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.)

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.)