I would hope
that there might be a relatively robust discussion on enviromich of
alex’s suggestion . . .
I don’t think
the situation is as clear as alex and james seem to feel it is . . .
indeed, I think that strong arguments can be made on both sides of the
question . . .
all movement
organizations have to deal with questions concerning what temporary
coalitions are supportable and which one’s not . . .
to my mind,
the question seems to turn, at least in part, on the extent to which
different interests are benefited by the temporary coalition . . .
I think
people would agree that the health of the environment is benefited by
a deposit on water bottles . . .
I understand
the argument that the environmental benefit is not as great if large
water bottles are not included, but I also wonder if the discarding of
large water bottles is much of a problem . . .
I think the
reputation of various environmental organizations would be enhanced by
association with the expanded bottle bill, and I don’t think their
reputation would be significantly diminished by temporary coalition
with mucc . . .
I think that
the reputation of mucc will be enhanced by association with the
expanded bottle bill, and my sense is that some environmental persons
would like to diminish the benefit that mucc can gain from the
expanded bottle bill effort . . .
I understand
the tactical argument that it is more important to keep the spotlight
on the negative impacts of mucc/muchmore on the public trust including
water, than to obtain the benefit of passage of a partially expanded
bottle bill . . .
three
questions occur to me . . .
is it not
possible to form a temporary coalition with mucc for the partially
expanded bottle bill and at the same time keep the negative spotlight
on the mucc/muchmore/tahylor impacts on the public trust doctrine . .
.
if many
environmentalists and environmental organizations boycott the mucc
initiated expanded bottle bill effort, will that significantly
diminish the benefit that mucc gets from its association with the
effort . . .
if many
environmentalists and environmental organizations boycott the mucc
initiated expanded bottle bill effort, is that likely to lead mucc to
suspend the effort . . .
if the answer
to the first question is yes, and the answers to the second two
questions are no, then it seems to me that the costs of a boycott
outweigh the benefits . . .
cheers,
craig
craig k
harris
department of
sociology
michigan state
university
east
lansing
michigan 48824-1111
usa