Why can't left be right?
June 29, 2010 9:34 AM Subscribe
Why is environmentalism an issue of the left and not of the right? Why are those who disbelieve climate change on the right and not the left? I mean, the question is, just how did the two sides get to where they are on this? Was it coincidence, or are there fundamental beliefs on each side that created this divide?
I've been wondering about this lately. Could it have just as easily been reversed?
I've been wondering about this lately. Could it have just as easily been reversed?
Republicans for Environmental Protection is but one data point indicating that the "two sides" is much more a spectrum of color than mere right vs. left.
The sides polarize because demonizing your opponents is strong politics.
posted by artlung at 9:40 AM on June 29, 2010 [4 favorites]
The sides polarize because demonizing your opponents is strong politics.
posted by artlung at 9:40 AM on June 29, 2010 [4 favorites]
There are evangelical Christians who consider themselves on the right who also consider themselves environmentalists.
So your observation is not universally correct.
posted by dfriedman at 9:40 AM on June 29, 2010
So your observation is not universally correct.
posted by dfriedman at 9:40 AM on June 29, 2010
One reason might be that belief in human-caused climate change often goes hand in hand with a belief that the government should spend lots of money and resources to prevent it. That's a typically leftist viewpoint.
posted by tetralix at 9:43 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by tetralix at 9:43 AM on June 29, 2010
Conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to environmentalism. They don't care if you want to eat organic and minimize your environmental footprint. But they are opposed to the government enforcing environmentalism, which is consistent with other conservative viewpoints about small government and personal responsibility.
posted by smackfu at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2010 [8 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2010 [8 favorites]
Long-horizon financial investment in society's future, deliberated thought on scientific studies (particularly those not dealing directly with money), and willingness to accept short-term losses for long-term gains are all typically supported by left wingers and shunned by right wingers. Environmental issues are not the only example of this. Real financial investment in education comes immediately to mind.
As others have pointed out though, there are those on the right that are very concerned about climate change.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:46 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
As others have pointed out though, there are those on the right that are very concerned about climate change.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:46 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Left vs right is almost always a gross oversimplification. In the US today, environmentalism seems (to me) to be a regulatory vs non-regulatory issue. Economic libertarians tend towards Republicanism (see: Rand Paul), and against regulating corporations. In the absence of regulation, history has shown that corporations will tend towards cost-saving measures, to the benefit of shareholders, and at the expense of the environment.
It's also sort of a historic issue. People concerned with environmental protection are associated with/demonized as "tree huggers" and "hippies" by their opponents, opponents who tend to be more conservative.
Of course, Nixon started the EPA, so it's definitely not a black-and-white issue.
posted by supercres at 9:47 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's also sort of a historic issue. People concerned with environmental protection are associated with/demonized as "tree huggers" and "hippies" by their opponents, opponents who tend to be more conservative.
Of course, Nixon started the EPA, so it's definitely not a black-and-white issue.
posted by supercres at 9:47 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
The particular group of fundamentalists who believe the world will be coming to an end shortly don't have much reason to care about long-term environmental impact.
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:48 AM on June 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:48 AM on June 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
Why are those who disbelieve climate change on the right and not the left?
Like others have said, solutions to climate change generally involve large-scale government intervention in the form of a variety of programs that fit with liberal ideals far more closely than with conservative ideals.
posted by resiny at 9:49 AM on June 29, 2010
Like others have said, solutions to climate change generally involve large-scale government intervention in the form of a variety of programs that fit with liberal ideals far more closely than with conservative ideals.
posted by resiny at 9:49 AM on June 29, 2010
Good question! Many early environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, were led by Republicans.
posted by salvia at 9:51 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by salvia at 9:51 AM on June 29, 2010
I think this happened when the right made the changes in how they did business in the '70s and '80s. Prior to that you had Eisenhower warning us about the military industrial complex in his farewell address. When the right decided to go with a "What's good for businnes is good for America" philosophy and embraced deregulation, they got the buy-in of various business types in almost direct proportion to their skeevyness. (The money block.)
The also courted fundamentalist Christianity, again, in almost direct proportion to their belief that the world was 6000 years old. (The vote/voulenteer block.)
Once you're in bed with people who want you to make it legal to put waste chromium in school lunches and people who pretty much renounces science on principal, and you're addicted to what they're getting you (elected), you're pretty much doomed to be the next Trofim Lysenko.
The fundamental nature of the major political parties has changed it the past and will likely change in the future. Compare and contrast Abraham Lincoln's "Southern Strategy" with the more recent policy to bear that name.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:54 AM on June 29, 2010 [5 favorites]
The also courted fundamentalist Christianity, again, in almost direct proportion to their belief that the world was 6000 years old. (The vote/voulenteer block.)
Once you're in bed with people who want you to make it legal to put waste chromium in school lunches and people who pretty much renounces science on principal, and you're addicted to what they're getting you (elected), you're pretty much doomed to be the next Trofim Lysenko.
The fundamental nature of the major political parties has changed it the past and will likely change in the future. Compare and contrast Abraham Lincoln's "Southern Strategy" with the more recent policy to bear that name.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:54 AM on June 29, 2010 [5 favorites]
Is my understanding correct that in Canada the Green Party (big on environment) came out of the Right? It seems to me that they are fiscally conservative, and they see looking after environmental issues as being good for the greater economic good. Or something.
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2010
Michael Novak, conservative Catholic philosopher, has a chapter in his book The Universal Hunger for Liberty about "Blue Environmentalism". It's pretty interesting. So, also suggesting that environmentalism is not solely an issue of the left.
posted by emkelley at 10:04 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by emkelley at 10:04 AM on June 29, 2010
The particular group of fundamentalists who believe the world will be coming to an end shortly don't have much reason to care about long-term environmental impact.
I've heard this line before, but it's always been from non-religious (or at least non-fundamentalists) and has always been entirely speculative. Do you have any evidence that this is a commonly-held justification for not caring about long-term environmental impact?
posted by resiny at 10:10 AM on June 29, 2010
I've heard this line before, but it's always been from non-religious (or at least non-fundamentalists) and has always been entirely speculative. Do you have any evidence that this is a commonly-held justification for not caring about long-term environmental impact?
posted by resiny at 10:10 AM on June 29, 2010
When communism was proven to be a bankrupt economic philosophy in the 80s, lots of leftists found themselves without a way to achieve their ultimate goal of liberating other people from their earnings. They latched onto the burgeoning environmental movement because it was a means to achieve the same ends. Under the guise of environmentalism, the leftists could create reasons to seize private property without paying for it, create huge bureaucracies staffed by themselves, and limit development unless the correct "assessments" are paid.
posted by otto42 at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by otto42 at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2010
The most recent and most strident versions of Republican anti-environmentalism are direct extensions of the rise of anti-intellectualism and 'know-nothingism' in politics and wider discourse. Rank and file Republicans of the Sarah Palin led base totally buy into the FOXNews, Orthogonian electoral framing of evil liberal elites (led by scientists, Ivy leaguers, George Soros, etc) who controll the Big Socialist Government. The conservative movement has been steeped in anti-intelltectual, anti-liberal, anti-elite, 'think with the gut' truthiness for going on 40 years, with the volume increasing exponentially in the last 10-15 years. Once enough people hear enough times that the evil liberal elites who control everything want to save the spotted owl at the cost of your job at the plant, it's easy enough to convince them that those evil scientists just invented global warming to steal more of your tax dollars, see, the emails prove it!
Of course the above is largely financed by monied interests who seek to corrupt the picture of declining real wages, declinging standards of living and economic mobility and keep the plebes voting against thier own economic interests. But who can keep track of campaign finance reports anyway?
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2010
Of course the above is largely financed by monied interests who seek to corrupt the picture of declining real wages, declinging standards of living and economic mobility and keep the plebes voting against thier own economic interests. But who can keep track of campaign finance reports anyway?
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2010
Bill Moyers wrote a piece about fundamentalism and the environment in the New York Review of Books several years ago (text here). It's pretty much anecdotal, so no hard statistical data, but an interesting read.
posted by HonoriaGlossop at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by HonoriaGlossop at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
There are hunters who campaign to preserve wilderness (so they can hunt in it), from Theodore Roosevelt to Ducks Unlimited to the Nuge. So again, not as clear-cut as you suggest.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:19 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:19 AM on June 29, 2010
The secular right--and a lot of what passes itself for Christianity is really just secular civil religion in church drag--largely doesn't care about environmentalism.
But serious Christians, and by that I mean Christians who are actively engaged with their theological tradition on a historical and intellectual level, frequently are in favor of enhanced environmental protection. Francis Schaffer, the man largely responsible for the intellectual foundation behind Christian activism since the 1960s, wrote Pollution and the Death of Man, where he discusses what he thinks ought to be the Christian response to environmental issues. He rejects secular environmentalism as little more than trumped up pantheism if not outright paganism, substituting the ancient doctrine of stewardship.
For good or ill, however, most Christians who are seriously engaged with their theological traditions tend to be rather ambivalent about politics, as a thoroughgoing theological mindset tends to encourage somewhat of a dim view on the ability of the state to accomplish lasting moral good. They also tend to be difficult to fit into a single political party, e.g. they're forced to choose between the poor and the unborn. This also tends to discourage political activism.
Sure, there are exceptions here. Father Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame, was one of the most influential national figures of the 1960s, and the drafting and passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act can largely be attributed to his relationships with key politicians. But if you look at the bulk of the "Christian Right," you're going to find that their theology, like their politics, is shallower than a mud puddle. They may not have a clue what the Ten Commandments actually are, but they'll be damned if they're going to let those goddamn libruls take that statute out of the courthouse, etc.
posted by valkyryn at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2010 [5 favorites]
But serious Christians, and by that I mean Christians who are actively engaged with their theological tradition on a historical and intellectual level, frequently are in favor of enhanced environmental protection. Francis Schaffer, the man largely responsible for the intellectual foundation behind Christian activism since the 1960s, wrote Pollution and the Death of Man, where he discusses what he thinks ought to be the Christian response to environmental issues. He rejects secular environmentalism as little more than trumped up pantheism if not outright paganism, substituting the ancient doctrine of stewardship.
For good or ill, however, most Christians who are seriously engaged with their theological traditions tend to be rather ambivalent about politics, as a thoroughgoing theological mindset tends to encourage somewhat of a dim view on the ability of the state to accomplish lasting moral good. They also tend to be difficult to fit into a single political party, e.g. they're forced to choose between the poor and the unborn. This also tends to discourage political activism.
Sure, there are exceptions here. Father Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame, was one of the most influential national figures of the 1960s, and the drafting and passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act can largely be attributed to his relationships with key politicians. But if you look at the bulk of the "Christian Right," you're going to find that their theology, like their politics, is shallower than a mud puddle. They may not have a clue what the Ten Commandments actually are, but they'll be damned if they're going to let those goddamn libruls take that statute out of the courthouse, etc.
posted by valkyryn at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2010 [5 favorites]
Political philosophies are not really split into two opposing camps or a single axis. People are more complicated than that. Jerry Pournelle (a very smart guy who is definitely what is called a paleo-con) wrote his PhD dissertation on this and came up with a two axis classification. One axis has to do with social issues and the other with political philosophies. There is a whole wikipedia page on it.
On the original issue the argument isn't really over the science-this stuff is complicated and the science is hard, it is over
1.) the attitude of the leading scientists who appear to like the attention they are getting (this is understandable but not really in the best interest of science) and try to portray it in catastrophic terms that attack the moral integrity of those who say 'hey wait a minute is that right-show me', just read the email exchanges from the climategate hack
2.) making huge changes in society that may harm billions of people on what climate models say when these models are not that good yet (most modelers will admit they have severe limitations)
3.) people being told what to do by others, when those others come off as thinking themselves superior or enlightened-very much the same reactions a lot of people have to religous true believers moralizing to them.
4.) Blaming everything that goes wrong on global warming or climate change-it could be bad, it may be neutral and it may be nothing at all-once again this stuff is complicated, has a lot of unknowns and we are still at the data gathering stage, not the mature technology stage for climate studies, and wild claims about what may or may not be happening and causes do not help gaining credibility-you come off as a nut (see point 3).
And there are a lot of conservationists that identify as conservatives and a few of them would say they are enviromentalists even with the connection of that term with crazy people chaining themselves to trees or blowing up SUVs. Most hunters are very conservation minded and want to preserve as much wild lands as possible, just check out Ducks Unlimited or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The enviromental movement lost a huge ally in its battles by also being anti hunting and anti gun (two things that really aren't related to large scale industrial pollution and loss of habitat that is the real problem)-the biggest reason i don't donate to the humane society are these two despite really believing in their core work.
Orson Scott Card also has a good coloumn he wrote about this that you can find on his home page (i am at work and can't link directly due to how IT has set up my computer).
posted by bartonlong at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
On the original issue the argument isn't really over the science-this stuff is complicated and the science is hard, it is over
1.) the attitude of the leading scientists who appear to like the attention they are getting (this is understandable but not really in the best interest of science) and try to portray it in catastrophic terms that attack the moral integrity of those who say 'hey wait a minute is that right-show me', just read the email exchanges from the climategate hack
2.) making huge changes in society that may harm billions of people on what climate models say when these models are not that good yet (most modelers will admit they have severe limitations)
3.) people being told what to do by others, when those others come off as thinking themselves superior or enlightened-very much the same reactions a lot of people have to religous true believers moralizing to them.
4.) Blaming everything that goes wrong on global warming or climate change-it could be bad, it may be neutral and it may be nothing at all-once again this stuff is complicated, has a lot of unknowns and we are still at the data gathering stage, not the mature technology stage for climate studies, and wild claims about what may or may not be happening and causes do not help gaining credibility-you come off as a nut (see point 3).
And there are a lot of conservationists that identify as conservatives and a few of them would say they are enviromentalists even with the connection of that term with crazy people chaining themselves to trees or blowing up SUVs. Most hunters are very conservation minded and want to preserve as much wild lands as possible, just check out Ducks Unlimited or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The enviromental movement lost a huge ally in its battles by also being anti hunting and anti gun (two things that really aren't related to large scale industrial pollution and loss of habitat that is the real problem)-the biggest reason i don't donate to the humane society are these two despite really believing in their core work.
Orson Scott Card also has a good coloumn he wrote about this that you can find on his home page (i am at work and can't link directly due to how IT has set up my computer).
posted by bartonlong at 10:25 AM on June 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
one part fundamental beliefs and one part how we want to look to those whose views we respect. In this way our views become self-perpetuating unless we have the rare ability to step outside of ourselves for a moment and see the other side.
posted by Pamelayne at 10:29 AM on June 29, 2010
posted by Pamelayne at 10:29 AM on June 29, 2010
Is my understanding correct that in Canada the Green Party (big on environment) came out of the Right? It seems to me that they are fiscally conservative, and they see looking after environmental issues as being good for the greater economic good. Or something.
Yup , they did, but the green party of canada is active about 1 month every four years. They get 5-10 % of the vote because of their clever name and cuts the NPD vote. They collect the 5$ a vote from Election-Canada and diseappear with the jackpot... Pretty right wing indeed.
posted by CitoyenK at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2010
Yup , they did, but the green party of canada is active about 1 month every four years. They get 5-10 % of the vote because of their clever name and cuts the NPD vote. They collect the 5$ a vote from Election-Canada and diseappear with the jackpot... Pretty right wing indeed.
posted by CitoyenK at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2010
Christians are all over the map wrt. the environment, though on balance they tend to be right wing, and therefore deprecate environmental concerns. I've heard that position justified biblically with how animals and plants were put by god on this earth for man to rule over and use as he sees fit.
The other thing is that the whole attitude of "taking care of on behalf of the whole society and into the future" is something that appeals more to the left than to the right. The right is not into "taking care of" anyone other than yourself and your family, the needy of society can be at best allowed charity, not organized by government. So I don't see the right objecting to some individual setting aside some land for protection, but doesn't want the government involved in a common public good sort of way. The right's position seems to be - private initiative - good; public policy - bad.
posted by VikingSword at 10:59 AM on June 29, 2010
The other thing is that the whole attitude of "taking care of on behalf of the whole society and into the future" is something that appeals more to the left than to the right. The right is not into "taking care of" anyone other than yourself and your family, the needy of society can be at best allowed charity, not organized by government. So I don't see the right objecting to some individual setting aside some land for protection, but doesn't want the government involved in a common public good sort of way. The right's position seems to be - private initiative - good; public policy - bad.
posted by VikingSword at 10:59 AM on June 29, 2010
Do you have any evidence that this is a commonly-held justification for not caring about long-term environmental impact?
“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures, which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”
--James G. Watt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan
posted by ambrosia at 11:23 AM on June 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures, which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”
--James G. Watt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan
posted by ambrosia at 11:23 AM on June 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures, which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”
--James G. Watt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan"
Yeah, but that's one person. My personal experience with evangelical Christians is quite the opposite, but that's purely anecdotal. Is there any study about this?
posted by fishmasta at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2010
--James G. Watt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan"
Yeah, but that's one person. My personal experience with evangelical Christians is quite the opposite, but that's purely anecdotal. Is there any study about this?
posted by fishmasta at 1:30 PM on June 29, 2010
...The particular group of fundamentalists who believe the world will be coming to an end shortly don't have much reason to care about long-term environmental impact.
...Do you have any evidence that this is a commonly-held justification for not caring about long-term environmental impact?
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but surely if someone thinks the world is coming to an end soon, by definition they can't care about long term environmental impact?
Or put it the other way round: if someone does care about anything 'long term', whether investment, environment, posterity, whatever, then by definition they don't think the world is about to come to an end. Its in the definition of the words themselves.
posted by communicator at 1:51 PM on June 29, 2010
...Do you have any evidence that this is a commonly-held justification for not caring about long-term environmental impact?
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but surely if someone thinks the world is coming to an end soon, by definition they can't care about long term environmental impact?
Or put it the other way round: if someone does care about anything 'long term', whether investment, environment, posterity, whatever, then by definition they don't think the world is about to come to an end. Its in the definition of the words themselves.
posted by communicator at 1:51 PM on June 29, 2010
fishmasta: only 34% of America's white evangelical Protestants accepted there is solid evidence that global warming is real and that it is attributable to humans.
I do know evangelical Christians who are concerned about the environment- but I also know plenty who say "when the Rapture comes God will heal the planet, so what happens now doesn't matter" completely overlooking the bit about us being good stewards of the Earth.
posted by ambrosia at 3:55 PM on June 29, 2010
I do know evangelical Christians who are concerned about the environment- but I also know plenty who say "when the Rapture comes God will heal the planet, so what happens now doesn't matter" completely overlooking the bit about us being good stewards of the Earth.
posted by ambrosia at 3:55 PM on June 29, 2010
All of the above, plus: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "whatever [the enemy says], I'm against it."
Remember: the makeup of the political parties underwent a huge shift in the 60s. The Dixiecrats moved to the GOP and have been influencing it ever since. Seriously. Look at the platforms Nixon ran on. To the left of everyone but Nader these days.
Also, besides the "end of the worlders", there are the "don't be so uppity-iers". The people who believe that God is so awesome and humanity is so small in comparison, that the idea that humans could possibly have the power to wreck His creation is ridiculous and an example of hubris. In fact, many of the US Christian-esque religions believe in predestination- God sat down and figured everything out already and we are just living His will- and this gives them WIDE leeway to do whatever they want. Because if they want to do or say something, God is Responsible, and it would be wrong NOT to do it. Basically. In other words, this life is just a playground God provided us to screw around in until we get to heaven, and if we wreck it, He will fix it with His mighty Mending Kit.
Environmentalism used to be called Conservation. Food for thought.
posted by gjc at 7:46 PM on June 29, 2010
Remember: the makeup of the political parties underwent a huge shift in the 60s. The Dixiecrats moved to the GOP and have been influencing it ever since. Seriously. Look at the platforms Nixon ran on. To the left of everyone but Nader these days.
Also, besides the "end of the worlders", there are the "don't be so uppity-iers". The people who believe that God is so awesome and humanity is so small in comparison, that the idea that humans could possibly have the power to wreck His creation is ridiculous and an example of hubris. In fact, many of the US Christian-esque religions believe in predestination- God sat down and figured everything out already and we are just living His will- and this gives them WIDE leeway to do whatever they want. Because if they want to do or say something, God is Responsible, and it would be wrong NOT to do it. Basically. In other words, this life is just a playground God provided us to screw around in until we get to heaven, and if we wreck it, He will fix it with His mighty Mending Kit.
Environmentalism used to be called Conservation. Food for thought.
posted by gjc at 7:46 PM on June 29, 2010
The tragedy of the commons does not exist in right-wing economics.
Science is unreliable in right-wing religion.
Al Gore is wrong in right-wing politics.
Environmentalism is for fags in right-wing overcompensation.
posted by callmejay at 8:40 PM on June 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
Science is unreliable in right-wing religion.
Al Gore is wrong in right-wing politics.
Environmentalism is for fags in right-wing overcompensation.
posted by callmejay at 8:40 PM on June 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks everyone for the answers! I didn't see the thread from before either, which also had great answers.
posted by eas98 at 7:19 AM on June 30, 2010
posted by eas98 at 7:19 AM on June 30, 2010
it could be that most studies that have studied bias in the media have shown that there is a definitive left leaning bias. Including a study from Berkeley of all places. this could be coloring the perception.
For the record, corporations don't "line their pockets", they give their profits to shareholders, who happen to be the general public in large part. And even if you think only a small percentage of the population owns shares, think again. It is much larger since most pension funds and insurance annuities invested in the stock market on behalf of their constituents.
Milton Friedman said that pollution is a byproduct of production. The key question is to what extent are we willing to accept the byproduct of production? The same nasty animal of consumption and production that has resulted in a horrific environmental damage has also lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Nowhere is that more true than here in China.
the same corporations that pollute a community might also keep it from starving. If their costs increase relative to their competitors, the business can be killed off and the community along with it. I think many in the pro-business right see this site as a counterbalance. I personally believe that giving a man a chance to work hard and support his family is a noble thing-- and that's what many corporations do. There are no easy answers here.
we are all writing from computers that have parts sourced from all over the world, and will soon be obsolete and giving cancer to the workers down in southern China who collect them for their salvage materials, if they're not leaking into a landfill. and yet we can't work without computers, we wouldn't be happy if the price of the computer went up ( and some people can't afford it), the people producing the computers wouldn't be happy if their factory had less demand, and the salvage workers despite working in horrific conditions (it may be horrible conditions, but they do it because it is the best alternative given their situation) wouldn't be happy if they had no computers to salvage. there are no easy answers.
posted by chinabound at 2:27 AM on August 12, 2010
For the record, corporations don't "line their pockets", they give their profits to shareholders, who happen to be the general public in large part. And even if you think only a small percentage of the population owns shares, think again. It is much larger since most pension funds and insurance annuities invested in the stock market on behalf of their constituents.
Milton Friedman said that pollution is a byproduct of production. The key question is to what extent are we willing to accept the byproduct of production? The same nasty animal of consumption and production that has resulted in a horrific environmental damage has also lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Nowhere is that more true than here in China.
the same corporations that pollute a community might also keep it from starving. If their costs increase relative to their competitors, the business can be killed off and the community along with it. I think many in the pro-business right see this site as a counterbalance. I personally believe that giving a man a chance to work hard and support his family is a noble thing-- and that's what many corporations do. There are no easy answers here.
we are all writing from computers that have parts sourced from all over the world, and will soon be obsolete and giving cancer to the workers down in southern China who collect them for their salvage materials, if they're not leaking into a landfill. and yet we can't work without computers, we wouldn't be happy if the price of the computer went up ( and some people can't afford it), the people producing the computers wouldn't be happy if their factory had less demand, and the salvage workers despite working in horrific conditions (it may be horrible conditions, but they do it because it is the best alternative given their situation) wouldn't be happy if they had no computers to salvage. there are no easy answers.
posted by chinabound at 2:27 AM on August 12, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by amethysts at 9:39 AM on June 29, 2010 [6 favorites]