Environmental Problems Face Disregard

Chris Liakos

The environment of today’s America is much cleaner than the environment of the 1970’s. New and tougher laws regulate industrial pollutants and vehicular emissions. Littering fines have been increased and increasingly enforced, and there is strong advocacy for programs of conservation and recycling. Education has played an important role in emphasizing the value of a clean environment, and progress in securing a healthier Earth is evident. Much of this success can be attributed to the willingness of political leaders and policy makers to set aside party politics in favor of bipartisan efforts.

Despite progress, however, the environment still requires significant attention; continued success in improving the world around us will require the attention of all people. *For the benefit of everyone, partisanship should be set aside to make room for acknowledgment of outstanding environmental issues and the ability of these leaders to embrace solutions. A minority of people, including some outspoken conservatives, may stifle progress in these areas when they fail to acknowledge the environmental problems at hand.*

That the environment is being detrimentally impacted by human beings is nearly indisputable. Deforestation, the use of chemical pesticides, industrial pollutants, the extravagant use of space for landfill requirements, are just a few of the reasons we must remain environmentally conscious and vigilant. Awareness of the problems at hand, and acknowledgment of their call for attention must come before meaningful actions can be taken to affect change.

Unfortunately, dramatic events and the tragedies that result may be the “wake up call” human beings require. Whether human beings must face the horror of the starvation that may result from overfishing our oceans, the cancers and birth defects that arise from poisoning our land and water, or the increasingly violent weather that will result from global warming and the risks of the people who live in vulnerable areas, an alarm will sound, and call upon each and all of us to hear it and respond. The world is both fragile and sturdy, changing and steadfast, vulnerable to damage and yet capable of recovery; it will not, however, sustain the stressors humankind places on it without making that strain known.

Conservatives would be well served by thoughtful consideration of the very real environmental challenges before the world community; Rush Limbaugh, however, one of America’s most influential conservative radio talk show hosts, has been outspoken over many years, scorning environmentalists as hysterical “pseudo-scientists” (Limbaugh 171). Limbaugh continues by claiming that "[t]he Earth's ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it" (171). Environmental terrorists and other fringe group extremists within the environmental movement lend themselves in support of what Limbaugh would argue is a more reasoned view. Behaviors that seem strange in the broader American culture, or sometimes dangerous by virtue of their violence against people and property, help make Limbaugh’s case.

The error is in concluding that extremism on either side of the political aisle or societal spectrum represents a reasonable and responsible analysis of the evidence. Extreme views are very unlikely to pave the way to a broad understanding of the environment, the repair it continues to require, or the safety measures that should be put in place in order to safeguard the very air, land and water that make life on Earth possible. The solution lies in the hands of those who are willing to set aside political agendas, to use the reason and science, and to share alike in the common concerns of people. The dangers and consequences of a contaminated or depleted environment do not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats.

The goal of a healthy environment can be accomplished by reasoned thinkers willing to find sustainable solutions. It is not necessary to solve one problem only to create a myriad of others. One concern raised by conservatives, including Limbaugh, is the expansion of the size and cost of a government paralyzed by the magnitude of its own bureaucracy. Limbaugh says that "[b]ig-government regulation is not the best way to protect the environment" (172). Limbaugh makes a reasonable point in this regard, although he may also be missing the opportunity to promote the very changes that would benefit the environment within the scope and interest of those dedicated to smaller government, and greater personal accountability. Among these solutions might be increased attention to education, economic incentives to industry for use of recycled materials, the development of more substantial recycling facilities within communities, and greater tax credits for environmentally friendly sources of energy including solar and geothermal systems within homes and offices as well as biodiesel fuels or hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles.

Acknowledgment of environmental problems is the first step in fixing environmental problems. Political partisanship should be cast aside by politicians, policy makers and pundits alike. Education and monetary incentives should be implemented to further combat the risk of future damage and to repair and maintain a healthier planet. Environmentalism ought to be a politically blind subject for this reason: if human beings destroy the Earth, it will not matter whether they are conservative or liberal. All people will equally suffer the consequences.



Works-Cited Page
Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So. New York: Pocket Books, 1993.

Chris Liakos serves as President of the Political Science Club at Georgia Perimeter College-Lawrenceville. He is also a chapter leader for Students for Saving Social Security. You may contact Chris at chris_liakos@yahoo.com