Red Green and Blue: Environmentalism vs. Humanitarianism
Editor's note: In the newest edition of Red, Green and Blue, writers Jimmy Hogan and Shirley Siluk Gregory take a look at the "big issue" of environmentalism vs. humanitarianism.
Jimmy: I was thinking the other day, and it struck me that I don’t have a very well-formed stand on the distinction between environmental and humanistic issues. Is there a point where being green comes at the expense of human welfare?
The statement seems a contradiction, but in the future, as in the past, we will discuss and debate issues relating to this fundamental choice. Is it morally wrong to use food-stuff like corn and soy in biofuels while other people around the world are starving? Do our lofty environmental goals sometimes have negative unintended consequences?
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring
Have you considered this balance before? In the spirit of open discussion and debate my challenge today is to ask our readers to contribute their thoughts on the matter in the comments thread below and to see where there is common ground and where society needs work.
Tags: Activism, Culture, environmentalism, food, Food Production, humanitarianism, politics, Red, Green and Blue, Religion
- Uncategorized
May 15th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Haven't read Amy's interview yet, but I've been following No Impact Man's exploits for a while now. And I agree with Megan that projects like the one her friend participated in are the way to go: it's the "teach a man to fish" approach rather than "give a man a fish."
I have a question for you, oh eternal optimist Jimmy: is there no conceivable point in human development you envision when innovation and free-market economics alone can no longer keep driving progress? A point at which we've used up so many natural resources, overpopulated the landscape and so polluted our surroundings that we need to choose conservation and low-impact living over consumerism if we want to have any quality of life at all?
While Malthus' and Ehrlich's visions haven't (yet) come to pass, we certainly aren't living the cushy and trouble-free existence some optimistic futurists of the past have foreseen: cheap and non-polluting energy, 10-hour work-weeks, an end to poverty, etc. In fact, some of the technologies that have come to pass have created as many problems as they solved: in particular, the car (great when gas was cheap and free-flowing and the climate wasn't developing a chronic fever). The Green Revolution with its dependence on fossil fuels and chemicals, genetically modified crops, and a globalized economy have also brought with them a host of unexpected and sometimes negative consequences.
Among those who are asking the same questions, I'm seeing some who are concluding that capitalism itself is unsustainable from an environmental and humanitarian point of view. (see "Can Capitalism be Green?" at http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37712) I'm sure you'll have a few words to say about that, Jimmy! : )
May 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
…that harm people?
DDT comes to mind.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
The question we should ask ourselves is: Is humanity a part of nature or separate from it? That is the crux of the issue. Are we saving the planet for us or from us? Improving the quality of life for humanity requires careful conservation. That is a worthy goal for environmentalism.
The attitude that humanity is separate from nature, that is to say “un-natural”, appears to be at the heart of many environmentalist belief systems. This view requires that we ignore what we know about evolution and natural processes.
That humanity is the cause of many environmental changes does not mean those changes are unnatural. Is a beaver dam un-natural? Are summer lightning strike forest fires un-natural? Is one species of plant displacing another unnatural? Environmental change is natural and normal. There is no static, unchanging part of nature.
The job of environmentalists should be to enhance humanity’s quality of life now and for the future. That includes ALL of humanity. So often environmentalits focus on feel-good solutions with little or no positive inmpact. That is a waste of time and effort.
A philosophy that says “any cost is justified if it saves even one life” is environmentally bankrupt. Assuming that we have infinite resources available to solve trivial problems flies in the face of enviromental conservation principles. We have only limited energy and material resources availble to us to solve problems.
A prudent environmentalist should be striving for solutions that provide the largest improvement for humanity for the least resource lost. Human genocide is not one of those solutions. We are all part of nature.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Maybe that’s the distinction between us Shirley… I do believe in unlimited resource. We may have to adapt to the particular one available at a particular time but as long is the cost index of the resource is set and measured properly the capital system will, indeed, persist and prevail.
Megan, I’m a huge fan of low-tech innovation. I’ve made a career out of finding the most effective and inexpensive solutions to challenges. I spend much of my time talking people out of being too elegant in building systems. Instead I focus on a low-hanging-fruit approach that gives a big gain for a small investment and that has a much less expensive maintenance cycle. The rule is to get the job done so I consider innovation like you described to be part of progress that supports my optimism.
One thing to consider is that without the excesses of our capital economy we would not have the luxury to consider our relationship with the environment. This is very important because if everyone was on Maslow’s first step then no one would be working to solve the big issues we face in the world today.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I agree with the unregistered user.
I think the question itself, humanitariams vs. environmentalism, is telling of our problem right there.
It assumes that these are two separate entities, when in fact you can not separate the two. Yet (especially on an international development level) they are continually treated separately.
It's like looking at a dying forest and saying lets save the trees without considering the health of the soil and the wildlife (etc) that makes up the entire ecosystem.
When we pollute our environment (the places where we live) it directly affects humanity/society, which often has an (negative) effect on the economy.
The only way we're going to solve humanitarian problems (social and economic justice issues) is to incorporate environmental justice issues into the solutions. They can't be treated separately any more.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
One of the questions to me though, Amy is how do we most effectively apply our resources?
CO2 mitigation is getting a ton of press and resource now but is that the most effective thing to address? Personally I don’t think so but I could be wrong.
So what, if we shut down coal power plants if it makes electricity too expensive for the poor to afford. I think we must consider economics as a primary concern in the fight for a clean environment.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“Maybe that’s the distinction between us Shirley… I do believe in unlimited resource.”
Wow, Jimmy, that one floors me. You’re right, though: that’s a clear distinction between the two of us. I simply can’t envision how you can view a finite planet of a finite size as capable of providing unlimited resources. Do you believe that is true no matter what, even if, say, the human population expanded to 10 billion, 20 billion or more?
Like Amy, I agree with the unregistered user that separating humanitarian issues from environmental ones is a false dichotomy; you can’t address one without the other. Where I differ with the unregistered user’s opinion is where he/she states that that dichotomy is “at the heart of many environmentalist belief systems.” There might be some environmentalists who would sacrifice a human community’s good to save a single frog or endangered bird, but I take the wholistic view that Amy supports. Furthermore, as I indicated before, I believe that what is ultimately good for the Earth and all the other plants and creatures on it benefits humans as well: things like sustainable agriculture, responsible development, conservation, resource management, etc.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I think that there is a lot of overlap where the two are not at odds, Shirley. What we are arguing here though is where they are in contradiction.
Population is controlling itself now, Shirley, in developed nations. There’s no reason this trend will not continue as other nations become more wealthy. We’ve not even scratched the surface on resources. We are only starting to look at renewable now because oil has become environmentally, economically, and geopolitically distasteful.
You’ve commented on our waste… we’ve got a great deal of padding in our excesses… there’s tons of tightening going on just naturally now. I don’t even think we’ll have to get too deep into nuclear technology to survive and prevail.
Nobody’s buying CDs anymore. Most entertainment media will be delivered in bits and bytes over the next decade. I’ve not purchased a newspaper in 3 years.
Society will tend toward green while at the same time developing new ways to squeeze more out of what we have. Again, I’m optimistic… and history backs me up.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I think the question becomes really cruel when we talk about overpopulation. I don’t have the answer, maybe, probably, it scares me too much. But overpopulation will result in more environmental destruction and ultimately more human suffering. Now, what implications does that have for humanitarian work?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
You’re right, Julia: the question of overpopulation (still a factor in the developing world, largely because of lack of access to education and of high infant/child mortality) is a tough one, one that many people don’t even want to touch when addressing environmental problems. Yes, high birth rates are no longer an issue in much of the developed world, Jimmy, thanks to wider education, especially for women, and better infant/child healthcare. But until the root causes of poverty, poor health care and lack of education (i.e., politics, religion and degraded environment) are resolved, increasing national wealth in developing countries alone won’t help. Look at the oil-rich countries of Africa, where the governments, militias and connected people benefit, and the remainder of the population suffers as much as ever.
And, yes, you’re right, Jimmy: certain types of consumption and waste can be decreased by digitization … of music, information, entertainment, etc. But you’re never going to eliminate essential needs for real physical (rather than digital virtual) stuff: stuff like food, water, clothing, housing, furniture, and plastics, metals and other materials for all those wonderful digital tools (like computers, cellphones, iPods, etc.) Resources are still finite on a finite planet.