Ideal Environmentalism
Two of ideal environmentalisms early thinkers were Aldo Leopold, author of The Land Ethic, and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. Many thinkers who focus on intrinsic natural rights and values have followed Leopold and Muir. The rejection of an exclusively subjective (anthropocentric) value system is necessary for ideal environmentalism, which endeavors to preserve and defend the natural landscape, for its own sake. They reject economic "necessity" a viable human motivation in the face of excessive natural value destruction.

Pragmatic Environmentalism
Pragmatic environmentalism seeks to protect the environment because it is in our species best interest to do so in the long term. The natural landscape only has subjective value, but this value is often under-appreciated because it is not obvious in the short-term calculations of everyday economics. Pragmatic environmentalists are responsible for governmental institutions like the National Forest Service, which seeks to manage (sustainably harvest) America forests on natural lands in order to preserve a perpetual supply of timber (not of trees). Pragmatic environmentalist recognize the legitimacy of economic necessity; they attempt to preserve the environment in order to sustain the human economic system.

Here is a simplified evolution of the movement:
Pre-1960s
Domination of pragmatic environmentalism, with narrow focus and slow implementation. Eventually deemed unsuccessful after events like the Cuyahoga river catching fire in 1969.
1960s-1980s
Massive surge in ideal environmentalism, resulting from obvious, gross nationwide degradation. CWA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Superfund all result.
1980s-present
Emergence of neo-pragmatic environmentalism. Pragmatic environmentalism today has been significantly conditioned by ideal environmentalism. Neo-pragmatic environmentalism accepts many tenets of the ideal perspective, but couches them in terms of self-interest and pragmatism. The embrace of the market and incentives, like with mitigation banking, is a defining mark of neo-pragmatism.

Environmentalism and U.S. Wetland Policy:

Impact
The impact of environmental organizations on wetland policy cannot be exaggerated. The presence and activities of the movement are the basis for wetland policy enforcement. Unlike factory air and water pollution, most of the public see wetland destruction as of little concern, or even beneficial (mosquitos!). Broad public outcry is not a threat to the permit issuers, the Corps, or permit violators, farmers and developers. Specific pressure must be applied by intelligent, well-organized, well-funded, and alert organizations like the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Foundation, or other, smaller groups. The final trump card these organizations hold over wetland policy implementation is the power of a court suit. The National Wildlife Foundation sued the Corps in a famous case resulting in the "Tulloch Rule", which closed an ambiguous loophole for wetland destruction. This ruling directed permitting for several years until recently overturned. However, as a result of their legal action, the Corps is liable to take the National Wildlife Federations comments on future nation-wide permits very seriously.

Environmentalist organizations also coordinate and motivate the grassroots public support for wetland protection that does exist. Members of the Audubon Society, for example, are much more likely to report and complain about construction activities in wetlands. They can then elicit the support of their organization to pressure the local Corps District. Active people and the environmental organizations they support are the only line of defense between the current, imperfect legislation and the economic interests bent on weakening it. Environmental organizations are also working for wetland protection outside the public arena by using their funds to acquire wetland areas and permanently preserve them. The Audubon Society alone has preserved 600,000 acres and will reach 1 million acres in 2005. Wetland protection, while superficially enshrined in national legislation, would be the flimsiest of paper tigers with out the support of an active, devoted civil society component.

Mitigation Banking
The rise of neo-pragmatic environmentalism, especially with regard to wetlands, is a result of the failure of the idealist-inspired legislation to produce results in the field. Obviously, the power of American economic motives could not be contained. The Corps permitting process and conventional on-site mitigation were allowing too much loss without enough compensation. The concept of mitigation banking promises the restoration of large, ecologically significant wetlands. Consequently, many ecologists and wetland scientist have supported banking and have become involved in their construction. In fact, many environmental scientists see banking as a potential industry for their kind. They trust that a constructed market would have the ability to more efficiently provide wetland mitigation, for which there is undeniably a market.

The environmental organizations partly responsible for wetland legislation are extremely suspicious of solutions that are supported by the anti-wetland economic interests. The Sierra ClubÕs position on mitigation banking says that the process is likely to result in further losses in flood protection, habitat, and water quality. Because the scientific process of wetland restoration and creation is both difficult and long, the timing issue is very contentious. The environmentalist perspective holds that the bank must be complete before it can mitigate for impacts, thus preventing a temporal loss of function and value. Environmentalists also see mitigation banking as an excuse to destroy wetlands in one area without replacing the local functions and values. Public banks selling credits, financed by tax dollars or bonds, to private developers are problematic because they put an incentive by the public agency to cheat by dishonestly maximizing saleable credits. Overall, anti-wetland interests perceive banking as a solution, and pro-wetland interests tire of the failure of the section 404 avoid, minimize, mitigate protection process. The environmentalist movement is torn between accepting the developersÕ money and being wary of markets bearing gifts.