Posted by
MJB on Monday, March 10, 2008 12:16:45 PM
Posted last Saturday on Hugh Hewitt's blog:
****************************
Hugh,
This
will prove to be an interesting look at a very complicated topic -
again, you jump to the head of the pack in using new media to
illuminate the world around us.
However - several questions come to mind as you begin this process....
I
am a dyed in the wool Republican, conservative, pro-business person.
Philosophically, I do believe in the rights of individual property
owners to manage their land. I do believe that small government is
generally better than big government. I do also believe that
legislatures like big government more than they like small government,
for a whole variety of reasons. And - I believe gov't regulations in
general can have the effect of adding significantly to the cost of
finished products and services (SOX being an excellent example).
I
will also stipulate that conservatives in general are more likely to
hold Christian beliefs, or be more likely to adhere to what would be
considered "traditional" Christian values.
Having said all of
that - I find it curious that whenever land preservation/endangered
species/no-growth topics come onto the table, there is almost a
complete and utter lack of interest in discussing the concept of what I
will call "good stewardship."
In my view, as Christians, we are
responsible for being "good stewards" of what God has given us -
whether it is the land we own, the food we eat, the activities we
enjoy, the animals we share the planet with, etc.
A
central argument (as best I can tell, not being a lawyer) in these
endangered species cases is that private landowners are in a better
position to manage their lands than the government.
I would
disagree - private landowners will do what is in 'their' best interests
(again, completely in line with the "original sin" concept of
humanity's selfishness), regardless of whether it constitutes "good
stewardship." In many cases, this is fine - farmers understand the need
to keep the land productive, for example.
However, I would
also stipulate that the short term dramatically outweighs the long term
for these folks. Using fertilizer on farm fields is a great idea...more
corn, etc. However, when nitrates from years of fertilizer usage start
showing up in the ground water that supplies the farm's wells...the
short term has just come back to haunt the family that has to drink
that water in the long term (or spend the money necessary to remove the
nitrates).
Not all land needs to be developed, not all ski
resorts "must" be built, not all condo complexes are entitled to be
established in the middle of a pristine wilderness. (I know we are not
speaking of an actual resort, but I'm using that as an example).
Hip,
hip, hooray for all of our modern conveniences - hot showers, speedy
cars, wireless internet connections, foamy lattes, fresh food, etc. I
enjoy all of them and more.
But - we can't ignore the fact
that all of these conveniences do require an incredible amount of
infrastructure to support. And, yes, hooray for humanity's ingenuity to
create and maintain that infrastructure - and for our ability to lower
the footprint of that infrastructure over time (i.e., manufacturing
process today vs. 100 years ago). But, still - 300 million people take
(literally) ton of hot showers and produce tons of garbage. It all had
to be dealt with somehow.
Since
reducing the amount of garbage my family puts into a landfill is an act
of good stewardship, I recycle. It also reduces the amount of
infrastructure (albeit by a tiny, tiny amount) we use. Now that "green"
products are rising in popularity, recycling is becoming more
economical - and is becoming a money-making proposition in some
industries. Groovy. Go forth and recycle those PC's for money...but
don't forget that it's also good stewardship to not throw them away in
a landfill. (And yes, I know that some companies are shipping those
products to be recycled overseas with all of the attendant dangers to
the local populace).
When we are financially able to buy a new
car, I want to find one that is a year or two old, which gets much
better gas millage than we get now - also an act of good stewardship
(as well as a tiny impact of reducing our dependence on foreign oil).
So,
help me understand why the wolverine has to be sacrificed so some
clueless millionaire can build his condo/ski complex in the heart of a
pristine wilderness in Northern California? I've missed how that is an
act of good stewardship....
Aside from the wolverine as a
species, and value of undeveloped wilderness in and of itself (a
concept increasingly marginalized by our urban populace), the new
infrastructure demands needed by this imagined resort would be
enormous. It's not easy removing waste from a mountainous region, nor
is it easy to get utilities up there. The use of gas to get users up
there (cars and planes), the need to truck in food, the energy to run
the place...etc.
All this is OK, just because the private property owner wants it?
Frankly,
the endangered species act, the clean water acts, and the clean air
acts have made our country a much cleaner, healther, and pleasant place
to live - yes, with all of the attendant costs associated with their
implementation.
My father worked for a utility company, so I
can tell you all about the associated costs with attempting to reduce
acid rain, use clean burning coal from Wyoming (we lived in IL), etc. I
get that.
But - the fact of the matter remains that it is far
better to have the clean water that we enjoy, the cleaner air we
breathe (and reduced health care costs) and the bald eagles soaring
along the rivers here in Minnesota (thanks to the gov't banning DDT
years ago)....all due to government intervention.
Private land and business owners would NEVER have implemented those measures voluntarily. Never.
Look
at the Amazon rain forest - small, private landowners are cutting the
forest to clear it for fields/farming/cattle grazing...and yet aside
from the enormous impact the rain forest has on our climate (you don't
have to believe in man-made global warming to appreciate the impact
large swaths of the earth's surfaces have on our climate) it's clear
that the Amazon contains vast potential to help humanity develop new
drugs and treatments for disease. Not to mention the possibilities
provided by eco-tourism, rather than farming, for communities to
sustain themselves. Again, short term vs. long term benefits. The
individual cattle rancher is happy, but the cancer patients around the
world that could benefit from the drugs hiding there are just s.o.l.,
eh?
So, Hugh, I look forward to your tale. But, I'd love to hear
more intelligent discussion of this issue of "good stewardship" along
with all the typical, tedious gov't bashing that is sure to occur.