By Sam Hyde, Chemist IIThe American environmental
movement can be broadly divided into two schools of thought. These schools,
while striving for the same goals of sustainability and care for the
environment, differ greatly in their approaches. Some romanticize and idolize
the natural world and advocate a return to a simpler life. This life is more in
tune with the environment and the living things within it. They reject all of
what they consider the wasteful and polluting trappings of modern life in favor
of traditional, often small-scale communities. While this approach is indeed
environmentally friendly, it in many cases is predicated on a deeper moral
belief about the corrupting influence of the modern world. Individuals are free
to choose this lifestyle. However, it is implausible to expect an entire society
to protect the environment by living this way.
In contrast to
this view is a more sensible approach based on a scientific understanding of the
natural world. This view advocates a technologically advanced and organized
approach to caring for the environment rather than a regression to traditional
life. This view, while not as appealing to some, is the only viable approach to
environmental policy for several reasons.
-The sheer number of people on
this planet makes it impossible for the population to support itself by
small-scale farming or hunting. There is not enough arable land for such
inefficient food production. Additionally, a changing climate will result in
the destruction or shift of arable land, resulting in famine or massive
migrations (think the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s). A scientific approach would
place emphasis on more efficient (and more environmentally friendly) farming
practices to ensure a long-term food supply.
-Life in large communities
is inherently more efficient, and could be made even more so by improvements in
architecture, urban planning, and public transportation. There are economies of
scale that make living in a city more environmentally friendly than living in a
suburban or rural setting. An apartment building is far cheaper to heat than a
group of single-family homes. A modern public transportation system uses far
less energy than a fleet of cars. Likewise, food takes less energy to
distribute because there are fewer, larger, population centers to
reach.
-A return to traditional life would come at the cost of so many
technological innovations that have proved invaluable in the effort to live a
better and more environmentally friendly life. Scientific progress is the
result of investment and organization on a scale that would be hard to achieve
in a traditional society. The creation of the Internet and the moon landing are
two good examples of feats that would be impossible to accomplish without
massive, concerted effort. These efforts were not explicitly meant to benefit
the environment, but the scientific discoveries made in their pursuit have had
broad and lasting applications.
It is easy to understand the
lure of a simple, wholesome, pastoral environmental philosophy. However, it is
ultimately untenable as a global strategy to protect the environment.
Environmentalism is merely a facet of a larger economic, social, political, and
technological strategy to ensure a better future. It may not be as glamorous,
and it requires a lot of work that will not pay off immediately, but it is
ultimately the best way to protect the environment while providing a better and
brighter future for human society.
