Is Being Green Social Darwinism?
May 25th, 2009 | 7 responses
Politically speaking, environmentalism has been part of a laundry list of good causes since the 1960s. If you thought protecting nature was an important priority, it has long been assumed you also support higher minimum wages, gender parity, lifting up oppressed minorities, and kindred causes.
But as the reality of a new environmental economics takes hold, such a moral and ego-gratifying synergism faces increasing intellectual challenges. Yes, greening is certainly a more evolved form of economic behavior which uses energy and raw materials more efficiently, producing less waste (that is to say, less pollution) in the process. And yes, greening makes a company or a country more internationally competitive. And yes, one can no more opt not to green one’s economy than opt not to computerize one’s company, simply because the process is costly and difficult.
But a more evolved, efficient and competitive economy is not necessarily one that brings about uniform prosperity. Indeed, it usually seems to work in ways that favor the few over the many, accentuates the have and have-not schism, and increasingly, helps bring about a nineteenth century economic inequality based on twenty-first century technology and management approaches.
The dirty little secret of environmental economics is that the greening of the U.S. economy, so long a questing beast of the American environmental community, is by its very nature bringing about changes more akin to social darwinism than to social justice. Environmental regulations are proportionately far more painful for small firms than Fortune 500 giants; the near doubling of unemployment among middle managers since 1960 is closely related to corporate restructuring indistinguishable from greening initiatives; countless unskilled union members have fallen from the middle class because of efficiency-based, ecologically sound capital investments.
It is easy and comforting to side with the angels on every issue. The pinch comes when support for one set of good works precludes support for another.
Soon enough, environmentalists may have to decide whether they want a super-efficient, ecologically sound and sustainable society, purchased at the expense of Americans whose place at the table was tied to performing inefficient marketplace functions, or a less ecologically sound society with a social system not so warped by extremes; whether to fight to preserve the endangered American middle class, or America’s natural ecology.
Which side are you on?
7 Responses to “Is Being Green Social Darwinism?”
Way cool love it. I hope to see more
Can you give some examples of green technologies that have put middle class people out of work?
If you want to eliminate unemployment, outlaw farm equipment. Are you seriously advocating that people should do useless busy work?
I would posit exactly the opposite of what the author suggests. My favorite example is green building. Even the most stalwart builders are now saying “if you're not building green right now, your company is finished.” We have 124 million homes in America that need energy retrofits. To do that, we need an army of installation installers, window replacers, roofers, solar panel installers and every day laborers in order to caulk windows and door frames, place foam insulation panels behind electric sockets and dozens of other essential tasks. The payoff for homeowners is so strong and rapid, that for most it is easily the best investment they can possibly make. National manufacturers need to ramp up production, hiring workers to make the insulation, those more efficient doors and windows and roofing materials, etc. The knowledge base in the building industry is so weak right now, after years of ignoring energy costs and efficiency, that we also need thousands of trainers to get them up to speed. And we need trainers for the trainers. Not a single bit of this can be done in India or China.
On the commercial side of real estate, increasing efficiency is more of an engineering task, requiring another cadre of energy savvy engineers, architects, designers and installers. A sustainable lifestyle also means less reliance on consumables and products shipped halfway around the world, and consequently more reliance on locally produced goods and services. The question that has long kept us from making these changes is “can we afford this?” By now, it's obvious that we can't afford not to do this.
Please… Let's get real here…
Middle management has been killed by people like me… Business Analyst, Systems Analyst and Computer Programmers.
The computer industry is what killed middle management and nothing else…
And this process has had nothing to do with environmental, sustainability or with any other green technology.
The basic issue of the late twentieth and early twenty first century, is that our technology has become so productive that 30% or more of the workforce has become redundant, and our society has no idea as to how to deal with this fact.
Does the author of this post have a single fact to support this absurd thesis?
“Which side are you on?”
WTF are you talking about?
Attempting to freeze the market practices in place to protect the status quo is a pretty bad idea unless you've got some transition plan in the works. Protecting workers whose jobs are or becoming outdated only makes sense if you also have an ongoing plan to retrain those workers into something useful in the emerging market. Even then its very difficult because the external motivating factors almost doom the endeavor to failure since people inherently don't like change. You're basically suggesting that new technology and innovation be ignored because of the near term costs. Say it out loud, there is no way that makes sense unless you're Amish.
Also, most job losses have been because our manufacturing base is being shipped overseas, and has very little to do with environmental regulations. You can even make a case for the opposite in several areas, i.e. – that American auto manufacturers dropped the ball by focusing on gas guzzling SUV's instead of hybrid and electrical tech for more efficient vehicles, and that a higher focus on efficiency and “green” technology and methods would have increased sales. There is no way to know that for sure obviously, but considering the success of competitors who have gone that route its hard to dismiss the theory outright. I think the concept of creative destruction applies very heavily here, and if we were to hold off on retooling to go green we might protect a few jobs for a little while, but in the not to distant future we would merely be at a competitive disadvantage with those nations that jumped on the wagon early.