The Bozeman City Council recently passed a green initiative, and that got me thinking. No reasonable person is in favor of pollution. Everyone wants a clean environment. So why is there acrimony over this issue? I conclude that it is really about a clash of world views.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment