so, yesterday i had the privilege of attending a carnegie mellon “speak your mind” discussion about environmental issues in china led by donald sutton, a professor of history at carnegie mellon. i enjoyed myself, and was even pleasantly surprised by the presence of food at an event where i was not expecting any food. i was even more delighted by the discussion.
it is rare in graduate school that you hear people outside your field sound off on issues important to your professional life. it is even more rare to engage undergraduates on such issues. and even more rare to hear indigenous students talk about an issue you’ve only read about in journals and other media.
i think the thing that was most salient to me was the idea that population control can be thought of as a method for limiting environmental emissions. specifically, the idea that a government should tell a couple how many children they should have as a part of a plan to acheive other environmental and economic targets.
personally, this is especially apalling to me. we also discussed other things, like should each chinese family have the right to buy a car, or are the population generally educated about environmental issues, and so on. however, i think this population control idea drove home to me the fact that environmental problems are primarily a social and economic problem first.
as an environmentalist environmental engineer, i speak hesitantly about the idea that environmental problems generally do not have their own domain. they are not of paramount importance. although this is dangerous to say, as many would take such a comment and run with it, i think this is true.
it seems that environmental pollution problems are primarily a product of the idea that resources should be allocated to maximize individuals’ pleasures and satisfaction, thus they should be allocated to maximize production. in the capitalist worldview, as i understand it, the only force that regulates environmental externalities is the invisible hand. there is, however, nothing regulating the desire of human beings to consume…
this worldview which deifies individual satiation is what i believe is the root cause of environmental pollution. environmental stewardship just does not fit in a worldview which holds individual satisfaction as the paramount objective.
i believe it is clear that environmental destruction is a product primarily of collective social thought. and in a worldview where social thought is controlled by consumption being the driving force behind how scarce resources are allocated, environmental destruction must be controlled by controlling also the population. while it is also clear that population cannot grow infinitely, i think the greater injustice is allowing an “invisible hand” to control environmental pollution. why is it that we cannot fulfill environmental responsibilities regardless of their contribution to (or consumption of) the bottom line?
let me know what you think.
>You raise some interesting points. The invisible hand does not allocate environmental resources efficiently, a classic market failure. I think however, that a triple bottom line approach is possible (economic, environmental, and social considerations in coroporate/governmental decision making). I belive that forward thinking companies will reduce their risks posed by their negative environmental activities when the present expected value of the risk/reward outweighs the initial and/or sustained capital outlays. Or companies may choose to consider the environment due to shareholder pressure or as a means of market differentiation. We’ll see…