Is Environmental Journalism Trending Contrarian?
Over at Ecological Sociology, a supposition is put forth that
the politicization of environmental matters has taken a new twist. Call it “everything good is bad for you reporting.” This is reporting that takes conventional wisdom about environmental matters — energy efficiency is good, recycling is good — and turns it on its head by drawing attention to unexpected and unintended consequences.
The post then offers two recent articles (one by John Tierney who is famous for trying to turn convention on its head) that are taken to be representative of a larger trend:
my sense is that the appearance of multiple articles of this type at this time more likely indicates a change in attitudes and, in particular, a shift in the type of findings that science journalists attend to.
Hunches based on anecdotal evidence don’t strike me as particularly strong ground for an academic to stand on.
Also, what kind of journalism are we talking about? Because a quick glance at the daily beat reporting on environmental issues suggests to me that convention still rules the day. Also, it’s worth noting that in the digital age there are many, many more outlets for science and environmental stories than a decade ago. So it stands to reason that there’s going be more than just the usual fare published randomly at some of these venues.
“Environmentalism is good” What is environmentalism and how is good determined.
Much environmental silliness stems from mono-riskism. But we live in a poly-risky world with resource constraints. If we take a holistic (it should be wholistic, seems to me) approach then what we really seek is to maximize the efficiency with which society uses resources, of all types.
Now, the price of a thing is a direct reflection of the resources (material, energy and labor) that went into the making of that thing. If a thing becomes available at a lower price, the thing now represents fewer resources. Our society is more efficient.
So, you see, wanting a world in which things are cheap is actually wanting a world that is efficient. And efficiency is really environmentalism’s proper goal, even if environmentalists think otherwise.
The best mechanism for achieving this state of cheapness – at least the best identified in human history to date – is free market commerce. A few hundred million people each making selfish choices to maximize their personal wealth results, in aggregate, in a system that provides those things we desire most most cheaply. A free market economy inexorably drifts to ever increasing efficiency, which is ever more environmentally sound.
When environmentalists lament that capitalism and free markets have failed us, they are expressing their frustration that the market, acting holistically in a poly-risky resource constrained world, is not choosing to act on the single risk with which they are obsessed. They think the system is broken. It isn’t.
One has to recognize that politics is simply the free market of ideas; and, in a democracy, is an extension of free market commerce. This matters for the environmentalists that tout externalities. The effeciency resulting from free market commerce makes resources available. It is through politics, the free market of ideas, that we chose which externalities to address with those resources, and how. Those choices are made holistically in a poly-risky world via the best method ever invented. The two markets, commerce and ideas, cannot be seperated.
The beauty and power of the free market is that it captures the collective wisdom. Collectively, we are wise. Only collectively can we decide holistically. Individually, we should be wise enough to see so.
So, I’m thinking that this spring break everyone should kick back. Relish in the fact that we live in the most effecient, hence environmentally correct, world ever in history. Have a beer. For MT, I particularly recommend Lone Star, the national beer of Texas.
Or maybe I’m wrong.