"We need to promote development that does not destroy our environment"
About this Quote
The line reads simple, almost bureaucratic, and that’s the point: Maathai smuggles a radical demand into the language of common sense. “Promote development” nods to the gospel of GDP and modernization that postcolonial states were pressured to perform for donors, elites, and global markets. Then she tightens the screw: development can’t be a synonym for extraction. The verb “destroy” is blunt, refusing the euphemisms that usually cover environmental harm (“trade-offs,” “externalities,” “resource use”). She frames environmental protection not as a luxury for rich countries but as a non-negotiable condition of legitimacy.
The subtext is political accountability. Maathai’s work with the Green Belt Movement made ecology inseparable from democracy: forests weren’t just trees, they were public goods looted through patronage, land grabs, and corruption. When the environment is wrecked, it’s rarely “everyone” who benefits; it’s a narrow class cashing in while rural communities, especially women, pay in water scarcity, soil erosion, and longer days spent gathering fuel and food. Her “we” is inclusive on the surface, but it also implicates government and industry, forcing them into the moral circle.
Context matters because Maathai spoke from Kenya during eras when dissent could be met with intimidation and violence. Environmentalism was treated as interference with “progress.” By insisting on development without destruction, she flips the accusation: the real anti-development forces are those burning the future for short-term gain. The line works because it refuses the false choice between livelihoods and landscapes, insisting they’re the same fight.
The subtext is political accountability. Maathai’s work with the Green Belt Movement made ecology inseparable from democracy: forests weren’t just trees, they were public goods looted through patronage, land grabs, and corruption. When the environment is wrecked, it’s rarely “everyone” who benefits; it’s a narrow class cashing in while rural communities, especially women, pay in water scarcity, soil erosion, and longer days spent gathering fuel and food. Her “we” is inclusive on the surface, but it also implicates government and industry, forcing them into the moral circle.
Context matters because Maathai spoke from Kenya during eras when dissent could be met with intimidation and violence. Environmentalism was treated as interference with “progress.” By insisting on development without destruction, she flips the accusation: the real anti-development forces are those burning the future for short-term gain. The line works because it refuses the false choice between livelihoods and landscapes, insisting they’re the same fight.
Quote Details
| Topic | Nature |
|---|
More Quotes by Wangari
Add to List




