The Defender’s Dilemma

Environmental advocacy is experiencing an unprecedented moment. While scholars have long studied how movements evolve from challengers to defenders of institutional processes, today’s environmental groups face a unique challenge: they must simultaneously defend environmental protections while driving rapid transformative change to address climate change. This isn’t just about choosing between insider or outsider strategies (although that is happening too) – it’s about occupying both spaces at once.

The traditional story of movement evolution suggests that as groups gain institutional power, they shift from confrontational tactics to institutional defense. But the climate crisis disrupts this pattern. Environmental organizations find themselves in what I call the “defender’s dilemma” – needing to protect hard-won environmental regulations and democratic processes while also pushing for unprecedented rapid transformation of our energy systems.

While others have studied how movements navigate insider/outsider tactics or handle institutional power, the current moment presents something different. Environmental groups aren’t simply choosing between defending institutions or pushing for change – they’re required to do both simultaneously, often on the same issues. A renewable energy project might require both defending environmental review processes and advocating for expedited approval. This creates new forms of intra-movement tension and requires theoretical attention to understand whether this situation is new or just a new riff on an old phenomenon.

I see several critical dimensions to this challenge that warrant deeper exploration:

The strategic dimension.

Research has long shown that the tactics needed to defend existing policies differ from those required to achieve policy change. Yet environmental groups must either choose a position or do both simultaneously. Understanding how organizations navigate this tactical terrain could offer crucial insights for both theory and practice.

The institutional dimension.

Environmental groups have evolved from outsiders to partial insiders, with deep knowledge of and investment in regulatory processes. This position shapes their perspectives and constraints in ways we don’t fully understand.

The organizational dimension.

Different groups handle this tension differently based on their size, age, and focus. Climate-focused organizations may approach these challenges differently than traditional conservation groups, creating new patterns of alliance and conflict within the environmental movement.

And time.

Finally, there’s the temporal dimension. The urgency of climate change creates pressure to act quickly, while democratic processes and environmental reviews take time. How do groups balance these competing timeframes?

Understanding these dynamics isn’t just academically interesting – it’s crucial for the future of environmental advocacy. The environmental movement helped create and now defends crucial democratic processes for environmental protection. Yet these same processes can slow the deployment of clean energy infrastructure needed to address climate change. This isn’t just about choosing between environmental protection and climate action – it’s about reimagining how we can achieve both.

Research

My current research on conflict over large-scale solar siting in the US (publication forthcoming) and on environmental groups role in conflict over solar siting (in process), focuses on this liminal political space: examining how environmental groups navigate between defender and challenger, between conservation and transformation, between process and outcome. By understanding these dynamics, we can better support organizations in maintaining environmental protections while advancing necessary change.

What we’re witnessing isn’t simply a tactical challenge but a fundamental transformation in how environmental advocacy operates in an era of climate crisis. How groups navigate this space – and whether they can successfully maintain both defensive and transformative positions – may determine the future effectiveness of environmental advocacy.