Natural Capitalism—Chapter 15: Once Upon a Planet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
26476 03 p234-322 r4k 9/10/99 5:57 PM Page 309 CHAPTER 15 1 2 3 Once Upon a Planet 4 5 Cassandra meets Dr. Pangloss — Expert’s dilemma — Blues and 6 reds, greens and whites — Assembling the operating manual — The 7 world’s largest movement — A hidden curriculum — Reversing sev- 8 eral hundred years — Reclaiming the future — Mandates, principles, and declarations — Because it is possible 9 10 11 12 13 THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE IS CONDUCTED IN A PREDICTABLE CYCLE: 14 Science discovers another negative human impact on the environment. 15 Trade groups and businesses counter, the media reports both sides, and 16 the issue eventually gets consigned to a growing list of unresolved prob- 17 lems. The point is not that one side is right and the other wrong but 18 that the episodic nature of the news, and the compartmentalization of 19 each successive issue, inhibit devising solutions. Environmentalists 20 appear like Cassandra, business looks like Pandora, apologists sound 21 like Dr. Pangloss, and the public feels paralyzed. 22 The Worldwatch Institute’s State of the World report again 23 reported that the trend in environmental indicators was downward: 24 “Forests are shrinking, water tables are falling, soils are eroding, wet- 25 lands are disappearing, fisheries are collapsing, rangelands are deterio- 26 rating, rivers are running dry, temperatures are rising, coral reefs are 27 dying and plant and animal species are disappearing.” 28 Predictably, Worldwatch’s critics argued that the report was unduly 29 gloomy. “In every single report in years, [Worldwatch has] said we 30 are outgrowing the planet’s capacity. For years, that’s proved to be 31 absolutely in every way false [sic],”retorted Jerry Taylor of the libertar- 32 ian Cato Institute. Taylor cited increased life expectancy, decreasing 33 child mortality, and improved nutritional intake as proving that stan- 34 dards of living improve as population grows.1 35 Ignored by the media is the likelihood that both sets of data are cor- 36 rect. It is unquestionable that humanity has made astonishing progress. 37 Average life spans continue to increase, a middle-class person can travel 38 S the world, and people in developed countries have the highest standard 39 R 309 26476 03 p234-322 r4k 9/10/99 5:57 PM Page 310 310 NATURAL CAPITALISM 1 of living in history. But those facts do not make the Worldwatch obser- 2 vations wrong. Seemingly contradictory trends in the environment and 3 society should not be portrayed as mutually exclusive. Both sets of data 4 are credible and can be explained by the concept of overshoot: the abil- 5 ity to exceed temporarily the carrying capacity of the earth can help 6 people to live longer, but put our natural capital into decline. Stated in 7 another way, the ability to accelerate a car that is low on gasoline does 8 not prove the tank is full. 9 Although such debates make good fodder for reporters and can help 10 expose gaps in knowledge, the cacophony has unfortunate effects. One 11 is the “expert’s dilemma.”If you went for your annual physical and were 12 diagnosed by two doctors who fought and argued every step of the way 13 as to whether you were sick or healthy, you would come away confused, 14 numbed, and probably angry. When citizens who are not experts in cli- 15 matology watch Nightline and hear one scientist state that automotive 16 emissions of CO2 could lead to killer hurricanes and massive crop loss 17 while the other says that not using carbon-based fuels will signal the 18 end of Western civilization, the citizens are left confused and disheart- 19 ened. Mediagenic arguments allow little room for consensus or shared 20 frameworks. Though great for ratings, such media-devised wrangling 21 ignores the possibility that innovative, pragmatic solutions might exist 22 that can satisfy the vast majority of Americans and make the wrangling 23 irrelevant. 24 Remembering Einstein’s dictum on mind-sets, cited at the begin- 25 ning of this book, it might be useful to review a matrix of four world- 26 views on the emotional and intellectual frameworks that business, 27 citizens, and governments use to negotiate and choose about econom- 28 ics and the environment. Biophysicist Donella Meadows, adjunct pro- 29 fessor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College, outlined them 30 in The Economist. She stated that she has become less interested in win- 31 ning the environmental debate and more concerned with the “intransi- 32 gent nature of the discussion.” Each of the worldviews discussed 33 below — which are color-coded with only a slight bias — is a systems 34 view reflecting a perspective common among business, labor, environ- 35 mentalists, and synthesists, in that order.2 36 The Blues are mainstream free-marketers. Such people have a posi- 37 tive bias toward the future based on technological optimism and the S38 strength of the economy. They are armed with a strong statistical case, R39 based on the vigorous and dynamic economies of Western and (until 26476 03 p234-322 r4k 9/10/99 5:57 PM Page 311 ONCE UPON A PLANET 311 ) Asian nations. Their approach is deeply rooted in conventional 1 economics, and their number-crunching reveals a world vastly 2 improved and rapidly ascending. Blues believe that reliance on innova- 3 tion, investment, and individual freedom will ensure a shining future 4 for humankind, and a level of material well-being that has strong 5 appeal to virtually everyone in the world. Their optimism also extends 6 to the environment, believing that in most cases, markets will send 7 strong and appropriate price signals that will elicit timely responses, 8 mitigating environmental damage or causing technological break- 9 throughs in efficiency and productivity. 10 The Reds represent the sundry forms of socialism. Although one 11 might expect them to have been discredited by the downfall of the erst- 12 while Soviet Union, their worldview is very much alive. They find vali- 13 dation in the chaotic and horrific economic conditions that the rise of 14 bandit capitalism has brought to contemporary Russia, a country 15 whose economic machinery now benefits a minority at the expense of a 16 materially and socially disadvantaged majority. The growing and 17 worldwide gap between rich and poor confirms the Reds’ analyses, 18 which are as accurate about poverty and suffering as the Blues’ observa- 19 tions are accurate about growth and change. While Blues focus on the 20 promise of growth and technology, Reds focus on its shadow and try to 21 discern its root causes. They view labor — one aspect of human 22 capital — as the principal source of wealth and see its exploitation as 23 the basis of injustice, impoverishment, and ignorance. The Reds gener- 24 ally have little to say about the environment, seeing it as a distraction 25 from fundamentally important social issues. 26 The Greens see the world primarily in terms of ecosystems, and thus 27 concentrate on depletion, damage, pollution, and population growth. 28 They focus on carrying capacity and want to bring about better under- 29 standing of how large the economy can grow before it outstrips its host. 30 Their policy focuses on how many and how much, the number of people, 31 and the amount of impact each person can have upon the environ- 32 ment. Greens are not usually technophobes; most see technology as an 33 important tool to reduce human impact. More recently, some have 34 become interested in free-market mechanisms, and want externalities 35 presently borne by society to be fully integrated into producer costs and 36 consumer prices so that markets become, in David Korten’s phrase, 37 “mindful.” The Greens, and to some extent the Reds, host bigger tents 38 S in that they hold a bolder and broader diversity of views. But this also 39 R 26476 03 p234-322 r4k 9/10/99 5:57 PM Page 312 312 NATURAL CAPITALISM 1 keeps them splintered and self-canceling, as Greens tend to unite their 2 enemies and divide their friends, a good formula for political failure. 3 They are often portrayed as caring less for people than animals, more 4 about halogenated compounds than waterborne diseases. 5 The Whites are the synthesists, and do not entirely oppose or agree 6 with any of the three other views. With an optimistic view of 7 humankind, they believe that process will win the day, that people who 8 tell others what is right lead society astray. Since Blues, Reds, and 9 Greens all fall into that category, Whites reject them all, preferring a 10 middle way of integration, reform, respect, and reliance. They reject 11 ideologies whether based on markets, class, or nature, and trust that 12 informed people can solve their own problems. On the environmental 13 level, they argue that all issues are local. On business, they say the fabled 14 level playing field never existed because of market imperfections, lob- 15 bying, subsidies, and capital concentration. On social problems, they 16 argue that solutions will naturally arise from place and culture rather 17 than from ideology. Leadership in the White world is reminiscent of the 18 Taoist reminder that good rulers make their subjects feel as if they suc- 19 ceeded by themselves. Environmental and social solutions can emerge 20 only when local people are empowered and honored. 21 While many individuals have traits of two or more of these typolo- 22 gies, the different views tend to become isolated and to define the oth- 23 ers by their own internal logic.