Hello, and Happy New Year! For those of you still "decompressing" from our election fiasco, here is some information for those "what might have been" discussions. What Orton has written below is essentially what I felt, as well. Tom >From: David Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Al Gore's Ideological Limitations: A Commentary on _Earth in the >Balance_ >Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:15:30 > >Hello, >I became quite interested in the dispute between supporters of Ralph Nader >and Al Gore in the recent presidential election campaign. Below is a >commentary on Gore's book _Earth in the Balance_, which I just read. > >Best, David Orton > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Al Gore's Ideological Limitations: A Commentary on _Earth in the Balance_ > >By David Orton > > "The United States has long been the natural leader of the global >community of nations." > > Al Gore, _Earth in the Balance_, p. 171. > > This is a commentary on _Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human >Spirit_ by Al Gore (paperback, Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993, ISBN >0-452-26935-0). I have had this book sitting on my bookshelf for several >years. I bought it because it was frequently mentioned favourably in some >environmental circles._Earth in the Balance_, I came to feel, was one of >those "duty" books (about 400 pages), that I felt I should read, but did >not have much enthusiasm for. I was also curious how Gore had manifested >his environmental principles (which I knew included particularly a concern >for global warming), while serving as the Vice-President of the Clinton >administration - an administration marked generally by environmental >evasiveness within the dominant industrial capitalist paradigm, including >on climate change. > > What made me finally read Gore's book, were the sharp polemics which >erupted within the US environmental community in the recent presidential >election campaign, in which Gore was the Democratic candidate, Ralph Nader >ran for the Green Party, and George W. Bush ran for the Republicans. (I am >leaving aside here the even sharper but different kind of discussions which >arose over the vote-counting in the state of Florida for the presidency, >which Gore ultimately acquiesced to following a "partisan" US Supreme Court >ruling. This showed, in my view, that for Gore, under pressure, it was more >important to uphold the continuity and institutions of American society - >here the ruling of the Supreme Court, than his former basically just >principle of "one person, one vote", which he used to argue for a recount >in Florida.) > > Supporters of Gore frequently referred to his environmental credentials, >while Nader opponents pointed out examples of Gore's environmental >duplicities. I knew then that I had to read his book, and see whether or >not I could at least support the theoretical position outlined. The >following comments express my views on Gore's basic position as expressed >in _Earth in the Balance_. They are given from the perspective of someone >who is a supporter of deep ecology and, within this philosophy, the >theoretical tendency of left biocentrism. > >Basic agreements > > This is generally an erudite and environmentally informed text. Gore >describes the degraded environmental situation well. He brings out that we >are all part of a global civilization. Because of who he is (elected to the >House of Representatives in 1976 and to the Senate in 1984), Gore has had >access to and has tapped into the thinking of scientists and other >academics, well informed about environmental destruction and the >accompanying social decay. He discusses the usual ecological issues >intelligently. Some of the ideas in his book were new to me. Two examples >of this: we need to redefine technology, so that as well as tools and >devices, it includes systems and organizational methods "that enhance our >ability to impose our will on the world." (p. 211) Or, he notes how >fertilizer use discourages genetic diversity among crop varieties by >"compensating for differences in local environments and soil types." (p. >142) > > His agreement with deep ecology (which he ignorantly and contemptuously >dismisses), is the call for a fundamental change in values in how humans >should relate to the Earth: > "...the same philosophical error that has led to the global environmental >crisis > as a whole: we have assumed that our lives need have no real connection to > the natural world, that our minds are separate from our bodies, and that >as > disembodied intellects we can manipulate the world in any way we choose. > Precisely because we feel no connection to the physical world, we >trivialize > the consequences of our actions." (p. 144) > > But he differs from deep ecology in that his is a God-centered >"stewardship" vision, with humans still at the center, but exercising their >"dominion" intelligently with, say, a "seventh generation" perspective and >"intergenerational equity" in mind. For him, this is a Christian >requirement because, in the end, the Earth "also belongs to God" (p. 244) >not just humankind. Yet any experienced environmental activist knows that >those who exercise "dominion" by working the land or sea, e.g. loggers and >fishers, usually become vocal exploiters, not environmental defenders - and >vigorously oppose new woodland-containing parks, or marine protected areas >which exclude commercial fishing. > > He also states a fundamental organizing principle in _Earth in the >Balance_ that deep ecology supporters would also agree with, but note the >qualifier which discredits the principle: > "...the new �central organizing principle' of the post-Cold War world - >namely, > the task of protecting the earth's environment while fostering economic >progress." (p. xv) > > Gore sees the need for a fundamental spiritual transformation, like most >deep ecology supporters, to resolve the global environmental crisis, but >unfortunately interprets this in a narrow, sectarian manner. > > Many of the ecological and social reforms which Gore proposes in his >ecological restoration "Global Marshall Plan" could be supported in >themselves, but are undermined by some basic beliefs which are taken for >granted. Such beliefs reveal a kind of ideology - and hence become serious >limitations for the new required thinking. The US fixation on economic >growth and a consumer lifestyle is, it seems, a given and basic belief, >which cannot be touched: > "Who is so bold as to say that any developed nation is prepared to abandon > industrial and economic growth? Who will proclaim that any wealthy nation > will accept serious compromises in comfort levels for the sake of > environmental balance." (p. 279) >The proposed reforms then can be seen as ultimate tinkering, while the >Earth continues to be destroyed. Moreover, the basic beliefs to which Gore >subscribes are also part of the global environmental crisis and have helped >to bring it on. Gore turns out to be not bold, or deep enough, by far, even >if "balanced" from a shallow ecology perspective. > > >Ideological limitations > >Some positions in the book which reveal Gore's ideological limitations: >- Gore accepts a modified market economy as the only possible economic >system and links free markets, "democracy" and social justice. "Ownership" >becomes necessary to protect the environment. He supports the global >economy and bemoans that economic decision-making so far does not include >environmental values. He also supports trading in emission rights, is for >biotechnology, and says that nuclear weapons "over the long term may prove >beneficial" (p. 205). Gore does not want to acknowledge that the >economic/social system he continually celebrates in his book has to be >replaced, to resolve the environmental global crisis. He ultimately >remains, in his thinking, a prisoner of his own culture. > >- For Gore, the US and other countries can have more economic growth, >�sustainable development' is fine, and there are no economic limits to >continual growth. He opposes "a simplistic conclusion by some that >development itself is inherently undesirable." (p. 280) > >- He equates "democracy" with the US political process, and does not >acknowledge any systemic corruption. There are also untouchables, such as >any delegation of partial sovereignty to a global UN-type authority in the >United States: > "The fear that our rights might be jeopardized by the delegation of even >partial > sovereignty to some global authority ensures that it's simply not going to >happen." > (p. 301) > >- He has an exaggerated, but often typical US view of that country's >importance and leadership role in the world today. > >- He says a person needs a "faith" to have an ethical system. As a Baptist, >the Christian god is the center of his ethical understanding. Gore >advocates a conscious role for humans as stewards of the environment or the >Earth. He interprets the biblical "dominion" over the Earth to mean >stewardship and in this way, looking after other "creatures": > "The old story of God's covenant with both the earth and humankind, and > its assignment to human beings of the role of good stewards and faithful > servants was - before it was misinterpreted and twisted in the service of >the > Cartesian world view - a powerful, noble, and just explanation of who we > are in relation to God's earth. What we need today is a fresh telling of >our > story with the distortions removed." (p. 218) >Other life forms clearly do not have equivalent moral standing in Gore's >cosmology. He further makes the amazing claim that all the major world >religions "mandate an ethical responsibility to protect and care for the >well-being of the natural world." (p. 243) > >- Gore displays an ignorance of deep ecology, along with a two-page >misrepresentation in his book, which enables him to arrive at the >conclusion that "The new story of the Deep Ecologists is dangerously >wrong." (p. 218) Deep Ecologists, according to Gore, have made "the deep >mistake of defining our relationship to the earth using the metaphor of >disease." (p. 216) > >- He still remains a Cold War warrior, with many denunciations of >"atheistic" communism. There is lots of talk of "free societies." But at >least, he is refreshingly frank about this: > "Opposition to communism was the principle underlying almost all of the > geopolitical strategies and social policies designed by the West after >World > War II." (p. 271) >For Gore, the struggle in Europe was "democracy" versus communism, not >capitalism versus communism (p. 178). For him, the features of communism >"were infinitely worse" both individually and environmentally than anything >"our" economic system has brought about. (p. 195) > >- In the US, he presents the Republicans as the main obstacle to >environmental progress, so his book is partisan in this way. > >- He sees no contradiction between the US �leading' environmentally and the >creation of "millions of new jobs." (p. xvi) > >- A primary theme of Gore's book is the pressing need to address climate >change. Yet he has served two terms as Vice-President in the Clinton >administration, where nothing of substance concerning global warming has >been done, except in an obstructionist sense. > >- Gore gives a number of examples where he supposedly asserts a leadership >role, that can only be called boasting or hubris. (This boasting also >became an issue in the electoral campaign for the presidency.) In his book >he claims, "I helped lead the successful fight to prevent the overturning >of protections for the spotted owl." (p. 121). For other boasting examples, >see backhauling legislation (p. 154), and information superhighways (p. >327). > > >Conclusion > > Al Gore illustrates in his book what Arne Naess might call the full >development of a "shallow" ecology, where the existing industrial >capitalist paradigm of values is not fundamentally challenged. He is a >reformer, not a revolutionary. He does not want to see the core beliefs to >which he clings - which perhaps might be called "the American way" - >undermined or replaced. I was surprised by his depth of knowledge of >environmental issues, but also by his prejudices. Yet Gore is also an >example of a certain style of "American" environmentalism, that is, >mainstream, Christian, anti-communist, and seeing the United States as the >center of the universe. > > I think Gore shows the futility of an individual, however informed, trying >to change industrial capitalist society, even moderately from within the >system, without any mobilized constituency for ecological ideals. Talk or >eloquent writing do not overcome corporate and institutional self-interest. >This should also be a lesson for some in the green community, who pursue >electoral dreams. The problem of climate change, expressed so passionately >in Gore's book, was not manifested positively in the Clinton >administration. At the recent Hague climate conference in the Netherlands, >the US - the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world - as usual led >the obstructionists. The carbon sink demands for "carbon credits" were to >minimize energy change in the US. (This also applies for Canada.) Those who >live well and dominantly (and short-sightedly) off industrial capitalism, >are not going to end the fossil fuel economy and quietly �reform' >themselves out of existence. This is a lesson for many environmentalists. > > Al Gore, of course, had to be preferred over George W. Bush. But, for both >of these persons, like former President Bush senior at the 1992 Rio Earth >Summit, at rock bottom, the American destructive consumer lifestyle, so >promoted throughout the world, is not on the negotiating table. If I lived >in the United States (not something I desire) and if I had voted, I would >have 'wasted' my vote on Ralph Nader. He is someone I can personally admire >- someone who seems to live by some Spartan principles, and a very >knowledgable capitalist reformer. But wasn't the Nader candidacy about what >the late US/German Green, Petra Kelly, would have called "ecological social >democracy"? Is this enough for electoral greens? How will this assist and >not obstruct the needed, fundamental industrial transformation? > >December 31, 2000 > > ************ > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Visit the Green Web Home Page at: > > http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/ > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
