The social and political worlds of advanced countries are facing a new and increasingly challenging task of developing environmental protection programs. These programs involve all aspects of our modern lives in conjunction with technology and capitalistic economics. In the past fifty years, environmentalism has involved many extreme tactics that not only tended to exclude the average citizen, but also instilled a sense of fear and bewilderment as the extremism developed. The politics of European nations and the United States must place the preservation of the natural environment on the forefront of all decisions. The challenge for present day environmentalism is to break free from the stigma of extreme actions and embrace a balance between the forces of the natural world in conjunction with capitalism, technology and progress. This balance will provide environmentalism with the power to communicate with the public and politicians in a language that speaks about the future of mankind in technological harmony with the natural world.
The idea of balance between humans and nature dates back to the earliest civilizations with nature ultimately being the more powerful of the two. There was an element of fear and awe for Mother Nature as early humans hoped and prayed nature would provide everything they would need for the year without causing catastrophe. The religious beliefs at the time revolved almost exclusively around nature. She had all the power, with all of mankind at her mercy. The relationship between the two was not necessarily reciprocal or symbiotic because nature did not depend on humans for survival, and humans were not powerful enough in scale to severely damage their environments.
Now we are caught in a dilemma between the human destruction of our natural world and the innate need for progress that we cannot deny. It is our human desire for material improvement that has placed us at the top of this world, in a balancing act between technology and nature. Some believe we are entering a new stage of a symbiotic relationship between nature, technology and humanity. Nature is dependent on our new technologies to help prevent more destruction, while still protecting and preserving the resources that are still available. Humans, after thousands of years, still have a dependent relationship with nature for her resources, biodiversity and inherent qualities of life. This is where the balancing act begins to unfold as we recognize our need for nature, and now nature’s need for us.
There are thousands of environmental groups in the world and all of them focus on different concerns of the environment and have different tactics of activating those concerns. The tactics this discussion is concerned with are those described by critics to be “environmental terrorism”. This description is in reference to those groups who advocate “monkey wrenching” or ecological sabotage. Earth First! is an organization that has been associated with monkeywrenching and has explained it as “the destruction of machines or property that are used to destroy the natural world”(Foreman, Dave). These are non-violent but destructive methods of activism that are public and receive media and political attention. The problem lies in the type of attention these destructive actions attract. People with power are much less likely to listen to acts of civil disobedience than to acts of intelligent protests.
The most prevalent problem with monkeywrenching is that the mainstream population perceives it as a sort of terrorism. Terrorism, inherently produces people who are afraid of whatever cause is behind the terrorism. In this case the protection of the environment is what they end up fearing, which is the exact opposite of what the environmentalists are trying to accomplish. Environmentalism has also tended to be an elite program that generally represents a segregated group of race, class and location (Braun and Castree). True activism should involve education and advocacy to the general public providing them with the means to become aware and involved at their own pace.
Wise Use is an organization that advocates the balance between economy and environment, and has characterized ideological environmentalism as: “Anti-human, arrogant, ignorant of local conditions and issues, extreme, violent and religious” (Arnold, Ron). The most prevalent part of that argument is that “ ideological environmentalism is ignorant of local conditions and issues”. Extreme environmentalism tends to have too little concern for local economies, and working class issues. One of the most crucial aspects of changing or influencing environmental policies is to focus on the desires and the concerns of the people most directly affected by the changes. Environmental regulations can have severe economic consequences on the local community that depends on that industry. On the same note, environmental destruction in the long run, can have severe economic consequences for that same community.
The United States has a perfect example of this economic/environmental relationship between the old growth forests of Oregon and the salmon fishing industry. The logging industry is massive in the northwestern part of the country with Pacific Lumber as the leading producer. These old growth forests have been almost completely clear-cut especially near the streams and rivers where salmon go to lay their eggs. The decrease in the number of forests has caused the temperature of the water to rise significantly, making it very difficult for the salmon to successfully lay their eggs. Consequently, the logging industry has almost completely depleted their resources and caused detrimental harm to the salmon industry.
Environmentalism has played an important role in this industrial battle. Earth First! caused much destruction of logging equipment through the monkeywrenching tactics, which has instituted deep-rooted distance and defense from any form of environmental protection. Extreme environmentalism in this region caused logging communities to fear for their job security. Only recently have environmental groups and the government provided other alternatives for both industries. Alternative technologies using forest resources are currently being researched for marketability. This would keep jobs and allow the forest to rebuild itself and be productive. This conflict is changing the idea of “jobs versus the environment” and securing long-term employment instead of short-term based on the depleting old growth resource (Porter, James). This is also a perfect example of how changing relations with nature can simultaneously change social and economic relations.
Once a person has formed an opinion about a controversial issue, it is very difficult for any type of media to change that opinion. Specific heated issues such as the environment should be dealt with delicately and early so the information can influence those forming opinions in positive way. If you wait until the issue is already in the headlines, or you present the issue without significant information, it is too late. The opinions will have already been formed and are probably rigidly fixed. This is an important concept that many extreme environmental groups have only recently begun to recognize and work on changing. The media has historically either ignored environmental protests and examples of civil disobedience (such as Earth First!’s actions with loggers) or reported on them in a negative light. Although the effect of monkeywrenching might hinder the destructive actions on a short-term level, it essentially alienates the rest of the community from understanding the environmental issues at stake.
Capitalism and technology have been under attack from environmental organizations because they are both perceived as a major source of environmental harm. There are environmental movements advocating a “return to nature” and an end to the world’s over-consumption of goods (Zisk, Betty). As much as these ideas are pleasant and appeal to a wide group of people, they are not realistic and cannot be supported by any government system. People in capitalistic societies love to consume large amounts of goods that are harmful to the environment but beneficial for the economy. The problem lies in that much of what we are consuming is harmful to the environment and there are not enough alternatives being offered in a fast enough rate. This is where the balance between the environment, technology and economy plays a crucial role.
“Ecological Modernization” is a term used to describe how “economic and environmental goals can be integrated within our framework of advanced industry and capitalism” (Gouldson and Roberts). This is a different aspect of environmentalism which focuses on bringing conservation into the mainstream by working closely with industries, sciences and governments, to accomplish goals that not only benefit the environments but also the communities involved. This movement recognizes neither traditional economics nor ecological sciences are independently capable of forming effective solutions to environmental resource problems. Now that “ecological modernization” has been recognized as part of the solution to this global environmental problem, people are beginning to realize that environmental resources are not free goods and that their long-term costs, if destroyed, are enormous.
The free capital market has proven to be the most powerful voice of government in the United States. The federal government prides itself in limiting the amount of influence it has on the free market. America is closer to the concept of “laissez-faire”, with a few exceptions, than any other economy in the world and it has proven to be successful. The government enforces certain regulations on industries in accordance with standards of clean air, clean water, toxic wastes and other environmental harms. These regulations are reflected on the economy with the types of products produced for the market. The regulations combined with new environmental products on the free market can have the potential of creating more environmental good through the two concepts that environmentalists feel the most threatened: technology and capitalism (Gouldson and Roberts).
Problems arise in this system if the government does not allow the competition for environmental friendly goods to be mostly free from government intervention. An example of this is a company called Lexmark International Group that developed an effective way for recycling printer-toning cartridges. The company began selling the cartridges at a 13% savings if the customer promised to return or refill the empty cartridges only to Lexmark. They called this technique a “Prebate”, which offered customers an easy way to return cartridges having already received the discount up front. The prebate program has increased cartridge return for recycling at Lexmark by 300%. The problem with this system is that other companies with similar products had higher prices and less results in recycling so their sales were not as high as Lexmark’s sales. In response, the competing companies claim that Lexmark does significant harm to competition and is a restraint of trade. Politicians and bureaucrats suggest that the government should intervene to protect local re-manufacturing industry, even at the expense of the environment. They claim that this program is anti-environmental because it reduces the recycling rate for other companies. The argument that Lexmark prohibits other companies from recycling is somewhat ridiculous because if those companies had an effective way to recycle their products, the rates would be the same as Lexmark. This type of environmentally conscious competition between companies should hopefully spurn more recycling efforts in contingency with the market’s demands.
The main issue is not if we can have environmental protection in conjunction with economic development, but where the balance will be found and at what expense (Gouldson and Roberts). The idea of capitalism and technology as “evil” has been deep rooted in many people’s minds, but the idea goes against the flow of reality. Humans are not meant to inhibit either the production of goods or the production of the mind. However, we do have to recognize what production does to the world around us and how we can possible alleviate the pressures we place on the environment. Einstein’s theory of relativity, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,” although cliché, is a useful expression of the relationship between human productivity and the natural world.
Not only is it necessary for us to find a balance between nature and productivity, but we also need to find a balance between extreme environmental ideology and ecological modernism. Ecology must embrace economic growth, technological progress and a market economy in order to see specific social and economic changes (Arnold, Ron). These two non-profit ideals are pitted against each other, both with differing moral high grounds and causing environmental protection as a whole to suffer. Technological countries are in the process of an evolution of the ideological environmentalism movement. People who at one point were dedicated to limiting economic and scientific growth are recognizing what an impact those ideas would have on the world if enforced. We all must remember how economics serves the functions of our world. Economics is not about money or capitalism, but it is about the allocation of scarce resources. That idea is symbiotic with the ideas of environmentalism, only shown through a different light and with different results. The human race must also return to a symbiotic relationship with the Earth but without one or the other holding the most power. We need each other equally now, our current quality of life cannot survive without nature and nature will be destroyed without our technologies and social economic responsibilities. The idea of balance has always been prevalent since the beginning of western culture, starting with the Greeks and Romans. Now balance has become crucial for us to function in the society we have created, and to thrive on this Earth that we cherish.