 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Antonio Fabrizio European Balloon Krzys Wasilewski Oh, To Be in England Gavin Ayling Anti-Life Opposition David Holcberg, et al Appeasing Hamas Elan Journo Talking To Iran Condi Rice Obligation To Truth ASH Smyth Darwin's CEOs Atul Bharadwaj |
Let's not view market and environment as incommensurate entities
By Ben Tait
Posted: July 15, 2006
Michael Berliner speaks a good deal of sense in his article “If Environmentalism succeeds, it’ll make
life impossible”. Not only does environmentalism often pander, I think, to an unrealistic and distorted
view of nature, it also belittles the individual’s own ability to innovate in the face of adversity.
As the temperature and sea levels rise, and oil prices skyrocket, what view do we have of our precious
planet? The environment is often painted as a charity cause, the beneficiary of our good will,
something to be preserved. But how true a representation is this of the very matter we use to build our
lives? I suspect it is a highly damaging one.
John Adams ponders whether we can place a figure on natural resources. Can we really claim a
monetary value of the Earth’s resources, and even more, claim ownership? The answer, surely, is a
resounding “Yes!”. Brute sentiment will never safeguard our world, but merely allow those without
scruples bypass the sentiments of those who claim to be ‘environmentalists’.
Surely, protection of the environment is a simple act of prudence in the long term. Yet as long as we
view the market and the environment as two incommensurate entities, we shall forever have a
disposition to resource conservation and pollution control that strays far from the truth.
In a time of increasing anxiety over China’s industrial projects and their hefty carbon footprint, it is all
the more important that we trust in the individual’s ability to innovate. Nationally-set targets are one
thing (and there is of course a very real need for outside regulation) but worrying about the
environmental impact of industries within a vast, sovereign nation is merely pointless. Surely a wise
investor has a keen sense of the value of inputs and environmental degradation, or may in time
acquire such awareness.
This is where the international community can act -- facilitating large-scale investors and extractors to
calculate values that reflect the scarcity of resources as opposed to merely market fluctuations and
short-term gain. Much has been written about the link between economic growth and the lowering of
environmental standards: but couldn’t we soon find that the leaders and investors in the Earth are also
its Number 1 advocate?
By using the framework of the market and accurate evaluation, resources may be conserved and the
creative minds in industry can engineer responses that are as appropriate as they are economic. How
long will it be until we realise that good environmental stewardship and economic activity are two sides
of the same coin? Our response to the alarming reports of climate change and ecological instability
consist of blanket measures, targets and tax-breaks.
Meanwhile, the potential of creative individuals to find solutions to today’s environmental problems
goes overlooked.
The neglect of the individual that Michael Berliner recognises is both cause and consequence of the
absurd dichotomy conjured up by so many. It is imperative that we realise that the challenge ahead is
as much an economic as it is an ecological one, whose solutions may be found in ideas rather than
Doomsday postulating.
The prize of such innovation, other than cost savings to households and industry, is a sustainable,
healthy planet that we may enjoy long into the future.
### ### ###
Ben Tait is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Ben Tait
Posted: July 15, 2006
Michael Berliner speaks a good deal of sense in his article “If Environmentalism succeeds, it’ll make
life impossible”. Not only does environmentalism often pander, I think, to an unrealistic and distorted
view of nature, it also belittles the individual’s own ability to innovate in the face of adversity.
As the temperature and sea levels rise, and oil prices skyrocket, what view do we have of our precious
planet? The environment is often painted as a charity cause, the beneficiary of our good will,
something to be preserved. But how true a representation is this of the very matter we use to build our
lives? I suspect it is a highly damaging one.
John Adams ponders whether we can place a figure on natural resources. Can we really claim a
monetary value of the Earth’s resources, and even more, claim ownership? The answer, surely, is a
resounding “Yes!”. Brute sentiment will never safeguard our world, but merely allow those without
scruples bypass the sentiments of those who claim to be ‘environmentalists’.
Surely, protection of the environment is a simple act of prudence in the long term. Yet as long as we
view the market and the environment as two incommensurate entities, we shall forever have a
disposition to resource conservation and pollution control that strays far from the truth.
In a time of increasing anxiety over China’s industrial projects and their hefty carbon footprint, it is all
the more important that we trust in the individual’s ability to innovate. Nationally-set targets are one
thing (and there is of course a very real need for outside regulation) but worrying about the
environmental impact of industries within a vast, sovereign nation is merely pointless. Surely a wise
investor has a keen sense of the value of inputs and environmental degradation, or may in time
acquire such awareness.
This is where the international community can act -- facilitating large-scale investors and extractors to
calculate values that reflect the scarcity of resources as opposed to merely market fluctuations and
short-term gain. Much has been written about the link between economic growth and the lowering of
environmental standards: but couldn’t we soon find that the leaders and investors in the Earth are also
its Number 1 advocate?
By using the framework of the market and accurate evaluation, resources may be conserved and the
creative minds in industry can engineer responses that are as appropriate as they are economic. How
long will it be until we realise that good environmental stewardship and economic activity are two sides
of the same coin? Our response to the alarming reports of climate change and ecological instability
consist of blanket measures, targets and tax-breaks.
Meanwhile, the potential of creative individuals to find solutions to today’s environmental problems
goes overlooked.
The neglect of the individual that Michael Berliner recognises is both cause and consequence of the
absurd dichotomy conjured up by so many. It is imperative that we realise that the challenge ahead is
as much an economic as it is an ecological one, whose solutions may be found in ideas rather than
Doomsday postulating.
The prize of such innovation, other than cost savings to households and industry, is a sustainable,
healthy planet that we may enjoy long into the future.
### ### ###
Ben Tait is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |