« Happy Birthday to Meer | Main | Living on Lake Mac »
The Greening of Conservative America
July 28, 2005
I just finished reading The Greening of Conservative America by John R. Bliese. It is an informative book for any environmentally-minded person, but specifically for a Republican (conservative) such as me.
The book starts with a quick discussion of various environmental problems and traditional conservative responses. Professor Bliese then gets to the meat of one of the biggest environment problems – Environment versus Economy. After dispelling most conservative myths about the supposed toll of environmental regulations on the economy, Professor Bliese moves to a discussion about the definition of a conservative and how it applies to the environment. This chapter was one of the more beneficial ones for me. I knew certain things about the conservative mindset, but no one had ever really explained the traditionalist and libertarian distinctions to me before. Even though there are two distinct types of conservatism, a conservative view of the environment is still easy to form.
The basic premise of the book is that conservatives should be environmentalists, especially based on the theories of conservatism. Private property rights, the free market, responsibility and other ideas all come together to support environmental principles. Unfortunately, most conservatives (Republicans) today are far from supporters of such principles.
I suggest you read the expanded post to understand more about the book. I’ve taken a few of my favorite parts of the book and typed them out for you to read. Enjoy and comment. Much discussion is possible with this topic.
A collection of quotes from the book (either by the author or quoted by the author):
Consequently, as Wendell Berry, a Christian and an environmentalist, says, “our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God’s gift into His face, as if they were of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them.�The overall conclusions are decisive: “States with stronger environmental policies did not experience inferior rates of economic growth and development compared to states with weaker environmental regulations. In fact the converse was true: states with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures… The environmental impact hypothesis, while theoretically plausible, has no empirical foundation.�
These conservatives unleashed their wrath against environmentalists over the [spotted] owl. But (except for a small group of populists) one never sees from them that same sort of indignation about the thousands and thousands of people laid off by corporate mergers or downsizing, even when the companies are earning high profits.
For example, pollution infringes on the freedom and rights of all of its victims. It imposes costs on them that should not be theirs to bear… As Gordon Durnil asks, “Is not the insidious invasion of our bodies by harmful unsolicited chemicals the most flagrant violation of our individual rights.�
All forms of pollution are violations of the conservative principle of freedom. As Tibor Machan emphatically contends, “capitalism requires that pollution be punishable as a legal offense that violates individual rights.� So, for principled conservatives, appropriate policies to reduce pollution are a means of protecting not only our health but also our freedom.
As Gordon Durnil says, “We conservatives bemoan the decline in values that has besieged our society… Why then should we not abhor the lack of morality involved in discharged untested chemicals into the air, ground, and water to alter and harm, to whatever degree, human life and wildlife. As a conservative, I do abhor it.�
Gordon Durnil observes that the coddling of criminals “really upsets most conservatives… But when the executive of some large conglomerate violates the laws by discharging some onerous substance into the water or air or onto the ground, we [conservatives] pay little attention… A conservative should believe that industry executives, as well as individuals, are responsible for their actions.�
Pollution in any form is a violation of the property rights of all its victims. If property is to be respected in principle, if property rights are to be enforced, then pollution clearly needs to be prevented as a matter of principle.
How far have so many conservative politicians and pundits fallen! There is absolutely nothing conservative about pandering to developers and polluters and extractive industries that want to maximize their profits be irresponsibly maximizing their negative externalities.
The direct costs of driving, according to market principles, are seriously underpriced. Consequently, we do too much of it. All of us who drive should face up to the fact that we too are welfare bums. We should get off the dole and pay our own way.
The Forest Service sells timber at prices that do not even come close to covering the costs of sales, and this problem continues to this day. As Representative Jim Leach says, “The U.S. government is the only property owner I know of that pays private companies to deplete its own resources.�
Posted by paul at July 28, 2005 02:43 PM
Comments
Dale said on July 28, 2005 10:53 PMConservation and stewardship are two traditionally conservative values that I think the right has abandoned in favor of money and power. Some of the most meaningful conservation at the turn of the century came from big businessmen who believed in the value of green and open space for all, which nowadays politicians are willing to slash and burn in favor of "economic development." I would stay most of my complaints against the right these days if they actually practiced conservative ideals.