The Greening of Conservative America

Rating:
Summary: Conservative criticizes conservatives
Review: Conservative criticizes conservatives for not protecting the environment

"We have also seen that the current anti-environmental stance of many politicians and pundits is entirely unacceptable because it violates fundamental conservative principles." page 263

John R. E. Bliese (The Greening of Conservative America, Westview Press, 2001) is not the first to claim that conservatives should be conservationists, but no one has done the job as well as he has. In contrast to the usual ignorant nonsense that is promoted as conservative "environmentalism" (for example Peter Huber's Hard Green) the book is well researched, well written, and for the most part well argued . Contents

In the first chapter Bliese tackles three myths about the environmental movement; that environmentalists are anticapitalisrs and leftist, that they are pagan nature worshipers, and that environmentalism is just gloom and doom. He then takes on the myth that conservatives should be for business no matter what. Bliese claims that this being for business is what has turned many conservatives into anti-environmentalists. This is a gross oversimplification, but then charting the growth of anti-environmentalism would probably take an entire book. Chapter two demolishes the environment versus the economy myth In chapter three Bliese presents nine conservative principles that are related to environmental protection. Using numerous quotes from conservative thinkers Bliese makes the claim that conservatism requires caring for the environment. The next six chapters look at various environmental problems and possible solutions. Chapter four covers pollution. This is very good, except that Bliese uses "cancer clusters" as proof of harm from toxic chemicals. Almost all of these clusters are the result of the random distribution of cases, and cannot be proven to be caused by toxic chemicals. Chapter five looks at issues involving public lands. His reccomendations are almost totally the reverse of what conservatives usually recommend, especially the so-called "wise use" movement. He notes, for example, that livestock grazing on public land adds an insignificant amount to both the economy and the food supply, while causing great environmental problems. And he notes that wilderness, preserved as wilderness' is far more valuable than the resources that could be extracted from them. Chapters six and seven cover global warming. Yes, it is real, according to the best scientific research, and it will cost far less to prevent it than to deal with the consequences. Chapter eight covers endangered species, including how the Endangered Species Act can be improved. Chapter nine covers sustainability.

Chapter ten looks at "free market environmentalism" an idea that is very popular with some libertarians. Bliese ask if FME is "environmentalism for conservatives?". The answer is a decided no. Among the faults is a good idea (private conservation of land) taken to a bad extreme; the elimination of government conservation of land. Another FME idea, the replacement of environmental regulations with common law liability rules fails for several reasons. For one thing, it was the way of doing things until the 1970s, and it simply did not work. Another major problem is that it is a system that puts the victims of pollution at a major disadvantage in relation to the polluters. These are just a few of the problems Bliese found with FME. The book ends with a short chapter on concluding thoughts.

The good and the bad

Overall the book is very good. It should help rally conservatives to the conservation position. But one has to wonder about how great an impact it will have. So far, it has received little publicity. And we now have a "compassionate conservative" in the White House who seems intent on rolling back environmental protections as rapidly as the paper work can be processed.

There are a few minor problems with the book. For example, Bliese seems to believe that all conservatives share his view that the world was created by God, and that nature ought to be preserved because God gave man stewardship of it. But there is one major problem, the repeated claim that he is promoting conservative solutions to problems, with the implication that liberals would not support them. We are told, without any evidence, that liberals (and bureaucrats) support "command and control" regulations. This is totally inconsistent with the heavy documentation found in the rest of the book. And it appears to be just plain wrong. Here are his three main categories of "conservative" solutions (he also offers more specific solutions in some cases).

1. End the subsidies of destructive activities. Who, except those who benefit from the subsides, would object to this?

2. Where needed, improve existing laws. Who, except anti-governmental extremists, could object?

3. Make the polluters pay. Who, except the polluters, could object.

In short, these solutions are neither conservative nor liberal. While people may disagree on their reasons for protecting the environment, the solutions should be judged by how well they work. The environment needs all the friends it can get.

Rating:
Summary: Conservative criticizes conservatives
Review: Conservative criticizes conservatives for not protecting the environment

"We have also seen that the current anti-environmental stance of many politicians and pundits is entirely unacceptable because it violates fundamental conservative principles." page 263

John R. E. Bliese (The Greening of Conservative America, Westview Press, 2001) is not the first to claim that conservatives should be conservationists, but no one has done the job as well as he has. In contrast to the usual ignorant nonsense that is promoted as conservative "environmentalism" (for example Peter Huber's Hard Green) the book is well researched, well written, and for the most part well argued . Contents

In the first chapter Bliese tackles three myths about the environmental movement; that environmentalists are anticapitalisrs and leftist, that they are pagan nature worshipers, and that environmentalism is just gloom and doom. He then takes on the myth that conservatives should be for business no matter what. Bliese claims that this being for business is what has turned many conservatives into anti-environmentalists. This is a gross oversimplification, but then charting the growth of anti-environmentalism would probably take an entire book. Chapter two demolishes the environment versus the economy myth In chapter three Bliese presents nine conservative principles that are related to environmental protection. Using numerous quotes from conservative thinkers Bliese makes the claim that conservatism requires caring for the environment. The next six chapters look at various environmental problems and possible solutions. Chapter four covers pollution. This is very good, except that Bliese uses "cancer clusters" as proof of harm from toxic chemicals. Almost all of these clusters are the result of the random distribution of cases, and cannot be proven to be caused by toxic chemicals. Chapter five looks at issues involving public lands. His reccomendations are almost totally the reverse of what conservatives usually recommend, especially the so-called "wise use" movement. He notes, for example, that livestock grazing on public land adds an insignificant amount to both the economy and the food supply, while causing great environmental problems. And he notes that wilderness, preserved as wilderness' is far more valuable than the resources that could be extracted from them. Chapters six and seven cover global warming. Yes, it is real, according to the best scientific research, and it will cost far less to prevent it than to deal with the consequences. Chapter eight covers endangered species, including how the Endangered Species Act can be improved. Chapter nine covers sustainability.

Chapter ten looks at "free market environmentalism" an idea that is very popular with some libertarians. Bliese ask if FME is "environmentalism for conservatives?". The answer is a decided no. Among the faults is a good idea (private conservation of land) taken to a bad extreme; the elimination of government conservation of land. Another FME idea, the replacement of environmental regulations with common law liability rules fails for several reasons. For one thing, it was the way of doing things until the 1970s, and it simply did not work. Another major problem is that it is a system that puts the victims of pollution at a major disadvantage in relation to the polluters. These are just a few of the problems Bliese found with FME. The book ends with a short chapter on concluding thoughts.

The good and the bad

Overall the book is very good. It should help rally conservatives to the conservation position. But one has to wonder about how great an impact it will have. So far, it has received little publicity. And we now have a "compassionate conservative" in the White House who seems intent on rolling back environmental protections as rapidly as the paper work can be processed.

There are a few minor problems with the book. For example, Bliese seems to believe that all conservatives share his view that the world was created by God, and that nature ought to be preserved because God gave man stewardship of it. But there is one major problem, the repeated claim that he is promoting conservative solutions to problems, with the implication that liberals would not support them. We are told, without any evidence, that liberals (and bureaucrats) support "command and control" regulations. This is totally inconsistent with the heavy documentation found in the rest of the book. And it appears to be just plain wrong. Here are his three main categories of "conservative" solutions (he also offers more specific solutions in some cases).

1. End the subsidies of destructive activities. Who, except those who benefit from the subsides, would object to this?

2. Where needed, improve existing laws. Who, except anti-governmental extremists, could object?

3. Make the polluters pay. Who, except the polluters, could object.

In short, these solutions are neither conservative nor liberal. While people may disagree on their reasons for protecting the environment, the solutions should be judged by how well they work. The environment needs all the friends it can get.

Rating:
Summary: A Breath of Fresh Air!
Review: Not since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" has the case for environmental protection been presented in a manner that could compel even the most apathetic citizen to sit up and take note. Extremely well written, well researched, and well argued, this book dispels a number of common myths and provides fresh and impressively documented arguments for conserving and protecting the environment. Nothing new, you say? It is when the case for environmental protection is made from (surprise!)a traditional conservative perspective! "The Greening of Conservative America" is an enjoyable, educational, and inspirational read. One can only hope that Bliese's fellow conservatives pay it some heed, for the sake of generations to come.

Rating:
Summary: America the Beautiful
Review: Russell Kirk wrote that there is nothing more conservative than conservation, yet today's Republican Party has squandered its heritage of protecting the environment, a heritage begun by Theodore Roosevelt that continued through Eisenhower and Nixon. Many conservatives have come to the environment's defense, among them: Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, John Gray, Margaret Thatcher, Wendell Berry, Paul Weyrich, Theodore Roosevelt IV and Susan Eisenhower.

Bliese's defense starts with demolishing misconceptions and fallacies. He then shows how certain conservative principles are consistent with the goals of environmentalism. The rest of the book takes a look at the major environmental issues of the day: pollution, public lands, global warming, biodiversity, and sustainability. Finally, he discusses the inadequacy of the libertarian notion of "free-market environmentalism."

One of the book's real virtues, in fact, is that it reveals how traditional conservatism has much more to offer than the libertarianism with which it is sometimes confused.

I also applaud Bliese's familiarity with which public policies and private actions have worked and which have not. He offers many solutions, most of them market based. Much could be accomplished, for example, by eliminating the billions in subsidies that nearly all industries receive. The unwillingness to do so reinforces my belief that there is no conservative party in Washington, D. C. It is worth keeping in mind that most scientists are problem-solvers, while most politicians are not.

Despite occasionally getting bogged down in the specifics of various studies, Bliese has fully documented his work. The end notes suggest deep, scholarly reading in environmental research. But this also raises a problem. In our time there is a general loss of consensus over what is debatable and what is fixed. More specifically, the politicizing of science, which is to say government involvement in science, has turned it into a tool of lobbying groups, college professors, and others whose livelihood depends on giving answers that the king wants to hear. Moreover, the rhetoric of catastrophe, whether it comes from business interests or environmental interests, sedates the public in much the same way as the boy who cried wolf. Lacking formal knowledge in these matters, readers are left wondering what to believe.

These are problems about which readers must draw their own conclusions. We ought to agree on certain fundamental truths, particularly in a field that pertains to the natural world that we all share, and this search for consensus appears to be Bliese's intent. Our time on earth is temporary, one of tenancy rather than ownership. We can care for the world we have inherited or we can treat it as our own personal trash can.

Bliese has certainly carved a niche for himself, given the paucity of books or articles that deal directly with the connection between conservatism and environmentalism. I hope he continues that work. With any luck his book will be an antidote to the ideology that obscures these issues.