In this blog post, we will examine the actions of some environmental groups that promote extreme ecologism, the differences between traditional environmentalism and ecologism, and the direction the environmental movement should take.
Over the past few decades, the world has simultaneously experienced the benefits of rapid economic growth and the harm caused by the severe environmental pollution resulting from it. In the process, rapid population growth, urbanization, and industrialization inevitably led to the destruction of much of the natural environment, and there were numerous instances where the environment was unnecessarily degraded and polluted due to misguided government policies and public indifference.
As a result, environmental organizations around the world began to take active steps starting in the 1970s, and thanks to their vigorous efforts, public awareness of environmental conservation has generally increased. Subsequently, as the 2000s began, the environmental movement shifted its focus to criticizing industrial-based development and paying greater attention to global-scale environmental issues such as climate change. The 2006 environmental documentary film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, produced under the leadership of former U.S. Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore, is a prime example of this trend. Although a documentary, the film garnered significant global attention and played a major role in raising public awareness of environmental issues. This example clearly demonstrates that the general public’s interest in and awareness of the prevention and mitigation of environmental pollution have greatly improved.
However, criticism has recently emerged that some mainstream environmental organizations, along with certain experts who support them and some media outlets, have been excessively exaggerating the severity of environmental issues or stoking public anxiety from an “environment-first” perspective. The philosophy that regards environmental conservation as the supreme value is academically termed “ecologism,” and this approach has long served as a crucial theoretical foundation for environmental organizations in their conservation efforts. In South Korea as well, it has been used as a rationale to persuade the public while criticizing large-scale civil engineering projects pursued under past development-centered policies and emphasizing the need for environmental conservation.
There are also concerns that the spread of such excessive ecologism could inadvertently lead South Korean society in the wrong direction. Excessive ecologism can lead to a mindset that prioritizes other living beings over humans, and it also risks spreading the perception that investing excessive costs and effort to restore certain ecosystems is always justified.
So, how are some radical environmental groups spreading ecologism to the public? Chapter 1 of the ‘State of the World 2003’, translated in South Korea in 2003, predicted how future historians would evaluate today’s human civilization. The report forecasted that rapid population growth would make it difficult to maintain even a minimum standard of living, that severe environmental changes would engulf the entire globe, and that various risks would become widespread due to the use of toxic chemicals. It also concluded that the Earth would become a polluted environment where various diseases—such as cancer, immune system disorders, hormonal imbalances, and congenital disorders—would increase.
It cannot be said that all of the report’s assessments of reality are false. Not only the Worldwatch Institute, but also the media and various international organizations continue to warn that the global environment faces serious challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental pollution.
However, this raises a question: Are these worst-case scenarios truly based on sufficient scientific evidence and verification? Does the anxiety felt by the public correspond to the actual level of objective risk? From here on, I would like to calmly examine the validity of this pessimism.
Before delving into the main discussion, it is necessary to first examine the concepts of traditional environmentalism and ecologism. The perspective we have commonly encountered through environmental education is traditional environmentalism. Traditional environmentalism is an ideological movement that seeks to resolve deepening resource and environmental problems by pursuing nature conservation, pollution prevention, and the maintenance of a pleasant environment, while curbing indiscriminate industrialization.
In contrast, ecologism is a school of thought that views environmental issues from a more fundamental and radical perspective than traditional environmentalism. However, understanding ecologism as a philosophy that believes environmental problems can be solved through technical expertise alone differs somewhat from its current academic definition. In modern political philosophy and environmental thought, ecologism is understood as a position that views current environmental problems as structural issues inherent in the broader social, economic, and political systems, and argues that more fundamental social change is necessary.
While traditional environmentalism holds that environmental problems can be solved without altering the basic framework of society, ecologism challenges this view. From an ecologist perspective, environmental problems are understood as the result of a complex interplay of social, economic, and political orders, and it is believed that solving these problems requires more fundamental changes across society as a whole.
Within this current of environmentalism, some radical environmental groups have faced criticism for relying on overly sensationalist tactics or exaggerating risks to attract public attention. In other words, they employ strategies that create unnecessary anxiety to maximize a sense of crisis. The anxiety referred to here may be the public’s anxiety regarding the environmental crisis, or it may be negative emotions directed toward specific groups or social phenomena.
So, what methods do some radical environmental groups advocating for environmentalism choose to instill this anxiety?
First, there is the fallacy of overgeneralizing or overinterpreting specific cases. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)’s high-profile reports on deforestation are a prime example. In 1997, the WWF released a press release titled “Two-thirds of the world’s forests have been lost forever.” However, most studies at the time estimated that the area of lost forest was approximately 20–25 percent. Some organizations, questioning this claim, demanded that WWF UK disclose the research methods and statistical calculation processes used in the report. In response, WWF explained that no substantive research report existed to support the press release and that the statement was based on an error that occurred during the process of defining terminology. Because the definition of deforestation area was incorrectly set—treating only the forest area in the Northern Hemisphere as the total forest area and then using it as a benchmark for global deforestation—the calculated deforestation rate was significantly higher than the actual figure. The use of illogical reasoning to draw attention to deforestation can be viewed as an example of biased citation of data.
Next is the misuse or distortion of statistical figures. Depending on how they are used, statistics can serve as a means to embellish phenomena, mislead the public, or distort reality. This is because people tend to perceive information presented in numerical form as objective and reliable.
Such examples can also be found in the controversy surrounding nuclear power. At the time, some environmental groups criticized the policies of the government and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP), claiming that the probability of a major nuclear accident occurring in South Korea was as high as 24%. They argued that since six major accidents had occurred among the approximately 450 nuclear power plants worldwide up to that point, the accident rate was about 1.33%; applying this rate directly to the 21 nuclear power plants operating in South Korea would result in an accident probability of approximately 24%.
However, this calculation was criticized as statistically invalid. This is because, even though the total number of nuclear power plants is already factored into the calculation of the accident rate, simply multiplying that rate by the number of plants again does not satisfy the condition of independent events. At the time, several experts pointed out that this method of calculation constituted a statistical error. Nevertheless, there were instances where these exaggerated figures were presented to the public as facts, thereby amplifying public anxiety.
Finally, there are cases where unverified projections are presented as definitive facts by exploiting the tendency for people to trust predictions from authoritative institutions or experts, even without sufficient evidence. A prime example is the controversy surrounding certain reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While those reports identified human activity as the primary cause of global warming, they also included the projection that “Himalayan glaciers could disappear completely by 2035.” Furthermore, they emphasized the severity of climate change by pointing out that a significant portion of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
However, it was later confirmed that the projection that Himalayan glaciers would completely disappear by 2035 had been included in the report without sufficient scientific evidence. Consequently, the IPCC acknowledged that this content was an error that had not undergone sufficient official verification procedures and corrected it. Nevertheless, this incident does not mean the entire report is unreliable; it is more accurate to view it as an example demonstrating that errors can occur even at reputable institutions when unverified data is included in specific sections.
The current climate, in which environmental issues have become a major social agenda, represents a significant shift from the past, when economic growth and livelihood concerns were prioritized far above environmental conservation. However, as interest in environmental issues grows, the manner in which they are communicated must also become more cautious and objective. While the will to protect the environment is important in itself, the evidence and approaches used in that process must also be ethical and accurate. Rather than merely advancing emotional arguments that nature must be preserved at all costs, it is far more important to accurately analyze reality and devise concrete solutions tailored to it. Furthermore, when discussing environmental issues, efforts are needed to build social consensus based on scientific evidence and objective data.
Even if the claims made by environmental organizations are aimed at the public interest of environmental protection, honesty and objectivity in their methods must be guaranteed. This is because it is not only the result of raising public awareness of environmental issues that matters, but the means used in that process must also possess sufficient legitimacy. Rather than stoking public anxiety through distorted evidence or exaggerated information, there are various ways to encourage citizens’ voluntary participation in a more constructive manner. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to establish an institutional foundation that fosters genuine interest in and understanding of environmental issues through concrete and systematic environmental education. Above all, what matters most is not merely emotional appeals to protect nature, but action grounded in rational data and scientific evidence.
