Journalist and blogger Rod Dreher has a thoughtful article on how environmentalism and Christian conservatism are not mutually exclusive concepts.
"For too long, conservatives have ceded political efforts to care for creation to liberals. We Christian conservatives are finally recognizing that conservation is a matter of moral and spiritual integrity. And we’re learning that the challenge facing humankind from climate change dwarfs the narcissism of the usual left-right politics.
"Politics, however, is the primary way to address a challenge to the commons this massive — and politics won’t shift until our paradigm for thinking and talking about the environment does. The responsibility for that lies with open-minded and imaginative folks from both the liberal and conservative camps — men and women who care more about conserving the natural world and the human civilization dependent on it than they do about protecting their political purity and fundraising base.
"Bottom line: When people like me start to believe Earth Day is for us, too, the earth will move under Washington’s feet. But as long as cultural perceptions keep Earth Day a sectarian holiday for secular liberals, the pace of political change will be, alas, glacial."
Rod Dreher is a “crunchy con”, so this article is not really new. I suspect he’s on his way to the Gary Wills Catholic “left”.
I appreciated the article. While I am not a global warming doomsayer I do believe there is a lot more we can do to protect our planet.
Government solutions hurt the planet. The idea, for instance, that the oceans should be owned by everybody, has created “the tragedy of the commons”–what is owned by everyone is cared for by no one. Environmentalists want to do penance and they don’t know why. So they create doomsday scenarios so we that we all have to live like Carthusians. But it is the underdeveloped countries that pollute the worst. If we could just encourage free markets to create wealth in poor countries, that would go a long way in solving pollution problems
So what exactly is Mr. Dreher proposing? The article really just breaks down to empty (if well meaning) platitudes. It’s like seeing a bumper sticker that say, “I’m pro-child and I vote!” As opposed to what? The “Nuke Elementary Schools Association”? Just about all voters are “pro-environment” and want cleaner, safer, and more aesthetically pleasing surroundings. How many people do you know that are truly anti-environment?
It comes down to the actual proposed solutions. Conservatives of almost all stripes, including conservatives that happen to be Christian as well, do fight for a better natural environment, but tend towards solutions that are less government intrusive. So do libertarians.
So, when I see a line like, “Bottom line: When people like me start to believe Earth Day is for us, too, the earth will move under Washington’s feet.” I think what he really means is when conservatives start demanding things like much higher gas prices to cut down on fossil fuel consumption, massive increases in “green” alternative energy research, and strong measures to cut down pollution at the expense of jobs, those policies will be enacted. Sure enough. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I have a question – I haven’t been able to get hold of Dreher’s book. Is it true that he talks about how he voted for an environmental pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate, because Dreher thought that his son’s asthma demanded it? Because if it is, I imagine Dreher is a bit more green than Christian at this point, no matter how much he may protest about how there’s barely a parish in America orthodox enough to suit him.
On a side note, I do wish he’d stop with the “folks” and “dudes”. It makes him sound immature.
How did Ronald Reagan put it?
“People are ecology too.”
“Politics, however, is the primary way to address a challenge to the commons this massive . . .”
I know that Mr. Dreher is pro-life and pro-marriage, but whenever I hear someone assert (without arguement) that politics is the “primary” solution to a given (non-political) problem, I cannot take their claims to be a conservative seriously.
I don’t know if the accusations against Dreher are true but they do not change the fact that he is right that environmental problems cross party lines and should be a major concern of everyone. It is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is a human issue.
“People are ecology too.”
That’s right, but it means we are completely connected to the same physical systems that all other living thing are. We ARE a part of that system. Saying “people take precedence over the environment” makes no sense whatsoever. It is like saying “people take precedence over jobs” or “people take precedence over their homes” or “people take precedence over their food and clean water” or “people take precedence over the future of their children.”
Government solutions hurt the planet. The idea, for instance, that the oceans should be owned by everybody, has created “the tragedy of the commons”–what is owned by everyone is cared for by no one
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. The idea of oceans belong to everyone has indeed created a “tragedy of the commons” situation that hurts everyone and will only get worse in the future. Governments are the ONLY ones who can find a solution to the problem, perhaps be dividing up the oceans into privately owned sections or limiting fishing by some other sort of legislation, and enforcement.
So they create doomsday scenarios so we that we all have to live like Carthusians. But it is the underdeveloped countries that pollute the worst. If we could just encourage free markets to create wealth in poor countries, that would go a long way in solving pollution problems
“Underdeveloped countries” do pollute the worst. The thing is though that we, unlike them, can afford much better to cut down on pollution (including CO2), and thus have a responsibility to do so, and to help poorer countries as well. Because it is not in the economic interest of any individual company to do this, especially as regards the atmosphere, it will require government intervention. Since States often want to attract businesses to them, it will often take national level legilation. The atmosphere is also a commons, and one which we can not divide up into private property. Legislation becomes the only option then to prevent the tragedy of the commons.
This is not just a matter of pollution though. It is a matter of consuption. We simply do not have the resources for everyone to live like Americans. It would take many Earths worth of resources for that. That is where the “live like Carthusians” comes from, it is the only responsible way to live, this voluntary simplicity. That is why economic growth in poor countries is never going to solve the problem.
I recomend everyone goes to this web page and takes the Ecological Footprint quiz to see how many Earths it would take if everyone lived like you:
http://www.myfootprint.org
I live very simply but it still would take almost 2 Earths for me. The average American is much more than that, I think over 4 Earths if I remember right.
At some point government intervention will become excessive, and debate about this will be fine, whether the states are able to handle the situation or private initiative or whatever, but it is totally irresponsible to claim the problems are not there and argue against any finding of solutions.
Sorry, I hadn’t realized that had become so long. I could go on and on.
An orthodox Christian approach to the environment certainly would have to start from the idea of the spirit of poverty.
Too many proposed solutions, however, are top-down, and lead to totalitarianism.
We mustn’t forget that the current version of the Culture of Death, including birth control and abortion as well as feminism, comes from the idea of the “Limits to Growth” that was popularized some decades ago. Some even advocated “population wars” to reduce the number of people on the planet.
“Population wars” is a quick, simple, immoral fix to the real problem of overconsumption. People are the ones doing the consuming and there are more of them each day, so it is a logical but rather heartless solution to say we should stop that population growth and even reduce it. That way, too, we ourselves can keep living our extravagant American (or European) lifestyles.
I like G.K. Chesterton’s idea of Hudge, Gudge, and Jones. Hudge (big government, progressives) and Gudge (big business, industrialists) conspire against Jones (the common man). The problem is that today both major parties constitute or serve both Hudge and Gudge, one a bit more on one side, the other a bit more on the other side. The only way environmental problems are going to be solved is if Jones gets his act together and lives more like a Carthusian. Meanwhile though, barring some massive economic and political rearrangement to a distributist system, it is going to fall to Hudge to stop Gudge from destroying the world in the name of freedom and profit.
This thread itself shows how the philosophies of Gudge have so convinced many conservatives that wealth, of all things, will solve these problems, so we should give him a free reign.
Perhaps we should go to Arbor Day instead of Earth Day. If we want to try something traditional.
Again, Dreher says, “Politics, however, is the primary way to address a challenge to the commons this massive . . .” (emphasis added) If conservatives seem to be convinced by the philosophies of Gudge, it should be pointed out that people like Dreher are unreasonably putting total confidence in Hudge.
Perhaps they frequently do, but it must be admitted that immediate action on environmental issues must be taken by Government. Neither the people nor big business are voluntarily going to change their ways any time soon. It is in large part the role of the Church to try to bring about this change in behavior in individuals, and in a sense this must be the primary focus of any environmental movement.
However, it is through government that any real significant changes are going to happen any time soon. It is well and good to speak of people changing their way of life, but the sad fact is there is little evidence that the general population will listen to this council in this generation, or until things start going radically wrong as a definite result of their actions. It may therefore be Dreher’s meaning that significant developments in solving especially tragedy of the commons problems will be through politics.
Indeed, I find it very difficult to see how anything but politics can solve the problem of the tragedy of the commons, because it only takes a few jerks to wreck any social effort not to overexploit common resources (or pollution sinks). Chesterton if I am not mistaken, was not an anarchist, he acknowledged that government has legitimate uses, and so does the Church. It seems to me that stoping tragedy of the commons situations is one of the basic necessary responsibilities of government, either by forced privatization of commons or, as in the case of the atmosphere that can not be divided into private property, to restrict use of the commons.
“Perhaps they frequently do, but it must be admitted that immediate action on environmental issues must be taken by Government. Neither the people nor big business are voluntarily going to change their ways any time soon.”
Immediate action taken by the government? No offense, but what are you smokin? When was the last time the government took immediate action about anything, especially against big business?
I got news. It aint gonna happen. Not when billions are being made with status quo – and not when the system itself runs only due to the billions. It aint gonna happen because WE are happy with the way things are. Fat, dumb and happy.
Steve,
Right, well, do you have any other suggestions about what to do? Or shall I prepare for Ragnarok on this issue too (see my comment on the “How Abortion Dies” post)
On the other hand there certainly seems to be much more hope in this area than in changing the way people live or businesses operate. Many nations have signed on to the Kyoto treaty, which is not perfect but shows that they can make such commitments. Also, no one is profiting from the overexploitation of the world’s fisheries, and the fishing industry knows it, and wants a solution.
No, I don’t think this is an impossible situation, though the Republican Party is so in the pocket of big business and the Democratic Party so anti-life that rarely becomes possible to vote for a politician with a halfway decent environmental policy. Still, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot in Iraq, so I suspect environmental problems will be getting more attention soon, at the cost of a more certain extention of Roe v. Wade of course.
To be honest (at the risk of sounding overly pessimistic) I don’t think that there is a viable solution. Democrats and republicans are led by big business, and americans don’t seem to be overly interested in being led by virtue, judging by who we consistently put in office. Even if more regulation could be passed, typical regulation is written by industry and special interests. The solution, of course, is that americans grow up and make the necessary personal decisions and sacrifices and do what is right in all aspects of life. I, for one, aint holding my breath. We have our paychecks. What more is there?
I’m not holding my breath, either, Steve. To make a change would include a whole new outlook and lifestyle for (mainly) Americans. However, don’t we need to believe that it IS possible to make a change? Otherwise, why are we voting (or lobbying or whatever) for anything? I know a handful of people who have completely given up on pro-life movements simply because “Roe v Wade will never be overturned.” Maybe not, but we are called to work for the greater good, even if that means we won’t see the results until we (and our children and grandchildren and even great-grandchildren) are looking down from Heaven… or up from Hell, I suppose.
I’ll keep on breathing, but I will also continue praying and working toward a world that honors what God gave us.
Those who think that the environmental doomsday scenario is almost here are just factually wrong. Look at the index of environmental indicators for this year–pollution is less, endangered species are coming back. Incentives to private industry, local action, and free market solutions are solving environmental problems, as well as new technologies to create energy sources and increase food supply (we can produce way too much already–the problem is distrubtion). When government steps in things become worse. Who ruined the Miss. river? That was the Corps of Engineers. What are the worst kept lands in the country? Anything owned by the government. Think of all the fires out West. Private conservation groups are leading the way in protecting our environment. Read the Pacific Research Institute on this. Also read about the bet of Paul Erlich and Julian Simon–Julian Simon was the optimist who believed we have plenty of resources (including the most important–human inventiveness) He won the bet that that resources are not running out–as long as people are rewarded for human inventiveness.
For Earth Day, I let my huge V-8 Dodge idle in the driveway all day. Then I ran the air-conditioner while were were out.
Then I ate red meat, smoked a cigar near a school, and made fun of those who are different from me.
Not really, but that’s what people like Dreher think I do…so if I’m going to be punished, I should at least enjoy the crime, heh?
Yes Sara. Of course we must fight. If there is no hope, then we must fight without it. (And I’m not talking about environmentalism, per se.) Only, I am very weary of americans who want the government to intervene and apply yet more regulation that usually serves only to make the lives of average citizens more difficult. The people who run to the government like it’s their big daddy seem to think that they’re doing us a favor. They’re not. More corruptable laws made by corrupted officials are not the solution.
i to take part in your environmental conservative,because am a nature tharapist how have been helping people here in thise asthma.