Opinion
Environ “man” talism
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
In response to Jim Allard’s opinion piece, “Sustainability the enemy of virtue,” which decries environmentalism as “anti-development, anti-industry and anti-man,” I feel there are some outrageously popular dichotomous paradigms in desperate need of a good smashing: Modern environmentalism is not about saving trees because they are pretty and pandas because they are cute; it is about preserving the environment in such a manner that it can continue to support our fragile human forms.
There is no such thing whatsoever as an “environmental issue.” Rather, there are environmental causes for existing issues: public health, social justice, agriculture, foreign policy and, yes, my passionately capitalist friends, even economics. The dichotomy at fault here is that of “Man and Nature,” as if one part were somehow diametrically opposed to the whole. Some industrialists use this dichotomy to cast Man as a hero, a victor over chaos. Some environmentalists use it to cast Man as the lone agent of impurity and the chronic disruptor of equilibrium. The truth is simpler: Man, like any other animal, makes the best use he can of the resources available to him in the form of other animals and plants. Economics and ecology are inextricably linked, because they concern the same raw material; in fact, both words come from the same root, oikos, Greek for “home.”
The sustainability of that inter-linked ecosystem and economy hinges not only on the consumption of expendable resources, as Allard suggests, but more importantly on a careful attention to its incredibly complex relationships which create the conditions in which we can live. The ecological processes which regulate our air temperature, our water currents, our soil quality, our pest control and countless other requirements of our species’ survival are both subtle and malleable. The broad environmental questions are less focused on, “Are we going to run out of this?” and more on “Are we going to destabilize a fragile system essential to our survival?”
As far as the “free market” is concerned, government and big business have shared an intense and impure intimacy in our country for several decades. The suggestion that producers of fossil fuels and energy-inefficient appliances have dominated the market solely through superior output and fair play is absurd. Government subsidies to big oil companies far outweigh federal funds invested in alternative energy — to say nothing of the probable influence of, say, the spouses certain vice presidential candidates. Advocates for alternative energy seek to be protected from this sort of corruption, not to further it.
No movement in American history could less accurately be described as “anti-Man” than environmentalism. It is about preserving the environment for human use, not about suppressing human in deference to the environment. The planet has endured more dramatic changes than these. It does not need us. We need it.
Courtney Ehlers
Junior, history
cehlers@wisc.edu
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
“I feel there are some outrageously popular dichotomous paradigms in desperate need of a good smashing:”
WTF?
Not I feel, I think!
passive voice
outrageously popular? Who is outraged by the popularity and why?
“No movement in American history could less accurately be described as “anti-Man” than environmentalism.”
Really? Not medical research? Not the Peace movement?
Christ, why do you publish this crap?
Allard’s views are as narrow as they are myopic. His penchant for mentioning “freedom” (in his multiple essays) is also a bit misguided, if not melodramatic, as he tries to weave perceived threats to this concept throughout his distaste for the topic du jour—in this case—sustainability. Like many of his ilk, and I’ll be brief, he seems to confuse constraint of trade as a constraint of HIS freedom. Such “indvidualism” is selfish and short and is a mistinterpreation of the true reasons that rules, laws and movments are created for the betterment of all. they are not to concern just his or his peers’ bottomline.
YES! Thank you, Courtney. You were not the only one taken aback by Allard’s piece.
DAMN STRAIGHT!!!
Ehlers argues: “Government subsidies to big oil companies far outweigh federal funds invested in alternative energy”
Yes, but we gain substantial economic returns on investment from oil subsidies— even after internalizing (both real and imagined) pollution externality costs.
Conversely, the nominal RoI realized from so-called “alternative” energy still can’t compete with conventional sources— even after factoring in good will (read: eco/ego-gratification). IF new energy mousetraps ever work better, trust me, free markets will beat a path to their door.
In the interim, just how many billions do Leftists expect taxpayers to continue forking over while government “experts” pick the winners and losers?
Even after decades of special tax breaks, alternative energy still provides only a small fraction of America’s energy needs. For example, wind and solar energy account for less than 3 percent of America’s electricity because of their high costs and unreliability. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/pretrends.pdf
Further, the overall percentage of electricity attributable to renewable sources is not expected to increase by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
There are many energy bills currently pending before Congress, and they fall into two general categories: (1) those that seek to increase domestic energy supplies, and (2) those that seek scapegoats and diversions instead. Policymakers should recognize the failures of past energy policies that led to some of the most dismal and frustrating years for American consumers and instead focus on ways to increase the supply of conventional energy domestically.