Ecorealism Part I: A New Environmentalism
What currently is the greatest environmental threat to the planet?
Global Warming?
Greenhouse Gases?
Overpopulation?
Species Extinction?
Loss of the Rainforest?
Pesticides in your food?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and yes wrong.
The greatest environemental threat to the planet is poverty. Poverty.
The greatest environmental degradation in the world comes from developing countries. It comes in the form unsafe drinking water/sanitation and polluted air. According to Gregg Easterbrook
All told, the number of children under the age of five who die each year in the developing world from gross air pollution and unsafe drinking water—two causes of death essentially eliminated in the West—is larger than the number of deaths at all ages from all causes each year in the United States and the European Union combined.
All ages from all causes. More deaths of children under five from bad air and water than all deaths of all ages in the US and EU combined.
How often have we heard that statistic announced in evironmental debate?
As part of research for a book-idea I'm working on, I spent the last week reading a slew of bokos and articles on environmentalism.
Like most middle class Americans, if surveyed I would say I'm environmentally-conscious, concerned about the environement, etc. I also found to my dismay that I had bought into a great deal of the common enviro thinking found in society. Reading through these books and articles has forced a major shift in my mind, even my emotions, toward the question of environmentalism. I would say that I am now both more hopeful about the future of the planet and more pesissmistic about the current state of enviromentalism than ever before.
In keeping with the general integral-influenced frame of the blog, I will on occassion, as is my custom, make use of Wilberian and Spiral terminology. Mostly though I will focus on the concrete issues raised in these writings.
The works I will be focusing on are:
Gregg Easterbrook: A Moment on the Earth(1995). See also his more recent writings on environmentalism (including the one linked earlier) courtesy the Brookings Institute** plus this impressive piece from Wired on why we humans are so enamored by environmental-csomic catastrophes scenarios, leaving us ignorant of the current actual threats to society.
The series of speehces by Michael Crichton focusing on environementalism, global warming, the politics of scientific consensus, the little known history of horrible scientific prediction, and the hijacking of environemtnalism by media-obbsessed, fund-seeking, media savvy, lobbyists.
Wilfred Beckerman Through Green Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered
Alston Chase In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Chase is a philospher (of the objectivist sort) and conservationist. His first work, Playing God in Yellowstone, detailed the wrongheaded view of nature that has underpinned US policy on wilderness preservation, leading to the degradation of Yellowstone.
Though they are differently focused, one thing all of these share in common is a self-critical environmentalism. That is, all these men (and yes those are all men, if you want an accomplished female voice in this crowd see Marian Chertow, I'll be picking her book up fron the library in a day or two) are genuinely concerned for the environment (and as well shall see human beings) but do not fall into the party-line group-think that unfortunately dominates so much of the environmental scene, its lobbyists, research agendas, and political organizations.
The one book, perhaps the momst controversial (with the exception of A Moment on the Earth), which I still hope to get my hands on soon is Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. If you want to judge for yourself whether certain strands of environmentalism now function as a neo-dogmatic orthodoxy (as I believe is certainly the case), watch the interview clips on his website, especially when he is on British television. British television of course is widely acknowledged to be extremely salacious, ignorant, and gossipmongering, perhaps even more so (if that's possible, how do you measure infinite against infinite?) than the US media scene. Watch how viscerally he is attacked, for simply stating that the bulk of the money that should rightly be used for environmental protection should go to the development of the 3rd world, so they can both escape from poverty and clean up their environment? Working under the assumption that poor people are not especially likely to be much concerned about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere when they are too busy trying to eat and protect their children. Watch the "heretic" face the Inquisition and get crucified. Its brual psychologically speaking. Just to warn you. I give the guy serious cred just for how well he comports himself in the face of such irrationality.
I recommend anyone seriously interested in the past, present, and future of environmentalism to give these books a read. And if readers know of any other good sources of information, please let me know.
Chase's book is the most philosophical and focuses on the famous battle between loggers and preservationists in the Northwest US, centered on the forests and the protection of the spotted owl. His work goes into incredible depth tracking how the development of the idea of Biocentrism [Note: This is a Wikipedia link, so don't take it for too much, although I think its more or less accurate. The word does not exist interestingly in the Merriam Webster online dictionary]. I will devote a fruther entry simply to this work. Chase details how through the legal and philosophical battles of the Northwest Logging-Forest Battle, biocentrism came to be drafted into US law.
Crichton is focused more on global warming and the political manipulation of the idea of "scientific consensus". A former favorite of the Hollywood scene, his book State of Fear is his first with no plans of cinematic portrayal. He has been outed as a supposed sympathizer of the Bush administration and Oil industry for questioning aspects of global warming science (or perhaps pseudoscience). State of Fear chronciles domestic eco-terrorism in the United States. Recall that the largest domestic terrorist threat does not come in the form of al-Qaeda but from Eco-Terrorism.
Gregg Easterbook, a self-described liberal (left-center politically) always attacked in an ad hominem fashion for his "optimistism" regarding the environment. He made seemingly startling predictions about the strength of nature to rebound and continue on (mostly) unharmed by human civilization. One example. He recounts in the work how he publicly predicted that after the Exxon Valdez disaster that in ten years "the sound will be so close to its former state that it will be impossible to determine where the spill occurred without resorting to navigation charts." In fact he was wrong. It only took 3 years for his prediction to come true. In fact, in an interview conducted with a local researcher Dennis Lees, that his (Lee's) "greatest concern about Prince William Sound was not wildlife loss, which he considered bad but a one-time effect; Lee's concern was that the cleanup did more damage than the spill (p.56)." That's right, the cleanup. Not excusing the arrogance and criminal negligence of the Exxon establishment. They deserved to pay millions in lawsuits, but with the media-blitz attention too many vessels were sent into the Sound. Exxon, to clean up their PR problem, used hot water to clean up the oil, which did clean up the oil, but also killed the microbial life on which the ecosystem depended.
Easterbrook's book is filled with such deconstructions of typical left and right thinking, environmental and pro-industrial. It is an extremely level headed book, avoiding the emotional ploys, cynicism, and doomsaying predictions of the more high profile environmental names (names like Paul Ehrlich, Bill McKibben, etc.). It is one of the most profound books I"ve read in a long, long time.
I'll be exploring this larger theme from many different angles in multiple posts.
But I want to make it clear before some of I do some intellectual slaying, that I believe deep down the majority of people who are looking to help the environment do so out of good intentions, though whose views are not always well rounded. There are a few, a slim minority, of those, as in any movement, who for whatever reasons in their own life--abuse, neglect, betrayal--use a political movement as a means to exact revenge, who deep down have the wrong motivations for being involved (in this example in environmental issues, but the same goes sadly for peace, justice, and human rights movements as well). Those are individuals who need compassion and acceptance. Then there are always the again minority who abuse the better intentions of many and use any mechanism they can for their own aggradizement--financial, political, or otherwise--who warp any and all issues under the mantle of righteousness for their own self-centered agendas. And none of us are immune from that tendency, but again for the most part this is not the central motivator or issue for most individuals involved.
Moreover, I want to make clear, that no matter what I may think about the self-critical nature lacking currently in the environmental movement, its mistakes and excesses (past and on going), it has been on, the whole, a great gift to the human race. It has left a permanent legacy that all educated, concerned poeple must keep in mind in our decisions. And for that I express my gratitude for bringing awareness into areas of life otherwise opaque and closed off.
That being said, it is important to remember that there are no free rides, and no movement, however well intentioned, can employ an aura of righteouenss to prevent (proper, healthy, justified) criticism both from within and without. To cloack oneself in such a philosophically and morally vaccinated mantle is idolatrous and in the end only damages our best desires, actions, and hopes for the better.
The Environmental Movement is oh so young. It is, as it were, in its adolescence. High idealism mixed with immaturity, self-obsession, and inflated sense of self-importance. It is time to grow out of this adolescence into an adult ecological mindset.
Global Warming?
Greenhouse Gases?
Overpopulation?
Species Extinction?
Loss of the Rainforest?
Pesticides in your food?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and yes wrong.
The greatest environemental threat to the planet is poverty. Poverty.
The greatest environmental degradation in the world comes from developing countries. It comes in the form unsafe drinking water/sanitation and polluted air. According to Gregg Easterbrook
All told, the number of children under the age of five who die each year in the developing world from gross air pollution and unsafe drinking water—two causes of death essentially eliminated in the West—is larger than the number of deaths at all ages from all causes each year in the United States and the European Union combined.
All ages from all causes. More deaths of children under five from bad air and water than all deaths of all ages in the US and EU combined.
How often have we heard that statistic announced in evironmental debate?
As part of research for a book-idea I'm working on, I spent the last week reading a slew of bokos and articles on environmentalism.
Like most middle class Americans, if surveyed I would say I'm environmentally-conscious, concerned about the environement, etc. I also found to my dismay that I had bought into a great deal of the common enviro thinking found in society. Reading through these books and articles has forced a major shift in my mind, even my emotions, toward the question of environmentalism. I would say that I am now both more hopeful about the future of the planet and more pesissmistic about the current state of enviromentalism than ever before.
In keeping with the general integral-influenced frame of the blog, I will on occassion, as is my custom, make use of Wilberian and Spiral terminology. Mostly though I will focus on the concrete issues raised in these writings.
The works I will be focusing on are:
Gregg Easterbrook: A Moment on the Earth(1995). See also his more recent writings on environmentalism (including the one linked earlier) courtesy the Brookings Institute** plus this impressive piece from Wired on why we humans are so enamored by environmental-csomic catastrophes scenarios, leaving us ignorant of the current actual threats to society.
The series of speehces by Michael Crichton focusing on environementalism, global warming, the politics of scientific consensus, the little known history of horrible scientific prediction, and the hijacking of environemtnalism by media-obbsessed, fund-seeking, media savvy, lobbyists.
Wilfred Beckerman Through Green Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered
Alston Chase In a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Chase is a philospher (of the objectivist sort) and conservationist. His first work, Playing God in Yellowstone, detailed the wrongheaded view of nature that has underpinned US policy on wilderness preservation, leading to the degradation of Yellowstone.
Though they are differently focused, one thing all of these share in common is a self-critical environmentalism. That is, all these men (and yes those are all men, if you want an accomplished female voice in this crowd see Marian Chertow, I'll be picking her book up fron the library in a day or two) are genuinely concerned for the environment (and as well shall see human beings) but do not fall into the party-line group-think that unfortunately dominates so much of the environmental scene, its lobbyists, research agendas, and political organizations.
The one book, perhaps the momst controversial (with the exception of A Moment on the Earth), which I still hope to get my hands on soon is Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. If you want to judge for yourself whether certain strands of environmentalism now function as a neo-dogmatic orthodoxy (as I believe is certainly the case), watch the interview clips on his website, especially when he is on British television. British television of course is widely acknowledged to be extremely salacious, ignorant, and gossipmongering, perhaps even more so (if that's possible, how do you measure infinite against infinite?) than the US media scene. Watch how viscerally he is attacked, for simply stating that the bulk of the money that should rightly be used for environmental protection should go to the development of the 3rd world, so they can both escape from poverty and clean up their environment? Working under the assumption that poor people are not especially likely to be much concerned about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere when they are too busy trying to eat and protect their children. Watch the "heretic" face the Inquisition and get crucified. Its brual psychologically speaking. Just to warn you. I give the guy serious cred just for how well he comports himself in the face of such irrationality.
I recommend anyone seriously interested in the past, present, and future of environmentalism to give these books a read. And if readers know of any other good sources of information, please let me know.
Chase's book is the most philosophical and focuses on the famous battle between loggers and preservationists in the Northwest US, centered on the forests and the protection of the spotted owl. His work goes into incredible depth tracking how the development of the idea of Biocentrism [Note: This is a Wikipedia link, so don't take it for too much, although I think its more or less accurate. The word does not exist interestingly in the Merriam Webster online dictionary]. I will devote a fruther entry simply to this work. Chase details how through the legal and philosophical battles of the Northwest Logging-Forest Battle, biocentrism came to be drafted into US law.
Crichton is focused more on global warming and the political manipulation of the idea of "scientific consensus". A former favorite of the Hollywood scene, his book State of Fear is his first with no plans of cinematic portrayal. He has been outed as a supposed sympathizer of the Bush administration and Oil industry for questioning aspects of global warming science (or perhaps pseudoscience). State of Fear chronciles domestic eco-terrorism in the United States. Recall that the largest domestic terrorist threat does not come in the form of al-Qaeda but from Eco-Terrorism.
Gregg Easterbook, a self-described liberal (left-center politically) always attacked in an ad hominem fashion for his "optimistism" regarding the environment. He made seemingly startling predictions about the strength of nature to rebound and continue on (mostly) unharmed by human civilization. One example. He recounts in the work how he publicly predicted that after the Exxon Valdez disaster that in ten years "the sound will be so close to its former state that it will be impossible to determine where the spill occurred without resorting to navigation charts." In fact he was wrong. It only took 3 years for his prediction to come true. In fact, in an interview conducted with a local researcher Dennis Lees, that his (Lee's) "greatest concern about Prince William Sound was not wildlife loss, which he considered bad but a one-time effect; Lee's concern was that the cleanup did more damage than the spill (p.56)." That's right, the cleanup. Not excusing the arrogance and criminal negligence of the Exxon establishment. They deserved to pay millions in lawsuits, but with the media-blitz attention too many vessels were sent into the Sound. Exxon, to clean up their PR problem, used hot water to clean up the oil, which did clean up the oil, but also killed the microbial life on which the ecosystem depended.
Easterbrook's book is filled with such deconstructions of typical left and right thinking, environmental and pro-industrial. It is an extremely level headed book, avoiding the emotional ploys, cynicism, and doomsaying predictions of the more high profile environmental names (names like Paul Ehrlich, Bill McKibben, etc.). It is one of the most profound books I"ve read in a long, long time.
I'll be exploring this larger theme from many different angles in multiple posts.
But I want to make it clear before some of I do some intellectual slaying, that I believe deep down the majority of people who are looking to help the environment do so out of good intentions, though whose views are not always well rounded. There are a few, a slim minority, of those, as in any movement, who for whatever reasons in their own life--abuse, neglect, betrayal--use a political movement as a means to exact revenge, who deep down have the wrong motivations for being involved (in this example in environmental issues, but the same goes sadly for peace, justice, and human rights movements as well). Those are individuals who need compassion and acceptance. Then there are always the again minority who abuse the better intentions of many and use any mechanism they can for their own aggradizement--financial, political, or otherwise--who warp any and all issues under the mantle of righteousness for their own self-centered agendas. And none of us are immune from that tendency, but again for the most part this is not the central motivator or issue for most individuals involved.
Moreover, I want to make clear, that no matter what I may think about the self-critical nature lacking currently in the environmental movement, its mistakes and excesses (past and on going), it has been on, the whole, a great gift to the human race. It has left a permanent legacy that all educated, concerned poeple must keep in mind in our decisions. And for that I express my gratitude for bringing awareness into areas of life otherwise opaque and closed off.
That being said, it is important to remember that there are no free rides, and no movement, however well intentioned, can employ an aura of righteouenss to prevent (proper, healthy, justified) criticism both from within and without. To cloack oneself in such a philosophically and morally vaccinated mantle is idolatrous and in the end only damages our best desires, actions, and hopes for the better.
The Environmental Movement is oh so young. It is, as it were, in its adolescence. High idealism mixed with immaturity, self-obsession, and inflated sense of self-importance. It is time to grow out of this adolescence into an adult ecological mindset.
posted by CJ Smith @ 9:30 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home