Although there were beautiful films of aquatic life and an invitation for change to protect the waterways of the world, and Puget Sound, especially, the perspective was a management of nature perspective rather than a cooperation with nature perspective, and that was disappointing. I felt that the focus mostly maintained the destructive entitlement to privilege over nature and other species that human-animals have claimed rather than challenging it. I was encouraged to hear Mr. Cousteau place the majority of responsibility for the soybeans grown in the Amazon, causing massive deforestation, on the fact that those soybeans are going to feed animals that people will then eat. He said that to eat a steak or chicken is to cut down a tree. He also made other, indirect, references to indigenous people who needed to use animals as protein sources in their own environments. However, there was no direct mention of the need to stop eating meat where it isn't necessary and the question session, even with the invitation to focus on things we could do at home, failed to do so. I don't think a "business management" perspective of nature is so much protective as exploitive, although the programs and points made about pollution and waste were very well taken and agreed with.

I don't know how anyone who calls themself an environmentalist could almost totally ignore this. But then, Al Gore set the precedent. Maybe it's just too counter to American culture to challenge privilege in such a way. I'm puzzled.