As for Saudi Arabian women, I am well aware of the lack of right for women there. I am also aware of the fact that the US government has had a long relationship with the Monarchy there and provides that country with millions of dollars annually in military aid. The US government could say that we will not support your government as long as you deny women their rights, but that is not going to happen, because the US government doesn’t care about the well being of Saudi women, since the strategic role Saudi Arabia plays in long term US interests is the priority, not human rights.

The fundamental problem with your position is the weight business is given in relation to the environment. This contradicts WMEAC’s Mission, Vision, Values, and Key Focus Areas, which repeatedly proclaim the environment as the primary concern, with business, growth, GDP, etc., nowhere to be found. This raises several questions any concerned advocate for the environment might raise: In the case of environmental protection, should all opinions hold equal weight? Should the interest of business even be considered if it conflicts with the interest of the natural environment, including human AND animal life? If your organization is, as it claims, the leader in environmental protection and action in the region, why are environmental concerns being “balanced” with the growth of business?

What is the inherent value of the environment? What is the inherent value of business? Which is more important to the West Michigan Environmental Action Counsel? What if the two are at direct odds, who would they support? What if your “pragmatism” leads to poisonous, undrinkable water? If WMEAC compromises on the environment, who is going to protect it unconditionally?

Of course, these questions are rhetorical. WMEAC has already demonstrated that the interests of businesses hold equal or greater weight than the interests of the environment. In catastrophic state we currently find our environment, this position is egregious and unforgivable.

Those of us who do not compromise the well being of the environment for business, growth, etc., reject your suggestion that we are contributing to a “downward spiral” of gridlock that “further divides us”. In fact, we suggest that the oppression, violence, and unchecked growth of businesses, corporations, and governments is the very downward spiral which will undeniably lead to an environmental collapse on a scale not before seen. Indeed, this process has already begun, as evidenced by global climate change, mass extinctions, and so on. This is not a matter where compromise and pragmatism are appropriate or beneficial strategies.

We (environmental activists) cannot compromise with parties who have no interest in keeping this planet alive other than to exploit it for their own profits. Therefore WMEAC, in it’s pragmatic approach, contributes to the destruction of the Earth. You claim you respect our opinion, yet then suggest it is unproductive. We do not respect your opinion, and suggest that it is in fact dangerous.