LDS Environmental Ethic

[janderich]

Do we as LDS have an environmental ethic? It appears to me that as a group we do not. Of course there are individuals who may champion a cause or have an opinion on the matter, but we as a whole are not in any meaningful way concerned about the environment. 

I think part of this stems from a reaction to the extreme position environmental groups take towards our place in nature. William Cronon puts the dichotomy well in a thoughtful essay he wrote a number of years ago. He says:

Quote

This, then, is the central paradox: wilderness embodies a dualistic vision in which the human is entirely outside the natural. If we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then our very presence in nature represents its fall. The place where we are is the place where nature is not. ...We thereby leave ourselves little hope of discovering what an ethical, sustainable, honorable human place in nature might actually look like.

...The point is not that our current problems are trivial, or that our devastating effects on the earth's ecosystems should be accepted as inevitable or "natural." It is rather that we seem unlikely to make much progress in solving these problems if we hold up to ourselves as the mirror of nature a wilderness we ourselves cannot inhabit. To do so is merely to take to a logical extreme the paradox that we built into wilderness from the beginning: if nature dies because we enter it, then the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves. ("The Trouble with Wilderness", Uncommon Ground p 81,83)

If a reaction against environmental extremism is part of the answer it is certainly not all of it. Our modern day scripture gives plenty of reasons for us to be at the forefront of caring for the earth, and yet we largely do nothing. Why is this so and what should we do about it?

[Meadowchik]

My gospel understanding motivates me to improve my stewardship as an inhabitant of this planet: don't litter, recycle, reduce waste, reduce consumption, be more mindful of my direct impact via my consumer decisions....and then teach my children.

[thesometimesaint]

I am delighted to know that there are places on this earth where there isn't a Strip Mall every 1/4 of a mile. Where man is a visitor that does not stay.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, janderich said:

Do we as LDS have an environmental ethic?

https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environment-statements

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/articles-resources-environmental-stewardship-conservation

 

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[janderich]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environment-statements

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/articles-resources-environmental-stewardship-conservation

Yet despite these few websites and one book, I would argue that we as a people are not very concerned with the environment. Take just two examples, global warming is largely spurned and BLM usage by ranchers is generally supported. Why is that?

[thesometimesaint]

Squeaky wheels get more attention than quiet ones.

[JAHS]

It's something that I think is at the back of everyone's minds; but at the forefront there are so many other things that concern us regarding our immediate day to day living, it's all we can do to take care of those things. It's not that we don't care, it's just that our minds can only handle so much with the time we have.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, janderich said:

Do we as LDS have an environmental ethic? It appears to me that as a group we do not. Of course there are individuals who may champion a cause or have an opinion on the matter, but we as a whole are not in any meaningful way concerned about the environment. 

I think part of this stems from a reaction to the extreme position environmental groups take towards our place in nature. William Cronon puts the dichotomy well in a thoughtful essay he wrote a number of years ago. He says:

If a reaction against environmental extremism is part of the answer it is certainly not all of it. Our modern day scripture gives plenty of reasons for us to be at the forefront of caring for the earth, and yet we largely do nothing. Why is this so and what should we do about it?

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we' white man?"

There are Mormons like me who have been long-term environmentalists, and who understand the fragile nature of our ecosystems -- and who do something about it, if only from the enlightened perspective of our own long-term human survival.  For we are indeed an integral part of nature.  Yet from our position as top predator, we are a direct threat to that ecosystem.  Paleolithic peoples, such as the Amerinds, well-understood their precarious position, and Brigham Young pointedly advised us as to how we must be good stewards of that environment -- a mission from God (see Hugh Nibley in Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, XIII:3-101).

I would love to see all those died-in-the wool Mormon conservatives become conservationists, and to own up to the reality of global warming, etc.  For now they seem far more interested in taking Paradise and putting up a parking lot -- or at least running all over it with their ATVs.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, janderich said:

Yet despite these few websites and one book, I would argue that we as a people are not very concerned with the environment. Take just two examples, global warming is largely spurned and BLM usage by ranchers is generally supported. Why is that?

I am worried about the environment.  Who wants to breathe bad air or drink dirty water?  My problem is not with environmentalism but the role of government.  Environmental groups have too much influence over the government rather the people at large.  The government should appeal to the people for solutions rather than ignore the will of the people and just mandate rules and regulations without the imput or agreement of the people as a whole.  Just as taxation without representation was a problem in the past, we have a regulation without representation problem in this country.  

Edited April 30, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[thesometimesaint]

So how do we insure that you have clear air to breathe and clean water to drink? Government at least in the US is not some outside force dictating what you have to do. We have elections to elect people who we feel represent us, and do what we can not do for ourselves. I can't go around to every coal fired power plant and make sure they aren't polluting the air you and I breathe. So I work to elect people who will make and enforce regulations so we can.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, janderich said:

Yet despite these few websites and one book, I would argue that we as a people are not very concerned with the environment. Take just two examples, global warming is largely spurned and BLM usage by ranchers is generally supported. Why is that?

Well, i almost put it my post, but was hoping it went without saying: avoid judging others as demonstrating that "we" haven't an environmental ethic. It's like asking, "Do we really follow the Lord?" and then point to all the members who don't, or how everybody in some way doesn't, rather than looking to our Savior who invites us to, and to all of us who try.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

So how do we insure that you have clear air to breathe and clean water to drink? Government at least in the US is not some outside force dictating what you have to do. We have elections to elect people who we feel represent us, and do what we can not do for ourselves. I can't go around to every coal fired power plant and make sure they aren't polluting the air you and I breathe. So I work to elect people who will make and enforce regulations so we can.

In theory we have a representative form of government.  We elect people who then represent the will of the people.  The problem I see is that if this was actual reality, the approval of congress would be above 50%.  Yet it is around 10-20%.  Yes we have people in congress who are supposed to represent us but when it comes to the environment, the regulations don't come from congress but the EPA.  The EPA are a bunch of unelected hacks who just draw up standards on their own without approval of Congress.  They justify their actions say on the Clean Air Act but then impose regulations that are not in the actual act.  

When the President goes to Paris and meets with 170 or so leaders around the world, they draw up agreements and attempt to impose them on the people.  No consent to the decisions by the people themselves are desired or required.  It difficult to rally around ideas or agreements when it is imposed on the people without our approval first.  It is just another form of dictatorship.  

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am worried about the environment.  Who wants to breathe bad air or drink dirty water?  My problem is not with environmentalism but the role of government.  Environmental groups have too much influence over the government rather the people at large.  The government should appeal to the people for solutions rather than ignore the will of the people and just mandate rules and regulations without the imput or agreement of the people as a whole.  Just as taxation without representation was a problem in the past, we have a regulation without representation problem in this country.  

Yeh, CO2, but this is really a form of them-and-us thinking, without reflecting on the fact that the government is us.  We elected it and pay for it with our taxes.  You are fully represented.  Do you understand what that means?  Have you actually gone to the local office of your mayor, state legislator, congressman, senator, forest ranger station, etc., to talk about your concerns?  To lobby them?  Are you civic-minded and participatory in your gov't?  Or do you just see it as the enemy?

You misunderstand "taxation without representation" in Colonial times if you equate it with modern American gov't.  The Boston Tea Party and other protests about "taxation without representation" were substantive claims about Colonial lack of representation in the British Parliament.  Unlike today, we were not allowed to elect representatives to Parliament.  Their complaint was real, yours is not.

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

In theory we have a representative form of government.  We elect people who then represent the will of the people.  The problem I see is that if this was actual reality, the approval of congress would be above 50%.  Yet it is around 10-20%.  Yes we have people in congress who are supposed to represent us but when it comes to the environment, the regulations don't come from congress but the EPA.  The EPA are a bunch of unelected hacks who just draw up standards on their own without approval of Congress.  They justify their actions say on the Clean Air Act but then impose regulations that are not in the actual act.  

When the President goes to Paris and meets with 170 or so leaders around the world, they draw up agreements and attempt to impose them on the people.  No consent to the decisions by the people themselves are desired or required.  It difficult to rally around ideas or agreements when it is imposed on the people without our approval first.  It is just another form of dictatorship.  

The first time an elected official does what I want them to I'll let you know.

The EPA was formed as a control on the environmentally negative effects of Laissez Fair Capitalism. IE; Burning rivers.

SEE http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/priorities/article.php?x=264

Congress controls the purse-strings. It has limited control over regulations. Which is a function of Executive Branch.

We are not a democracy. We are a republic.

[mapman]

I think the church's position is that we should be good stewards of the earth. It just seems that the bulk of the members in the US only feel strongly about church positions that align with their political beliefs. Unfortunately (and inexplicably to me) environmentalism has become a political issue and most members reject it or are apathetic towards it for political reasons.