A Green Future for U.S. Politics?

Robert Paehlke undertakes two major tasks in his book Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics. He draws a picture of various possibilities for a coherent environmental ideology and an environmentally sound future; and he offers an analysis of the political future of environmentalism, concluding that although it is a fundamentally separate ideology, an alliance between environmentalists and what he terms moderate progressives might be both beneficial and possible in the "Anglo-American democracies:" Britain, Canada and the United States. He manages his first task with greater success than his second.

The book opens by reviewing the environmentalist thinking of the 1960s, which Paehlke describes as dominated by utopians, envisioning a "decentralized, bucolic and organic" future, and doomsayers, predicting environmental catastrophe and a Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, brutish and short." Drawing heavily on the work of others, Paehlke envisions a future somewhere between those two extremes.

The first section also includes a review of the history of environmental thinking. Though he acknowledges the importance of many of the early conservationist authors, Paehlke explains that because the goals of forest preservation and oil conservation seem like concerns of the privileged who do not need to worry about their basic financial security, the conservation movement had an "elite" tone and lacked broad political appeal.

By contrast, Paehlke writes, many of the issues of the modern environmental movement, such as pollution and occupational safety, affect people more immediately and thus have potential for greater popular appeal. He points out that the same toxins which cause danger and damage in the workplace also have the potential to cause problems in the wider environment, and suggests that by emphasizing occupational issues, environmentalists will be able to gain support from a wide segment of the working community. With this support, Paehlke argues, environmentalists may have the power to bring about real changes which have the potential to reduce the threat to the earth's ecosystem.

Paehlke concurs with Amory Lovins, author and energy analyst, that the grim scenarios of destruction or harsh austerity measures envisioned by many environmentalists are not inevitable or even likely. The reaction to the oil crises of the seventies proved that there is a great deal of potential for conservation. Paehlke maintains that conserving energy and using localized, renewable forms of energy, and eventually abandoning non- renewable forms as Lovins suggests, will make it possible to continue indefinitely at roughly the present standard of living. He proposes a program of controlled and gradually rising oil prices to eliminate the economic dislocation associated with sudden rises and falls in prices, and also to encourage conservation and the development of other energy sources.

Paehlke asserts that there is no contradiction between a high standard of living and environmentalism; the trick is to maintain a high standard of living with relatively low use of materials and energy. Recycling and organic agricultural practices, for example, are environmentally sound practices and, in addition, are labor-intensive, so they would create more jobs than the shift from current practices would displace. Paehlke sees increases in the Gross National Product (GNP) as a possibility, even in a "sustainable" economy that does not use up non-renewable resources, though he quarrels with the idea that GNP growth is necessary for a healthy economy.

Though perhaps not a lower standard of living, Paehlke's view of the future does include a different way of life. He foresees greater dependence on public transportation and recycling and reuse of materials. More use would be made, he says, of durable and repairable products instead of disposable ones. It would also include a greater role for automation to free people from drudgery. He suggests that full employment be achieved simply by dividing up whatever work is available among the workforce, anticipating a time when 20 hour work weeks will be common.

In the future, according to Paehlke, economic activities will be less dependent on material and energy use. The industries of the future will include telecommunications, information, scholarship, art and entertainment. Advances in such areas could be accomplished with relatively little use of energy and materials. Improved communications could also help reduce the demand for transportation. Paehlke is also optimistic about the political viability of his vision of the future, suggesting that environmental issues transcend ideology. He defines the differences between the left and the right extremes of the political spectrum in terms of distribution of wealth; those on the right, he says, support schemes which favor the wealthy, those on the left favor helping the less advantaged. Using this rather narrow model, he asserts that environmentalism is consistent with either a left-wing or a rightwing approach, depending on who bears the costs of environmental programs. He gives, as an example, of right-wing environmentalism a program in Ontario where timber companies are paid by the government for reseeding areas where they have logged. These companies make a profit on the arrangement.

Despite his insistence, that environmentalism can be set apart from the traditional left-right spectrum, Paehlke also suggests that the neo-conservative hostility toward environmental measures may make an alliance between environmentalism and moderate progressivism possible. He does not explain, however, the impact of this hostility on his theory that environmentalism stands outside the left-right spectrum.

Although full of interesting ideas and discussions, the book has a number of weak spots. The analysis of the popularity of neo- conservatism and the decline of what Paehlke calls "moderate progressivism"--basically mainstream liberalism--is unconvincing. In explaining the sources of support for his broad "environmental ideology," Paehlke fails to explain how support for such measures as pollution control, workplace safety and recycling can be translated into support for the ideology as a whole, which includes such things as a planned rise in oil prices and a shortened work week.

He presents these proposals as an inherent part of an environmentalist view, when, in fact, they are at best marginally environmental proposals which have yet to gain popularity on their own. Paehlke admits that the reduced work week, which might come at the expense of salary increases, would be unpopular in many circles. And as with his proposal for the controlled, negotiated rise in oil prices, he offers little evidence that this plan is workable.

The more fundamental flaw in Paehlke's argument lies in his assertion that environmentalism fits within the parameters of both leftist and rightist perspectives. The environmental crises facing society today will not go away until real changes are made in our production processes. It is not likely that these changes will be welcomed by those who profit from the current system. Conservatives, in particular, even as narrowly defined by Paehlke, who finds wealth to be the defining characteristic of the right, will oppose government-imposed reforms of business practices. Thus, an environmentalist agenda which addresses the basic problems will not lie, as Paehlke claims, outside of a left-right perspective.

Any environmentalism that truly deals with the problems facing the earth today is going to threaten the right, even if the right is defined solely as those with the money. Because the changes needed are fundamental and will result in great shifts in the economic structure, they are not likely to be accepted calmly much less welcomed by those who currently profit from the existing structure. It is a strong rhetorical point that saving our environment is in everyone's best interests; but Paehlke tries to ignore the reality that radical changes will be fought by those who perceive their interests to lie elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the book is distinctly worth reading for its survey of environmental ideas, and particularly for Paehlke's skilful synthesis of these ideas into intriguing views of possible, environmentally sound, yet livable, futures.