Jonathan H. Adler
Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, by Albert Gore. (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1992). 407 pp., $22.95
In 1998, Tennessee Senator Albert Gore launched his ill-fated bid to become the Democratic nominee for President. While much of the American media focused upon his Southern roots and moderate persona—both characteristics then viewed as the sine quanon of any electable Democratic presidential candidate—few highlighted the environmental views that he had hoped would become the cornerstone of his campaign. In fact, Gore was even derided on one occasion when he launched into a soliloquy on the importance of global climate change and the need for action. At this event, one of his opponents commented that it sounded as if he were running for head scientist, not head of state. As Gore was forced to acknowledge, “the issue of the global environment would not get me elected”—at least no in 1988.
While the global environment may not have been a pivotal campaign issue that year, “green” issues soon captured America’s attention. Within a period of several months, a series of events catapulted human impact on the environment into the political consciousness. In particular, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in early 1989 heightened public awareness of man’s capacity to effect the surrounding world. That same year, Gore decided to write a book, detailing not only man’s impact upon the natural world, but also the spiritual crisis that lay at its foundation. Three years later, as the Democratic party was once again deliberating about its party standard-bearer, Earth in the Balance was released.
Billed as Gore’s “journey in search of a true understanding of the global ecological crisis and how it can be resolved,” Earth in the Balance is clearly the author’s attempt to be all things to all people—a committed green to the environmental establishment, a thoughtful and measured politician to the policy community, and an insightful and forward-looking leader to the average reader. It is this very presentation that makes this book so formidable. Founded on questionable premises and leading to woefully misguided political solutions, this book was carefully crafted to bring its author, and his green agenda, to the forefront of American politics.
The central premise of Earth in the Balance, as with so many other volumes of this sort, is that the world is facing an impending catastrophe of tremendous magnitude. Gore and other environmentalists learned this tactic from Cold War worriers who were concerned with the much more realistic threat of nuclear armageddon. During the Cold War, the nation was—for all intents and purposes—mobilized around a central organizing proposition: the fight against communism. Gore seeks to establish a parallel in the fight to protect the environment, but his arguments have little basis in scientific reality.
Particularly with regard to global warming—Gore’s cause celebre—he dishonestly proffers the existence of a scientific consensus on the potential for disaster. Thus, the Senator claims that of all the strategic environmental threats, “the consensus is now emerging” that “global warming is the most dangerous of all.” Never mind that the most recent survey of climate scientists shows that no such consensus exists—according to Gore, the time for action is now! As Gore proclaims, engaging in decisive action now, such as “ the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period,” is the “truly conservative approach.” Gore views such actions as necessary insurance policies against future possibilities, but he completely disregards the draconian costs of the premiums.
A similar tack is taken with regard to ozone depletion, which for Gore “threatens all life on earth.” For years, Gore has profited politically from his demagoguery on ozone depletion. His Senate subcommittee hearings have become circuses where only those who agree with him are allowed to testify. The fact that even moderate ozone depletion poses no risk to humans (or other creatures) is immaterial to Gore, who remains intent on political posturing. His dismisses his critics by insisting that “it is essential… that we refuse to wait for the obvious signs of impending catastrophe.” Shoot first, orders Gore, ask questions later.
Rather than using scientific evidence to establish the need for action, Gore adopts scare tactics so as to provide the impetus for decisive action, even in the face of uncertainty. “The burden of proof ought to be with those who claim that the most likely outcome is something that will be good for us.” Innovation and development must be halted, until they can be proven to be without risk. However, he does not seem willing to apply the same standard to those programs he endorses as the appropriate political responses. The enormous economic costs and social dislocations to be imposed are of less concern to Gore than dubious claims generated by admittedly inaccurate computer models. Although it is known that a warmer world would produce more food, Gore sees any potential change to ecological systems as a dangerous threat.
Underlying this rhetoric of caution is an apparent unwillingness to accept any significant human impact upon the environment. As he plainly states, “Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment.” That humans are able to manipulate their surroundings in the process of achieving a higher standard of living is apparently a cause for dismay rather than for a celebration of human fortitude and ingenuity. This view of the world is hardly supportive of human civilization.
While Gore may be right to point to the risks of innovation, he completely ignores the other half of the equation. New technologies are not created from an irrational desire to destroy the planet. Rather they arise from incentives to provide for, and profit from, improvements in the human condition. While innovation may be risky, barring innovation can be risky as well. Gore notes that “in the developed world, we now have the ability to insulate most people from the kind of suffering, disease, famine, and forced migration that, in the ancient world, often accompanied fluctuations in the global climate equilibrium and the attendant disruptions of the weather patterns upon which those fragile civilizations depended.” That the earth’s climate has always fluctuated over time, and that mankind has always adapted to the changes, is lost on Gore. Modern technology makes humanity less dependent on “perfect” weather—precisely because the climate has never corresponded with human desire. Thus, the necessity for adaptation has long been a part of human civilization. Without any real evidence, Gore asserts that the climate will change so rapidly and radically that humans will be incapable of responding. Yet Gore believes that humans are capable of an immediate “wrenching transformation” of the world economy in an effort to forestall his predicted climate change.
Since the birth of human civilization, societies have impacted the environment as an inevitable consequence of growth and development. Human societies have always sought to harness natural resources for their gain. The result is not only environmental impact, but substantial gains in the wealth, health, and overall wellbeing of humanity. The limiting of environmental impact, for its own sake, can have no other consequence than to restrain the ability of society to provide more effectively for individuals.
Of course, for Gore the problem is not that civilization has grown, but that it has failed to account for the consequences of this expansion. He recognizes that environmental problems are typically a result of external consequences not accounted for in the existing market processes, but fails to adduce the actual cause. He recognizes that “the most serious examples of environmental degradation in the world today are tragedies that were created or actively encouraged by governments,” yet does not attempt to directly address this problem. Thus, he is more concerned with piecemeal reform in the political realm and a spiritual infusion of the environmental realm, without altering any of the persistently harmful structures.
The simple fact, as Gore notes, is that “free men and women who take individual responsibility for a particular part of earth are, by and large, its most effective protectors, defenders, and stewards.” Thus the proper response to environmental problems is not an increase of authority for the political sphere, but an increase of responsibility for the private sphere. Even as Gore acknowledges that the Aral Sea was destroyed by regional political management, he seeks international political management as a solution. There are significant environmental lessons to be learned about the ecological benefits of private action, but it appears as if Gore is not interested.
When Gore complains that the existing economic institutions fail to account for human impacts upon their air and the water, he fails to see that this is an inevitable consequence when resources are politically managed. It should be no surprise to the Senator that he notices the mismanagement of federally-owned lands in the United States, or that international development programs have been largely unsuccessful in supporting either economic growth or environmental protection. This is the inevitable consequence of political control.
As a child, Gore learned that a farmer acted responsibly when he had a stake in the land. Ownership creates an incentive for wise use. Were the land not his, but a “commons” owned or operated by a political entity, such incentives would not exist. He admits, “All around the world, the efforts to stop the destruction of the environment have come mainly from people who recognize the damage being done in that part of the world in which they themselves have ‘dominion.’”
Gore further recognizes that “freedom is a necessary condition for an effective stewardship of the environment.” Yet he still calls for dramatic regulation of any actions that have impact upon the environment. Of course, since all economic actions must have an impact on the environment, this means regulation of all human activity. Under such a scenario, where is there room for human freedom? Such massive regulation of society was attempted by the former regimes of the Soviet Union, and the result was disastrous, both economically and ecologically. The case against imposing powerful regulatory strategies should be clear. The world does not need Gore’s “Environmentalism of the Spirit,” but a true environmentalism based upon individual liberty.
According to Al Gore, “Ultimately, a commitment to healing the environment represents a renewed dedication to what Thomas Jefferson believed were not merely American but universal inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If we are to enjoy the benefits of both a healthy environment and a free society, private stewardship and contractual arrangements must replace political management of common resources. There is little disagreement that free markets are the most efficient and effective means of providing the amenities that individuals need and desire. It is therefore time to recognize that environmental problems are not a result of “market failure” but rather a failure to have markets. If, on the other hand, such concerns remain subject to political control, the earth will be forever out of balance.
[From Terra Nova]