I'm a huge fan of the "Uglies" trilogy (plus Extras) by Scott Westerfeld. Reading it has been tremendously enjoyable, especially its unique blend of young adult themes, incredibly dynamic characters, and inventive science-fiction. At the same time, the environmentalism inherent in the books always left me. . . uneasy, because there is so much about the modern environmental movement that has been--quite literally--destructive.
But, the planet! Relax. . . I'm not here to write a screed against environmentalists. That would be too easy :). And entirely counter-productive.
Because I am an environmentalist. Just not terribly akin to modern environmentalists. . . . So I'm going to coin a new term: pragmatic environmentalism.
What makes it pragmatic? Perhaps the best way to get at the idea (merely nascent at this point) is to put three issues in perspective--a particularly pragmatic one.
1. "Climate Change"
This has become an unfortunately prickly subject--the primary reason being that the confluence of economic opportunities (the money to be made trading carbon offsets), politics (modern environmentalism demands increased government intervention, which plays into the desire in the hearts of many government agents to assert greater control over the marketplace and even private affairs--c.f. bans on innocuous products like the common incandescent light bulb), and dogmatic philosophical positions insisting that humans must be the "cause" of anything on the planet that deviates from the course we believe it should take. This confluence prevents open debate about the very real scientific ambivalence on the issue.
A pragmatic approach is quite obvious: remain open-minded about scientific debate. Given the increasing ambivalence of the scientific community (and the fact that the current trajectory implies that global temperatures are far from influence by human activity) the last thing that is required is extensive government intervention.
Another hallmark of a pragmatic approach would be to analyze to what extent the advocates of schemes such as the trading of carbon "offsets" are motivated by personal finances rather than any particular interest in protecting the environment. The fact that many such as Al Gore have staked their public career on this advocation--and remaining firm despite increasing scientific doubts--leads one to suspect his clear financial benefits as the motivating factor in his "environmentalism".
2. Quality of Life Issues
The main (and perhaps sole) role of governmental action from a pragmatic perspective is what I put under the umbrella of "quality of life" issues.
The clear central column of this concerns pollutants--and this is where human activity is (of course) to blame. Gone are the days of actual smoke coming out of smoke-stacks, at least in the West. Industrial processes become increasingly clean (and efficient). Efficiency is motivated effectively via financial measures and thus should never require government mandates. The market will normally determine best paths and practices infinitely better than top-down legislation or regulation.
Cleanliness is a trickier matter. Atmospheric pollution--especially along the lines of the Industrial Age in the West and, for that matter, in much of the developing world--is normally quite obvious. Thus companies have as their incentivization the desire to cultivate an image of themselves as good corporate citizens. This can, of course, be helped with a limited amount of regulation and oversight.
A problem demanding government action--though, again, with careful cost-benefit analysis from numerous scientific sources--are other, less visible, pollution sources. Examples I have in mind are mercury and other chemicals--especially problematic when it involves groundwater or public waterways. This is also where studies must come into play. The emphasis on fluorescent lighting, unless recycling rates hit close to 100%, is inevitably going to exacerbate an already growing problem with mercury in the world's waterways.
Because this is something that is less visible, careful and measured oversight is necessary. This is where I wish most of the modern environmentalists still put their efforts. Yet, unfortunately, many of their current crusades (e.g. the CFL craze) nullify earlier efforts for clean air and water, and perhaps will make it worse.
3. Environmentalism as Ethics
The key problem with modern environmentalism is its coziness with government mandates and other forms of authoritarian/technocratic regulation. Ultimately, for better or for worse, the best forms of environmentalism rely on personal choice. People who choose to respect the environment ultimately do so not because the government tells them to but because they choose to. Choice is an important word here--and represents the crux of pragmatic environmentalism.
Perhaps the best example of this 'ethical' approach to environmentalism is the issue of recycling. Certain communities have established mandatory recycling of selected materials (usually at least 1 and 2 plastics, aluminum, and unsoiled paper products). These programs have merit but are frequently run at a loss. I'm unsure about plastics recycling, but paper recycling (at least in industrial settings) is at minimum a break-even enterprise. And metal recycling is clearly a profitable enterprise.
Why, then, do mandatory recycling programs inevitably lose money? Certainly there are inefficiencies built in to government involvement, but mandatory programs have something the voluntary enterprises do not: the added overhead of the collection.
If--and, I admit, this is a big if--people could motivate themselves to transport their own recyclables to collection points, things could change considerably. As things stand in my community (and likely in others), there are only several large "dumps" for depositing garbage or recyclables. If smaller collection sites were dispersed throughout a given metropolitan area, overhead would be minimized while also maximizing the convenience for people to tie in drop-offs with their daily (or a weekly) routine. Cost-benefit analyses could further optimize this structure.
This requires people to be self-motivated--a steep requirement--but is the only real path of success for an environmental movement. The goal is to reduce the consumerism of the society, reduce unnecessary waste, but also recycle as much of that waste as possible. I'm far from an alarmist, but the use of landfills should be a last resort.
Anyways, those are some opening thoughts. Any comments?
