Why Environmentalism Is Good

Environmentalism gets a bad name because often the people who support it are wacky ideologues (fanatic vegans, slow foodists, and Greenpeace activists come to mind). Also, it's become associated with things like saving the darter snail and buying overpriced food from chichi supermarkets, both things easy to mock. But actually virtually everyone ought to be an environmentalist, and if you aren't, you are probably on the side of evil (and just don't know it).

After living in China for a year, I am much more of an environmentalist than I used to be. This is because I could see the damage unchecked industrialization first-hand. In the US, we are protected since our environmental regulations are relatively high and usually enforced, and the population is not that dense, meaning the environment is not as stressed.

In China, on the other hand, in many places you will never (literally) see the blue sky or the stars. In some places, the air can be so thick it looks smoky all the time and most of the population has hacking coughs. Near Shanghai, all the water sources are so polluted that the government is spending billions of dollars to run a pipeline to the middle of the very bottom of a large lake, as it's the only place where the water is clean enough to be used for drinking (this is after treatment: elsewhere there are so many contaminants that even treatment won't help). They say that breathing the air in Shanghai is like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day (I developed interminable coughs there, so I believe it). When you go outside, you will often become coated in grit by the time you get home. And this is at a time when according to everyone, Shanghai is much less polluted than previously (since many factories have relocated due to rising wages and land prices).

And who benefits by making the environment disgusting and unhealthy? The rich, who keep all the profits from the industrial processes (and their political cronies/spouses, since in China big businessmen and government officials are basically the same people). Of course, it's also the rich who can afford to buy bottled water, filtration systems, and the like. Meanwhile, the poor are left with a ruined environment and no recourse.

Conservatives typically make an argument like, "Well, they are poor and don't value a clean living situation as much as we would. They are choosing wealth-creating industrial growth over enviromentalism." What this argument fails to acknowledge is:

1. The poor often would prefer a cleaner living situation but are ignored. For example, in China they frequently have environmental-related protests. Typically, the case is something like: a new factory opens and pours its waste products directly into the nearby river; this ruins the water, fish, and crops; the peasants protest against the factory's behavior; they are swiftly repressed by the government (either through intimidation or violence); this is not on the news due to censorship; the factory continues its behavior. This is way more common than I think most Americans are aware of.

2. Pollution generated by a factory or mine is going to affect everyone in the area, regardless of the economic benefits they derive from the pollution's source. Therefore, while some of the poor (those employed by the factory, for example) might decide that the pollution is worth it, everyone else, from infants up is going to be equally affected. I don't believe it's just for some people to make a decision which affects all people. Even if you put it to a vote, this would be problematic since children (those who would be most affected) would not be able to vote.

3. Usually people, especially if they're poor, are not aware of the true costs of their decision. This is because a. we don't know very much about natural processes (for example, the effects of global warming are not clear or known, in addition to the fact that many people disagree about if/why/how it is even happening); and b. those with information in this situation have a strong incentive to lie (the company doesn't want to tell people that the chemicals they are using cause cancer since this would cause them troubles).

Since industrialization is crucial to the functioning of any modern society, what is thus essential is careful regulation and study of the effects of industrial processes: in other words, environmental agencies, laws, and scientists. These groups act as watchdogs for the benefit of the public, and protect them against wealthy businessmen and large corporations (since producing a significant level of pollution is usually only possible for a large company).

Environmentalists are really championing the "little guy" against the MAN (leaving aside the question of what our responsibilities are to animals and plants). Anyone who is not in favor of environmental regulation is therefore in favor of supporting the unscrupulous wealthy against the hard-working poor (whose livelihoods may very well be destroyed if they can't fish/farm), children, and those with health problems.