Part II
Anyone familiar with environmental or international law knows its limitations. While international environmental regulation is logical given the global nature of the problem, its efficacy is limited. The same is true of economic and technical approaches. Economic methods like emissions credits trading are imperfect. Nor can the dominant “technocratic paradigm” solve the world’s environmental problems. Technical approaches such as recycling are necessary, yet prone to criticism as economically unjustified. While addressing the food supply problem through biotechnology has arguably saved millions of lives, the risks of unintended consequences, as well as of crossing ethical boundaries, must not be ignored. Similiarly, nuclear energy is an obviously perilous alternative to hydrocarbons. The benefits of fracking to the oil and gas industry and its employees are well known, yet its geological and socio-economic damage can be considerable. Hydroelectric power is “clean,” yet dams are environmentally disruptive. Although successful where subsidized, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and tidal are criticized as ineffective and economically unfeasible.
While such technical solutions have their flaws, the economic arguments against them often represent a cramped view of environmental costs and benefits, which ignores the big picture. If we assign economic value to positive and negative factors of physical and mental public health, worker morale, productivity and longevity as well as cultural factors, projecting them over the long term, then environmental planning and the use of renewable resources will prove justified.
There is also a fundamental distinction between an irresponsible economy that disregards waste (“the throw-away culture”) and one that, adopting a “circular model of production,” accounts for all the resources we use. Environmentalists criticize exploitative, production-oriented economies, whether socialist or capitalist, that focus on unlimited growth. Taking a broader view, some advocate an economy that not only is sustainable in its use of natural resources, but is based on genuine human needs as well as on equity, cooperation and the family as the basic productive unit. Such a view redefines the very notion of “progress.”
Indeed, only a radical shift in priorities – a deep human commitment to reform – can adequately address global environmental problems. Such a shift must be philosophically rooted. While pragmatic Americans tend to see environmental issues in narrow technical and economic terms, ecology has long been a concern of philosophers as well as scientists. Ukrainian-Russian geochemist Volodymyr Vernadsky (1863-1945) developed the notions of the “noosphere” and “biosphere,” while the Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) synthesized evolution and theology. American naturalists like Scottish-born John Muir and Aldo Leopold focused on the spirituality and ethics of what used to be called “conservation.” Pope Francis follows this tradition in stressing the interconnectedness of all creation (LS No. 70, No. 240). Just as one cannot deny the practical connection of ecology with economics and technology, so one cannot overlook its ties to philosophy, religion and culture.
Environmental concerns inevitably have a moral dimension, expressed in our lifestyle choices and our daily habits. As Christopher Lasch pointed out 30 years ago, the lifestyle of the rich cannot be extended to everyone without placing an excessive burden on the environment. Therefore, the affluent must accept a more modest way of life and cultivate a sense of limits (Lasch, The True and Only Heaven, 1991, p. 532). As Pope Francis reminds us, such a mode of living can overcome the escapism born of our culture’s sense of emptiness (LS No. 113), as well as our excessive individualism and consumerism (LS Nos. 203-208). We should cultivate simplicity, sobriety, humility, balance, peace, attentiveness and contemplation (LS Nos. 222-227). In the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “the external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast” (LS No. 217; Benedict XVI, inaugural homily, April 24, 2005).
It is natural that religious leaders should have something to say about ecology. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, known as the “Green Patriarch,” speaks of “eco-justice” and ecological sin, treating environmental protection as primarily a spiritual issue. His views harmonize with those of Pope Francis as well as of St. John Paul II. (John Chryssavgis, “Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Protection of the Environment,” https://www.patriarchate.org/ar/the-green-patriarch). Evangelicals, too, have taken up the cause. In Ukraine, the Greek-Catholic Church established a Bureau of Ecology in 2007. It conducts an annual Lenten initiative titled “Ecological Conversion for Saving Creation” and has translated “Laudato Si’.”
How does our Ukrainian diaspora regard these issues? Perhaps because of our small-farmer origins and the experience of communism, we insist on individual freedom, private property and free enterprise. Repeatedly deprived of our goods, even our means of sustenance, supposedly for the common good but in reality for the benefit of a tyrannical state, we are suspicious of the notion that the earth’s resources are for the benefit of all, and that the right to private property is subordinate to the “universal” or “common destination of goods” (LS No. 93). We are allergic to words like “social,” which suggests “socialism,” and “common,” which is redolent of “commune.” Even if it is necessary to preserve a healthy environment, economic planning reminds us of the Soviet Five-Year Plans. We also tend to believe that both economic freedom and economic growth should be unlimited, though such an attitude – widespread among Americans – ultimately harms our individual as well as our general welfare (LS No. 141).
As drought and resulting fires ravage the West Coast, we may need to rethink our relationship with the environment and reconsider the distribution of resources in our world. Those of us who are Orthodox or Catholic can find a useful corrective in the teachings of our respective Churches. In “Laudato Si’,” Pope Francis notes the specific environmental spirituality of the Christian East (LS No. 235, citing “Orientale Lumen” No. 11). This provides an opportunity for ecumenical cooperation in Ukraine and the diaspora. Deserts, internal as well as external, have been known to bloom.
Andrew Sorokowski can be reached at [email protected].