tenv Solutions to Environmental Poverty

The Poverty of Environmentalism, IV

By John Taylor; 2008 May 03, 06 Jamal, 165 BE

 

Environmentalism has been around a long time. Ever since Darwin elbowed out Wallace, issues like the spirituality of nature and the need to limit greenhouse gases have failed to make the impact they should. A sense of helplessness, inevitability and a pessimistic mind-set are understandable. In every book that you come across on the environment there is a long list of symptoms and problems followed by a short, brief list of solutions, if at all. Since the best part, the solutions are always hidden at the end I find it productive, not to mention less depressing, to just cut to the chase. In every book on the environment I come across I turn immediately to the last few chapters where the sage environmentalist finally ends his task of systematically pounding every last ounce of hope out of the reader's living soul, gets around to the question, "What can we do about all this?" The ideas seem too little, too late, but at least you are not on the brink of suicide.

 

In this spirit we have been considering Tim Flannery's The Weathermakers, starting with a latter chapter called, "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" Flannery writes,

"Inevitably, one day some commissioner will suggest that their work would be more effectively done were they to concentrate on the root cause of the issue -- the total number of people on the planet. And with such a move the Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet. As horrific as such an outcome is, if we delay action to combat the climate crisis, the carbon dictatorship may become essential for our survival." (Weather Makers, 294)

 

Finally, the elephant in the room, world federalism, is mentioned. Naturally, a strong world government has to be a dictatorship, since after all, if we have not got perfect government on the national level how can we expect it to be any better on the international level? This is the logic of the fellow standing out in the Antarctic snow wearing only his underwear, who, when you offer to give him a parka refuses, saying "No way! If this underwear is not doing me any good, why should even more of the same sort of solution change anything?"

 

I must admit, though, Flannery makes a very good point about the problem of overpopulation. The fact is that with present infrastructure and technology, we already have far too many people. The only way to feed them all is to destroy nature wholesale. My "people without borders" solution is to completely rebuild infrastructure from the ground up, but that is literally out of the question. Barring better infrastructure, as soon as you try to limit the birth rate of one nation, people or culture, all the others will cry foul. The only viable way would be total universality, all at once or none at all. Otherwise laws limiting new births might trigger a competitive stampede to increase the numbers (and therefore power and influence) of one over all others.

 

Plus, as the legal limit of one child per couple in China demonstrates, a non-comprehensive approach can easily be nullified by other considerations. India, which does not limit family size but which is largely vegetarian, has less of an ill environmental impact than the meat-eaters of China. Of course, it is not inconceivable that a world government might concern itself with restraining diet as well as family size and carbon emissions.

 

Flannery, an Australian, then offers an argument to the fiercest and most powerful opponents of environmentalism in the world, American conservatives. It is they who cling to freedom and equate world governance with tyranny. He says to them, hey, in Scotland they had a tough like that had far more freedom, but they traded it for all the luxuries and other benefits of civilization. Similarly, the United States was formed when gambling, drinking, theater-loving, Southern slave owners joined with Puritans who were violently opposed to all those "works of the devil." They formed a "more perfect union" in the face of a dire threat, English tyranny. In the same way, the danger of atmospheric degradation may force us all to swallow the bitter pill of a "carbon dictatorship." Survival and security often mean trading one kind of freedom for another.

 

"every one of the thirteen signatory states ceded a significant portion of their sovereignty. The Founding Fathers created -- with great success -- a political entity of sufficient mass to meet the challenges at hand, yet with sufficient safeguards to allow liberty to flourish." (Weather Makers, 294-295)

 

Part of the problem, Flannery cedes, may be,

 

"now obsolete national identities or ideologies. And because our imaginations still dwell in these vanished landscapes, our response to the threat of climate change can seem nonsensical. It is this fact, I think, that has prompted some conservatives to ignore the threat of climate change, while at the same time so jealously protecting our 'freedom'." (295)

 

As far as policy making, the only thing that will keep us from catastrophic heat loss is a parka. The result of standing exposed in only a flimsy bit of underwear is that body heat is sucked away by bitter Antarctic winds. Similarly, the problem with nation states is that their money and authority are blown off by the corruptive force of corporations without borders. These economic powerhouses already work freely on a planetary level picking away like hungry vultures at the remains of political will.

 

You may say that since global warming is in question, I am using a bad metaphor. After all, we are threatened by hellish heat, not frigid cold. But if institutions of governance take on a parka with a reflective outer coating it would reduce the external overheating problem at the same time as we solve the internal corruption problem. Flannery continues,

 

"If big coal, big oil and their allied interests continue to prevent the world from taking action to combat climate change, we may soon have an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control. The only way to avoid both tyranny and destruction is to act as America's Founding Fathers did, by swiftly heeding the call to action and by ceding just enough power to a higher authority to combat the threat. And this will only be effective if we act now, before the crisis becomes full blown."

 

One thing that I think people do not realize about forming a world government is that the first result would be an immediate, huge increase in wealth, wealth that could be invested in climate stabilization. Like our demented fellow standing naked in the cold, we are shedding wealth much faster than we produce it. The international banking structure allows the richest of the rich, the corrupt and the criminal to evade taxes and launder huge sums in so-called "offshore" banks. Even the reality check of 9-11 slowed the bleeding only briefly. Starting a world currency by a real global bank would immediately stop that loss. Then we could reinvest the money in whatever mega-projects would save us, nature and our planet.

 

A most valuable point that Flannery makes is that Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of evolution, over a century ago saw where climate change was going. While Wallace did, if anything, more than Darwin did in working out evolutionary theory, he never got the attention that Darwin did for several reasons, including the fact that he came from the working class, he believed in disreputable things like God and spiritualism, and he went on and on about crazy things like the heating up of the world's climate. Flannery quotes Wallace as writing in 1903,

 

"It has been the consideration of our wonderful atmosphere in its various relations to human life, and to all life, which has compelled me to this cry for the children and for outraged humanity ... Let everything give way to this ... Vote for no one who says 'it can't be done'. Vote only for those who declare 'It shall be done'." (Alfred Russel Wallace, Man's Place in the Universe)

 

Reflecting this, Flannery ends his "what you can do to stop global warming" chapter, called "Time is up," with these words,

 

"Finally, government is unlikely to do anything unless people demand it. To stiffen the resolve of your government in respect to climate change, you must put the issue at the top of your agenda when it comes time to vote. As Alfred Russel Wallace said over a century ago, 'Vote for no one who says "it can't be done". Vote only for those who declare "It shall be done".' And don't just ask your politician what their position is. Ask them what they, personally, are doing to reduce their own emissions." (301)

 

Nobody can deny that a change in public opinion will be key to change. But we are talking about a multi-pronged issue, and you have to focus on what will bring the most results overall. Besides, even with public opinion, what guarantee is there than anything will change? Since "Inconvenient Truth" there has been as vast a sea change in opinion about warming as you could wish for, but action on our realization is, at best, imperceptibly slow. The flames of hell lick at our bottoms and nobody is jumping.

 

The way to get people to value long-term survival over short-term hedonism will be a change in our entire outlook, our world-view. And even with a new story of our place in the universe, how many will be ready to make the most radical move of all, sacrifice of self? Just pressuring local politicos for outer adjustments is not going to cut it.

 

At the heart of all is the need to aim at peace first. Climate change and environmental degradation, and even widespread poverty, are all outward signs of inner, invisible conflict, a silent, undeclared war in our heads among competing ideologies, interests and imitations. We all glory winning over others more than the victory of all. Compare Flannery's narrow, status quo solution with the values oriented approach offered by Abdu'l-Baha in his solutions book, written in the mid-1870's,

 

"It is clear from what has already been said that man's glory and greatness do not consist in his being avid for blood and sharp of claw, in tearing down cities and spreading havoc, in butchering armed forces and civilians. What would mean a bright future for him would be his reputation for justice, his kindness to the entire population whether high or low, his building up countries and cities, villages and districts, his making life easy, peaceful and happy for his fellow beings, his laying down fundamental principles for progress, his raising the standards and increasing the wealth of the entire population." (Secret of Divine Civilization, 67)