This is exactly the case with the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit, native to Douglas County in North-Central Washington state. According to the Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060518/ap_on_sc/endangered_rabbit_3), the last purebred male of the species has died, leaving only two female Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits left.
Now consider that according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.millenniumassessment.org) launched by United Nations secretary Kofi Annan, "Between 10 percent and 50 percent of well-studied higher taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers, and cycads) are currently threatened with extinction, based on IUCN World Conservation Union criteria for threats of extinction." And, "Over the past few hundred years, humans have increased species extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times background rates that were typical over earth’s history."
What boggles the mind is that we know we’re destroying the environment, yet our efforts so far are paltry. Yes, we have recycling. It’s also nice to see hybrid cars gaining ground, although recent news reports suggest that they’re not living up to their promise. But what will it take to really change the way we live on this good earth?
What happened? There are rumbles out there about William Randolph Hearst’s yellow journalism crusade against hemp – dishonestly confused with marijuana of the smoking kind – playing into the hands of the petrochemical industry and companies such as DuPont. These were companies with a vested interest in the dominance of oil over alternative energy sources such as hemp or vegetable oils. But irrespective of whether that’s a conspiracy theory or fact, the conclusion remains the same. It’s the pursuit of money that’s killing the environment. From Washington Mutual’s recent attempt to develop Ahmanson Ranch despite the surprise discovery of a rare frog species – not to mention a bevy of other problems with the proposed development – to industrial catastrophes like the one in Bhopal, India, there is a definite trend of corporations sacrificing the environment to make a buck.
There’s also inertia. With over a hundred years behind the industrial revolution and the process of urbanization, we’re quite set in our ways. Changing not only how we manufacture products but how we live our very lives given our history seems, at times, like an insurmountable problem. It isn’t, though. The technology exists. And if it doesn’t, or if it isn’t quite ready for prime-time, we have the resources to develop it to the point of viability. Had the auto industry followed-through on Diesel’s plan for his engine, we’d all be driving clean cars by now instead of shouting hallelujahs that we’re finally getting crumbs in the form of hybrids.
By Hook or By Crook?
The solution, of course, is to force companies to shape up, which means tough environmental laws that reward companies who push forward with environmentally sustainable technologies and punish those that lag behind.
But wait! This would destroy businesses, the objection goes. Unemployment! Bankruptcy! Begging in the streets! And what about the intrinsic unfairness of American companies competing with developing countries that aren’t hamstrung by environmental laws?
So along comes the free market, trotted out as the magic bullet that can solve the problem. Let companies sort out for themselves how to develop and implement sustainable technologies within the framework of international cooperation.
In principle, this sounds good. An added bonus: The concept of a free market puts the burden where it belongs: on consumers. With economic clout derived from their buying power, consumers are the ultimate arbiter of what companies can or cannot get away with. If consumers refuse to buy environmentally destructive products from the get-go, corporations have an incentive to develop sustainable products consumers will buy. And then there’s the big stick consumers can wield against a misbehaving corporation: boycotting.
But unfortunately, history isn’t quite on the side of free markets. Before many of the labor laws we take for granted now – when markets were less regulated in terms of social issues like worker’s rights – long workdays, unsafe work conditions, trash and chemical dumping and child labor were common. It wasn’t employers who took it upon themselves to remedy these situations. It was unions and legislation that made them do it. And while there certainly are good "corporate citizens," there are more companies who do put profits above other interests. The conclusion is that regulation of some kind is very much necessary if the economy is to broadly serve society.
The only way I could see a true free-market approach work is if workers are also freed from restrictions. Corporations should not be able to hide behind the force of laws governing when workers can or cannot strike while they have the freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. Free market? Sure, with free labor and smarter consumers.
There is a major obstacle to this rosy scenario of liberated markets, self-empowered workers, and the almighty power of consumer choice: it isn’t so easily done when the cost of living practically denies real alternatives for everyone but the wealthy. It’s nice to suggest that everybody switches to organic foods, for example, but for low-income families, shopping at Whole Foods or buying a Prius isn’t financially possible. And relying solely on bicycles and buses wouldn’t necessarily be realistic for most workers in Los Angeles, so we can’t really say goodbye to the car until something clean comes along.
Say Goodbye
We know that companies have the know-how to innovate new technologies; we see examples of technological wonders everyday. All that’s lacking is the will. So whether we like it or not, we need something decisive to push the companies that supply us with our foods, cars, medications, fabrics, fuels, materials, and homes to do much better than they have been doing so far.
Currently, the best solution seems to involve a combination of consumer outrage and ruthless legislation. Sacrifices may have to be made, yes. But isn’t our planet worthwhile? Even if one dismisses as "alarmist" reports that we are a critical point in terms of global warming and species extinction rates, it is inevitable that destroying the environment will have catastrophic consequences for us. Maybe not tomorrow or fifty years from now, but someday. And I find the thought of an earth without humanity to be a very bleak thought indeed.
