Philosophy.Com

Well, I can't speak for the libertarians, but my I would first ask how you are going to 'entice' people to embrace the 'enviromental' state. I think that it's attractions to us 'common folk' are pretty minor when compared to the loss of jobs and livelihoods that it seems to entail.

As for 'iron cage of liberty' well, what can you say to that? Margo Kingston wanted to try and start the left/right dialogue afresh, but what can you say when 'liberty' is an iron cage?

It seems to me there are two basic arguments for the Green position: one practical, and one more value-based.

The practical argument is that we need to respond to environmental issues before we end up creating various sorts of regional and global catastrophes. The problem, however, is that the cases for many of these catastrophes are overstated, mainly by those Greens who are more interested in the value-based position (deep ecology). As they are shown to be overstated, the Green movement loses credibility.

Insofar as there are concrete practical issues, the traditional liberal structure can handle it, just as it has handled many other social problems. In some cases, the answer may be to internalize environmental costs into the marketplace. In other cases, government regulation can be called on. Both of these routes in the U.S. have been successful.

For the most part, environmental concern increases with increasing wealth. The Green position, however, demands that we learn to be satisfied with a level of wealth far below what most people in the Western world now enjoy. Not only is this a political nonstarter, but it might even be counterproductive if it were successful. Impoverishing people will make them less concerned (and knowledgeable) about ecosystems. Indigenous peoples are only "in tune" with nature when they have to be, and when they don't have to be they are not.

The second Green position, the value-based one, is what is at the heart of the Green movement, but it is philosophically very suspect. Our love of nature is still largely centered around our sense of self and community: we seek solitude, or a realm unstructured by human hands, or some other thing. Those, like Peter Singer, who truly want us to value nature in itself, and not just in relation to our needs, are thankfully few. This in-itself is no better than the Kantian version.

Says Eddie Thomas:

"In some cases, the answer may be to internalize environmental costs into the marketplace. In other cases, government regulation can be called on. Both of these routes in the U.S. have been successful."

This is one of the worst unsupported affirmation I've ever heard in a long time.

In another vein, Mr. Thomas obviously did not read Singer.

Peace.

"This is one of the worst unsupported affirmation I've ever heard in a long time."

Since all unsupported affirmations are equally unsupported, I presume "worst" means here an affirmation that seems very false and is unsupported. Perhaps you would indicate why the claim seems so false. To give some examples of success: air quality, acid rain, water pollution, fuel standards. I would say that the onus is on the Greens to show that practical problems can't be resolved short of drastic reconceptions of what is an acceptable standard of living.

As to Singer, it is an uncontroversial claim that Singer wants us to value nature as an end in itself and not just a means to our satisfaction. Perhaps you disagree about my connecting it to the Kantian in-itself, but it is highly ungenerous to dismiss the claim on the assumption that I haven't read Singer.

Eddie,

I do not think that it is just a simple matter of practical versus deep green value.Its more complex than this at a public policy level.

If we take the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia then a key public policy concern is to ensure that the important rivers of the basin (eg.,the Murray) receive environmental flows to keep them going as rivers and not just irrigation channels.
So we a pratical public policy concern of finding water for the rivers own sake.

But this is not deep green argument.The basin irrigators and the people in the cities, such as Adelaide, realize that their everyday activities depend on the River Murray flowing. A flowing river is their life support system. Ensuring river quality is instrumental ie.,it is water to drink in Adelaide and to keep the export wine production going.

So they----those who live in the river country--- find themselves in a very practical situation of cutting back on their water usuage to save the river to ensure their own survival. Practical and value are all mixed in together.