Must we choose people over the planet?

This is the question addressed by two essays that caught my eye in The Huffington Post during Earth Week. The first is Why Im Not An Environmentalist by Lisa Curtis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-curtis/environmentalism_b_1443311.html?ref=green) and the second, Earth Day 2012: This Isnt About Tree-Hugging Anymore, Its About the Way We Live by Edward Norton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-norton/earth-day-2012-this-isnt-_b_1442104.html). Curtis is an American blogger and social activist, while Norton is an American actor and the United Nations celebrity ambassador for biodiversity.

Both characterize contemporary environmentalism as primarily concerned with wilderness and wildlife, and thus out of touch with the challenges of global climate change, population growth, and equitable human development. While Curtis rejects the environmental label altogether, Norton seeks to jettison what he sees as its emotional baggage. Nortons essay is particularly smarmy on this account: This isnt about tree-hugging and fish-kissing anymore, its about the way we live. Curtis is more measured but equally polarizing: At some point in the 21st century we became tired with the idea that planet had to come before people.

I must admit to being struck by Curtis and Nortons impoverished understanding of the environmental movement. The movement has always been diverse in its concerns, from wilderness and wildlife to pollution and urban design (to name a few). And while it has adjusted its focus over time to new issues and political realities, it has actually done rather well at balancing prior commitments with new concerns. An example is environmental justice, whose issues and sensibilities have rightly infused and stand alongside the rest of environmentalism.

I also noticed a distinctive ethical subtext to their policy priorities. Both Curtis and Norton enclose their moral commitments around humanity alone. Nortons comments about kissing fish and trees is one indication, while Curtiss stark alternative between people or the planet is another. Politically, this smacks of the jobs versus the environment debate, a false dichotomy that is a favourite theme in conservative circles, and an excuse for not redressing environmental and social harms. Ethically, it creates a a false moral dilemma, unnecessarily pitting humanity against the rest of nature. In point of fact, the earth is teeming with life and living systems that share an evolutionary heritage. Many of its creatures, including us, share a range of emotional, cognitive and social abilities. Think of how we love and communicate with other animals as an illustration of what I am saying Yet the boundary that Curtis and Norton draw around moral community is so tight, it offers only mercenary policy choices about the non-human world.

I have spent over a decade researching and teaching about the environment. In that time I have taught and talked with thousands of citizens, students, scientists and natural resource professionals about the ethical norms of environmental policy. In my experience, very few of them only care about the planet because it provides physical resources and ecological services. They care because they believe all life and living systems have an intrinsic value which we as humans are obligated to respect and protect.

Most of the students and professionals I work with struggle to put these ethical thoughts and feelings into words. That is where I can be of help. Once they are able to fully express their moral sensibilities, they recognize the issues are complex, and cannot be solved through one issue, group or ideology alone. And in spite of their differences over priorities or perspectives, they tend to share a deep moral longing to be in right relationship with the entire planet, human and non-human portions alike.

They express this longing in varied ways. Sometimes it is through the language of spirituality, at other times through the science of ecology or the political idea of rights. Some are focused primarily on people and give themselves over to issues of justice, public health or development. Others focus on helping wild and domestic animals, or protecting distinctive places and wild nature. I applaud all these efforts. To paraphrase Arne Naess, the frontier of social change is long. There are many issues that deserve our attention in both the environmental and social worlds alike. There is no need to bicker over whose favoured issue is most important. If nature and society are as interconnected as environmentalists believe them to be, then (with apologies to John Muir), every problem is hitched to all the others.

Note that a recognition of intrinsic value in a more-than-human world need not and should not come at the expense of people. We have intrinsic value too. Indeed it is this intrinsic value that motivates our concern for human rights, environmental justice, equitable development, and other worthy causes. At the same time, acknowledging our own intrinsic value is no reason to deny it to animals and the rest of nature. We can readily respect and protect domestic animals, wildlife and wild nature, while standing up for the well being of humanity too.

We are not, then, presented with a Hobbesian choice between people or the planet. Rather we are faced with the challenge of doing right by people, animals and nature. Treating the planet as an instrumental resource to human ends is part of the problem, and will not help us meet this challenge even if wrapped up in words like sustainability. Instead, we must enlarge our moral community and embrace all the creatures and ecosystems of our living world. This is the ethical foundation for environmental policies worthy of being termed sustainable.

Cheers.

Image: Earth Day. Green Planet. I found this image on the web while searching for earth day wallpaper. It is taken from Alfoart.com, a site where digital artists share tutorials, templates and their work. I like to interpret the tree of knowledge as a metaphor for the ethical and cultural roots of our environmental problems, the rainbow as a reference to the diversity of life and of cultures, and the moon situating ourselves and the planet in larger spheres of concern.