Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Unfortunately, development has become one of the leading
targets
of environmental attacks. While any
given instance of development can be bad—for example, if someone tramples on your property for his
own project—the basic
purpose
of development is to improve our
human
environment.
That includes enjoying nature. Only with a society developed to the point of prosperity—including
transportation systems crisscrossing the land, water, and air around the globe—can we enjoy the most
beautiful parts of nature and the most fascinating parts of civilization.
The general opposition to development as antienvironment reflects a view that equates environment
with
wilderness,
i.e., a nonhuman view of environment, which leads to an environment that is harmful
for human beings because it does not sufficiently protect against natural threats or produce the resources
necessary to overcome natural poverty. Here's the truth: The more development that happens, especially
in underdeveloped countries, using fossil fuels, the more we can expect a
skyrocketing
of environmental
quality around the world.
To be antipollution has nothing whatsoever to do with being antidevelopment. In fact, the two are in-
compatible; we need mass development to overcome nature's deadly pollution. And being prodevelop-
ment, pro-fossil fuels, is completely consistent with another value that has been appropriated by the op-
ponents of fossil fuels: appreciating nature.
PRESERVING NATURE TO BENEFIT HUMAN LIFE
In part because many anti-fossil fuel groups, such as the Sierra Club, celebrate the joys of spending time
in less inhabited parts of nature, it is often believed that to advocate fossil fuel energy and the fossil fuel
industry is to somehow oppose enjoying nature. (Terminology point: I consider human civilization just as
natural as any other animal habitat, but I'll use
nature
in this context to mean “nonhuman nature.”)
It's valuable to think of the ability to enjoy nature as a resource, something that we potentially have but
don't automatically have. If we think that way, we see that like any resource, it is expanded by energy.
I'll use my own experience to illustrate. I have been fortunate enough to experience a wide variety of
scenic, beautiful locations in my life. Some of my favorite moments are alone in nature. Snowboarding at
the end of the day when I am the only one I can see on the mountain. Walking over lava on the Big Island
of Hawaii. Standing under secluded waterfalls in the Grand Canyon. Like most people, sometimes I want
to get away from everything, including all the complex machines.
And that's great, so long as I don't forget what got me there: complex machines.
Just as we are taught to think of nature as safe and clean, so we are taught to think of it as scenic. But it
becomes scenic to us only if we have
access
to a variety of beautiful scenes.
There are more such scenes, but for most of history, no one got to enjoy many of them because they
lackedtheultimatetoolforenjoyingnature—mobility.Theyalsolackedtheothercrucialtool:adaptability,
including medicine. Now we think of camping as a fun adventure. In the past, it was a deadly adventure.
If we view nature as another resource for us to enjoy and something to preserve when it is particularly
beautiful or significant to us, then we will embrace fossil fuels. Fossil fuel energy gives us the
mobility
to
get to it, the
adaptability
to be safe in it, and the
time
to enjoy it.
When we talk about resources, we have to remember that the only resource that can't be re-created, the
real resource to guard jealously, is time—it is irreplaceable and unrepeatable. We can make more plastic,
but we can't get back our time. And time is what enables us to enjoy nature. The more productive we are,
