I've got to stop posting so much.
So it's about time for my monthly post.
Not sure if anyone still reads what I write here given my habitual absence.
Despite that, I'm going to be topical and talk about the election, or politics/voting in general.
Before I go on...
In other news, I've been working on a short film for the Crossroads Inaugural Film Festival. Mums the word, but I can tell you that it is not
Back to politics.
First, the biggest steak on the plate: Environmentalism. Why are people concerned with the environment? People are concerned because 1) it is immediate and proximal 2) they like clean air to breath and notice when it's not and 3) they believe the predictions and reports about threats to their lifestyles and livelihood. These are mainstream folks, though.
Hippies, latte-sippers and some such have other or additional reasons for their environmental concern. These reasons aren't so easy to sum up, but they do revolve around the idea that the environment and/or its components are intrinsically valuable (not valuable for any utilitarian reason for example).
(Of course my analysis may be completely wrong the "average Joe" may well be an accidental deep ecologist. It's hard to know.)
Now that's out of the way, the real question is why should one be concerned about the environment. I'm not a deep ecologist*, I don't think the environment has value beyond it's use to humans.
It would be easy to misinterpret the above sentence as me supporting gross environmental exploitation, but that would be stupid. Don't load up "use" with connotations you feel it has.
If one's desire is to use the environment for the good of people, then it would be inconsistent with one's desires to use the environment irresponsibly. This is because there would then be no natural resource left to use for the Good.
This means that conservation of the environment is for the sake of humans, and this is why I think you need to be concerned about the environment.
What effect does this have on policy making? This means you start from humans and work outwards. Things like the proposed pulp-mill - the question to ask is "what effect will it have on the health of the people in the area"? (I've heard mixed reports, so I'm sitting on the fence. It has economic benefits, but it also has the potential to create air pollution. Who knows? Due to these epistemological problems I'm forced to be agnostic.)
Okay I realised that I have so much to say and so little reader's attention span...
So in dot points!
*I think deep ecology and related positions are untenable. If you'd like me to explain why, I'm happy to do so in future posts.
Not sure if anyone still reads what I write here given my habitual absence.
Despite that, I'm going to be topical and talk about the election, or politics/voting in general.
Before I go on...
In other news, I've been working on a short film for the Crossroads Inaugural Film Festival. Mums the word, but I can tell you that it is not
- a porno
- in a language other than English
- shorter than 30 seconds
- a home made music video for a Justin Timberlake song
Back to politics.
First, the biggest steak on the plate: Environmentalism. Why are people concerned with the environment? People are concerned because 1) it is immediate and proximal 2) they like clean air to breath and notice when it's not and 3) they believe the predictions and reports about threats to their lifestyles and livelihood. These are mainstream folks, though.
Hippies, latte-sippers and some such have other or additional reasons for their environmental concern. These reasons aren't so easy to sum up, but they do revolve around the idea that the environment and/or its components are intrinsically valuable (not valuable for any utilitarian reason for example).
(Of course my analysis may be completely wrong the "average Joe" may well be an accidental deep ecologist. It's hard to know.)
Now that's out of the way, the real question is why should one be concerned about the environment. I'm not a deep ecologist*, I don't think the environment has value beyond it's use to humans.
It would be easy to misinterpret the above sentence as me supporting gross environmental exploitation, but that would be stupid. Don't load up "use" with connotations you feel it has.
If one's desire is to use the environment for the good of people, then it would be inconsistent with one's desires to use the environment irresponsibly. This is because there would then be no natural resource left to use for the Good.
This means that conservation of the environment is for the sake of humans, and this is why I think you need to be concerned about the environment.
What effect does this have on policy making? This means you start from humans and work outwards. Things like the proposed pulp-mill - the question to ask is "what effect will it have on the health of the people in the area"? (I've heard mixed reports, so I'm sitting on the fence. It has economic benefits, but it also has the potential to create air pollution. Who knows? Due to these epistemological problems I'm forced to be agnostic.)
Okay I realised that I have so much to say and so little reader's attention span...
So in dot points!
- Industry is a bigger consumer of resources than the householder. We should put more pressure on industry to be environmentally responsible, and less on families who don't have the financial resources (except for rich yuppies driving their Toorak tractors) to be "environmentally friendly".
- Humans need to use energy. To work is to be human, to work is to use energy. This is a good thing. Enterprise, technology, science, ideas, creativity, art, civilization and many of the other goods of humanity require energy. So we shouldn't be tight fisted about energy, we should instead "live it up", and actively seek ways to make renewable energy affordable.
- This is controversial, but I don't think you can be both an environmentalist and in support of the eradication of poverty. There's no economic benefit in going to extreme measures to protect the "environment" ( I have to put it in inverted commas now since I've said the word so many times my brain is beginning to deconstruct the concept. It does that). It costs everyone, and doesn't feed back into the economy (except in the small profit from ecotourism). I guess I'm talking in particular the measures being made against climate change. Basically Global Warming is a big casino sucking money out of the economy, and it's not paying any tax.
- The solution? Well, we probably need to do something to preserve the world for future generations. I mean, that's what it's all about isn't it? If you're not a deep ecologist, you're probably a conservationist because you want your great grandchildren to be able to breath, eat and not have to wear a 400+ sunscreen. I've been doing a bit of reading on the issue of future generations in Environmental Ethics by Robert Elliot. There's two arguments... actually, I think I'll write about this next post... it's quite long.
- I'm not sure the Greens are the best people to handle environmental matters. They're deep ecologists at heart, so what part of the environment are they going to want to preserve? We can't guarantee that they'll want something best for humans; maybe something for the good of the ecosystem as whole, whatever that is. Also, they might be obsessed with preserving one part of the ecosystem (eg trees) at the expense of another. Being "Green" isn't monochromatic, there are many shades, and this is not a good thing. The Greens need to have an examined and philosophically coherent position from which to act before they can be good environmentalists.
- Epistemological problems... I'll come back to this one. This post is way too long already. :D
*I think deep ecology and related positions are untenable. If you'd like me to explain why, I'm happy to do so in future posts.
Labels: dot points, future generations, JT, politics, wordiness
posted by The Borg at
3:58 PM
18 Comments:
You go, girl
By
Craig Schwarze, At
11:57 PM
many a valid point. while I disagree with most green policy I do like the fact they are there to help balance things and keep a check on the government.
By
Robbo, At
12:17 AM
Thanks for posting - I do still read your blog. Well, I don't actually *read* it - that would mean I'd have committed this one post to memory by now, but I hadn't yet transferred it to my "blogs - infrequent" folder.
Anyway, back to the point. I'm not sure I agree with conservation being only for the sake of humans. I think there is intrinsic value in the earth because God created it and gave us responsibility over it. Exactly how that plays out, I'm not sure... but I'm not comfortable with a solely utilitarian* view of it.
*I hold that term a bit loosely because um, I'm not very philosophically educated!
By
Bron, At
9:05 AM
"I don't think you can be both an environmentalist and in support of the eradication of poverty"
Fair call. You either have to compromise by allowing developing countries to pollute and thereby decrease poverty overall, or you stick to your guns and let the Indian kiddies starve.
Compromises need to be made to end world poverty. I actually believe we are getting there (crazy as it sounds!)
By
Angus, At
10:17 AM
Thanks for still reading my blog, everyone!
Rob, you're right; it is good to have a "multiparty" system to keep the government in check.
Bron, I see where you are coming from.
I think there is intrinsic value in the earth because God created it and gave us responsibility over it.
I might be wrong here, but I think that by definition, for something to have "intrinsic" value, it's value cannot originate/be supported by/be justified by/etc in something external, such as God. Just semantics, but unlike a typical environmentalist, you don't believe nature has intrinsic value, as do I. It only has value because God created it and gave us dominion over it.
("Consequenceulist"(sp?) is the broader version of utilitarian, btw. :))
I personally am struggling with the line of reasoning that I have heard from many Christians; that we ought to protect the environment because God created, it is therefore precious. I'm struggling with this, not for any deep, emotional reason, but simply because I can't see any logical step-by-step reasoning to it. (I.e., it doesn't follow necessarily that God creating something means we must conserve it).
I can't help it, but my brain refuses to accept things it can't logically process. But I'm happy to be shown an argument and be convinced otherwise. :)
Angus, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on "us getting there" in terms of ending world poverty. It seems contrary to evidence, but then again, the "evidence" I'm tuned into could just be propaganda.;)
By
The Borg, At
11:49 AM
Cool Post Shiloh, your argument resembled a dude's named Garrett Hardin, whose theory I had to write on in my exam.
Hardin in an article that was promoting population control articulated the economic theory of the 'tragedy of the commons'. For those who don't know. The argument uses an illustration of herdsmen sharing a common land or common. Hardin argues that each herdsmen is rational and therefore will “explicitly or implicitly , more or less consciously, [ask], “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?”
The utility has both a negative and positive component.
1.The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsmen receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1
2.The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsmen is only a fraction of -1 .
Hardin argues that the “rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.”
This theory is adopted to the environment, for example pollution. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. The resemblance was in that you argued that if we want to use the environment we cannot run it dry or we won't be able to use it
Another reason I highlight Hardin, is because his essay provides a basis for more ideas on policy solutions. A governmental approach, or more commonly known as bureaucracy or hierarchy can be adopted. The government can implement legislation that makes it more expensive to leave wastes untreated. However this is really unpopular and gets up people's noses. Which leads to another problem, our selfishness. The government can take the initiative to protect for the future but the masses looks at it and thinks badly of the government and they don't get re-elected.
Another solution is to use people's selfishness against them, you can do this be creaking private ownership through a market. An example is the Murray Darling river. I heard that the farmers who need the water from the river have to buy it. There is competition and its expensive therefore only the most efficient and productive farms are capable of producing enough money to sustain themselves. Furthermore it encourages those who can afford the water to use it wisely since they know what it cost them. However the problem with this is that it creates market failure, since it could possibly lead to one farm being the top dog and not allowing competition to grow.
Another solution is a community approach. A community solution would mean that we all stick our heads together and work to help one another. An example of this is the global communities (that is, the international community) working to a shared goal on caol emmisions. There is no hierarchy but what does keep you in check is one another. Those who seek to defy the rules are shamed and bullied. A positive aspect of this is that the international community is growing due to globalisation. However problems do arise. For example the Kyoto protocol. Not everyone wants to join, since the community is not strong enough you end up with what is knows as the “prisoners dilemma”, but just look that up in Wikipedia because this response has now become huge.
Sorry.
By
G-blog, At
1:51 PM
"I don't think you can be both an environmentalist and in support of the eradication of poverty."
I think you're either defining "environmentalist" at an extreme or vastly underestimating the amount of world resources wasted by the West.
By
Swil, At
3:47 PM
I don't think I'm doing either, but I'm not sure what your definition of an environmentalist at the extreme is.
I was actually talking about poverty locally but it probably can be applied globally. My point is that the "environment" is an economic sink; no matter how much money we feed into it, it pays no taxes, except in a currency we have no use for - some time in the future, when we're green but poor, and lacking in innovation and technology because we have no money to fund it.
More immediately, it's unfair to make those who are poor (in our back yards) have to pay some kind of environmental tax. It's hard enough for them to get by already.
By
The Borg, At
4:24 PM
As Angus alluded to, the *only* way to beat poverty in Africa is for African nations to industrialise. And that means big dirty coal munching power plants. To keep African green means keeping it poor.
This is the elephant in the room that the green left do not want to acknowledge.
By
Craig Schwarze, At
5:49 PM
Removing tariffs on African wheat and removing subsidies to European and American wheat farmers would be useful too (it would also help Australian farmers).
However I think poverty in Africa will not be beaten until democracy and the rule of law become standard. Otherwise all the aid money, debt cancellation, Bob Geldof concerts and tariff reductions will be turned into AK-47s.
Of course, there is a good way to cut greenhouse emissions and still provide energy for millions of people. It's safe, relatively clean, and used in Europe for 60 years without a problem.
The true environmentalist's choice: bring on nuclear power! (I am totally serious)
And Shyborg, I'll chat to you sometime about poverty and things - can't really be arsed typing it atm! ;)
By
Angus, At
6:47 PM
Yeah, Angus, people are only scared of nuclear power for emotive reasons. If people got over the word "nuclear", they would actually realise it's a great solution!
By
The Borg, At
6:57 PM
Nice post (hooray for bullet points) but on the comment "This is controversial, but I don't think you can be both an environmentalist and in support of the eradication of poverty", I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Vis a vis global warming, I think the general argument is: it's going to either hurt a little now, or hurt a lot in the not-to-distant-future. I'm not saying that argument is necessarily right (though it could well be), just that it is a significant argument made in favour of doing something about global warming - that the worlds poorest are going to be hit hardest. So you could in fact say that if you support the eradication of poverty, you must support drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions.
As for nuclear power, it's pretty darn expensive, compared to other sources.
Global warming aside, I think energy security is, on the whole, one of the major issues in the world today in terms of geopolitics, and whoever can free industrialized nations from oil and gas will do as much for civilization as whoever invented the steam engine or whatever :)
There's only limited (or even declining) resources to go round, and steeply increasing demand, and you just have to look at Russia and all it's energy interests, and China, and the US of course, and India... ahh at least we'll make a crapload of $ in the meantime here in Oz >_<
Though sooner or later we could all be driving air powered cars...
By
Anonymous, At
12:49 AM
The only reason environmentalism and fighting poverty have become seemingly at odds is due to the West getting too fat and wasteful.
There are plenty of resources to go around without having to damage the environment to support humanity, just not enough to support all of humanity living like we do.
I think it was in the excellent book Affluenza (which came out of the Australia Institute thinktank) I read that if every person on the planet used as much resources as an average middle class person in the West, we'd need 3 Earths.
By
Swil, At
9:19 AM
As for nuclear power, it's pretty darn expensive, compared to other sources.
Yes, I've grown less enthusiastic for nuclear for that reason - it seems debatable whether it is economic or not.
By
Craig Schwarze, At
12:18 PM
Interesting discussion. Too much in there to cover in-depth, so I'll pick on the popular point: "This is controversial, but I don't think you can be both an environmentalist and in support of the eradication of poverty."
I propose that the developing world be allowed to pollute in the short term, while the developed world takes some seriously radical steps to mend our ways. Please don't call me a communist, but there really is more than enough wealth in the world to eradicate poverty globally, if we could learn to share (and the African warlords could get along). The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...
But I digress. Over time, developing nations would reach the point where they could join the developed world in spending their money on renewable energy instead of basic survival at the expense of the environment. This is basically what Kyoto aims to achieve (but it takes the 'allowances' too far in allowing countries like Aus to increase their greenhouse gas output).
I don't believe the distinction between 'deep ecology' and other reasons for environmentalism are all that relevant.
By
Anonymous, At
4:16 PM
Crusader, that sounds like a good solution, if it could work...
I don't believe the distinction between 'deep ecology' and other reasons for environmentalism are all that relevant.
Why don't you think that they are relevant?
By
The Borg, At
4:34 PM
Well, to a certain extent it *is* working - just look at China today as opposed to twenty years ago! There are obviously other factors at play, but the industrialisation of China is helping lift the nation from wholesale poverty. If we had governments in first-world countries that were serious about addressing climate change in their own backyards, the other side of the deal would be progressing also. The ALP seems like a step in the right direction in this regard.
I don't think the motivation is important to the extent that it has no bearing on the result. Eg, whether we conserve the forests so that they absorb CO2 and allow us to keep living and so people can enjoy walking about in them, or because we think they are inherently valuable and worth more standing than in the form of toilet paper and Big W catalogs doesn't matter a jot if the end result is that we conserve them.
By
Anonymous, At
12:03 PM
Hi Shiloh, thanks for posting on this issue, it has really raised great points for discussion.
I agree with your position, I think the environment is a gift from God to us, for us to use wisely and care for. The difficulty comes when we have limited power to make major environmental decisions. I also agree that people are more important.
I agree that homes should not have to bear the huge responsibility and cost of "saving the environment".
I have noticed another issue in my immediate proximity, "saving the environment" has become a kind of religion of sorts... ( I think Gordo Cheng has posted on this).Even amongst Christians, the pressure to make choices that exclude or make of lesser importance the caring for the lost ( in time, in prayer, in money)
Also I would personally prefer to spend lots of money helping people, buying fair trade coffee - donating towards organisation that assist 3rd world villagers to become more sustainable and indepenadant long term... etc. Also, I would prefer to spend even more money on mission and assisting persectued churches.
People are made by God and will be judged by God for their actions, the environment will be restored one day, and all those who hurt the earth will be held responsible. But honestly, I fear God's wrath against my lack of compassion for people than for trees ( which are easy to love)
!
By
The Librarian, At
12:56 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home