Alert and gentle reader Rustypants brings to our attention a piece by Martin Edlund in Slate detailing the emergence of and division within the "Religious Left" to counter the pernicious "Religious Right."*
For Edlund, the RL is spearheaded by two figures, Michael Lerner, famous as editor of the flaky magazine Tikkun and in 1992 briefly profiled by the MSM as Hillary's spiritual guru, and Jim Wallis, seasoned evangelical spokesman for socialist economics and long-time editor of Sojourners.
What Edlund has observed is that Lerner's crowd tends toward the fringes, attracting Wiccans, Unitarians, and the vaguely spiritual to conferences that articulate encyclopedic lists of quirky initiatives. Meanwhile, Wallis is attempting to appeal to a more mainstream crowd, not to mention distinctively evangelical, by focusing on antipoverty programs and environmental protection.
We say that Wallis is on to something. We agree with Edlund that there just aren't enough of the religious flakes to make any political impact, but there are loads of evangelicals who care about the environment and poverty. But we add an all important condition to our statement about Wallis: he's on to something if he doesn't continue equating a meaningful response to poverty or the environment with economic-growth-stifling, "liberal" initiatives. This has been his tendency, and this will be his downfall.
Every time we hear Wallis (who by the way is blessed with one of the most impressive speaking voices we have ever heard), he advocates higher taxes, more government spending to redistribute those taxes to the poor, and more government regulations to restrict economic activity as a prophylactic against environmental degradation.
We think that this approach doesn't help the poor, doesn't protect the environment, and doesn't help his cause. We think that history, economics and the other social sciences are on our side.
In sum, the experiences of this republic and many others strongly suggest that the zero-sum games of income redistribution tend to reinforce poverty rather than eradicate it. They suggest that rapid growth of technology rather than government restrictions will produce both rising prosperity and a clean environment. And they suggest that many voters understand this and will not be persuaded to do more for the poor or the environment if Wallis equates those solely with redistributive and restrictive policies.
Or to put it differently, Wallis is engaged in what we've criticized others for: equating concern for the poor or the environment with support for the policies of the left.
What we'd rather see Wallis do is admit that the old policies of the left are largely discredited and not the only means to the end that he seeks. Then we'd like to see him call for thoughtful, creative engagement of the faith community to address these problems with the range of ideas and resources at their disposal.
In other words, we'd like to see him champion a compassion that harnesses the impressive arguments of the conservative movement and the impressive resources of the faith community. Call it Compassionate Conservatism and Faith-Based Initiatives.
Or maybe he doesn't need to do that. Maybe someone already did. Maybe he and others just need to get over their gut-level dislike of George W. Bush and realize that he might be on to something.
Note well that we are not impugning Wallis's grasp of or commitment to the biblical message. We affirm and admire his priorities. We just think that his politics need to be informed and updated.
__________________
*If asked, "Are you a member of the Religious Right," SWNID replies, "Well, I'm religious. And I'm right."
17 comments:
I fail to see how Wallis deviates from the preestablished norms for Christian political liberalism. First of all, it's not as though he provides something new and unheard of to the Christian or political milieu. For heavens sake, didn't he protest vietnam? Forgive my youthful arrogance here, but I consider any political sentiment that can date its origins back to the Vietnam era is anything but emergent.
Furthermore, as you stated yourself, Wallis only persues evangelicalism through the platform of the Democratic party. This is not only unoriginal, but foolish. I say this because the Gospel is bound to succeed in the world, while the Democratic party is doomed either sooner or later.
So then, why force God's message and justice down party lines? This has been the difficulty with Christian involvement in politics for as long as I can remember and long before that. It does not seem to me at all that Wallis is anything different than he was forty years ago (and neither are the Dems).
Wallis is also a primary proponent of the not-so-new "consistent life ethic" the purpose of which, I deem, is to combat the practice of making logical distinctions when developing doctrine. But then again, what do I know...
Yes: "What we'd rather see Wallis do is admit that the old policies of the left are largely discredited and not the only means to the end that he seeks."
No: "In sum, the experiences of this republic and many others strongly suggest ... that rapid growth of technology ... will produce ... a clean environment."
For the proposition that our friend in California denies, we offer the evidence that across the board, more technologically developed areas of the world have better records on the environment than do less developed areas. Technology provides the means for humans to live without creating health problems for their own species and for others, both by creating the techniques to do so and the wealth to pay for them.
The People's Republic of California is a case in point. It has the most prosperous economy in North America, and the most aggressive environmental regulations.
The People's Republic of China is the opposite case in point. It is emerging from a peasant agrarian economy and has some of the worst pollution on the planet. But as it emerges, it is beginning to address its environmental problems.
Rejoinder?
Rapid growth in technology causes pollution. Left unregulated, we get the environmental disaster known as China. Yes, newer technologies can help curb the amount of toxic waste dumped into the environment, but, as California attests, that rarely (if ever) occurs apart from strong government intervention. Business has a pathetic track record of cleaning up after itself (witness China) unless it is "persuaded" to do so from the top down (witness California) by governmental sanctions, tax incentives, etc.
Right you are, JB! But it starts with economic growth, not with government intervention. And it cannot continue without continued economic growth. Let's also not forget that at a point in economic development, a clean environmental record actually becomes a valuable asset for businesses that want to appeal to customers who want such things. Toyota is making a killing on Priuses, and not because of government intervention.
And let us remember that the environment of pre-industrial societies makes even the newly industrialized cities of China look positively pristine, when one considers issues like sewage disposal, the use of charcoal for cooking and heating, etc. The filthiest places on earth with the biggest environmental crises are in underdeveloped countries, and the sources of pollution are human waste and cooking fires.
I don't care for the movies Jurassic Park, Congo, or for E.R., but Michael Crichton is a very compelling speaker on science and environmental issues. The "cookfire" comment above reminded me of the speech below, found at the noted link. Crichton mentions how the trend towards decarbonization started long before anyone suggested it was a necessary step to protect the environment.
I would add that this was a natural byproduct of tech advances (eg coal trains vs diesel trains). Though, that's not to say there are no exceptions. And even if better technology allows us to manufacture more things with less per-widget pollution, I wonder if the aggregate pollution is increasing... because the world consumes so many more widgets than even 50 yrs ago? At the end of the day, however, I'd rather blame the cows than us.
Btw, the speech is really funny, too.
www.crichton-offical.com/speeches
"Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century"
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Washington, D.C.
November 6, 2005
Nor is Toyota making a killing on Priuses because people want to protect the environment. That's just spin. The real reason is that the economy's not good enough for the average person to afford a gas guzzler at $3.00 per gallon. Let it improve and we'll once again start belching out hydrocarbons at a rate that only an SUV manufacturer could love--unless, that is, we come to our senses as a society and start enacting some serious environmental legislation to protect us from ourselves.
As a contary example, I note that no one mandated that fuel injectors replace carburators, yet today there's not a single new automobile for sale in this country that doesn't have computerized fuel injection. This technology has made vehicles enormously more efficient and clean, quite apart from government mandates. The engineers who invented that technology have done more for the quality and cleanliness of automobiles than has Ralph Nader plus all of his ilk.
This is not to say that regulation has no role to play. It is to say that the public has to weigh its competing interests carefully, and the level of environmental protection is a part of that. We will approve of protections that balance such interests. But without economic growth, such a balance will not allow for improved environmental protections.
The history of industrialization is toward ever cleaner, more efficient means of extraction and production. Progress in this area is most rapid when the best interests of producers, consumers and their environment are all respected and protected--through the marketplace and the ballot box.
Again, we return to our original point: the cleanest environments are those that are populated by the most prosperous people. N.B. also that prosperity yields falling birthrates that blunt or end the environmental threat of unchecked human populations. We infer from this phenomenon and other data that rising prosperity for all people holds the most promise for environmental protection.
I don't see how you can say that "the cleanest environments are those that are populated by the most prosperous people." The most prosperous nation on the planet--the U.S.--generates almost four times as much pollution as its next closest rival. And the problem is not just a matter of overall output. Consider, for instance, the following chart of per capita carbon dioxide emissions worldwide (in tons per person, according to the latest avaliable data).
#1 United States 20
#2 Luxembourg 17
#3 Australia 17
#4 Canada 16
#5 Belgium 12
#6 Finland 12
#7 Czech Republic 12
#8 Netherlands 11
#9 Denmark 11
#10 Germany 10
#11 Ireland 10
#12 Japan 9
#13 United Kingdom 9
#14 New Zealand 8
#15 Poland 8
#16 Iceland 8
#17 Austria 8
#18 Norway 8
#19 Greece 8
#20 Korea, South 8
#21 Italy 7
#22 Hungary 6
#23 Switzerland 6
#24 France 6
#25 Sweden 6
#26 Spain 6
#27 Portugal 5
#28 Mexico 4
#29 Turkey 3
[SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.]
As you can see, the most economically prosperous countries are easily the greatest polluters (at least with respect to carbon dioxide emissions). And again, the U.S. comes out on top. The correlation between economic prosperity and environmental pollution appears to be the exact inverse of what you're claiming.
So I'll repeat my original point: technological growth produces pollution; it doesn't reduce it. True, newer technologies can sometimes reduce the environmental damage of older technologies, but, all things considered, the overall tragectory has always been and continues to be upward. Any claim to the contrary is little more than a promise. Technology (and the economic growth that goes with it) is not the solution to our environmental crisis, but the primary cause of it.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm against technology or economic prosperity. Rather, I'm against treating either one (or both) of these as a panacea. Left alone, they do much more damage than good to the environment. There is simply no technological or economic substitute to tackling our environmental issues head-on.
You have privilege particular kinds of pollutants to come to this conclusion. As you note, you're looking only at CO2. Until relatively recently, no one thought of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
But there are lots of pollutants that do much more environmental damage in the sense that they are more immediately dangerous to human life and health. These include such things as particulates in wood and coal smoke, biological pathogens in untreated waste water, and actual poisons like sulful dioxide and carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide may make earth warmer, but only slowly and almost certainly in a way to which people can adapt, albeit perhaps at considerable cost.
London in 1895 was a much dirtier, unhealthier place than it is today. Its fabled "fog" was actually smog formed from the smoke of ubiquitous coal fires in every hearth. And then there was all the horse manure in the streets. Is centrally heated, rail-and-automobile transported London less technological now than it was then?
Taking everything into account, Beijing and Shanghai have worse pollution than Houston. Delhi and Mumbai are worse. And then there's Port Au Prince. Choked with charcoal smoke, covered with smouldering garbage, with water that has more microbes than H20, its lack of technology is patently the cause of its miserable public health. Meanwhile, Haitian countryside is denuded as sapling trees are cut down to be cooked for yet more charcoal, and the soil, absent roots to hold it in place, washes into the Caribbean Sea.
Meanwhile, back in industrialized North America and Western Europe, more land is wooded than at any time since the early 19th century, respiratory ailments are largely on the decline, and the water is safe to drink from any faucet.
Or let's take another environmental issue: the protection of wildlife. Nations that have the ability to protect rare species are those with the economic resources, technologically created, to set aside land and provide legal protections for wildlife. Why do east African countries have wildlife reserves? Only because they are supported by developed nations, though aid and tourism. Why do people in east Africa poach elephants from reserves? Because they can get more for an elephant tusk than they can earn in their underdeveloped agrarian economies.
I'll grant much of the substance of your point. Technology is no panacea, and most technologies create pollution. But I will argue that the trend historically is toward lighter, lesser polluting technologies. And I'll argue further that unless we conscience the radical diminution of human populations in the future, we can only expect to improve our environment technologically. Even returning to a "simpler" lifestyle won't help, as pre-technological lifestyles were filthy and dangerous. Billions of people without technology means a lot of wood smoke and untreated poop.
We do not accuse our good friend in CA of having fallen victim to such a method, but we do accuse some in the so-called environmental movement of deliberately focusing narrowly on such matters as CO2 emissions while ignoring the larger picture in order to use international forums of environmental concern as place to blame industrialized countries and so as a means to extract money from industrialized countries (the only ones who can cough up significant funds) to further agendas that go well beyond environmental improvement.
Meanwhile, others are quietly working away at developing and disseminating new means of providing clean water, clean energy, efficient agriculture, and cheap waste disposal to alleviate the very real, very deadly environmental problems of the 2/3 world. And others are working on the next generation of cars, power plants and other machines that will leave an even smaller footprint.
And finally, in chiastic fashion, back to C02. The only realistic prospects for reducing C02 emissions are technological, perhaps spurred by political action, but technological nonetheless. Regulation will at best marginally slow the growth of emissions and at worst will hobble the economies of the nations so regulated, yielding a political backlash. Nuclear power, wind and other solar powers, fuel cells, and biofuels (the production of which in theory should remove as much C02 from the atmosphere as they later release in combustion) can do this. A less technological future will not.
Okay, so you're not impressed with CO2 emissions. Perhaps the following statistics will be more persuasive:
NITROGEN OXIDES PER CAPITA BY COUNTRY::
#1 Australia 118
#2 Iceland 106
#3 United States 80
#4 Canada 68
#5 Finland 51
#6 Norway 51
#7 Denmark 47
#8 New Zealand 46
#9 Czech Republic 41
#10 Luxembourg 40
#14 United Kingdom 35
DEFINITION: Kilogram weight of Nitrogen Oxides produced per capita in 1998 or latest available year.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, OECD Environmental Data Compendium via NationMaster
NUCLEAR WASTE BY COUNTRY:
#1 United States 2,100
#2 Canada 1,340
#3 France 1,130
#4 Japan 964
#5 United Kingdom 820
#6 Germany 450
#7 Korea, South 364
#8 Sweden 238
#9 Spain 192
#10 Belgium 80
DEFINITION: Wastes from spent fuel arising in nuclear power plants, measured in terms of heavy metal. Data for 1998 or latest available year.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, OECD Environmental Data Compendium]
COAL CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA BY COUNTRY:
#1 Australia 7.17621
#2 Greece 6.60855
#3 Korea, North 4.52165
#4 South Africa 3.84494
#5 United States 3.5843
#6 Germany 3.21481
#7 Taiwan 2.31065
#8 Russia 2.07781
#9 Ukraine 2.06822
#10 Canada 2.04237
#15 United Kingdom 1.09363
#16 China 1.00282
#23 India 0.313812
DEFINITION: Billion short tons of coal consumed per year. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.
SOURCE: Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy
The developed countries are still far and away leading the pack. They do much better with respect to chlorofluorocarbons and sulfur dioxide, but that, I would point out, is due primarily to strong government intervention. When left on its own, technology was busy destroying the ozone layer.
When it comes to the issue of which cities produce more pollution, there is again no contest between those in the developing nations (that don't even show up on the chart) and their developed counterparts, as demonstrated below:
MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION PER CAPITA BY COUNTRY:
#1 United States 760 kgs
#2 Australia 690 kgs
#3 Denmark 660 kgs
#4 Switzerland 650 kgs
#5 Canada 640 kgs
#6 Norway 620 kgs
#7 Netherlands 610 kgs
#8 Austria 560 kgs
#9 Ireland 560 kgs
#10 United Kingdom 560 kgs
DEFINITION: Kilograms of municipal waste generated per year (2000).
SOURCE: OECD Environmental Data Compendium: 2002 via NationMaster
The fact that cities like Delhi, Shanghai, and Port Au Prince have more pollution in them than do others like Los Angeles, Montreal, and London is no doubt due to the fact that they lack the infrastructure necessary to transport their pollution elsewhere. In the West, we have become expert at piping, shipping, trucking, spewing, and burying our municipal waste far from its source. That tends to hide the fact that our cities still produce vastly more pollution than anyone else's.
Now, with respect to your argument regarding species preservation, consider the following rankings:
THREATENED SPECIES BY COUNTRY:
#1 United States 854
#2 Australia 483
#3 Indonesia 340
#4 Mexico 247
#5 Brazil 240
#6 China 213
#7 India 193
#8 Philippines 188
#9 Japan 132
#10 Peru 122
#102 United Kingdom 17
DEFINITION: Number of Threatened Species (1990-99)
SOURCE: United Nations World Statistics Pocketbook and Statistical Yearbook
We in the U.S. are clearly in the worst shape. We are losing species (both plant and animal) at more than four times the rate of China and India. Sure, we're making some progress in the areas you mentioned, but, overall, we're in serious trouble.
The most telling statistics, however, are these:
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY COUNTRY:
#1 United Arab Emirates 15.99
#2 United States 12.22
#3 Kuwait 10.31
#4 Denmark 9.88
#5 New Zealand 9.54
#6 Ireland 9.43
#7 Australia 8.49
#8 Finland 8.45
#9 Canada 7.66
#10 Sweden 7.53
#77 China 1.84
#109 India 1.06
#135 Haiti 0.78
DEFINITION: Ecological footprint per capita
Units: Hectares per Person
SOURCE: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Living Planet Report 2000, Gland, Switzerland: 2000, and Redefining Progress. via NationMaster
An ecological footprint is the amount of land and water needed to provide the resources necessary for a population to support itself and absorb its wastes, given prevailing technology. As the chart indicates, compared to developing nations such as China and India, the developed nations require an enormous percentage of the earth's resources. Indeed, a multiyear study by an international team of scientists reported a couple of years ago that in order to bring the rest of the world up to Western standards of living, we would need the resources of two more planets Earth. Even if that study exaggerates the problem by as much as a third, we still come up a planet short.
This, of course, brings me to our major point of agreement: population is a serious--perhaps the most serious--environmental issue. If we don't do something about it and do it quickly, no amount of technology or economic progress is going to save us from an environmental disaster of historic proportions.
Of course, there's no denying that industrialized countries use lots of resources and release lots of toxins, largely because they produce goods and services for the benefit of their populations. But there's also no denying that immediately deadly environmental issues, like dirty water and smokey air, are more prevalent in developing countries. At present rates of release in developed countries sulfur dioxide, measured in parts per billion, may over time shorten the lives of people, numbered in single digits per thousand. In many underdeveloped areas, however, diarrhea induced by microbes in drinking water will kill children numbered in single digits per household. I've been to developed cities and underdeveloped cities, and I know which ones made more people sicker faster.
As to the ability of developed countries to remove their toxins away from their populations, we affirm the truth and the rectitude of this very practice. It all began with the Mosaic Law telling the nomadic ex-slaves of Israel to go outside the camp with a shovel when they need to do their execretory business.
Some of these rankings may well reflect more the assumptions of the rankers than something more objective. More significant for my POV, however, is not the ranking but the trend. When the United States remains a huge exporter of food, has a rapidly growing population and yet is taking thousands of acres out of agricultural production per year, it's tough to see how its per-capita footprint, however large, is getting larger because of technology.
However, there are other issues worth considering: (a) that polluting emissions--measured per vehicle, per kilowatt hour, etc.-- have dropped considerably in developed countries thanks to technological advances; (b) genuinely promising means of continuing this trend currently under development (hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, biofuels, high-yield crops, high-protein rice and maize) are technical, not political; (c) the alternative to seeking technological advances to yield a cleaner environment is governmental repression of technological advances, which inevitably discriminates against the world's poor, has no historical antecedents portending its success, and is almost certainly a political impossibility. This last point is telling: hardly anyone in the world wants to live without available technology, including especially environmental Luddites, whose personal lifestyles tend to be inconsistent with their political rhetoric.
And again, our point is not that regulation of industrial pollutants is not necessary, but that the conditions that allow it are the technical and fiscal means created by technological advances. Catalytic converters, computerized fuel injection, 95%-efficient gas furnaces, smokestack scrubbers and the like were not imported to the industrialized world from the underdeveloped world. The same can even be said for such prosaic technologies as insulation (e.g., Habitat for Humanity has created a design for a home that, once heated or cooled to room temperature, requires virtually no additional heating or cooling, ever; made from bales of straw, it was developed by engineers in the industrialized West). The real heroes of the environment are not politicians or activists but engineers, whose work depends on the knowledge gained and the wealth created by previous generations of engineers.
So what in effect I'm arguing is that a roughly parabolic curve exists on the graph where the X-axis represents technological advance over time and the Y-axis represents environmental impact at any given point. Initially technology increases pollution (re: steam engines). Eventually it reduces it (re: hydrogen fuel cells). We are witnessing the downward side of the curve. But what makes the downward side of the curve possible is everything on the upward side of the curve. There's no jumping in at the optimal point.
And BTW, I would not agree that growing human populations are a problem per se. Rather, I would argue that they are a problem where economic development has not kept pace with the medical advances that allow populations to explode. Countries with exploding populations are poor. Rich countries have stable populations with birthrates at or below "replacement rate." In poor countries, women have lots of children as a means of their own survival. In rich countries, they survive by other means. This argues that the best solution to population growth, if it needs one, is to get more of the world's people living at a standard closer to that of the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore (something that immigration seems set to accomplish for many people from the underdeveloped world). Again, the alternative means of population control is either totalitarian repression (as in China) or war, famine and pestilence.
"At present rates of release in developed countries sulfur dioxide, measured in parts per billion, may over time shorten the lives of people, numbered in single digits per thousand." --And what about the cardio-vascular diseases, neurological disorders, and birth defects that have also been linked to pollution in the West? We can't even eat fish anymore without ingesting dangerous levels of mercury.
"In many underdeveloped areas, however, diarrhea induced by microbes in drinking water will kill children numbered in single digits per household." --If I'm not mistaken--and I'm not--the technologies to take care of these problems already exist. Moreover, huge amounts of Western aid is sent annually to tackle these very problems. Why, then, have things not gotten better? It looks to me as though the problem has much more to do with social and political ineptitude than it does with a lack of technological advancement.
"[P]olluting emissions--measured per vehicle, per kilowatt hour, etc.-- have dropped considerably in developed countries thanks to technological advances;" --Yes, and now we have two and three times as many vehicles polluting. That's one of the major drawbacks to technological "progress." We take one step forward and two back.
"[G]enuinely promising means of continuing this trend currently under development (hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, biofuels, high-yield crops, high-protein rice and maize) are technical, not political;" --And the only reason they're even getting off the ground is because of government inducements.
"[T]he alternative to seeking technological advances to yield a cleaner environment is governmental repression of technological advances ... ." --This is a false dichotomy. Clearly there are other alternatives. I prefer the following: First, establish an environmental policy with clear and precise goals that address all of our most pressing environmental issues. Then, build broad and continuing public support for the policy, both nationally and locally. Next, enact legislation for both industries and individuals alike that provides incentives to achieve those goals and penalties for missing them. Finally, once we've set clear goals and inducements for the inventors, entrepreneurs, and engineers among us, let the market work its magic--but only then. For without a clear agenda, backed up by strong inducements, the resulting technology is likely to do what it has always done: gone where the money is. And that has seldom been in the direction of cleaning up our messes.
"[O]ur point is not that regulation of industrial pollutants is not necessary, but that the conditions that allow it are the technical and fiscal means created by technological advances." --Agreed! But notice that all you've said here is that technology is a necessary condition for lowering our current levels of pollution. You've been arguing, however, as if it's a sufficient condition. And that's what I reject. Left on its own, technology is directionless. If we don't control it, it will control us.
"I would not agree that growing human populations are a problem per se. ... [T]he best solution to population growth, if it needs one, is to get more of the world's people living at a standard closer to that of the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore . ..." --Well, unless we can find a couple of spare planets worth of resources, I don't know how you think we can realistically bring about such economic development for all those folks. There are just too many of them already. If we had unlimited resources, I suppose we could then lower their numbers by raising their standard of living. But, then, of course, if we had unlimited resources, we wouldn't need to lower their numbers. We need to come to grips--seriously come to grips--with the fact that our economic growth is fast outpacing our limited resources.
So, JB, we're actually not that far off, except perhaps in a few areas of emphasis or nuance.
One, I find implausible the notion that it would require more resources than the earth possesses to raise the standard of living to everyone on the planet to the current standard of the United States. Part of the process of raising the standard is the development of more efficient means of heating, cooking, waste management, transportation, etc. As demand increases with gradually increasing living standards, so do the econonomic incentives for the development of more efficient technologies. China's demand for oil has raised its price, providing more incentive for the development of alternative fuels than any government program could.
Which raises the second point: should the government pre-emptively choose the winners and losers in the development of technology? Or can the many small decisions of the marketplace govern these, led by the for-profit decisions of, for example, Goldman Sachs and the for-the-common-good decisions of, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
This all started with my complaint about the religious left's identification of its own approach to the environment as the only one that doesn't constitute rape of the environment. I do not intend to imply that technological advance is a sufficient cause of environmental protection, though I wonder whether the case can't in fact be made (what allows the leisure and safety to be concerned about relatively distant dangers to the environment if not the wealth that technology creates, and who would be so foolish not to address such matters if he had the means?). I intend only to imply that relative less emphasis on governmental regulation and relatively more on free markets and technological development may actually prove better for the environment than more laws do.
Help me out here. Am I to take your comment that we're not that far apart on this issue as a concession or a compliment?
I do hope you're right that "relative less emphasis on governmental regulation and relatively more on free markets and technological development may actually prove better for the environment than more laws do," because that's definitely what we have right now and what we're looking at for the foreseeable future. (Though I would note that our greatest technological triumph thus far with the environment--the reduction of toxic automobile emissions--was precipitated by strong regulations from the state government of California.) A note of caution, however. Back in the days of the industrial revolution, when the free market and technological development were given a blank check from the government, there was little to no concern for the environment, at best. At worst, it was thought of as little more than the waste basket of industry. It took some very heavy-handed government intervention to make an impact.
Concerning the depletion of the world's resources, I too found the alarmist claims implausible until I read some of the scientific literature on the issue. To say that it isn't conclusive may well be true. The threshhold in science is quite high. But the evidence, as it currently stands, is very impressive. Indeed, I'm inclined to say that it has already reached the level of moral certitude. To my mind, ignoring it is a little like the hunter who ignored his companion's warning that the rustling in the bush may be a human being, not a deer.
As to your question, "who would be so foolish not to address such matters if he had the means?" my reply is simply, look around.
What you say about the early years of industrialization is entirely true. But embedded in the historical cycle of industrial development and the regulation of its emissions is a straightforward set of economic calculations.
In the first period, a society tolerates the degredation of its environment for the augmentation of its survival and comfort that industrialization brings. Who would not accept the pollution produced by an 18th-century textile plant if it meant that for the first time, one's children could have clothes?
In the second period, it lies within the grasp of that same society to have commensurate access to clothing, food, shelter and transportation but with cleaner air, soil and water. So the society takes that step. This process began in this country's history with the Progressive Movement at the end of the 19th century and has continued to the present. It is a political process that guides this step, but one that has never been taken as the first step. Industrialization precedes it because industrialization addresses the more immediate needs of human beings.
What I find objectionable is the notion that it is moral to deprive people of the benefits of technological and industrial development for what are often marginal improvements in air and water quality. We can debate the level of technology that brings actual benefit. I will enthusiatically grant that there is little benefit to such technologically enabled activities as driving a Dodge Durango without passengers a distance of one kilometer to a convenience store for a Slush Puppy and some chips plus a lottery ticket. But such excesses aside, who wants to live in the pre-industrial era?
Back to the question of dwindling resources. Aside from fossil fuels, what exactly are we running out of? There's just as much iron or aluminum on the planet as there ever was. As anti-recycling environmentalists (a contrarian view that, true to form, I am prepared to embrace)point out, we can always mine the landfills if the things we currently recycle actually come into short supply. As to agriculture, more food is grown on less land with every passing year. The United States can't get land out of production fast enough to make farming a marginally profitable enterprise. As to the seas, they're currently overfished, but aquaculture is returning to the world's economy, having once flourished but having been briefly extinguished by the the Europeans' discovery of the Newfoundland banks. People are raising shrimp in Illinois, for goodness sake. Further, human history documents our species' use of an ever-changing array of substances to do our work (I'm currently reading Herodotus for entertainment, and it's remarkable how much he documents this very phenomenon). And as to fossil fuels, the era of human reliance on them seems set to end in the present century, driven at least as much by market economics and the technological development that it enables as the decisions of governments.
So I assert that looming shortages simply augur normal adaptations and adjustments (some political, some market-produced), not crises. The sky seldom falls.
See the "Samuelson" (July 05) column for my response.
Post a Comment