| Don't put price tag on environment |
| Posted by Enviroadmin |
| Monday, 24 May 2010 19:49 |
|
By Graeme Cowley British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent announcement that the G8 summit will focus on the twin challenges of Africa and climate change provides a timely opportunity to reflect on Africa's ecological future. The announcement is noteworthy in that it pairs an issue at the forefront of economic debate with one that has for some years been the mainstay of ecological debate, and traditionally economics and "ecologics" have been uneasy bedfellows. The Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve consensus precisely because its aim - to curb global warming - was considered by some to be too expensive. The United States argued that the terms of the protocol would result in the equivalent waste of about $1 300 a year for each American and would place an unnecessary burden on economic growth. The figures have been disputed, but whatever the costs of the protocol, the case reflects the long-standing tension between the demands of the environment and those of economic justice. The tension is not new, but is especially poignant in a developing continent like Africa, where social and economic imbalances are so acute, and where the agenda of "reconstruction and development" looms large in matters of public policy. The economic approach to ecology has encouraged the orthodox assumption that the poor are incapable of a "more-than-economic" relationship with the natural world, because their economic status is the chief determining factor in their existence. It follows from this view that the only environmentalist doctrine that can be preached to the poor is one rooted in an economic logic - in other words, the dominant paradigm of sustainable development, or "enlightened self-interest", in which the poor are taught to help themselves in ways that are less harmful to nature. The internal logic here implies that the interests of the environment cannot be spoken of in a meaningful way until the interests of people are met. Meeting the demands of an ecological age, however, is as much a moral project as it is an economic one. On the one hand, it requires that we curb our eco-destructive habits and reform our economic practices. But it also demands that we engage critically with the meaning and value we invest in the natural world. The destruction of the environment is as much due to a failure to understand the profound kinship between people and their living habitat, as it is to irresponsible economic practices. Yet, it is precisely this moral dimension that is not sufficiently recognised by the dominant paradigm of sustainable development, which reduces the issue of the environment to one of resource management. The existing policy of sustainable development provides at best an economic strategy for survival - it makes no provision for a fundamental moral reorientation towards the natural world. What is needed, then, is a culture of sustainability, which transcends the quantitative logic of the economist, and locates the policy of sustainable development within a broader moral commitment to the living environment. An awareness of the indissoluble kinship between human and non-human life needs to be instilled in popular consciousness and used as a template for moral action. Such a culture cannot be legislated into existence, for it is not defined by legal prescriptions - it does not prescribe, it affirms. It is less about what one ought not to do (this is the domain of the policy of sustainable development), than about the celebration of "life-centred" values and the weaving of those values into new patterns of individual and collective self-understanding. As such, it cannot be imposed from above, but must be nurtured in the soil of cultural tradition, collective identity and individual conscience. Therefore, while it is important that the government, at both a national and regional level, endorses and sponsors a campaign of moral re-education, the participation of NGOs, interest groups and local community structures is critical to the shaping of a new ecological sensibility. Will a genuine ecological ethic for Africa have to be postponed until poverty has been eradicated? No, because the issue of the environment is not reducible to an issue of poverty alleviation. But this only becomes apparent once we transcend a purely economic interpretation of the environmental crisis. The chief perpetrators of ecological destruction tend to be the affluent classes, not those who are condemned by circumstances to a frugal consumption. If poverty alleviation means elevating the poor to present standards of middle-class extravagance, then it will simply exacerbate the problem of environmental destruction and resource depletion. From an ecological perspective, poverty, no less than the consumption habits of the wealthier classes, needs to be managed within a framework that is both economic and moral. No socio-economic class is exempt from a moral relationship with the natural world any more than it is exempt from a sense of moral obligation to human beings. And this is a crucial point: the notion that environmentalism is simply about the weighing up of material interests can only be outgrown once we come to realise that respect for the natural world is an extension of those values which cradle a healthy democracy. The fact remains that there is frequently a correlation between the way people treat one another as social beings and the way they treat the natural world. Attitudes to nature often reflect patterns of social interaction between people, in the same way that different technologies embody different forms of social relationship. Democracy assigns a set of inalienable rights to every one of its citizens, irrespective of their economic status or utility value. In other words, a person's moral status is unconditional. By the same measure, the environment needs to be valued for more than the economic opportunities it yields. The ethos of respect and compassion that characterises a benevolent society needs to incorporate the broader community of life, human and non-human. And it is an ethos which can only be brought about by a concerted, sustained and even radical campaign of moral re-education - that is, by the establishment of a culture of sustainability. Anything less is a compromise of the formative principles of a responsible democracy. If we are to achieve this, we need to view the plight of the environment as a cultural problem, and make use of cultural resources in fashioning a new ecological sensibility. Sadly, we are so enmeshed in the prevailing consumerist ideology that we frequently overlook the cultural riches of the economic underclass of the continent. There is a tendency to believe that the margin of profit is the "measure of a man", in the same way that GNP is the measure of human welfare. The plight of the environment, if anything, teaches us that not all growth is good, and that material standards of living and quality of life are not to be confused. Poverty then does not preclude an African environmental ethic, but presents unique challenges and novel opportunities for fostering an environmental ethic rooted in the vigour of local landscapes and traditions. At the final count, a meaningful encounter with the natural world is a humanising experience, which contributes to the renewal of both individual and community. The poor of Africa, whose need is the greatest, should not be deprived of such a vital encounter. - Cowley is a researcher at the Educational Support Services Trust. From Cape Times - Original Article at link: http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=273&fArticleId=2612114 |
