Voices against sustainability?

Thanks to the inherent tension between the economy and the environment, there has been a consistent strain of economic conservatives and libertarians who speak out against environmental policy. But there are also voices against sustainability. What's the deal with that?

Berit Kjos argues that sustainability advocates seek to "brainwash" the public into changing their values away from the bible, and "the unadulterated U.S. Constitution" and towards peace and community. This to her is obviously a dangerous precursor to full-on socialism: she uses the teaching of the Little Red Hen in kindergarten to show that children are taught not to hoard the fruits of their labor, but to share.

Henry Lamb tells the story of a 70-year-old woman arrested for not watering her lawn in Utah as an example of how the "sustainable development craze" endangers property rights and imperils freedom:

What should be immediately obvious to the most casual observer is the fact that where sustainable development prevails, individual freedom cannot. Private property rights take a back seat to the collective vision in a sustainable community. In a sustainable community, a committee of "stakeholders" decide what private land owners may do, or may not do, with their own property. This is not freedom.

His example seems odd, because Envision Utah, the initiative he blames for the woman's arrest, lists water conservation as one of its eight quality growth strategies and hopes to promote "water-wise landscaping." So it stretches the imagination to consider her falling afoul of its vision by not watering her lawn.

ICLEI is also a target: Tom DeMeese urges readers to remove the organization from their towns' local planning process. ICLEI, a nonprofit organization that came out of the United Nations and seeks to help sustainable development policy at the local level, is here a clear example of international takeover of U.S. policy.

Talk against sustainable development is not idle theoretical discussion. One talk radio program in New Rochelle discusses sustainability there:

[The town's new sustainability coordinator] Kooris presents "sustainability" as asking ourselves whether decisions we make will benefit all of the facets of New Rochelle but what he is really talking about is placing limits on economic growth. If you push hard on this you will find that the organizations behind pushing this idea are talking about a fundamental reduction in demand. New Rochelle residents might want to understand how these groups propose to fundamentally reduce demand for resources. The answer will have something to do with population control.

The program has an extended series on ICLEI's involvement in the town and sustainability in general, trying to convince listeners that such policy is extreme and leads to socialism.

U.S. climate blame game: My two cents

Since the election (and even before), pundits have been lining up (here, here, and here) trying to figure out why the heck the U.S. Congress couldn't pass a climate bill this year. Potential culprits include the Republicans, the Tea Party, Rahm Emanuel, the media, environmental groups, the public, the fossil fuel industry, Harry Reid, Senate Democrats, the filibuster, the Senate itself, Barack Obama, etc., etc., etc.

I think it's easy and stupid to blame the Republicans. Yes, the party has become deranged since the 2008 election, and the fact that denial of climate change has become party dogma even for those who know better is very disturbing. But if a child misbehaves, do you blame the child or the adults who should know better? If you lose a football game, do you blame the other team or you own bad playing?

Democrats in the Senate didn't even bring the climate bill passed in the House to a vote. That's their fault. If they had put up a fight and lost, that would be one thing. Not even showing up is another. Now, Obama never convinced me of his golden touch, but his popularity in 2008 was due to people's belief that he had a strong vision for the country and was passionate enough to take us there. Where is his vision on climate change?? His administration is directly culpable: it sabotaged Senate efforts at several turns. But the president has been eerily silent on climate and his messaging is pathetic:

And I think one of the things that's very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don't hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs that - and that put us in a competitive posture around the world.

Setting up climate action as "not bad for the economy" is counterproductive. It retains "economic growth" as the most important value for Americans and sets up a requirement that mitigation measures not touch that growth. It's also easy to show that any policy that could mitigate emissions might slow economic growth, setting it up for failure.

So, to recap: Democrats, own up to your share of the blame, especially you, Obama. You're supposed to be a leader. While you're at it, start selling climate policy on its own merits rather than qualifying it and dooming it to unattainable standards.

Local sustainability: State parks

Sustainability means long-term system viability. The environmental component often gets the most attention, but it's by no means the only aspect that needs consideration. At any rate, this article in May's Governing magazine shows state governments throwing all three out the window in their decision to close state parks, which are huge revenue generators, preserve the local environment, and encourage social interaction and active leisure.

Shame on you, state governments.