Discussion Topics in Environmental Law
Man Dominates Nature:
A lot of history seems to be about gaining "dominion" over another part of the world: man over nature and animals, whites over blacks, men over women, government and/or corporations over normal people, rich over poor, developed over developing countries, one religion over another religion... the list of control, power and corruption issues goes on and on...
The way our society is structured, someone is always going to be the perpetrator (dominant one) and someone is always going to be the victim (submissive one).
When working with our world society to improve the environment, you have to kind of break through this perp-victim (or leader/follower or dominant/submissive) relationship and everyone needs to have a little more equal footing - all of the stakeholders need to be involved in making our world society more sustainable. Legislators need to be involved, world leaders, religious leaders, NGOs, developed and developing countries, and every "normal" citizen. Our environmental problems are global, and if everyone doesn't take responsibility for them, then our issues will never be resolved.
Being a good citizen or steward of the earth doesn't mean gaining dominion over the world. Being a good citizen means gaining dominion over yourself. And then being a leader so that others will emulate you.
If we can be more pro-environment on all levels of society, then there's a bigger chance of policies being implemented on the world level. As for local and national problems: every one of us can tackle a local environmental problem. Get involved in a group. Call and/or email your legislator!
To bring this point home: I was at an affordable housing conference yesterday, and one of the speakers was talking about how important it is that EVERYONE contacts their legislators: "It's not just us lobbyists they listen to -- they actually do listen to their constituents.." He made a statement (I'm paraphrasing), "If 12 months from now I ask you all who has contacted your legislators, and every one of you raises your hands, then I know that I have made a difference in the world in talking to you today."
Ecocentrism vs. anthropocentrism:
The debate about these two concepts considers where humans fit in the earth's web of life. Are we in charge of this planet, or are we just part of a complex system? Ecocentrism contends that humans are a small part of the web of life on earth - we aren't better than any other plant or animal on this planet. In contract, anthropocentrism contends that humans are the most important species on the planet. The majority of our society is premised on the belief that humans run the show on this planet. I would agree with the latter stance - humans currently have dominion over the planet.
However, this hasn't always been the case, and it won't always be the case. Switching from our current society with 7 billion people on this planet to an ecocentric system just isn't feasible. It may have been feasible back in the 1960's when there were way fewer people on the planet (and much less industry and technology), but now it's just not possible. There are too many humans. We can make pitiful societal attempts to save the whales or the last 2 rhinos, but it's not going to bring us in tune with nature to the extent that ecocentrism requires. However, millions (or even thousands) of years from now, I'm sure humans won't have control over the planet anymore. It's been found that dolphins are very intelligent, and I have a theory that a species of cat will learn to dominate humans for all of their needs (oh wait, that's already happened in my household!)
Scientists need to speak up:
One thing science needs more of in the policy debate is a strong voice -- many scientists like working with models and numbers and statistics and probability. They aren't generally enigmatic spokespeople.
Science needs more "salespeople" to act as the spokespeople. For instance, when Verizon or Time Warner is selling their product to a business, a tech-geek is often paired up with a salesperson to do the sales call. If a person who works in technology/engineering/computers has both the sales skills and the tech-geek skills, they can make a ton of money. Science needs more people with both skills, the scientific skills as well as the enigmatic salesperson skills.
What is the role of uncertainty in science and policy? I think it plays a big role -- mostly because both sides of debates have different ideas of uncertainty. For instance, with climate change -- the scientists have uncertainty, but it's about whether the global mean temperature will increase by 2 degrees C or 5 degrees C. However, many people in government see this as an uncertainty as to whether climate change actually exists...
Sustainable Development:
Sustainable Development is defined as "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." Sustainability can mean many different things: It can mean "social" sustainability or "environmental" sustainability. Development can have many meanings as well. I currently work in affordable housing finance, and I think of the building of multifamily apartment complexes and other construction, such as LEED-certified developments. Somebody else might think of future technology or energy when they speak of sustainable development. Let me focus on LEED-certified construction for my opinion:
Is sustainable development desirable? That's a tough question, and I think it depends on who you ask. I think SD is very desired by some, but not by others. Even if you're not into being "green," you should still be interested in saving money on power and gas. To a person who does not care about sustainable development, a LEED credit that saves money on heating and utilities might be preferential over "frou frou" credits such as using sustainably-sourced wood or daylighting for an office building.
Is sustainable development feasible? Of course, anything is possible. There are LEED buildings being built every day! The question really should be: Can ENOUGH be done? I'm not sure. For every LEED-certified building being built, there are many more being built that aren't LEED-certified. I'm not optimistic that this will change without an organization such as the UN becoming more solid and influential in the world community.