Christopher Aceto, Wesleyan University
download this essay: the long road home – aceto
What are the limits of values? Would an “environmentalist” stick his head in the sand of rejection and the status quo so long that the environment suffered because of it? Would a “market capitalist” scream the word “free” so long that she passed out while the economy fell down in shambles? The answer to both is “maybe.” It is very likely that those on the two poles, the extremes of environmental policy will reject anything that infringes on their idealistic representations of the world that the rest of us have to actually live in. It is therefore essential that policy be developed by and for the vast majority of people: the groups, corporations, and nations that comprise the expanse inside these margins. The tensions between these absolutist margins have painted a clear picture, one that shows that following a single path alone will not work. Willingness at all levels to accept and adopt change must be matched by incentives to achieve reform and build quality environments from the local to the global.
Whether you evaluate the environment on a neighborhood, regional, national or global basis, the resulting analysis will center on a dynamic situation in which forecasts will always contain qualifications and errors. In terms of environmentalism and environmental regulation, there are two relevant meanings for the word “dynamic.” According to Encarta’s Dictionary, dynamic as a noun can mean “a driving or energizing force” and as an adjective it can be “used to describe any system that changes over time.”[1] The Kyoto Treaty has been unraveling for some time and the U.S. decided not to join the convention because it lacked “dynamic quality” or value. It contained no mechanism to address the eventual expansion of developing countries in terms of their growth and impact on the environment relative to the consequences of ratification for the United States.
Robert Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila, summaries his “Metaphysics of Quality” as containing two types, “static quality” that is definable and “dynamic quality” which is not; he contends that the two are essential to the other in that “without Dynamic Quality an organism cannot grow. But without static quality an organism cannot last.”[2]
In terms of policy and politics, the distribution of resources, benefits, and scarcity, conservatives ward against “unneeded change” and “liberals and radicals … keep them from making a mess of the world through unneeded stagnation.”[3] The centerpiece of the remedy for a healthier environment is “precautionary principle.” This is the fundamental principle which the United States government should adopt and implement in its course of action to deal with global climate change, the consumption of the future.
There are two alternatives to this important principle bandied about but they are not adequate to the problems before us. Risk management “can be very difficult to manage when faced with a scarcity of resources, especially time.”[4] The newbie on the block, the “proactionary principle” formulated by Dr. Max More, shares a common feature with the precautionary principle, proportionality, but it seems to focus too much on the following sentiment – “Protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress.”[5] This outlook seems to be couched in a conservative, pro-business ideology, and relies too heavily on accurate determinations of probability. As a result, prudence dictates that “if there is a strong suspicion that a certain activity may have environmentally harmful consequences, it is better to control that activity now rather than to wait for incontrovertible scientific evidence.”[6] Although it is sometimes labeled as “protectionism,” it is a necessary ingredient that will activate and support other components of changes I will mention later.
The Doctor of Philosophy currently on-call, John Locke, can be indeed very helpful here in evaluating the need for adopting the precautionary principle – “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession.”[7]
The “driving force” for change in environmental policy must be the United States, and must specifically be piloted by the President. The occupant of that office must wrap himself in the Environmentalist-in-Chief role in terms of being willing to model and then lead the world into an uncertain future in which the environment must take center stage. The U.S. has been the only superpower left standing for some time and it already possesses de facto hegemonic power, which means the U.S. has met the requirement of the “neo-realist” school.[8] Our ideal Environmentalist-in-Chief would tell the nation (and the world) that we can adapt to the requisite changes that this new policy will demand; he would also explain that we must move forward and take action now because the scientific modeling and data will never be perfect.
Judith Layzer makes a very valuable point about the need for “policy entrepreneurs” to design their “policy goals” such that supporters are attracted to the cause and detractors are not pushed away.[9] In accordance with this advice, David Victor’s third policy as outlined in his “Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options,” will serve as the “system that changes over time.” Victor’s proposals for a carbon trading market are supported by Pirsig’s dynamic quality which he likens to the difficulty inherent in thinking about the metaphor of “finger pointing to the moon”; “some fingers point better than others and as the world changes, old pointers and road maps tend to lose their value.”[10] Markets are not perfect and do not always behave predictably but they are dynamic. There is no point in the U.S. leading the world back to what has already been tried; the U.S. must lead by implementing a new approach.
David Victor’s other two proposals, “Adaptation and Innovation” and “Reinvigorating Kyoto,” are not sufficient to the task of moving forward. The first proposal sounds dynamic but it contains stale and static ideas that would entrench the current status quo of minimal investments and attention as well as waste valuable time that could be used to mitigate future consequences when they will be cheaper to handle. The second proposal is akin to two married people getting a separation, going through a divorce, fighting over custody of the kids, living in different cities for a few years, meeting again because they are lonely, making up, and getting remarried (presumably to a new life of bliss). While this scenario is possible, it is not very probable considering, as Victor notes, the votes in the Congress are not there, costs are unknown, and there is little incentive for developing countries (the kids) to re-engage with the U.S. (the wayward father) now that it has shifted burdens back onto them.[11]
At the very minimum, this “carbon market” option would “force the pundits to think and debate” and it would open up a discussion with the American people, and other actors in the world, about our values as a nation.[12] We need only to look in the mirror to realize that we are a nation organized around Lockean liberalism but society has changed from the stereotypical pioneer days and Americans have become used to their government taking an active role in significant policy issues. There is no other single issue on the radar screen that possesses so many negative consequences of inaction and/or “ill-conceived remedies that are not politically sustainable.”[13] As a result, this market-based strategy appeals to capitalists and to environmentalists because it will “reflect the real cost of carbon dioxide” by relying on market principles and removing subsidies.[14]
The carbon market option is not a silver bullet; it is not beyond the normal vagaries of policy implementation, nor without possible roadblocks. The following line from Victor’s proposed Presidential speech for this option speaks to this issue: “America must have a binding system that strives to include all sources, so that no firm or family is disadvantaged.”[15] This goes right back to politics 101: how do you create and implement a political-economic plan that distributes costs and benefits in a fair and equitable manner while accounting for compromises made to attain your priorities? How will the adjective “disadvantaged” be defined? That process will not be pretty considering it is such a new idea that requires political courage and faith on the part of those advocating for it and those that will have to live with it. Since it is a dynamic model that will “change over time,” it requires a process of continual review and periodic updating to insure that it is working for the environment as well as our economy. Adjustments will also be necessary as the U.S. partners with other countries and their carbon markets. Victor proposes working first with developed industrial nations such as Japan and those in Europe which will hopefully give developing behemoths like China and India time and incentive to move toward the system he envisions.[16]
In addition to Victor’s market concept, the series of reforms that I will outline do not constitute a top-down or a bottom-up only approach. All actors in the U.S. will have roles to play. All actors will be empowered to institute changes that will collectively expand the pool of policy supporters without alienating too many detractors. Citizens, corporations and industry, state governments and the federal government will all be identified as actors with specific roles and scripts to engage, not simply read verbatim. A new citizen’s movement, which could be called “practically green,” will focus on the patriotic elements of environmentalism. Industries and their constituent corporations will follow a modified “hybrid” approach as formulated by Dr. Marc Eisner. Governments will work to employ green preferences, isolating non-green firms from state and federal contracts in the same manner that economic boycotts have been used in the past to strangle oppressive (“static”) regimes like South Africa. The following proposals do not imply that current effective and efficient (more) “static” systems for other environmental issues already in place will be scrapped.
The most meaningful way that citizens and their families can engage the process of protecting their environment is through their consumption. Recycling just asks consumers to do the right thing when they are done with the product. The process of actually changing attitudes and the products and services that are consumed is a more radical notion. The concept of “practically green” is a change in the way that consumers think about their habits. If consumers were made to feel that they were contributing to a larger cause, patriotism, they would be more willing to vote with their feet and wallets. The message needs to be reframed: it is civically shameful to force the U.S. to use its military across the world to ensure unlimited oil and natural gas supplies; the disease of consumption can be addressed with new thinking. The first step in promoting this new form of patriotism will require the Chief Environmentalist to make changes in the White House and at his or her personal residence to demonstrate what is expected and feasible. No Presidents looking timid in sweaters here. The “practically green” Chief Environmentalist will be modeling for citizens the following ideas, which are an admixture of government actions, incentives and personal choices.
First off, the U.S. should legally ban the further sale of wasteful incandescent (halogens are still necessary for dimmer light fixtures) light bulbs, citing the example of The Montreal Protocol and the elimination of CFCs. If the federal government can legally require C.A.F.E. standards for vehicles, then the logic should follow that inefficient light bulbs are also harmful to the environmental commons and our common welfare. Consumers would be forced to buy (compact fluorescent) light bulbs that are energy efficient and have a life-span of multiple years. This would increase the amount of mercury in households but it would decrease electricity consumption drastically and reduce the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere.[17]
Second, through “AD Council” campaigns and laws requiring labeling on all products that consume energy (electric or fuel), the government should mandate more practical information disclosure such as the following:
If every American home changed out just 5 high-use light bulbs with ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR, each family would save more than $60 every year in energy costs, and together we’d keep more than one trillion pounds of greenhouse gases out of our air – equal to the emissions of 8 million cars.[18]
Third, citizens (and corporate entities) should receive meaningful tax incentives for beneficial civic purchases. Every purchase of a tree for your property or as a gift for someone/some group inside or outside the U.S. will be rewarded. These purchases will support clean air at the local level and will stimulate economic growth for companies that sell trees. Tax benefits could also be extended to subsidizing purchases of simplistic devices such as water-saving bags for toilets and rain-water collection basins; though a drop in the proverbial bucket, consuming citizens need to take more responsibility over their impact on the environment and not be so dependent on the government to build more dams or change the course of rivers to quench their thirst in the desert. The decrease in demand in large metropolitan water districts would relieve strain on those systems. Rewarding families for purchasing energy-saving products such as was done this year (“Credit for Non-Business Energy Property” Notice 2006-26) was successful and works in the same fashion as rewarding farmers for not planting crops.[19]
Although globalism has been given a black eye by many environmentalists (and other groups), this corporate energy has the potential of being another driving force. If companies want to successfully do business in the U.S., whether they are domestic or foreign-owned, they will continue to service the needs and wants of the American consumer. This is obvious but it carries with it the potential that more companies will hopefully follow The Ford Motor Company’s lead in adopting “the highest standards” and requiring “that all its suppliers be ISO 140001 compliant, thereby forcing environmental responsibility through supply chain pressures.”[20] When a company like Ford owns other brands such as Volvo (Sweden) and Jaguar (England), it can push “green” practices that it believes American consumers will be attracted to, across the globe.
One problem with this idea is relying too much on the voluntarism and good will of corporate entities that must be profitable to survive in the long run; companies can simply back peddle on present commitments if they need to cut costs or feel that their “green” engineering will not give them that competitive edge amongst their rivals.[21] The hybrid solution proposed by Dr. Eisner covers all bases in that it employs the positive aspects of all previously tried policies which were envisioned as singletons. Although this solution entails “EPA supervision,” it is important to note again that corporations, and their trade associations, generally take a realist approach to the business world and they do not survive on the thanks of their consumers alone. Will the standards that these trade associations design be above and beyond the current regulatory “floor?” If this is not the case, then associations could dilute their strength; the law books contain zillions of laws and regulations, but not all of them are well-conceived or actively enforced. Locke commented that “with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature”; when non-governmental entities are given the lead in regulating their own behavior, governance is transferred to the market which is not a very reliable supporter of Constitutional ideals.[22]
Citizens invest their trust in their governments with the expectation that government will provide protection. As a way of modeling smart eco-choices, the federal government needs to fully implement President Clinton’s executive order # 13101 which called upon the bureaucracy to use “greener” standards in determining contracts.[23] State governments will have much more leverage to follow this course as the federal government genuinely implements this eco-bias in purchasing because companies will have to adopt federal standards instead of a myriad of state practices. California is green model and huge economic force but it would still be easier for states to adopt federal practices which companies are already voluntarily doing.
For the future of our environment and environmental regulation to be bright, all actors must return to important aspects of our shared political culture. To enhance the appeal of this new family photograph, a new frame is in order. The current political timidity in our society should be replaced with a re-energized “pioneer spirit” as we seek to tackle challenges that threaten to haunt our grandchildren, their children, and their quality of life. Americans need to refocus the frugality of their grandparents with an eye for the commons. “Corporate citizens” should look at their survival in terms of quality investments, not just quarterly earnings; business visionaries do not invest in immediate returns, they are interested in developing “the next new thing.”
Government is the elected parent in our democratic republic, and parents cannot fulfill their roles by giving kids candy every day with the expectation that they will start craving broccoli all on their own. Leadership must come from the top and each individual must be willing to sacrifice a little to insure that the environment is not relegated to the slash-and-burn pile. Victor’s market proposal may not deliver the moon, but it will jumpstart the process with a new dynamism–and it will not be labeled as “mediocre.”
ENDNOTES
[1] “Dynamic – definition.” <encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/dynamic.html>.
[2] Pirsig, Robert. “A Brief Summary of the Metaphysics of Quality.” October 2005. <http://robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm>.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Risk assessment.” <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment>.
[5] “The Proactionary Principle.” <http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm>.
[6] “Environmental Law.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 June 2009 <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-224613>.
[7] “Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke.” <oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html>.
[8] Layzer, Judith A. The Environmental Case: Translating Values Into Policy, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006. p. 278.
[9] Ibid, p. 346.
[10] Pirsig, Robert. “A Brief Summary of the Metaphysics of Quality.” October 2005. <http://robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm>.
[11] Victor, David G. “Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options.” New York, NY: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. p. 71.
[12] Ibid, p. 73.
[13] Victor, p. 105.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid, p. 107.
[16] Ibid, p. 110.
[17] “Compact Fluorescent Cost-Benefit Analysis – Background.” Institute for Sustainable Energy. <www.easternct.edu/depts/sustainenergy/education/documents/CFLbackground.pdf>.
[18] Ibid.
[19] “Credit for Nonbusiness Energy Property.” <www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-06-26.pdf>.
[20] Eisner, Marc Allen. “Corporate Environmentalism, Regulatory Reform, and Industry Self-Regulation: Toward Genuine Regulatory Reinvention in the United States.” Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. p. 161.
[21] Ibid., p. 152.
[22] “John Locke (1632-1704), The Philosopher of Freedom.” <www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm>.
[23] Eisner, p. 161.
