A friend forwarded me this article from an Australian news site, and its been on my mind all day (I'm not alone, check out the intense debates on the comment board). The author lambasts the current 'environmental' movement for succumbing to 'cult of utility' and focusing entirely on carbon instead of broader preservation of the natural environment. It's a well reasoned arguement and one that I share some affinity for: why can't enjoying beauty and appreciating biology be an end in itself? Why does everything (the arts, education, public space) need to be 'productive' aka earn money for someone, in order to be considered useful. I also agree with the author when he criticizes the green movement for focusing on carbon and clean energy rather than reducing and reusing.
That being said, arguments like these are easy to make from a privileged, Western point of view. I think its fair to say that old school 'environmentalism' encouraged walling off nature (into parks or protected areas) while ignoring or blaming the people whose livelihood depends on using nature's 'utilities.' While I still dislike the aforementioned 'cult of utility', I also think its fair to say that the only way that nature can be meaningfully preserved is if it serves some kind of utility to someone, but is done so 'sustainably'.
Cambodia has one of the highest deforestation rates in the world, and 'economic concessions' continue to be awarded to agribusiness companies or for the creation of new dams and reservoirs. While the story is not over regarding Cambodia's natural environment, it will be framed by entirely different questions than it was 20 years ago. While its forests may never return, the country is still bathed in sunlight nearly all year long, which would be a much better source of energy for rural villages who are still without access than the country's current diesel-burning grid.
That being said, arguments like these are easy to make from a privileged, Western point of view. I think its fair to say that old school 'environmentalism' encouraged walling off nature (into parks or protected areas) while ignoring or blaming the people whose livelihood depends on using nature's 'utilities.' While I still dislike the aforementioned 'cult of utility', I also think its fair to say that the only way that nature can be meaningfully preserved is if it serves some kind of utility to someone, but is done so 'sustainably'.
Cambodia has one of the highest deforestation rates in the world, and 'economic concessions' continue to be awarded to agribusiness companies or for the creation of new dams and reservoirs. While the story is not over regarding Cambodia's natural environment, it will be framed by entirely different questions than it was 20 years ago. While its forests may never return, the country is still bathed in sunlight nearly all year long, which would be a much better source of energy for rural villages who are still without access than the country's current diesel-burning grid.
No comments:
Post a Comment