« Fr. David Charles Lynch, R.I.P. | Main | Pray at the Pump »
June 30, 2008
Color Me Green
Here in Canada la verditude is fast becoming a new and very silly religion. It always strikes us with something like a political shock when we arrive for the summer and suddenly remember that the garbage police will be looking out for what we throw away, and what we throw it away in. Trash goes in clear bags, period. Cardboard and plastic go in one see-through blue bag; cans and glass go in another. Vegetable parings, eggshells, coffee grounds, crusts of bread, and all things edible except for meat and cheese, don't go anywhere. Or rather they go into your compulsory compost heap in the backyard.
Now I don't mind all this, though I do think that the clear bag is a bit unnerving, when you think of the papers and personal materials you might be throwing away. If you leave aside the whole global warming apocalyptic -- "Woe to the inhabitants of earth!" -- I'll put up with the Canadian habit of cleaning up after themselves. But what's going on here is exactly what C. S. Lewis describes in The Screwtape Letters as a neat diabolical trick. The devils, says Screwtape, distract their foolish charges, persuading them to worry about sins they don't commit, and thereby to overlook the sins they do. So you'll hardly ever see a Canadian tossing trash out of his car window; and you won't see garbage blowing about the front yard; and you will see plenty of bicyclists in the cities. But in another sense the Canadians are perfectly slovenly and selfish polluters, just as bad as are their American cousins.
The whole Green argument hinges upon the fact that the environment -- literally, all that stuff around us -- is a commons, belonging to no one in particular. We all have to breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat more or less the same food. You can't dump battery acid into the swamp in your backyard without its finding its way somewhere else, maybe into my well. You can't run your dead car over the ledge into the harbor, without its leaching chemicals and rust into the water, and without our having to look at the eyesore.
But water and air aren't the only commons. Language and manners are, too. A couple of days ago I was in Halifax with my son, and we stopped at a small fish-and-chips place -- where any kids might stop. There in a basket were issues of the latest Halifax Metro, the local arts and entertainment paper. "Take a copy home for your wife," a friend of mine said, so I did. When I opened it, though, I saw what was apparently a regular feature, called "Savage Love," an advice column written by somebody named Savage, who referred to married men and women as "breeders," and who strewed his nasty and angry reponses with language that would not be fit for the boys' bathroom wall in a high school, and that, if I carved it on a tree in a playground, would get me arrested. I had never seen anything like it. I deposited it in our recycling bin.
Set aside the question of pornography. What about the pollution? Every such article helps to coarsen the culture. It helps to introduce into the minds of young and old that there's nothing holy about the body, that no reverence is due to the act of love between man and woman, that marriage is a formality for people whose tastes run that way, that sex is a matter of raw lust, that "father" and "mother" are no more than breeders, and so on. Does the man have the right to write articles like that? Yes -- but that doesn't mean that the Metro has to pay him to do it, or that the little family restaurant has to carry the rag, or that the Haligonians (yes, that is what they are) have to read it, or have to put up with it in silence.
I am thinking that my first, non-theological response to anybody who asks me why I do not support the latest chapter in extending sexual license, will be "Because I do not want to live next to an open sewer." Sure, I don't have to watch network television, and I don't have to subscribe to the local rag. But I have to live in a world in which filth is no big deal. Sure, I don't have to dump my garbage into the street. But I have to live in a world in which everybody else does. Nor am I talking here about laws to prevent that pollution. Customs and manners were sufficient to keep things reasonably clean, not so long ago. Ah, but I forget -- here in Nanada, the Supreme Court now has decided that there is not only a right to pollute, but that complaining about it may be characterized as hate speech. Talk about Granny washing your mouth out with soap.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 12:50 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e5537ce97f8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Color Me Green:
Comments
I guess I'd put the Metro in the compost heap with the rest of the manure.
Posted by: Bill R | Jun 30, 2008 1:55:28 PM
Out here in SF, those "Arts and Entertainment" magazines have been carrying Savage and similar for years. Don't know if the Halifax Metro is the same, but the local "rags" seem to pay for themselves with Personals (man seeking ...), Escort Services and Porn calling lines. For many years I stuck to our "conservative" paper the SF Chronicle but it has decided in its' wisdom to go with the times so now they publish articles on the history of the vibrator, the superiority of the uncircumsized, and a reglar column by one Mark Morford who wishes us of all ages to embrace our "juiciness," with the sexually liberated leading the way. (He also recently wrote a piece which got some national attention for surmising that Obama is not like the rest of us: Is Obama an enlightened being? Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain't no ordinary politician. You buying it? I ain't but it is amazing how many are.) I'm getting close to dumping the Chronicle but there are no other options here locally that aren't a lot worse. Only keep it now mainly for sharing the sports pages with my son (Did parents always have to furtively screen the front page of their "upstanding" community newspapers? You wouldn't believe what they print on it here.)
Professor Esolen, methinks you berate the soap-wielding Granny unjustly. She was/is an agent of cleaning up the truly filthy! Mmmm, Ivory! (Which reminds me of opinions from the 2000 election that John McCain was too much like Grandma Walton, grouchingly telling people no to this and no to that. After watching some of the old Walton shows with my boy, I've come to see that Grandma Walton was right most of the time!)
Posted by: Tim | Jun 30, 2008 1:56:40 PM
The rules you list about trash are as foreign and bizarre to me as they would be to some of your American readers. In London (city in Ontario) we can put whatever we want on the curb, in dark bags, clear bags, blue bags or whatever. They limit it to four per house (or twelve for a house with rental units), but I can't imagine any prudent household producing more than that in a single week anyway. What's more, the actual trash collectors don't seem to count the bags as they collect them so the regulation is virtually unenforced.
Recycling is encouraged and accomodated, but they don't go rooting through your trash to make sure you haven't committed a crime against Gaia.
Also, is Nova Scotia your only Canadian destination this summer? Or do you have things in mind as well?
Posted by: Nick Milne | Jun 30, 2008 3:21:03 PM
That is, "do you have OTHER things in mind as well?" Greater care was obviously needed there.
Posted by: Nick Milne | Jun 30, 2008 3:23:49 PM
I'll never forget one of my experiences in a research dormatory in Japan. (It was two years ago... I was there to attend a meeting and contribute to some lab work.) Someone well-meaning had given me a stick of gum. Now I don't like to chew gum, so I put the gum - never opened, still unwrapped - in the trash can. Later that afternoon, the maid stopped me in the hall. She pulled my gum out of my trash can for me, and made an "X" with her hand. That's Japanese for "no" or "you can't."
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Jun 30, 2008 4:15:58 PM
Clifford, did you figure out what you were supposed to do with it? Maybe donate it to someone in need of breath refreshment?
Posted by: Ethan C. | Jun 30, 2008 4:45:22 PM
Tim--
In Seattle, we have The Stranger, which tags itself as "Seattle's Only Newspaper", which would be harmless enough if our number one circulating paper, the Times, were owned by Hearst or Knight-Ridder or some other conglomerate like our second top paper, the Post-Intelligencer. But The Times is locally owned, but I digress. The Stranger has been 60% advertisement for some time, and the majority of those ads are for what you describe: escort services, phone sex lines and personal ads. It is also our dedicated "watchdog" paper against local businesses. Between sex, "liberation" and anti-capitalism, it essentially covers the leftist trifecta.
The only people I know who read it are my left-leaning friends, fellow high school socialists who have not yet outgrown the phase. Although one did recently take up anarcho-syndicalism. If nothing else, with the anarchy front, he's on his way to less government intervention in my personal life. I expect him to be a faithful Conservative by 30. But we won't tell him I said that; he'd consider it an insult.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2008 4:52:40 PM
On the gum front:
I remember the first time I really got beat by the environmentalist movement. I was playing baseball of all things and spit out a used piece of bubble gum--now flavorless and almost devoid of elasticity--on the field, more specifically, on the warning track in the outfield in foul territory. One of the league officials literally yelled at my coach and me because clearly I was littering. Because gum isn't biodegradable and it would be there until the world stopped turning. I was pulled from the game and benched because my coach was spineless and wouldn't stand up to the woman.
I was 12.
PS--
I read the Obama column from the Chronicle. Back in my day, we called that "presence" thing Obama has charisma, and it was never anything more or less than that. It could be used for good or evil or not used at all. The rest of the column is uncompromising twaddle.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 30, 2008 5:00:10 PM
I'm hoping there are different recycling rules in different parts of the province, otherwise I've been sorting mine the wrong way for some time. Around here plastic goes with the glass and cans in one bag, paper and non-corrugated cardboard in another. And you can have one opaque bag for garbage of the "personal items" nature each pickup.
I wonder if there is a limit to the number of copies of the Metro you can take. If not, take as many as you can and recycle them all, thus preventing a certain number of people from inadvertently being exposed to it.
Posted by: Chuck | Jun 30, 2008 5:02:11 PM
If recycling made economic sense, they would pay us to do it. Since they don't, the only reasonable conclusion is, in most cases, recycling is a feel-good exercise that not only doesn't help the environment, in some cases actually causes great harm, since recycling can in fact use more energy and natural resources, and cause more pollution, than simply land-filling our refuse and making new stuff from scratch.
Environmentalism is a classic example of Susskind's Law in action: Every problem began as a solution.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jun 30, 2008 5:44:41 PM
Stuart,
I suppose monestaries are the most harmful of all - seeing as they tend to produce no waste and reuse everything imaginable.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Jun 30, 2008 11:57:44 PM
Stuart, recycling here is a very profitable business for the waste management company that has exclusive rights to the business (a good Italian operation). They get us to pay them to take our garbage so they can sell it and send it out on ships to asia where it is processed. Quite the racket.
I also recall the pulp processing plant where my mother used to live in Newport, Oregon that only processed the LA Times, brought all the way up from Smell-A on freight trains every day. They weren't doing it for charity or subsidy; there is good money in it.
And recycling has brought down the pressure on allocating new and more landfill space around here quite a bit (which is the dwindling resource whose increasing cost makes recycling ever more economically feasible and smart). I hear you that there is some silly causes-more-damage-than-good going on, but I would posit that most of the industry is run on profit. Indeed, per my witness with our garbage service, a very handsome old-school monopoly like profit.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 12:25:31 AM
Maybe I'm just clueless, but what does profit have to do with anything? It would be cheap to clear-cut. Just go in, take everything there out. But it's terrible environmentally. So we pay more to selectively cut.
Similarly in nearly everything. The easy way is the wrong way.
Posted by: Matthew N. Petersen | Jul 1, 2008 12:35:17 AM
Nothing happens until someone pays for it. No ones going to do anything unless it is worth it. If it is cheaper to cut down trees for paper, down come the trees. If trees begin to become dear in respect to demand then the price of trees go up and recycling looks more economical. With innovations in both tree growing, harvesting and with recycling technologies, both options come more and more into tighter competition, taking and allocating resources at their most efficient mix, given what it is we want, paper and trees and other stuff, with what is available at the time.
Much as I hesitate to quote him...
John Stossel: "The US Agriculture Department says today America has 749 million acres of forest land. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest. Wait a second. Did you catch that? We have more forest now. How can we have more? Well, for one reason, technology now allows us to grow five times more food per acre, so we need less farmland. And so, lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest."
PS: Cutting down trees is not easy.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 12:52:59 AM
Can someone tell me how Mere Comments managed to get thro' past week up to now without a comment/reflection/whatever on Gafcon?
Posted by: David Palmer | Jul 1, 2008 3:33:17 AM
"Maybe I'm just clueless, but what does profit have to do with anything? It would be cheap to clear-cut. Just go in, take everything there out. But it's terrible environmentally. So we pay more to selectively cut."
True enough, Matthew. If the entire system ran by the profit-motive alone, we'd be producing 50x our weight in garbage every year, not just the current 10x.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 6:35:05 AM
>>>I suppose monestaries are the most harmful of all - seeing as they tend to produce no waste and reuse everything imaginable.<<<
I suppose if we subjected a monastery to close scrutiny, we would find they are not nearly as autarkic as the ideal would have. In fact, monasteries produce a lot of waste, particularly those that manufacture products for sale to support their activities. They certainly do not make all of the raw materials, nor do they actually recycle everything that they use. This was not even true in the Middle Ages, as archaeological excavations of monasteries across Europe show: they imported a lot of stuff, exported a lot of stuff, and when something busted, they either threw it in a refuse pit, or tossed it down a well. Thank goodness for our profligate ancestors, or we would know nothing at all about our past.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:20:17 AM
>>>Stuart, recycling here is a very profitable business for the waste management company that has exclusive rights to the business (a good Italian operation). They get us to pay them to take our garbage so they can sell it and send it out on ships to asia where it is processed. Quite the racket.<<<
Someone ever calculate how much energy is used to (a) collect the trash for recycling (it requires a separate set of trucks from the ones used to collect ordinary refuse); (b) to sort, stack and bundle the recyclable materials; (c) to ship the recyclable material to a port and put it on a ship; (d) to sail the ship to Asia; (e) to offload the ship and move the materials to a reprocessing plant; and (f) to reprocess the materials into reusable form?
Recycling makes sense only for a small range of products (steel, aluminum and copper are good examples) in a relatively narrow range of circumstances (e.g., the material can be reprocessed in close proximity to the collection point and the end user).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:24:15 AM
>>>Similarly in nearly everything. The easy way is the wrong way.<<<
Precisely. Which is why environmentalist platitudes need to be subjected to the same hermeneutic of suspicion that so many extend to the business community. Recycling is easy (for the consumer, who only has to put the stuff in the bin by the curb); it makes him feel virtuous. But he never actually crunches the numbers, so he has no idea as to whether recycling saves energy or is good for the environment. If he did, then he might have to reconsider so many of his preconceptions that his head would explode (which would reduce his carbon footprint to zero, but which would then pose a cleanup and recycling problem in its own right).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:31:06 AM
>>>True enough, Matthew. If the entire system ran by the profit-motive alone, we'd be producing 50x our weight in garbage every year, not just the current 10x.<<<
Such remarks, Rob, betray either an appalling ignorance of economics, or an inherent bias against businessmen. You might want ask why it is that the worst environmental damage was done precisely by governments that rejected the profit motive entirely; i.e., the Soviet Union and its satellites, the PRC and North Korea. A visit to Eastern Europe can be a real eye-opener with regard to the virtues of capitalism. Including the environmental virtues of capitalism. Waste products represent inefficiencies; inefficiency costs money; money equals profits. Do the math.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:41:12 AM
"You might want ask why it is that the worst environmental damage was done precisely by governments that rejected the profit motive entirely."
False dichotomy, Stuart. No one here is calling for an 'entire' rejection of the profit motive. I do, however, reject the idea that laissez faire capitalism is the cure for all that ails us.
I live in Pittsburgh, remember, a city where corporate industrialism ruined both the air and water for many, many years. Do you honestly think that the free market alone would have fixed all that? 'Fraid not. Without environmental intervention we would still be the hell-hole we were well into the 70s, with industry polluting both air and water willy-nilly.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 9:10:19 AM
Stuart:
But basing everything on money has the exact same problem as basing everything on staying alive--the good things, like trees and friends are excluded as irrelevant.
Now it is true that buisness men are people too, and also that economic pressure can be placed on people. But how is it different for me to say "I think I would like to pay a little extra to have things recycled" than to say "I think I'd like to pay a little extra to not have shoes made by day slaves in Asia." In both cases economic pressure to value good things over mere profit causes people to do something less profitable.
Also, if you want to look at what pure capitalism does, look at Manchester in the 1820's where the average life expectancy was 18.
Yes, the Soviets raped the world. But their problem wasn't that they refused to bow before the demon Mammon, but is, just like it is for capitalists, that they don't worship and fall down before Him, Christ, our King and our God. The problem is that they did not rule the world as Christ rules us, by taking up the Cross. They refuse the Cross by worshipping survival, we by worshipping profits (or now the Environment). Both are idolatrous, and both must be rejected as such.
In fact as a Christian, the fact that it is less profitable to recycle gives me good reason to do it. "If anyone wishes to be my disciple he must take up his cross and follow me." To Hell with me and my profit.
Posted by: Matthew N. Petersen | Jul 1, 2008 9:29:06 AM
"Waste products represent inefficiencies; inefficiency costs money; money equals profits. Do the math."
Sure, sounds great on paper. But in reality when they have to come up with the $$$ upfront to reduce the "inefficiencies" it seems that corporations tend to drag their feet a tad. I work for a Fortune 500 company, Stuart, and see it all the time.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 9:31:54 AM
>>>Sure, sounds great on paper. But in reality when they have to come up with the $$$ upfront to reduce the "inefficiencies" it seems that corporations tend to drag their feet a tad. I work for a Fortune 500 company, Stuart, and see it all the time.<<<
In a closed system, yes. But where the company is competing in a global market, then the capital investment is worth the expense. We see this all the time. Far more than any government regulations, it is the cost of energy and raw materials that has driven American productivity over the past two decades, together with the need to match prices with companies in countries that have much lower labor costs. On the other hand, we have China, where, because of its low labor costs, energy efficiency is not a high priority. Thus, China's industrial expansion has been "linear"--rather than improving efficiency, they just add floor space, workers and machinery. The effects can be seen in the skies of Peking, and in the water of any major Chinese city. This strategy worked for them as long as energy prices were not excessively high, and as long as the workers never asked for a raise. But the first condition no longer applies, so that the competitive margin of Chinese products has been eroding over the past year and a half. The second condition is coming to an end, because with rising productivity comes the demand to share the wealth, and once the wealth is shared, there is the problem of rising expectations. So, China needs to set a new course, and will have to invest in new, energy-efficient technology if it wishes to continue its expansion. As that expansion continues, people in China will reach the level of prosperity where environmentalism becomes an affordable luxury, which will spur demand for cleaner air and water, which in turn will drive companies to invest even more in energy efficient (and therefore cleaner) technologies. In other words, they will be in the same boat as all American companies.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 11:34:18 AM
>>> "I think I'd like to pay a little extra to not have shoes made by day slaves in Asia." <<<
Gee, I guess those "slaves" in Asia will have to move back to their subsistence farming or sell their daughters into prostitution so that you can feel good about yourself.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 11:35:41 AM
By the way, I'm in full agreement with Tony's post. To my mind, cultural pollution is just as bad, if not worse, than environmental pollution and both need controlling. Lefties definitely tend to ignore the former, when they're not directly contributing to it.
We have Dan Savage's column in our local A&E rag too, which is one of the reasons I stopped reading it (besides its way left tilt, and attacks on good things and promotion of evil ones in general).
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 11:41:55 AM
"As that expansion continues, people in China will reach the level of prosperity where environmentalism becomes an affordable luxury, which will spur demand for cleaner air and water, which in turn will drive companies to invest even more in energy efficient (and therefore cleaner) technologies. In other words, they will be in the same boat as all American companies."
This implies that as long as the market allows it, pollution is fine, since it will eventually correct itself. There are all kinds of problems with that, not the least of which is that it is bad stewardship of the planet.
In addition, I'm less than sanguine about corporations cleaning up their messes based on mere market forces. Seems to me that, like little kids, they don't clean their rooms until they're threatened, and I don't mean by environmentalists' boycotts.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 11:54:31 AM
"I also recall the pulp processing plant where my mother used to live in Newport, Oregon that only processed the LA Times, brought all the way up from Smell-A on freight trains every day." - Tim
Smell-A, eh? That's rich in irony coming from someone who hails from Sam & Francisco.
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 1, 2008 12:32:22 PM
Bill, we San Franciscans and Los Angeleans have a very old hate relationship, culminating in the best Giants-Dodgers baseball games and calls to split the state. And yes, I know there is plenty of disparaging things San Franciscans can be called (land of fruits and nuts, etc.). All in fun. I'm also an Oregonian and we have a well developed hatred for not only LA but ALL of California (Don't Californicate Oregon!). I don't know if it is the same, but the sign entering Oregon from California on I-5 used to say exclusively, "Enjoy your visit!. ;-)
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 1:10:19 PM
I was born in Idaho and also raised in Washington State, so we have the Great Northwest in common, Tim. ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 1, 2008 1:31:01 PM
>>>This implies that as long as the market allows it, pollution is fine, since it will eventually correct itself.<<<
No, this just recognizes reality: environmentalism is a hobby of the rich; the poor cannot afford it because they are too absorbed in finding the next meal, keeping warm, getting a roof overhead. If you look around the world, you will find that the worst pollution comes not from the industrialized world, but rather from the Third World, and takes the form of open hearth cooking (also a major source of deforestation), slash-and-burn agriculture (a major source of runoff pollution), open pit sewage disposal (water pollution) and a wide range of other activities, all of which degrade the environment in a major way. Those truly committed to the environment would understand that the fastest way to ameliorate the situation would be raising these people up to an industrialized standard of living as quickly as possible. And that means giving them electrification on a major scale, which in turn means coal, gas, or oil-fired powerplants, not solar cells or windmills, or geothermal, or tidal or any of the myriad Mr. Wizard renewable energy toys that have flooded the market. Once they get electrified, they can afford things like factories, water treatment plants, industrialized agriculture. People get off the land, which in turn can revert to its natural state. With the capital generated from industrialization, people can buy the things they need to begin thinking about cleaning up the environment.
>>>In addition, I'm less than sanguine about corporations cleaning up their messes based on mere market forces. Seems to me that, like little kids, they don't clean their rooms until they're threatened, and I don't mean by environmentalists' boycotts.<<<
In fact, big corporations like government regulation. It levels the playing field for them and eliminates competition from smaller, more innovative companies. Big companies can afford to absorb the cost of environmental regulations (particularly the kind that prescribe means as opposed to ends), whereas smaller companies can't. The net result is a market with fewer competitors rather than more.
At present, we have reached the point where "green" is a lifestyle accessory (just as low-fat was one a few years back), so companies like to brand themselves as green to attract customers. Far more effective, in fact, than any regulations ever could be.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 1:32:51 PM
Ah yes, Bill, The Great Pacific Northwest. Remember this one?
ROLL ON COLUMBIA
by Woody Guthrie
tune Good Night Irene
Roll on, Columbia, roll on
Roll on, Columbia, roll on
Your power is turning our darkness to dawn
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Green Douglas firs where the waters cut through
Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew
Canadian Northwest to the oceans so blue
Roll on Columbia, roll on
Other great rivers add power to you
Yakima, Snake, and the Klickitat, too
Sandy Willamette and Hood River too
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Tom Jefferson's vision would not let him rest
An empire he saw in the Pacific Northwest
Sent Lewis and Clark and they did the rest
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
It's there on your banks that we fought many a fight
Sheridan's boys in the blockhouse that night
They saw us in death but never in flight
So roll on Columbia, roll on
At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
And on up the river is Grand Coulee Dam
The mightiest thing ever built by a man
To run the great factories and water the land
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
These mighty men labored by day and by night
Matching their strength 'gainst the river's wild flight
Through rapids and falls, they won the hard fight
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
It's interesting to think about how everything that Woody Guthrie wrote about with pride in 1941 is now disparaged ... damming rivers for power, building empire, fighting Indians, and conquering the river to enable man for better and greater things.
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 1:49:12 PM
People forget that Woody was a Bolshie, and Bolshies were really big on massive industrial projects (especially of they made no economic sense), so naturally, if FDR was building dams, roads and bridges in imitation of Uncle Joe, well it could only mean that the U.S. was coming one day closer to matching the worker's paradise that was the USSR.
Today, of course, environmentalists are still Bolshies, but of the post-industrial variety, and with a thick overlay of Nazi nature worship and eugenics thrown in for good measure.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 1:56:23 PM
"Those truly committed to the environment would understand that the fastest way to ameliorate the situation would be raising these people up to an industrialized standard of living as quickly as possible."
Yes, and then they can have all those wonderful things that go along with it: secularization, destruction of the traditional family, widespread materialism and acquisition of "stuff," proliferation of Western pop culture with all its accordant puke and porn, the omnipresence of billboards, advertisements in order to convince them to buy things they don't need (which results in the inability, as in so many Americans, to distinguish between needs and wants), tons and tons of non-biodegradable waste produced every year, etc., etc.
"In fact, big corporations like government regulation."
No, they like SOME government regulation, namely that which will give them a leg up on their competition. Not all regulation has this effect.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 2:03:03 PM
Yes, Stuart, I know Guthrie was a Leftie, but those dams on the Columbia did (and still are doing) amazing things to electrify the surrounding country, which, as you said above ("giving them electrification on a major scale") is how you enrich people to the point where "they can afford things like factories, water treatment plants, industrialized agriculture." Woody Guthrie didn't build the dams, he just sang about them. I can't believe you really think the dams "made no economic sense." As a California who enjoys lights, I can tell you I think they did and do! (California buys a significant amount of energy produced from the hydroelectric dams of Oregon).
Given your apparent equation of FDR as a Communist wannabe, I imagine you see nothing worth contemplating in David Brook's Sam's Club Agenda for the Republican Party? I haven't read the book he writes about, but I do believe the GOP is missing something by hanging onto a total disparagement of FDR and all New Deal innovations. Many of them did bring people who "are too absorbed in finding the next meal, keeping warm, getting a roof overhead" to a level where they not only lived better but could contemplate not polluting so much. (And yes, I know it was the war that really pulled us out of the dumps, but all those big projects did help!)
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 2:30:29 PM
>>>Yes, and then they can have all those wonderful things that go along with it: secularization, destruction of the traditional family, widespread materialism and acquisition of "stuff," proliferation of Western pop culture with all its accordant puke and porn, the omnipresence of billboards, advertisements in order to convince them to buy things they don't need (which results in the inability, as in so many Americans, to distinguish between needs and wants), tons and tons of non-biodegradable waste produced every year, etc., etc.<<<
Go back and read my original post about people who view indigenous cultures as artifacts, and not as human beings endowed with free will who have a right to get all those nasty things (without which, Rob, I doubt you would want to live).
As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a government regulation that a big company did not like, once it set its lawyers loose on it to twist it to their advantage. Though James doesn't like it, Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" points out quite nicely how big business and big government have come to a symbiotic relationship. And, Rob, you can't have regulation of the market without big government. And big government, for its part, prefers to deal with big business--which acts as a tax farmer for the state. So you seem to want two incompatible ideals: regulated business on the one hand; and minimal government on the other hand. Ask me who I trust more to act in my interests, and I would have to say unregulated business.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 2:43:10 PM
>>>Given your apparent equation of FDR as a Communist wannabe<<<
Actually, FDR wanted to be a junior league Mussolini--the New Dealers were openly admiring of early Fascism--but there really isn't all that much daylight between Communism and Fascism. Go far enough to the left, you come out on the right; go far enough to the right, you come out on the left. Both Communism and Fascism believe in the supremacy of the state, and of the need to mobilize society on a continual wartime footing in order to engage every sort of social issue, hence "wars" on drugs, poverty, cancer, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, global warming, whatever.
>>>I imagine you see nothing worth contemplating in David Brook's Sam's Club Agenda for the Republican Party?<<<
Not too much, no. I believe that the most appealing platform on which Republicans could ever run is "Leave Us Alone". More than anything else, the American people want to be free to live their lives with minimal chickenshit interference from do-gooding government busybodies who believe they have been anointed to lead the ignorant masses into the promised land.
>>> Many of them did bring people who "are too absorbed in finding the next meal, keeping warm, getting a roof overhead" to a level where they not only lived better but could contemplate not polluting so much. (And yes, I know it was the war that really pulled us out of the dumps, but all those big projects did help!)<<<
I recommend Amity Schlae's "The Forgotten Man" as a good anodyne for New Deal nostalgia. If someone saved the U.S. from the depression, it wasn't FDR and his new deal; it was Adolph Hitler and his crackpot scheme for world domination.
Interestingly enough, Neville Chamberlain and the British Conservatives managed to bring Britain out of the Depression faster than FDR did in the U.S. (actually, he never did pull us out of the Depression, but read for yourself), and he did it without substantially altering the fabric of British society or grossly enlarging the size of the government. In fact, he did it the old fashioned way, through economizing, promoting trade, and keeping taxes low. Chamberlain's main fault was fear of risking his economic recovery in order to rearm and face down Hitler.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 2:52:36 PM
Stuart, do you think business could have electrified the countryside (and not just where it was profitable)? Built all our roads? I still can't think you see no use for government in the business of providing big ticket infrastructure so that a. more people can move beyond survival modes and b. businesses are able to flourish with reasonable prices for energy and transportation. These questions/comments are more of a rhetorical nature because I know you see some use for government. Your comments, though, seem to be backing you into a corner (FDR, All New Deal Projects, Regulation = Evil, Completely unfettered business = Good). I know you can't think that so ... completely. Right?
Posted by: Tim | Jul 1, 2008 3:12:29 PM
>>>Stuart, do you think business could have electrified the countryside (and not just where it was profitable)?<<<
Yes. And furthermore, since people would have had to pay the commercial price for the service, they would not have engaged in wasteful use of electricity. Now, decades after TVA, people in rural Tennessee seem to think that they have a God-given right to highly subsidized electric rates. This is what leads to shortages.
>>> Built all our roads?<<<
We seem to be headed in that direction. More and more states are turning construction and maintenance of their roads over to private companies, who somehow or other manage to keep them in good repair and make a profit. You seem to forget that private enterprise built a lot of our early roads--almost everyone with the word "Turnpike" after it, for instance.
However, note that infrastructure projects that involve interstate commerce are a legitimate Federal Government responsibility, under both the commerce clause and the national defense clause. Infrastructure can promote interstate commerce--legitimate Federal role. Infrastructure can promote the common defense--another legitimate Federal role. It is, after all, the Dwight David Eisenhower NATIONAL DEFENSE Interstate Highway System. The issue become murkier when we are discussing infrastructure projects that benefit not the nation as a whole, but merely one state or locality. Such projects rightly belong to the states, not the Federal government.
Moreover, projects initiated merely to reduce unemployment are not only counterproductive, they are unconstitutional.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 3:39:50 PM
"...people who view indigenous cultures as artifacts, and not as human beings endowed with free will who have a right to get all those nasty things (without which, Rob, I doubt you would want to live)."
I don't get this statement. Of course I realize that there are trade-offs. I just don't accept the fact that all these trade-offs are carved-in-stone necessities. Do we have to have ubiquitous porn and McDonalds, just because we have modern dentistry and chlorinated water? I think not. This presumes that any result of the market is automatically a good thing, which is nonsense.
"So you seem to want two incompatible ideals: regulated business on the one hand; and minimal government on the other hand."
I disagree that the two are incompatible. It's a question of balance between the two, not an either/or.
"Ask me who I trust more to act in my interests, and I would have to say unregulated business."
Frankly, I trust neither. I can never understand why those conservatives who fear the accumulation of money and power in the government, don't have any problem whatsoever with the accumulation of money and power by huge corporations. I haven't read Goldberg's book, but I'd view the 'symbiotic relationship' between big corporations and big government as pretty much a bad thing, and is precisely the type of situation that old school conservatives have been warning against for decades.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 3:54:56 PM
>>> I just don't accept the fact that all these trade-offs are carved-in-stone necessities.<<<
But, basically, it should be up to them, not to us. For most people, confronted with the choice of putting up with the evils of widespread materialism and Western popular culture on the one hand, or squalid, premature death from entirely preventable disease or starvation on the other, it's a no-brainer. I for one am not going to withhold the benefits of evil Western materialist culture from them "for their own good". They are free people, and they can make their own choices.
>>>I disagree that the two are incompatible. It's a question of balance between the two, not an either/or.<<<
In theory yes, in practice, no. As the Founders understood, the appetite of government for power is unlimited, and therefore they placed very stringent limits on that power. Recognizing that "if men were angels, they would not need government", and at the same time, that, not being angels, men cannot be trusted with power, the writers of the Constitution made certain that the Federal government's sphere of influence was very circumscribed.
>>>I can never understand why those conservatives who fear the accumulation of money and power in the government, don't have any problem whatsoever with the accumulation of money and power by huge corporations.<<<
Because corporations are accountable to their stockholders, whereas bureaucrats are accountable to nobody.
>>>but I'd view the 'symbiotic relationship' between big corporations and big government as pretty much a bad thing,<<<
Precisely--and an unavoidable one, once you put the government in the position of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, which is what regulation does.
>>>and is precisely the type of situation that old school conservatives have been warning against for decades.<<<
And yet, their solution is more hair of the dog that bit them?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 4:15:20 PM
"For most people, confronted with the choice of putting up with the evils of widespread materialism and Western popular culture on the one hand, or squalid, premature death from entirely preventable disease or starvation on the other, it's a no-brainer."
As if one really had to choose between those two extremes...
"Because corporations are accountable to their stockholders, whereas bureaucrats are accountable to nobody."
Except the voters. And we trust these stockholders why, exactly? And further, we trust the corporation to do right by them (or us) why, exactly?
"Precisely--and an unavoidable one, once you put the government in the position of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, which is what regulation does."
Uh, no. Regulation can protect the consumer from unscrupulous businesses. It can protect the small businessman from unscrupulous competition from bigger companies. Neither of these picks losers and winners; they merely attempt to level the playing field.
"And yet, their solution is more hair of the dog that bit them?"
You apparently haven't read them, or else you wouldn't be saying that. Really, Stuart, you're making this out like the only two alternatives are Marx and Mises, and that nothing somewhere in between the two could possibly exist.
Posted by: Rob G | Jul 1, 2008 4:33:16 PM
>I can never understand why those conservatives who fear the accumulation of money and power in the government, don't have any problem whatsoever with the accumulation of money and power by huge corporations.
Because they aren't very conservative...
Posted by: David Gray | Jul 1, 2008 5:32:17 PM
There are only two alternatives: either government that keeps its nose out of the private sector, and thus remains limited; or government that increasingly intrudes into every aspect of private life. It's that simple: if you are concerned about the role of big money in politics, of the role of special interests, of explosive growth of earmarks and entitlements, then there is really only one way out for you: put government back in the box. The only reason people throw money into political campaigns, the only reason why companies, unions, and other special interests give a damn about political campaigns, is because government can pick winners and losers. Remove that power from the government, restore it to the states and the people respectively, and you will see the problem go away (or, at worst, reallocated to the state and local sectors, where, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the problems caused by government will be easier to correct.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 5:32:55 PM
Joining the fray rather late, but I have to second Rob G's accusation of a false dichotomy between State Socialism and Unfettered Capitalism. They are both, in fact, fruit of the poison enlightenment rationalist tree, and should draw healthy suspicion by that fact alone.
Stuart, you make so much sense... except when you don't. You insist (somewhere way up there) that free, totally free markets should dictate, based on profit, whether we recycle or not. But when it is shown to be profitable (by some, perhaps dubious, metrics), you then don the lingo of the conservationists and point out "externalities" (unaccounted or not fully accounted costs) such as energy use in shipping and processing, further pollution, &c. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Perhaps the recycling market isn't free; perhaps the thumb of government alone tips the scales to make "recycling" profitable. If so, then that would be a consistent argument from a free market ideologue. But to adopt the voice of the very "environmentalists", whom you paint as thoroughly leftist with such a broad brush, is rather disingenuous.
Rob says:
Regulation can protect the consumer from unscrupulous businesses. It can protect the small businessman from unscrupulous competition from bigger companies.
As much as I agree that regulation can (at least theoretically) do this, but I'm afraid in practice the opposite is almost always the case. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and big business (by-n-large) gets the laws it wants to keep little guys down: The label "USDA Certified Organic" is enough to prove that.
In general, regulation has the unintended (and undesireable) consequences that Stuart so ably points out throught this thread. But I don't think that necessarily argues for an ideological commitment to economic libertarianism. Governments must instead, and may rightfully only, promote the common good. (And if we cannot agree on what the "common good" is, well then, maybe it's time for a little balkanization.) When the effects of positive law upon the common good cannot be ascertained with any level of confidence, the government should not act. This rule alone would probably eliminate 90% of all legislation... so in that sense, the Libertarians are usually right, even if for all the wrong reasons.
Now as to that broad brush, the equation of environmentalists with leftists. I think that many are, the semi-thoughtful ones anyway. But there is a vast swathe of unreflective folks who care deeply about their environment, because... well... it's their environment, and they just haven't dedicated a lot of brain power to expressing it. But to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, any man who loves all environments as much as his own, may be likened to a man who loves all women as much as his own wife. Which is to say that there is something essentially conservative in environmentalism, however poisoned in may have (lately) become. The verbal correlation between "conservative" and "conservation" is no accident. In fact, it is more likely the accident that nanny-state leftists have overrun what started out as an essentially non-ideological movement dedicated to the preservation of particular places. The most thoughtful environmentalists, as opposed to the semi-thoughtful ones, realize that the Happy Motoring Era is coming to an end, and are making appropriate preparations: and nothing could be more conservative than that.
Yeah, I think it is possible to have 21st century oral hygiene without having porn (and its moral equivalents) plastered everywhere. And anyone who says otherwise must be selling something.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Jul 1, 2008 6:21:14 PM
>>>Joining the fray rather late, but I have to second Rob G's accusation of a false dichotomy between State Socialism and Unfettered Capitalism. They are both, in fact, fruit of the poison enlightenment rationalist tree, and should draw healthy suspicion by that fact alone.<<<
You are making the false dichotomy, since I never spoke of socialism one way or the other. I merely posit that statism is a creeping, insidious phenomenon that cannot be easily stopped once it extends its tentacles into society, so the best thing is to keep it out altogether.
By the way, if anything, the relationship between big government and big business does not so much resemble socialism as it does fascism, where the government directs the economy, while the means of production remains in private hands. You can see the phenomenon in its raw form in Russia today, where the active variant can be called "Putinism".
>>>But when it is shown to be profitable (by some, perhaps dubious, metrics), you then don the lingo of the conservationists and point out "externalities" (unaccounted or not fully accounted costs) such as energy use in shipping and processing, further pollution, &c. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.<<<
Actually, I never denied that recycling can be cost effective and beneficial--in very limited circumstances. it is by no means a panacea, and to force it on people in situations where it makes neither economic nor environmental sense is merely the triumph of form over substance, an empty ritual intended to make us feel as though we are "environmentally aware". As I said, if recycling was a good idea, then people would pay us to sort our garbage, instead of charging us extra for the privilege.
>>>Perhaps the recycling market isn't free; perhaps the thumb of government alone tips the scales to make "recycling" profitable. <<<
The question then devolves to whether this heavy hand of government is environmentally beneficial or harmful. I posit that, in many cases (most, actually), recycling costs more energy--and therefore is more harmful to the environment--than just burying the stuff in a landfill.
>>>Governments must instead, and may rightfully only, promote the common good. (And if we cannot agree on what the "common good" is, well then, maybe it's time for a little balkanization.)<<<
We don't need balkanization (which, by the way, implies fragmentation along ethno/religious lines) because the Constitution gives us federalism. We in theory have fifty different laboratories in which each community is free to work out its own definition of the common good, with the Federal government limited to a relatively small number of international and inter-state issues.
>>>But to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, any man who loves all environments as much as his own, may be likened to a man who loves all women as much as his own wife.<<<
There's a lot of that going around these days.
>>>The most thoughtful environmentalists, as opposed to the semi-thoughtful ones, realize that the Happy Motoring Era is coming to an end, and are making appropriate preparations: and nothing could be more conservative than that.<<<
I doubt that it is coming to an end. Individual transportation is far too valuable a commodity to give up just because oil and gas are expensive. We'll just find new ways to do it. Of course, we will find those ways much more quickly if the government doesn't try to help us out. I can point to literally thousands of government technology initiatives, of which only a handful, mostly related to narrow military applications, pan out. There is a reason for that: government operates according to bureaucratic imperatives, of which efficiency is not one. Bureaucracy is not accountable to anyone; it does not have to please anyone, and its only concern is self-perpetuation. Private enterprise, on the other hand, has to please its customers. Companies that fail to do so die (unless they get the government to keep them alive artificially), which is a much more ruthless penalty than anything government can exact from business.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:06:51 PM
>>The question then devolves to whether this heavy hand of government is environmentally beneficial or harmful. I posit that, in many cases (most, actually), recycling costs more energy--and therefore is more harmful to the environment--than just burying the stuff in a landfill.<<
The recycling of white paper pays for the rest of the recycling on our campus. I imagine it is the same on other campuses. Ever since the night Hollywood declared global warming to be a fact, recycling has been sexy to the students. These are the same kids who'd look askance at my mother-in-law dumpster-diving or parquet poaching.
Posted by: Bobby Neal Winters | Jul 1, 2008 7:17:22 PM
>>>These are the same kids who'd look askance at my mother-in-law dumpster-diving or parquet poaching.<<<
Gee! When I was in college, I got some of my best furniture out of dumpsters. I've still got a couple of pieces.
By the way, white paper is the only kind worth recycling. Paper loses about fifty percent of its strength every time it is recycled, so after a couple of trips, you have to add so much new pulp to make it usable for most applications that recycling is a waste of time.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 7:29:35 PM
>>I've still got a couple of pieces.<<
Me too.
Posted by: Bobby Neal Winters | Jul 1, 2008 8:31:53 PM
The store where I bought my first bookcase (Scan Furniture) back in 1975 just went out of business. But I still have that bookcase.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 1, 2008 8:48:15 PM








