In ‘Markets and Environment‘, i have discussed the well known fact that the current market prices of goods and services do not reflect the true environmental costs of producing and using them. The price of oil does not include the costs of climate change, the price of timber does not include the environmental costs of cutting a forest (loss of carbon sink etc), the price of metals does not include the costs arising due mining activity, and so forth. Naturally, the “solution” seems to be that we add up all the environmental costs of producing and using a product, and incorporate those costs into the price of the product.
Framing the debate on environmental issues in economic terms, as done above, walks right into the hands of existing world view of anthropocentrism (or resourcism). The dominant world view of anthropocentrism is so ingrained in our thinking by now, that we accept it and behave according to the world view, without even realizing it or debating it. What is the dominant world view today ? That, humans are the owners of the Earth, and we have the right to manage and use whatever is available on the planet, to our economic use, with utter disregard to rest of life that evolved on the planet for millions of years. This characterization of our world view may sound harsh, but if we are honest and open, we can see the truth of this statement. The dominant world view views nature simply through a utilitarian perspective. Neil Evernden refers to this paradigm as ‘Resourcism’, “.. a kind of modern religion which casts all of creation into categories of utility. By treating everything as homogeneous matter in search of a use, it devalues all”.
Even the so called “environmental” debates, are mostly cloaked in anthropocentric terms — We need to tackle climate change because it could hurt *our* economy. We need to think twice about constructing dams because it could displace a lot of *people*. We need to oppose mining in sensitive mountain areas because the waters that come to plains from those areas may become polluted and effect *our* health. We need to reduce the use of pesticides because *our* food may get contaminated as a result. We need to protect old growth forests because they may have some plants which may be useful in curing *our* illnesses. We need to have natural parks because it serves *our* tourism industry.
The above line of argument is markedly different from — We need to tackle climate change because we simply have no right to alter planetary balance which jeopardizes lives of innumerable species, including some of our own in low lying islands. We need to rethink dam construction because it submerges lacs of hectares of precious land and disrupts marine life, and local peoples’ livelihoods. We need to preserve old growth forests and other natural areas, simply because we have no right to destroy ecosystems that have evolved over millions of years.
It is understandable why the former strategy is chosen most of the times. Initially, the environmental movement arose out of subjective experiences of people with respect to nature. These environmentalists saw inherent value in untouched nature. The poetic writings of early environmentalists and philosophers were filled with spiritual connotations regarding relationship between man and nature. For example, Rabindranath Tagore in Sadhana :
The Indian mind never has any hesitation in acknowledging its kinship with nature, its unbroken relationship with all.
The fundamental unity of creation was not simply a philosophical speculation for India; it was her life-object to realize this great harmony in feeling and in action.(…)
The earth, water and light, fruits and flowers, to her were not merely physical phenomena to be turned to use and then left aside. They were necessary to her in the attainment of her ideal of perfection, as every move is necessary to the completeness of the symphony.
India intuitively felt that the essential fact of this world has a vital meaning for us; we have to be fully alive to it and establish a conscious relation with it, not merely impelled by scientific curiosity or greed of material advantage, but realising it in the spirit of sympathy, with a large feeling of joy and peace.
But, subjective experiences are seen as too sentimental by the dominant paradigm based on science and reductionism. Hence, gradually, the defensive strategy of couching environmental issues as scientific objective problems and in human self-interest terms, is employed.
Neil Evernden — “This shift in tactics has constituted a change in emphasis as well, from the personal testimony of experienced value to an ‘objective’ elucidation of public interest. That is, while in the past the naturalist-orator tried to evoke in his listener a sensation reminiscent of his own in the presence of nature, it is now possible simply to show the man in the street what’s in it for him. By excising emotion and concentrating on numbers, the environmentalist can show even the disinterested that it is prudent, economic, to retain a particular mountain in its present state.“
But what if there is no economic use for a particular natural place or species. They then become ‘economically indefensible’ ? How can we value subjective experience of a person in the presence of nature ? Even if we argue that subjective experiences of some people is also somewhat anthropocentric, how can we put a value on the life of another species ? The strategy of addressing environmental issues solely on economic terms, is fundamentally weak and facts are often twisted in favor of increased exploitation of natural places while paying lip service to environmental concerns. Case in point — “Environmental impact assessments” which are a joke the way they are practiced. Even the popular “sustainable development” agenda is a watered down version of required environmental agenda. It strives to achieve a balance between ‘economic growth’, ‘environmental concerns’ and ’social concerns’. Basically, a ‘you can have the cake and eat it too’ approach. In practice, as we can observe in the real world, there is absolutely no compromise made when it comes to economic growth. In summary, the watered-down strategies distract us from important value based arguments, which form the fundamental support to environmental movement.
Neil Evernden — “There in lies the fatal weakness of the so-called ecology movement. In seizing arguments that would sound persuasive even to indifferent observers environmentalists have come to adopt the strategy and assumptions of their opponents. As Anthony Brandt has observed, the industrialist and environmentalist tacitly agree on one thing: that nature is for something. Nature is a conglomeration of natural resources, a storehouse of materials. The industrialist and the environmentalist are brothers under the skin; they differ merely as to the best use the natural world ought to be put to. In their haste to persuade society of the significance of the non-human they have succumbed to the temptations of expediency. (…) Applying monetary evaluation to nature is dangerous to start with, just because it encourages a comparison between the uses of each mountain. As soon as its worth is greater as tin cans than as scenery, the case for the mountain vanishes. But, more important, monetary evaluation distracts us from the fact that the values at issue are not economic in the first place. It is all these other values that are at risk when the environmentalist opts for the argument from expediency“.
There may be a short-term benefit in addressing environmental issues purely in human-self-interest terms, as it could bring much needed attention to the issues among general public. However, there is a flip side as well. Our myopic society sees human-interest to be in liquidating natural capital into tangible economic goods. In which case, arguing solely on economic terms is simply not enough. So, there is clearly a need to widen the terms of debate to include the value based arguments — questioning over-consumption, our responsibility towards the environment etc. These arguments must be rooted in world views that are eco-centric, and accord more rights to all life forms and natural environments to exist without disruption. We observe in media today, there is lot of talk about “rights”. Political right to vote, economic right to keep one’s earnings, social right to dress and behave as we like, religious rights, human rights, sexual rights, right to information, right to education, right to clean drinking water, right to employment, right to social security etc etc etc.
What about the right of other life forms to just exist ? What about our responsibilities towards the larger environment ?
(Quotes of Neil Evernden are from his must-read book “The Natural Alien”)
