Environmentalism

(Written April 2020)

It’s unfortunate that environmentalists and conservatives have been painted as being at odds with each other since both share many common goals. This, I think, is the result of the tragedy which has occurred since the rise of neoliberalism a few decades ago; conservatism has collapsed into neoliberalism and consequently been being lumped into a class of “ideologies” which are seen as catering only to the rich and powerful. Moreover, it does not help that Arendt’s famous critique was valid, and capitalism has made politics subservient to economics. This latter point eschews the tenants of conservatism even more, as it appears that political “conservatives” of today are concerned only with tax cuts, economic growth, and commodity [fetishism]. Yet, all of this is a fundamental mistake. Conservatism is not, and I repeat, is not, the dogmatism of thinkers like Friedman and Rand. Nor is it a servant of the all-consuming forces of mass culture; rather, it is a way of thinking that seeks to resist the constant decay that erodes our social and ecological inheritance. This is the point where conservatives and environmentalists should be able to find common ground and the point which conservatives must reclaim their philosophy from the perversions of objectivism and free-market deification.    

In a perfect world businesses and governments would balance economic growth with ecological sustainability. Innovation would continue, and mankind would become richer materially, and spiritually. But this world is far from perfect. Oil spills, garbage heaps, and runoff taint our waters. Greenhouse gas emissions lead to the destruction of our coasts. And the constant drive for more growth destroys the beautiful landscape of our home and architecture of old in pursuit of “efficiency.” Yet the solution is not obvious. On the one hand, there are the neoliberals who think that everything is fine and argue that the market will solve all of our problems if it is just left alone. Reduce regulations, provide incentives, and companies will stop exporting their costs to future generations. On the other hand, there are the radical progressivists who argue that a transnational solution must be implemented now with no consideration given to economics or our motivations for acting in such a way. Both views have two things in common: they rely on the government to fix our problems, and they are both wrong. 

The problem with the neoliberal approach is that it fails to take into account its self-destructive nature. Businesses are in the market because of one reason – profit. And they will do what they can to maximize that profit, even if it means destroying our ecology for the next generation. Economic incentives are not strong enough to fix this because there will always be a cost associated with ecological sustainability, and that cost will always cut into profits. This has ramifications, and at some point, someone will have to pay for those costs. That payment may come in the form of health problems, or it may come in the form of public backlash to free-enterprise, and a calling for extreme forms of governmental regulation on businesses. But, by then, the perpetrators will be long gone, having exported their costs to other members of society. In the long run, this approach can only lead to social upheaval. We must remember the French Revolution and the lessons it taught us: squandering our resources and disenfranchising other generations will lead to chaos and self-absorption.   

Stringent governmental control will fare no better, despite what some radicals argue. Once again, we have to heed Arendt’s warning: socialism, just like capitalism, relegates all to economics. The socialist state totalizes the total society, making everything a slave to the regime, and the goal of a future utopia. But what role do the ecological considerations of now have in the future state? The entire state must be focused only on the future, using every bit of human and natural capital to usher in the utopia as fast as possible. Furthermore, creating a bulwark of unaccountable agents will create more problems than imaginable. For all the negative aspects of capitalism that I outlined above, the rule of law and the “corporate person” accountable to others is one of the greatest inventions. It is because of the concept of accountability that environmentalists have been able to bring injustices to light. Removing that accountability will only give the elite another way of hiding the exportation of their costs.  

Granted, that is the most extreme case of governmental control, and one few subscribe to nowadays. But more issues arise at lower levels. Claiming that big business and capitalism are the problems has some merit, but it doesn’t cut to the root of the issue since it mistakes an effect for a cause. People tend to forget nowadays that businesses in a free market react to consumer demands. If consumers demanded ecological sustainability, then that’s what businesses would provide. The crux of the matter now becomes obvious: it is us who seek to consume more and more with no end in sight, us who fail to value things as ends, us who haven’t learned to appreciate beauty, and us who have lost the ability to sacrifice. 

No amount of governmental regulations will change our appetites or fix those problems in our hearts. We have to change our demands and bear the costs of our economic progress ourselves, but this requires a motive strong enough to override the “reification” that has consumed us. One of the ways to do so is through the virtue of sacrifice. Sacrifice means consciously choosing to forgo present satisfactions for the sake of deferred joys, even if you aren’t the recipient of those joys. This virtue has gone by the wayside as an outcome of modern culture. All we desire can be gained in short order, and cheap simulacrums of our desires are at our fingertips at all times. Despite these things, sacrifice can be reclaimed, but we have to ask ourselves, for what and whom do we sacrifice? 

We sacrifice for those things which we love – for our country, for our family, for our friends, for our God, and more. The central solution to our environmental problems is to rekindle the love for other generations and the beauty of nature, thus motivating us to sacrifice our desires for something greater. This is easier said than done, and many thinkers have tried to formulate ways to do so. Burke postulated a “Hereditary Principle.” Hegel prioritized non-contractual obligations, similar to those seen in family ties. Maistre’s solution was piety, or the superiority of divinely ordained traditions and constitutions over pure self-interest. All of these, I think, fall short of a full solution. It might be possible to weave some aspects of them together, but I think there is something even stronger that is able to bind society together across generations and solve that central question of environmentalism.              

Civil association is one thing that is strong enough to foster the virtue of sacrifice once again. It was this that Burke had in mind when he mentioned the “little platoons” of civil society. These groups of associations foster moral sentiments and friendship, which tie us together as more than individuals. When cooperating with others, we have to put some of our desires on hold, develop empathy, and see the wishes of others as equally valid as our own. In other words, participation in civil society teaches us the virtue of sacrifice. And virtues must be constantly practiced and honed through habit in order to foster.  

The conception of a shared home works in a similar way to civil association, but just on a bigger scale. Before formulating the solution to a problem, one must clearly specify the problem itself. This is where I see the environmentalist movement going wrong today; they haven’t been able to tell us what the problem is and who it is impacting. Is it primarily an issue for developing countries? Will it impact us, our grandchildren, or our great-grandchildren? What impacts will environmental degradation have on our society? And, most importantly, why should we care? A population dedicated to conserving nature needs to answer these questions and unite under a common vision – a shared home. Few people will look at the sublimity of rolling green pastures, the deep blue lakes and rivers, the beauty of classical architecture, and small cities without agreeing that those things are our home and that they are worth preserving. It’s not only in our interest to preserve them, but also in the interests of future generations so that they can enjoy the same things we did and remember us when we are gone. This general agreement has to be rekindled in a time of extreme partisanship, as it allows the domain of the problem to be specified, and smaller debates will then take place within that domain. For example, when it is agreed upon that we have a shared home, any threat to that home will have to be taken care of if we want out home to survive for us and future generations. Environmentally speaking, if degradation threatens what we all hold dear, then we will quickly recognize that problem and move to solutions. This leads to the second benefit of the conception of a shred home: unity. It unites us all under a common purpose, and when we all agree that our home is worth preserving, we will enter the environmental debate united, which always leads to more rational discussions and a much better chance at solving the problem, for as Jesus said, “A house divided cannot stand.” (Mark 3:25)   

Most importantly, these two things make us part of something greater than the desires of our present moment. What I’m calling for isn’t radical. It’s a shift in our perceptions – something that is within the control of all of us, and something that works. Fostering the virtue of sacrifice through civil association, or any other means, and viewing our nation as a shared home may be enough to unite the left and right on the heated debate field of environmentalism.  

Practically speaking, I’m aware of the fact that China and India pose a major threat to the environmental sustainability of all nations, and hence pose a threat to the homes of all of us. There is little if any hope of fostering such attitudes described above in those countries, and this is a place where transnational action is necessary. I’m positive that once we regain a conception of our shared inheritance, and view our nations as homes, that a global force can stand up to the constant assault on the environment predicated by China and India. But until then, I know that nothing will change.