Recently I read an article by Whit Ayres: “Let’s Get Right into the Debate.” Basically, the article polarizes or politicizes environmentalism and champions green conservatism while demonizing liberal environmentalism. Personally, I believe it is dangerous to politicize environmentalism because environmentalism at its core is not to be politicized. Politicization demands benefit to politics or a political ideology or system and not towards the environment or Nature. Of course, there is political ecology but political ecology focuses on how behaviors of individuals living within a political system influence environmental issues and the landscape.

I also believe that green conservatives are stealing elements of environmentalism like market-based mechanisms and making them their own. Environmentalists have been using market-based mechanisms to fight environmental degradation when appropriate. Certain fisheries use quota systems as a natural resource management tool but the quota system must exist within a regulatory framework. Otherwise, people will cheat. In addition, the total association of market-based mechanisms with conservatives can skew the usefulness of market-based mechanisms amongst ill-informed liberal environmentalists. Therefore, the issue is a battle of ideas and words. For example, in reality, most environmentalists are conservationists and most conservationists are environmentalists. Conservation is a sexier word for conservatives to use and some conservationists will never call themselves environmentalists when in fact they have a lot in common.

In reality, environmentalists are working to fight environmental degradation through conservation programs and other conservation work. Hijacking the idea or word conservation in addition to the market-based tools used by environmentalists are just a few problems I have with Newt Gingrich’s green conservatism. Conservatives have the right to champion what they believe are better solutions to environmental degradation but they should not claim it as their own or an alternative solution because green conservatism will not stand-alone. By itself, it is too weak to fight environmental degradation.

The other problems I have with green conservatism include:

1. Green conservatives claim green conservatism is an alternative that is more rational and viable than liberal environmentalism, which is not the truth
2. Green conservatives claim that environmentalists rely solely on litigation, regulation or statist solutions to environmental degradation, which is not the truth
3. Given the rhetoric it often seems that green conservatives have developed market-based mechanisms as an environmental management tool to fight environmental degradation, which is not the truth
4. Green conservatives ignore and leave environmentalists left asking the tough more applicable questions to environmental degradation like what will we do about an increasing world population
5. Green conservatives demonize litigation and regulation when in reality these tools are very much needed especially under the Bush Administration

I agree that conservatives are missing from the environmental debate but if conservatives have been missing from the environmental debate how can they have, contributed or developed the tools used to fight environmental degradation? Whit Ayres claims that “conservatism…wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in.” Come on Whit, AS IF! He is literally cherry picking the elements, which sound the best.

The truth and reality is that environmentalism is a very diverse mass movement that has been developed more so by liberals that have long embraced and used market-based mechanisms in addition to “science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes” to fight environmental degradation. However environmentalists understand that litigation and regulation are necessary to uphold these mechanisms otherwise they will not work alone. Without litigation, the government cannot be held accountable for environmental laws or corporations for intentional or reckless tortious activity towards individuals and the environment.

Conservatives champion free markets almost blindly but free markets by themselves will not solve problems associated with environmental degradation. The housing market and airline industry are some examples where a lackadaisical government allowed free markets to creep into a complex system that resulted in failure.

The fact is that conservatives are very late in joining the environmental movement. Just a few years back and today many conservatives still do not understand that environmental degradation is a threat or a national security threat. However, the conservatives that do understand the mechanics of environmental degradation understand that the problem is so big and complex that if they do not become relevant in the debate their political ideology will become extinct. To be relevant in the debate I find it appalling that conservatives try to polarize environmentalism. Green conservatism is Newt Gingrich’s creature and it steals the elements of environmentalism that fit the conservative agenda. However, these green conservatives misunderstand what it means to manage the environment since successfully managing the environment will not come through market-based measures alone.

My hands have been dirty from fieldwork and I have been soaked with cold, damp saltwater in the middle of the winter on the high seas in an effort to save our landscapes. Furthermore, I have worked with the resource users and understand that resource users are relevant in the environmental debate. As a result, through experience, I understand what is needed to save the environment and it is not green conservatism.

More from The Conservation Report on green conservatism: DISSENTING OPINION: On green conservatism, GREEN CONSERVATISM: Too little, too late and GREEN CONSERVATISM: The hijacking of environmentalism by conservatives through an idea called green conservatism.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.