Environmentalism isn't communist, but can be capitalist
by Mischa Gelman
(published 9/5/00)

 Politics is full of silly claims and propaganda. One of the more
laughable such claims of recent years has been the notion, advanced by
some conservatives and libertarians, that environmentalism is part of a
socialistic plot. This belief is false on two fronts: first,
environmentalism works just fine when coupled with capitalism, and
secondly, socialist countries have done just as well at raping and
destroying the world G-d gave us.
 The absurdity of the claim can reach ludicrous levels. Some critics
targeted Time's Earth Day edition as socialist. If they had actually
bothered to read the magazine, they would have noticed examples of how
environmentalism has a mutually beneficial arrangement with capitalism
(and no examples of such an arrangement with socialism). For instance,
Time pointed out that Xerox, Compaq and 3M cut greenhouse gas emissions in
half and received 50% and higher return on their investment.  The energy
efficient complex of ING Bank in Holland is shown to save 20% on energy
with no additional cost. While they show how traditional businesses
benefit from smart environmental decisions, they ignore one of the largest
growth sectors of today's economy - that of environmentally friendly
companies. Stonyfield's Farms, for instance, is the quickest growing
yogurt company in America, even as it spends much of its income to fund
reforestation projects, organic farming and other environmental causes.
Tree-free and chlorine-free paper are becoming widely available, leading
to the birth of numerous companies. Pennsylvanians can now get clean
energy from Green Mountain. Collins and Aikman Floorcoverings increased
production 85% as they decreased landfill waste 79%. In 1999,
environmentally friendly products rose 20% in terms of sales - why is this
7.9 billion dollar-a-year industry never mentioned as part of the "New
Economy"?
 Of course, some businesses see the potential profits but don't want to
reform. They pretend to be environmentally friendly, even as they wreak
havoc on our world. For instance, that issue of Time was exclusively
sponsored by Ford Motor Co. This is the same Ford which has the worst fuel
efficiency trend, which produces the cars and SUVs that emit the most
carbon and whose vehicle emissions increased over the past decade, making
it the least environmentally friendly company in an industry renowned for
pollution. Such whitewashing is so common it even has its own unique term
in the dictionary now - greenwashing. Other brand names are just as
pathetic - Royal Carribean pleaded guilty to 21 charges of pouring
hazardous chemicals into American waters even as it was claiming "nothing
gets dumped overboard." Coca-Cola sponsors America Recycles Day - but the
8 billion bottles they sell annually are not made of recycled material. As
green business grows, so will such deception. Americans must be on the
lookout for such corporate fraud.
 Just as environmentalism and capitalism can go hand in hand, so can
socialism and environmental devastation. The Soviet Union destroyed nature
efficiently, just like America, and trends in China are disastrous. Not
only didn't the governments do or say anything to stop such abuse, they
tended to encourage it with environmentally destructive subsidies, as Mark
Hertsgaard points out in "Earth Odyssey." Between capitalist and socialist
nations (and the wide range in between), over $500 billion are given out
in environmentally destructive subisides. Here, a reduced governmental
role would help the planet, even as the libertarians claim
environmentalism equals big government.
 Wait, they'll respond - environmentalism does sometimes mean big
government. Who else, after all, will enforce all the rules and
regulations designed to protect our planet? Besides, they'll add - any
restrictions on business are a barrier to a laissez-faire economy. Such
claims strike me as being rather odd - what would we rather have - a few
more dollars or a healthy planet? In his book "Fool's Gold:The Fate of
Values in a World of Goods", Andrew Bard Schmookler draws a parrallel to
myth, to the case of Midas. King Midas gave wealth the utmost priority -
and as a result lost his family, and eventually deprived himself of his
ability to sustain himself - his decisions made him wealthier - and made
him starve. Similarly, by fostering the idea that the market is greater
than the planet, we destroy G-d's creation and ensure worse health and
worse conditions for future generations. Schmookler writes that "we forget
that a creature that destroys its environment destroys itself."
 Let's not destroy ourselves when we have the means to prevent such
destruction. Buy green.

 Mischa Gelman is not colorblind. He can see that environmentalism is
green, not red.