The Epic Dilemma

Last week, I attended a lecture by David Suzuki who is among the most powerful and important environmental spokesmen in the world. His message was painfully clear: global change is here and it will destroy the earth if humans do not take action now. Extreme? Possibly; I do not know enough about the science behind global change to evaluate most of the claims he made, but being a concerned citizen I was receptive to much of what he had to say. One of his main arguments was that economics is the root of all evil, and that economic vitality inevitably correlates with the destruction of the environment. This idea resonated strongly with me; it is a controversial claim to say the least. And it probably impacted the majority of the audience, especially the econ majors. How can humans possibly look out for the best interests of the economy and the environment at the same time?

This is an all too relevant question in today’s world where we see the health of the environment deteriorate rapidly while China and India join the ranks of the major industrial powers. It is partially a question of values- which is more important: the reduction of GMFs and pesticides, or curing world hunger? Many people who value the environment also value humanity, so if you’re like me, you want to both prevent pesticides from passing through the food chain and killing bald eagles while simultaneously feeding the starving children in Africa.

This dilemma is certainly applicable to the health of the Hudson River and that little city that resides on its banks. I want both my city and my river to thrive and prosper, but is it possible? I think that part of what scares people about the environmental movement, especially in the United States, is the fact that the movement itself can be perceived as a threat to American culture. American culture is one that admires material progress and maintains a long history of consumerism. Part of this inevitably must be sacrificed in order to preserve the environment. New York City is the economic mecca of the nation, arguably the world, and it clearly threatens the health of the Hudson River. I love New York City for its innovative and progressive mode of life. I love the Hudson River for its natural beauty and for the wealth of nutrients that it provides for the flora and fauna native to the area. Is one mutually exclusive towards the other?