Internal Principles Versus External Rules

In the spirit of uniting multiple, if not outright contradicting perspectives, I checked out a library book called: Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, written by Steve Milloy, a Fox News columnist, cofounder of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. After skipping around for a bit, I more or less felt like he was coming from an Orange center of gravity, which advocates the exploitation of nature for profit, using technology to enhance the standard of living and emphasizing progress:

"it seems that 200+ years of the technological innovation, free market-driven prosperity, and individual freedoms that have defined America's unique place in the world--and have drawn countless generations of immigrants to our shores in search of a better life--have not impressed the greens. They plan to diminish the famous geographic, social, and economic mobility of Americans--the very things that have always made us feel that "anything is possible." They are keen to reverse our noble advancements in producing more goods and services at less cost. They rail against economic growth as a blight upon society and the planet. They applaud technological retrogression as a virtue and seek to resurrect windmills, zeppelins, clotheslines, and iceboxes..." Milloy 5

He goes on to say that there is no scientific evidence indicating that carbon dioxide emissions (manmade or otherwise) control or even measurably impact global climate, that the "hockey stick graph" (that wouldn't be exponential growth, would it?) has been discredited by methodological flaws, and that it is necessary to fight against the Greens' scare campaign at all costs.

His points are as follows:

- green policies will add to costs, damage the economy, and destroy the tax base that feeds the government

-greens won't let America develop its own natural resources (domestic oil and gas drilling, coal mining, or nuclear power), even though wind, solar, and biofuels are more expensive, unreliable, and cannot satisfy the nation's energy needs.

-greens will try to limit reproduction, regulating the amount of children you may have (like in communist china)

-school curriculums will be in "eco-lockdown" as inquisitiveness will be hindered due to the imposition of an unquestioning politicized dogma

-government regulation will become more intrusive, growing to an international level

-"sustainability", "smart growth" and "optimum population" will effectively destroy autonomous economic activity

-"organic farming" uses more fossil fuel, land, and water as opposed to modern agricultural technologies which allow farmers to grow more food with less land and water.

-"carbon neutrality" will consider mere existence to be an ecological problem where every action is a violation

-all binding [greenhouse gas] emission caps will limit energy use and threaten future economic development, condemning people to perpetual poverty.

-greens promote oppressive lifestyles and convey a sense of urgency to end debate and rush to solutions, expanding their power.

his solution is to first figure out what companies you own, and then file a shareholder proposal requiring businesses to explain their course of action and remind them its their fiduciary duty to make sure you, as a shareholder, profit as much as possible, and if they don't actively oppose regulations, its a form of negligence, forcing you to sacrifice your standard of living for a regressive political agenda.

It sounds like the Author is primarily concerned about increased government control of people's lives. And why shouldn't he be? With an Orange altitude, he has transcended the Amber level (promoting authoritarian institutions) so as to more fully prosper at a global level. His perception of Greens, despite the possibility of their good intentions (and he does state the importance of the environment), is that they are reverting to using tools of authority (government, "oppressive" institutions and regulation") to FORCE others to do the Greens' bidding.

While the author uses many sources and includes a suggested reading/ viewing appendix, his main concern is that humans are not responsible for creating global warming. This may or may not be true, I really don't know, but I would love to see a dialectical knowledge evolution through a possible conversation with Freeman, who seems to have maybe graduated the Orange (and possibly Green) levels, and is relating what he sees to be the "proper" way forward:

-Outlaw new poisonous energy sources (monopolizing the energy sources for greens)
-create tax credits (giving greens "unfair" advantages in the marketplace)
-increasing regulations (interfering with the free market)
-funding research and development of new technologies (thereby increasing government spending)

Its interesting how these two world views run almost completely counter to one another. For instance, Freeman states: "A true solar revolution more promising than the development of nuclear power is under way that is likely to drop the cost of solar power below the cost of electricity from coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power. The breakthrough is the commercialization of an ultra thin solar coating material that can over time cover anything under the sun and generate electricity with no pollution and no fuel cost."

Now, either these two writers could speak in warlike rhetoric, increasing their constituency/ base until two systematic ideologies blew up and incited violence, or they could engage each other through the conflict resolution inherent in taking an integral approach to solving their problems:

"In our ever-evolving universe, each of us should strive toward inhabiting multiple perspectives--especially those that stand in contrast to our own habits of thinking and feeling. Only through developing such a capacity for world centric perspective-taking can we adequately achieve the mutual understanding so desperately needed on a a planet fragmented by conflicting world views and approaches." (389) To overcome this fragmentation, Integral Ecology provides a way to weave all approaches into an environmental mandala, and ecology of ecologies that not only honors the physical ecology of systems and behaviors, but includes the cultural and intentional aspects as well--at all levels of organization. (486) Esbjorn-Hargens, Zimmerman--Integral Ecology

How then do we resolve this? My personal guess would be that after a scientific study aimed at establishing whether or not it is necessary for businesses to actually conform to new standards, community projects should arise where local inhabitants spend their own time to help businesses make the transition. That way, each participant becomes a stakeholder in the future they cocreate, and no one feels like the burden to change rests solely on them. Also, the private sector should probably take more initiative than having the government tell people what to do, while a world-wide marketplace takes an active interest in understanding the key issues while restructuring their actions to promote sustainable practices informed by biomimicry, creating leverage so that businesses previously unaware of why its important now no longer have to address the ideology of Greens but now recognize the necessity for change for sheer survival/profit. Thus, orange gets what it wants (not being forced to by government as it realizes the potential for ecological economics) while greens get what they want too. I suppose too it will be up to the greens to demonstrate and prove that a lot of what they claim is possible while not inhibiting the role of strategic business as Oranges fear they are proposing to do.

In this way we can start to eliminate waste by design, addressing concerns about "outside control" by integrating communal concerns to self-organize new models accordingly.

"Some people think the movement is defined primarily by what it is against, but the language of the movement is first and foremost about keeping the conversation going, because ideas that inform it never end: growth without inequality, wealth without plunder, work without exploitation, a future without fear..."these people" are reimagining the world." 188 Hawken

maybe the bargaining stage is already present, contextualizing the existence of bad stuff by showing what it led too. In a book called Movement and Revolution, the author was saying that because recently modern childhood is largely protected from the experiences of painful illness and death, we come to feel very early that we are each persons of considerable importance, that we each have dignity and rights that belong to us. At the same time, society is pliant and responsive to each of our needs, and thus we acquire a low frustration threshold. at the same time childhood is marked by values and by a consciousness that are emphatically personalistic, bureaucracy by contrast has an ethos of emphatic impersonality.

"Put simply, an individual shaped by modern childhood is most likely to feel oppressed by modern bureaucracy. Indeed, one brought up in privileged circumstances is likely to have a very low "oppression threshold" when it comes to the impersonal procedures of bureaucracy..."

Thus people today feel oppressed and exploited simply by being subjected to bureaucratic processes that a generation ago would simply have been accepted as pragmatic necessities, as they are considered little more than statistics.

Gives new insight into why recent generations supposedly have perspectives informed by notions of entitlement, sometimes called "little emperors".

Anyway, after getting depressed about the fact that so much suffering has had to take place, we'll probably figure that its all just "perfect", since just breathing is a gift and we should all be content with the experience of existence, no matter how tough it turns out to be. Thus the fun becomes struggling against injustice and joining the "revolution", even if its just because we have nothing better to do :)

besides, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?" not to be callous or anything, but one could see the entire history of humanity as one big massacre. I take comfort in my privileged position and only hope that I can provide some sort of relief through my own personal practice

No comments: