind - the global climate. The Gaia hypothesis is used primarily as an allegorical method of explaining the vastly complex homeostatic nature of the Earth's climate in the context of humanity's impact upon it.
Furthermore, the idea that such a disparate and broad group as environmentalists could collectively "worship" some kind of quasi-deity is ludicrous.
Dr Reville then defines "sustainability" as "[living] in a manner that doesn't interfere with the perceived mechanisms through which Gaia maintains herself". This wording may come as a surprise to the authors of the Bruntland Commission report, or the International Panel on Climate Change, or the UNEP, or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which I suggest Dr Reville investigate for some proper definitions of sustainability. He continues his half-baked assertions by trying to portray all environmentalists as either Luddites or deluded zealots.
The Green movement I know is informed by scientifically tested and peer-reviewed research. Indeed many debates can become lost in technicality and sometimes the greatest challenge to participation in debate among environmentalist friends is a lack of in-depth knowledge of the latest scientific findings about the climate, or the most efficient methods of conserving energy, or the benefits/pitfalls of different alternative energy devices. If Dr Reville requires an introduction to the real debate within the Green movement, I suggest he reads Peter Dauvergne's Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, published by Edward Elgar.
It saddens me that Dr Reville has made a very broad and ill-informed judgment of the Green movement and has sought to misrepresent those of us who are seeking to find solutions to the real and daunting threats such as climate change and resource depletion.
If anything, what can appear as zealotry among environmentalists is usually frustration at the astounding level of misrepresentation, such as that shown by this article.
- Yours, etc,
EOIN WILSON, Reuben Square, Dublin 8.