Ecosophy & Rick Santorum

"I was talking about the radical environmentalists," Santorum said. "That's why I was talking about energy. This idea that man is here to serve the earth, as opposed to husband its resources and being good stewards of the earth, and I think that is a phony ideal."

--Rick Santorum, as reported by David Lerman in Business Week

There is an implicit critique in Santorum's remarks that Environmentalism must confront: the misanthropic tendency to degrade humanity for the environmental harm it has caused. It is likely this strain of Environmentalist thinking that Santorum referenced in the quote above. Of course, humanity, through the act of living alone, cannot help but to have some degree of impact on the Earth. The modern pattern of post-industrial life, however, creates a greater than tolerable impact. When man's consumption of resources veers towards a more extreme level of ecological disturbance, Environmentalism ought to respond critically towards such disturbance - without denigrating humanity itself as the villain.

In reality, man is neither less than nor greater than nature; man is an integrated part of an interconnected whole. Put another way, we must operate from a world view that sees man as a part of nature, not apart from it. Humanity cannot survive - let alone thrive - independent of the Earth. All life depends upon the delicately balanced, nurturing presence of a healthy environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We are good stewards and have a responsibility as good stewards. Why? Because unlike the Earth, we're intelligent and we can actually manage things. Leaving things to nature, as those on the radical environmentalist would like to do, don't touch anything, leave it alone. Nature will take care of itself. Yes it will, but it won't be pretty. We can actually manage and husband things."

--Rick Santorum, as reported by Juana Summers in Politico

To live is to affect nature; doing "no thing" is not congruent with living. Man has a greater ability to affect nature and the environment than any other species. In this context, "stewardship"* should include the responsibility for this generation to ensure that environmental integrity and ecological health are conserved to guarantee the well-being of future generations. Indeed, our quality of life depends upon preserving environmental quality - clean air, clean water and a stable climate. Any planned consumption of natural resources should only be undertaken in a manner consistent with maintaining a sustainable, high-quality environment for future life. Contrary to this view, what Santorum actually seems to propose is the extraction and harvest of any accessible natural capital, and the transfer of public resources to private industry. Living sustainably in a symbiotic relationship with the Earth does not pre-suppose totalitarian government control of life and the economy.** Increased efficiency of resource use - consumption harmonized with ecology - offers entrepreneurial opportunity. To serve the Earth and preserve its natural capital is, in essence, to act as a good steward for humanity and all life.

(*Stewardship: "the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care.")
(**On the topic of climate change, Santorum has stated that: "[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life...I for one never bought the hoax." Climate science knowledge here. A future post will further chase the "Environmentalism: government control vs. entrepreneurial opportunity" issue.)

Barack Obama & Keystone XL: The Right Decision for the Wrong Reason

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said in a statement. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

--Barack Obama, as reported by Darren Goode in Politico.

Some time ago, TransCanada proposed to build a 1,700 mile pipeline for transporting Alberta tar sands crude southward into the U.S., from the Canadian border down to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. They called this project the Keystone XL and applied to the U.S. State Department for the necessary permit to approve construction across the border between the U.S. and Canada. Last month, President Obama denied TransCanada's permit request, agreeing with the State Department's conclusion that the project would not "serve the national interest." In reaching this decision, the President declined to address the elephant in the room - development of the Canadian tar sands play requires a method of extraction that unduly depletes our remaining natural capital, burdening future generations with the likelihood of ecological poverty. Rather than send a clear signal that such a program of resource development is incompatible with the public interest, President Obama blamed the decision on Republicans in Congress and offered to consider a revised application from TransCanada, if it would alter its planned route.* This was not a bold act of decisive leadership, it was a punt.

(*As originally planned, the Keystone XL pipeline would have traversed the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies eight central U.S. states and supplies drinking water to the region. Given the risk of spills associated with oil pipelines such as Keystone XL, the Ogallala Aquifer was thus threatened with potential contamination by the original pipeline route.)

As described by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, tar sands “are a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil.” The mining process involves both extraction and separation operations – in order to separate out the bitumen, which is processed into synthetic crude oil. Using current processes, two tons of tar sands yield one barrel of oil; in addition, extraction methods can require large amounts of both energy and water. Presently, the only large-scale commercial tar sands extraction industry is in Alberta, Canada.

In a lawsuit brought to enjoin construction of a similar Canadian tar sands pipeline into the U.S.  –  the Alberta Clipper pipeline – the Sierra Club noted that:

“[T]ar sands extraction operations [in Alberta] require large quantities of water and...draw down surface water flow, adversely impacting stream habitat for migratory fish and other species dependent on local water resources.  Drilling one well consumes 5.5 acre-feet of water each year, and the production of one gallon of oil requires 35 gallons of water.  Water used in tar sands processing is discharged into toxic tailings ponds so large that they are visible from space.  In May 2008 over 500 migratory birds dies in a single incident after landing on a tailings pond.”*

The Sierra Club further observed that “NEPA** directs federal decision-makers to ‘recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems.” A report issued by the Waters Matter Society of Alberta describes in detail many of the environmental problems associated with tar sands extraction in Canada. According to the report, as of June 2008, “720 million cubic meters of toxic water were contained in tailing ponds covering 130 square kilometers,” producing 200 million liters of contaminated water each day. The wastewater contained in the tailing ponds is so toxic that it cannot be re-introduced into the aquatic environment. Even so, tailing ponds do seep toxins into groundwater and surface water – amounting to 11 million liters of contaminated water per day, based on industry data. In addition, tar sands mining operations are permitted to divert 445 million cubic meters of water per year from the Athabasca River – “roughly the annual water needs for a city of three million people.” There are also concerns that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxides emitted by tar sands mining operations could lead to increased acid rainfall and acidification of lakes in Northern Saskatchewan.

(*See Sierra Club v. Clinton)

(**The National Environmental Policy Act directs the environmental review process required for all “major federal actions” – including projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline. The end product of this review process is an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS. A Council on Environmental Quality memorandum on EIS preparation for international projects provides that “NEPA requires agencies to include analysis of reasonably foreseeable transboundary effects of proposed actions in their analysis of proposed actions in the United States.”)

Reporting in the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert described the impacts of tar sands mining on nearby First Nations communities in Alberta. Writing about the native village Fort Chipewyan (Fort Chip), Kolbert detailed local concerns – including a “peculiarly high number of cases of a rare cancer.” Consequently, the villagers in Fort Chip believe that toxins from the tailing ponds have migrated into Lake Athabasca, which borders the village and provides it with “drinking water [and]…staples like whitefish and pike.”

Consistent with the impacts described above and the understanding that environmental review of federal projects should consider transboundary impacts, EPA analyzed the State Department’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Keystone XL in July 2010 and found it deficient. EPA asserted that the State Department DEIS should have considered the greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands extraction in Canada, as accounting for the greenhouse emissions associated with the long term importation of oil sands crude from Canada was an essential component of disclosing the “reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts” of the Keystone XL project. EPA also noted that “extraction and refining of Canadian oil sands crude are GHG-intensive relative to other types of crude oil;” and that there was a “reasonably close causal relationship between issuing a cross-border permit for the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of oil sands crude in Canada intended to supply that pipeline.” In addition, EPA found the State Department’s analysis of pipeline safety from oil spills and the impact of tailing ponds on migratory birds to be wanting.

Perhaps most importantly, EPA criticized the State Department’s narrow definition of the project’s need and purpose. In fact, the State Department’s characterization of the “purpose and need” of the Keystone XL pipeline rendered much of the environmental review process presumptive. According to the State Department, the primary purpose of the Keystone XL is to “provide the infrastructure necessary to transport [tar sands] crude oil from the border with Canada to delivery points [in the U.S.] in response to the market demand of [U.S.] refineries for heavy crude oil.” As EPA correctly contends, a more appropriate project need would reflect the broader goal of the Keystone XL pipeline: “meeting national energy needs and climate policy objectives.” In concert with this broader perspective, EPA suggested that the State Department’s Keystone XL analysis also include consideration of different demand scenarios for crude oil over the course of the project’s proposed fifty year life.  Such consideration would presumably include the possibility of a significant decline in oil demand, driven by higher fuel efficiency standards and more widespread adoption of clean energy generation.

Environmental impacts aside, construction of the Keystone XL was also touted as a “jobs generator” – obviously no small deal in the current economic climate. Creation of new jobs is certainly a laudable goal. However, it is equally important that this generally supportable goal not be used as a pretext for adopting ecologically unsound natural resource development policy. The demonstrated long term environmental impacts associated with tar sands extraction render the job generation argument nugatory; it is highly unwise to pursue an ecologically uneconomic path merely to create short term work during tough times.

Blaming Republicans for forcing him to make a hasty decision might make sound political sense for Barack Obama, as he defends himself from attacks by leading Presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.* In ecological terms, however, President Obama's rationale illustrates a potential new road in environmental policy not taken.

(*Mitt Romney’s reaction: “If Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin.” Gingrich: “President Obama’s decision to reject the XL pipeline weakens America’s national security and kills thousands of well paying American jobs.”)

A Statement of Purpose

"STOP WRITING ABOUT BASKETBALL. No one gave a flying poop about the lockout, and people give even less of a flying poop now that it's back. If you want to write an entire book about something no one cares about, try environmentalism or something."*

--Sam, Edison (Taken from Bill Simmons's January 6, 2012 Mailbag on Grantland)

(*Stipulated: I generally enjoy reading Bill Simmons and many of the other talented writers employed at Grantland; the above quote actually came from a reader.)

This forum is birthed by a fear that Environmental Law and Policy issues will not be a part of the 2012 Election conversation. Or, more to the point, the "environmental problem" will not be discussed in the proper framework: it will be subsumed under the heading of "Energy," where the focus will be on jobs and growing the economy. The state of the natural environment itself will be relegated to a niche concern; "something that nobody cares about," as Sam from Edison calls it.

Obviously, Sam overstates the case - at least one person cares about "Environmentalism", otherwise these words, sentences, paragraphs and ideas would not be here. On the other hand, Sam also makes a trenchant observation - even if only by inartful implication: wide swaths of the public view Environmentalists as humourless scolds. Most Americans - weaned on the tradition of "rugged individualism" - do not appreciate being told what to do. Coming across with a self-righteous-sounding message about changing ecological consciousness can alienate people and influence them to tune that message out, particularly when the implication is that they must "fundamentally change" the way they have always lived. That such change is greatly needed and that a fairly major shift in consciousness is required are difficult points to get across in a consumer-oriented politco-economic culture.

This space operates under the assumption that continuing the current level of U.S. natural resource consumption is ecologically untenable - compounded by the (presumed) desire of developing nations to attain similar status. Thinking optimistically, my hope is that through discussing patterns of resource use and questioning the dogma of perpetually increasing economic growth, true persuasion may occur. The point is not to chide and induce feelings of guilt, but to use facts (such as they exist in the present climate) and reasoning to find workable solutions. With any luck, we can find our hover board or tricked-out DeLorean before its too late.

--------------------------------------

Themes & Ideals: An Environmental Ethos

In thinking about the intersection of the Environment and the 2012 election, the following ecosophical prinicples and goals will guide discussion in this space:

• No exhausting debates on climate change science. I am not a climatologist by avocation and therefore do not feel confident to act as an arbiter of competing scientific theories. This forum accepts the consensus view of the International Panel on Climate Change to reflect the current state of scientific reality. On the other hand, consideration of competing policy arguments on how the U.S. should cope with climate change* is clearly within the purview of this forum.
• I do not intend to use loaded, prejudicial terminology such as "Big Oil", "Big Coal", or "Big (fill in the blank)". It is understood that these euphemisms are intended to draw attention to the powerful corporate industrial influences driving natural resource use. I would rather we carefully consider the factual consequences of current resoruce extraction policy than artificially tilt the debate one way or another through language alone.
• Eroding the idea that Environmentalism is a clever liberal ruse to increase governmental control of the economy. The command economies of Soviet Russia and the Eastern Bloc resulted in terrible environmental degradation in those countries; total government control of the economy would therefore seem incompatible with the goals of Environmentalism. In a legal sense, government has the duty to act as trustee of natural resources on behalf of the people. This duty as trustee should be seen to include the responsibility to promote natural resource use that ensures the long term health of the natural environment, for the benefit of the greater public good. In some instances, legislation provides an outlet for public participation to ensure that the government upholds its duty as trustee. The distinction between government's role as natural resource trustee and communistic environmental policy will likely be explored in greater thematic detail in later entries.
• This forum will demonstrate that Environmentalism is more than a "luxury" for bourgeois indulgence; it is an essential component of any program seeking to increase overall standards of living. Tautologically speaking, "environment" subsumes all other issues under its umbrella, in that the natural environment constitutes the setting where all life takes place. In contrast to Sam from Edison's credo, we all care about environmentalism, even if we don't know it.

(* Also including the argument that the U.S. should do nothing about climate change, for policy reasons.)