Shallow Environmentalism: Nature is more than just a “resource”
By Ben Cole, Political Philosophy Senior Staff Writer
E.F. Schumacher’s 20th-Century book Small is Beautiful first introduced the term “natural resources” to a mass audience as part of his criticism of the assumption that the environment exists solely for economic benefit. Schumacher portrayed natural resources as finite capital, refuting the common belief that they were a form of dispensable income that held no value unless consumed. Today, his message seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Although in the last half-century governments and private citizens around the world have stepped up efforts to curb pollution and species extinction, the rhetoric of non-radical environmentalism still focuses solely on how to ensure continued exploitation of the environment while taking absurdly high levels of energy consumption for granted.
Central to this problem is our the tendency to equate the environment with its sum of “natural resources,” which implies that nature only has an instrumental value gauged by these “resources' ” usefulness in production. As a result, in order for a conservation policy to be politically salient, it must include some utilitarian calculation that proves human economies to be its ultimate beneficiaries. A policy that explicitly seeks to curb growth in order to protect the environment becomes a magnet for ridicule from pro-development economists and property-rightists alike.
Pro-business extremists, such as Robert Bidinotto, a senior adviser for the Libertarian Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise are the main source of anti-environment mudslinging. Bidinotto declares that most common Americans who identify themselves as environmentalists merely “[see] the earth and its bounty as resources… for intelligent human use, development, and enjoyment.” He demonizes real environmentalists for their position that “nature exists for its own sake” and charges them with taking advantage of their co-citizens’ “innocent” views in order to further a radical agenda. Although some may charge that Bidinotto’s stance is radical in its own right, his assessment of conservationism’s place in modern politics is quite accurate. When the environment is pitted against any form of economic growth, no matter how insignificant that growth may be, anybody who sides with the environment is a misanthropic loony. If it is not a natural resource, it is not worth protecting.
Take, for example, the case of the Endangered Species Act, revered by environmentalists and increasingly attacked by “advocates of economic progress.” In 2002 a political battle emerged in New Mexico over the fate of the native silvery minnow protected under the act. When severe drought wracked northern areas of the state, efforts to divert water from local reservoirs to the endangered fish’s habitat were met with fierce opposition by business interests and homeowners. The ESA was blamed for caring more about fish than people, and even for creating the water shortage itself. Meanwhile, the absurd percentage of water that went to irrigating lawns, street medians, and golf courses went almost unnoticed.
Unfortunately, conservation groups seem to be aware of mainstream Americans’ preference for unimportant conveniences over endangered species and continue ceding philosophical ground rather than attempting to fight materialism head-on. “Green innovation”, the idea that companies respond positively to government regulation by competing over the logistical discoveries that meet regulations in the most cost-effective way, is an argument increasingly used by environmentalists to convince businesses that their interests are aligned. In a foreword to the widely-circulated essay The Death of Environmentalism, Peter Teague grumbled that “the conventional wisdom among environmentalists is that we mustn’t frighten the public but rather must focus…on technological solutions, like hybrid cars and fluorescent light bulbs.”
Ironically enough, the environmental movement that started off by revealing the ecological damages of unquestioned growth and development is now paralyzed by a fear of scaring people. At a time when the political discourse of our nation has such a conservative, pro-business tint, it may be difficult to convince people to abandon such a convenient way of life by immediately cutting carbon emissions by 70 percent. But the environmental movement isn’t even trying. It is attempting to paint itself as a friendly, pseudo-capitalist institution that wants to make the planet a little bit better and save American citizens some money on gas and electricity. Meanwhile, the dominant view of the planet as an all-you-can-eat buffet of natural resources continues.
Environmentalists must be willing to go on the offensive. They must argue that nature has intrinsic value that far outweighs many of the conveniences we enjoy as a result of its destruction; that the Brazilian rainforest is far more precious than the beef of fast food cows that graze on its ashes and that a couple years’ worth of fossil fuels is not worth the permanent destruction of pristine Arctic wilderness. Furthermore, they must answer the ridiculous charges of anti-environmentalists that saying such things constitutes misanthropy. It is our choice whether we wish to live in the natural world or in spite of it.