When environmentalism goes wrong

Commanding Moments
    By Michael Burstein

Environmentalists get a bad rap. Sensational media accounts of radicals chaining themselves to trees, or contending that a blade of grass is more important than all of humanity, paint the movement as one of irrational love for all things natural. In reality, the environmental movement in the United States has been successful both in promoting legislation and spreading awareness; the U.S. has one of the best environmental protection records in the world. But as the first "green revolution" draws to a close, the scope of environmental protection is becoming international. The environmental movement, however, has failed to adapt to this shifting political and economic climate.

Take the current debate over trade and the environment. Many environmentalists object vigorously to the expansion of free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement. One line of argument says that trade promotes economic growth, inherently damaging the natural environment because of increased levels of pollution and resource use associated with industry. This "limits to growth" theory has been largely shown to be false and now has few adherents, but it reveals an attitude which pervades even the more sophisticated debates: that economic goals must be sacrificed at the altar of environmental protection.

The global reality is that free trade is progressing, and nations will not be dissuaded from the economic benefits of expanded integration. In order for environmental protection not to fall by the wayside, it must be a part of the free trade agenda. Rather than lobbying Congress not to pass Fast Track legislation, environmentalists should focus their attention on the trade negotiations themselves, to identify the critical points of leverage and take action. This is not to say that we should condone Mexican tuna fishing that kills dolphins for the sake of free trade, but, in seeking solutions to such problems, the international environmental movement lacks a strong appreciation for the power of another kind of green: money.

Perhaps the most serious trade-related environmental issues involve clashing standards. Developed countries with active environmental movements seek to maintain their high standards when trade barriers fall. The problem is that developing countries usually cannot keep up--they do not yet have the economic strength to provide as rigorous enforcement and protection as the U.S. does.

Tension ensues between the developing countries--fearing "eco-imperialism" and "green" protectionism--and the more developed countries, who do not want to see their own environmental standards lowered to compete with other countries' lower environmental costs. Free traders must realize that, as countries move closer economically, environmental preferences become "internationalized." Environmentalists must realize the economic consequences of their positions.

The conflict over standards highlights another problem with current environmentalist thinking when applied to international affairs: the differing needs of rich and poor. Last year, negotiators in Kyoto, Japan failed to produce a viable climate change accord because of these differences. At issue is the question, "Who will pay for environmental protection?" One view is that all nations should reduce their emissions by an equal percentage, but this fails to account for the needs of developing countries to continue strong industrial growth. Another view is that rich countries with large emissions like the U.S. should bear most of the burden, but this view ignores the fact that emissions reductions per ton are more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere.

So how can the environmental movement save itself? Negotiating the perilous waters between the economic Scylla and the developing-country Charybdis means recognizing opportunities and taking advantage of them. Closer economic ties between nations inevitably create environmental pressures and even environmental disputes. But such ties also bring opportunities to marshal economic incentives for environmental benefits. Flows of trade and capital to developing countries are accompanied by technology and knowledge transfers; regional integration creates governance structures attuned to regional-scale environmental problems like acid rain. Efforts should be focused on making environmental considerations a part of international economic law, not a hindrance to it.

The success of the international environmental movement can parallel that of the domestic movement. But to do so requires a shedding of the old view that environmental protection and economic development are at odds with one another. To truly actualize this idea, the environment must not be placed ahead of economics, but alongside it. Environmental responsibility should not be placed solely on developed or developing countries, but should rest with both. In this way, the international environmental movement can move from radicalism to maturity.

Back to Opinion...