Al Gore's Ideological Limitations: A Commentary on Earth
in the Balance
By David Orton
"The United States has long been
the natural
leader of the global community of nations."
Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, p.
171.
This is a
commentary on Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,
by Al Gore (paperback,
Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993,
ISBN 0-452-26935-0). I have had this book sitting on my bookshelf for
several years. I bought it
because it was frequently mentioned favourably in some environmental
circles. Earth in
the Balance, I came to feel,
was one of those "duty" books (about 400 pages), that I felt I should
read, but did
not have much enthusiasm for. I
was also curious how Gore had manifested his environmental principles
(which
I knew included particularly a
concern for global warming), while serving as the Vice-President of the
Clinton
administration - an
administration marked generally by environmental evasiveness within the
dominant industrial
capitalist paradigm, including on
climate change.
What made me
finally read Gore's book, were the sharp polemics which erupted within
the US environmental
community in the recent
presidential election campaign, in which Gore was the Democratic
candidate, Ralph Nader
ran for the Green Party, and
George W. Bush ran for the Republicans. (I am leaving aside here the
even sharper
but different kind of discussions
which arose over the vote-counting in the state of Florida for the
presidency,
which Gore ultimately acquiesced
to following a "partisan" US Supreme Court ruling. This showed, in my
view,
that for Gore, under pressure, it
was more important to uphold the continuity and institutions of
American
society -
here the ruling of the Supreme
Court, than his former basically just principle of "one person, one
vote", which he
used to argue for a recount in
Florida.)
Supporters of
Gore frequently referred to his environmental credentials, while Nader
opponents pointed out
examples of Gore's environmental
duplicities. I knew then that I had to read his book, and see whether
or not I
could at least support the
theoretical position outlined. The following comments express my views
on Gore's basic
position as expressed in Earth
in the Balance. They are given from the perspective of someone who
is
a
supporter of deep ecology and,
within this philosophy, the theoretical tendency of left biocentrism.
Basic agreements
This is
generally an erudite and environmentally informed text. Gore describes
the degraded environmental
situation well. He brings out
that we are all part of a global civilization. Because of who he is
(elected to the
House of Representatives in 1976
and to the Senate in 1984), Gore has had access to and has tapped into
the
thinking of scientists and other
academics, well informed about environmental destruction and the
accompanying
social decay. He discusses the
usual ecological issues intelligently. Some of the ideas in his book
were new to me.
Two examples of this: we need to
redefine technology, so that as well as tools and devices, it includes
systems
and organizational methods "that
enhance our ability to impose our will on the world." (p.
211) Or, he notes
how fertilizer use discourages
genetic diversity among crop varieties by "compensating for
differences in local
environments and soil types."
(p. 142)
His agreement
with deep ecology (which he ignorantly and contemptuously dismisses),
is the call for a
fundamental change in values in
how humans should relate to the Earth:
"...the same philosophical error that has led to
the global environmental crisis as a whole: we have
assumed that our lives need have no real connection
to the natural world, that our minds are
separate from our bodies, and that as disembodied
intellects we can manipulate the world in any
way we choose. Precisely because we feel no
connection to the physical world, we trivialize the
consequences of our actions." (p.
144)
But he differs
from deep ecology in that his is a God-centered "stewardship" vision,
with
humans still at the
center, but exercising their
"dominion" intelligently with, say, a "seventh generation" perspective
and
"intergenerational equity" in
mind. For him, this is a Christian requirement because, in the end, the
Earth "also
belongs to God" (p.
244) not just humankind. Yet any experienced environmental
activist knows that those who
exercise "dominion" by working
the land or sea, e.g. loggers and fishers, usually become vocal
exploiters, not
environmental defenders - and
vigorously oppose new woodland-containing parks, or marine protected
areas
which exclude commercial fishing.
He also states
a fundamental organizing principle in _Earth in the Balance_ that deep
ecology supporters
would also agree with, but note
the qualifier which discredits the principle:
"...the new ‘central organizing principle' of
the post-Cold War world -
namely, the task of
protecting the earth's environment while fostering economic
progress." (p. xv)
Gore sees the
need for a fundamental spiritual transformation, like most deep ecology
supporters, to resolve
the global
environmental crisis, but unfortunately interprets this in a narrow,
sectarian manner.
Many of the
ecological and social reforms which Gore proposes in his ecological
restoration "Global Marshall
Plan" could be supported in
themselves, but are undermined by some basic beliefs which are taken
for granted.
Such beliefs reveal a kind of
ideology - and hence become serious limitations for the new required
thinking. The
US fixation on economic growth
and a consumer lifestyle is, it seems, a given and basic belief, which
cannot be
touched:
"Who is so bold as to say that any developed
nation is prepared to abandon industrial and
economic growth? Who will proclaim that any wealthy
nation will accept serious compromises
in comfort levels for the sake of environmental
balance." (p. 279)
The proposed
reforms then can be seen as ultimate tinkering, while the Earth
continues to be destroyed.
Moreover, the basic beliefs to
which Gore subscribes are also part of the global environmental crisis
and have
helped to bring it on. Gore turns
out to be not bold, or deep enough, by far, even if "balanced" from a
shallow
ecology perspective.
Ideological limitations
Some positions
in the book which reveal Gore's ideological limitations:
* Gore accepts a modified market
economy as the only possible economic system and links free markets,
"democracy" and
social justice. "Ownership" becomes necessary to protect the
environment. He supports
the global economy
and bemoans that economic decision-making so far does not include
environmental
values. He also
supports trading in emission rights, is for biotechnology, and says
that nuclear weapons
"over the long term
may prove beneficial" (p. 205). Gore does not want to acknowledge that
the economic/
social system he
continually celebrates in his book has to be replaced, to resolve the
environmental global
crisis. He ultimately
remains, in his thinking, a prisoner of his own culture.
* For Gore, the US and other
countries can have more economic growth, ‘sustainable development' is
fine,
and there are no
economic limits to continual growth. He opposes "a simplistic
conclusion by some that
development itself is
inherently undesirable." (p. 280)
* He equates "democracy" with the
US political process, and does not acknowledge any systemic corruption.
There are also
untouchables, such as any delegation of partial sovereignty to a global
UN-type authority in
the United States:
"The fear that our rights might be jeopardized by the delegation of
even partial
sovereignty to some global authority ensures that it's simply not going
to happen."
(p. 301)
* He has an exaggerated, but
often typical US view of that country's importance and leadership role
in the
world today.
* He says a person needs a
"faith" to have an ethical system. As a Baptist, the Christian god is
the center
of his ethical
understanding. Gore advocates a conscious role for humans as stewards
of the environment
or the Earth. He
interprets the biblical "dominion" over the Earth to mean stewardship
and in this way,
looking after other
"creatures":
"The old story of God's covenant with both the earth and humankind, and
its assignment to
human beings of the role of good stewards and faithful servants was -
before it was
misinterpreted and twisted in the service of the Cartesian world view -
a powerful, noble, and
just explanation of who we are in relation to God's earth. What we need
today is a fresh
telling of our story with the distortions removed." (p. 218)
Other life forms
clearly do not have equivalent moral standing in Gore's cosmology. He
further makes the
amazing claim that
all the major world religions "mandate an ethical responsibility to
protect and care for
the well-being of the
natural world." (p. 243)
* Gore displays an ignorance of
deep ecology, along with a two-page misrepresentation in his book, which
enables him to arrive
at the conclusion that "The new story of the Deep Ecologists is
dangerously wrong."
(p. 218) Deep
Ecologists, according to Gore, have made "the deep mistake of defining
our relationship
to the earth using
the metaphor of disease." (p. 216)
* He still remains a Cold War
warrior, with many denunciations of "atheistic" communism. There is
lots of
talk of "free
societies." But at least, he is refreshingly frank about this:
"Opposition to communism was the principle underlying almost all of the
geopolitical strategies
and social policies designed by the West after World War II." (p. 271)
For Gore, the
struggle in Europe was "democracy" versus communism, not capitalism
versus communism
(p. 178). For him,
the features of communism "were infinitely worse" both individually and
environmentally
than anything "our"
economic system has brought about. (p. 195)
* In the US, he presents the
Republicans as the main obstacle to environmental progress, so his book
is
partisan in this way.
* He sees no contradiction
between the US 'leading' environmentally and the creation of "millions
of new
jobs." (p. xvi)
* A primary theme of Gore's book
is the pressing need to address climate change. Yet he has served two
terms as
Vice-President in the Clinton administration, where nothing of
substance concerning global
warming has been
done, except in an obstructionist sense.
* Gore gives a number of examples
where he supposedly asserts a leadership role, that can only be called
boasting or hubris.
(This boasting also became an issue in the electoral campaign for the
presidency.)
In his book he
claims, "I helped lead the successful fight to prevent the overturning
of protections for the
spotted owl." (p.
121). For other boasting examples, see backhauling legislation (p.
154), and information
superhighways (p.
327).
Conclusion
Al Gore
illustrates in his book what Arne Naess might call the full development
of a "shallow" ecology, where
the existing industrial
capitalist paradigm of values is not fundamentally challenged. He is a
reformer, not a
revolutionary. He does not want
to see the core beliefs to which he clings - which perhaps might be
called "the
American way" - undermined or
replaced. I was surprised by his depth of knowledge of environmental
issues,
but also by his prejudices. Yet
Gore is also an example of a certain style of "American"
environmentalism, that is,
mainstream, Christian,
anti-communist, and seeing the United States as the center of the
universe.
I think Gore
shows the futility of an individual, however informed, trying to change
industrial capitalist society,
even moderately from within the
system, without any mobilized constituency for ecological ideals. Talk
or eloquent
writing do not overcome corporate
and institutional self-interest. This should also be a lesson for some
in
the green
community, who pursue electoral
dreams. The problem of climate change, expressed so passionately in
Gore's
book, was not manifested
positively in the Clinton administration. At the recent Hague climate
conference in the
Netherlands, the US - the largest
emitter of carbon dioxide in the world - as usual led the
obstructionists.
The
carbon sink demands for "carbon
credits" were to minimize energy change in the US. (This also applies
for
Canada.) Those who live well and
dominantly (and short-sightedly) off industrial capitalism, are not
going to end
the fossil fuel economy and
quietly ‘reform' themselves out of existence. This is a lesson for many
environmentalists.
Al Gore, of
course, had to be preferred over George W. Bush. But, for both of these
persons, like
former
President Bush senior at the 1992
Rio Earth Summit, at rock bottom, the American destructive consumer
lifestyle,
so promoted throughout the world,
is not on the negotiating table. If I lived in the United States (not
something I
desire) and if I had voted, I
would have 'wasted' my vote on Ralph Nader. He is someone I can
personally
admire - someone who seems to
live by some Spartan principles, and a very knowledgable capitalist
reformer.
But wasn't the Nader candidacy
about what the late US/German Green, Petra Kelly, would have called
"ecological
social democracy"? Is this enough
for electoral greens? How will this assist and not obstruct the needed,
fundamental industrial
transformation?
December 31, 2000
Printed in The Northern Forest
Forum, Candlemas 2001, Vol. 8, No. 6.
To obtain any of the
Green Web publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of
Green Web Writings and Left Biocentrism
Green
Web Book Reviews
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Al_Gore.html
Last updated: January 30, 2005