Rob Sisson is green and proud of it. As president of
ConservAmerica, the
conservative organization promoting the stewardship of our
natural resources, Sisson is fighting a lonely,
acclivous battle. Most conservatives have forsaken
environmental issues and left the field entirely to extremists.
This is unfortunate, says Sisson, because conservatives are the
ones who historically have been the stewards of our natural
resources. TAS contributor Christopher Orlet spoke with
Sisson via email.
TAS: Besides the obvious
etymological similarity, is there a philosophical connection
between the Conservative and the Conservationist?
ROB SISSON: Absolutely. The etymological
similarity reflects an underlying conceptual linkage, rooted in the
traditional conservatism articulated by Edmund Burke. A core
element of Burke’s thinking was the intergenerational contract —
the obligation of the present generation to preserve its inherited
legacy on behalf of unborn generations. While natural resources
stewardship was not a pressing matter in Burke’s time, when the
Industrial Revolution was in its nascent stages, the
intergenerational equity principle applies to contemporary issues.
The present generation has an obligation to be mindful in its use
of natural resources. Wasteful consumption that is heedless of
future generations is irresponsible. As Margaret Thatcher said in
1988: “No generation has a free hold on this earth. All we have is
a life tenancy — with a full repairing lease.”
Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver developed Burke’s ideas further
during the 20th century. Kirk, author of The Conservative
Mind, wrote of the inseparability of freedom and
responsibility, behind which lies the practical reality that
freedom can be enjoyed most fully in an orderly society in which
traditions, expectations, cultural norms, and, where necessary,
rules look after the common good. In his 2009 encyclical
Caritas
in veritate, Pope Benedict XVI cautioned: “Rights
presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere license.” Weaver,
author of Ideas Have
Consequences, called for a humble respect for nature, an
inscrutable creation with which man does not have the moral
authority to tinker without heed for consequences. Weaver wrote:
“Nature is not something to be fought, conquered, and changed
according to any human whims. To some extent, of course, it has to
be used. But what man should seek in regard to nature is not a
complete domination but a modus vivendi — that is, a
manner of living together, a coming to terms with something that
was here before our time and will be here after it.”
That’s a lot of philosophy, I know. Ronald Reagan was supremely
talented in finding ways to communicate abstract conservative
ideals in grounded language that appealed to ordinary Americans. In
1984, he said: “What is a conservative after all, but one who
conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the
things by which we live.… And we want to protect and conserve the
land on which we live — our countryside, our rivers and mountains,
our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is
what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility
is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we
found it.”
TAS: In your opinion are
conservatives unfairly labeled as being anti-environmental? Or do
conservatives deserve that label?
ROB SISSON: It’s an unfortunate reality that in
today’s world of superficial media, 24/7 news cycles, and
commentary designed to inflame rather than inform, granular reality
is distorted into black-and-white caricatures. The Left is guilty
of painting legitimate concerns about environmental policy choices
as “anti-environmental.” The tendency of leftish environmentalists
to view federal regulation as a desirable first choice rather than
a sometimes necessary last resort, a suspicion of market-based
approaches to stewardship, and rhetoric that implies all businesses
are careless polluters has helped make the environment a wedge
issue. It doesn’t help that nearly all well-known environmental
organizations are led by Democrats. And loose talk of the
environment being part of the “progressive” agenda is guaranteed to
alienate conservatives.
At the same time, some on the Right have not helped matters with
dogmatic attitudes about the environment, the “thick black lines”
of partisan conformity that Jeb Bush has warned conservatives to
avoid. Unfortunately, the philosophy espoused by many celebrity
talking heads on the right is fundamentally libertarianism. Their
audiences, however, have accepted that definition, completely
unaware of Traditional Conservatism. When any consideration of
environmental stewardship can get one branded a “RINO,” or when
matters of scientific fact are turned into litmus tests for
identity politics, it becomes difficult for conservatives to offer
positive ideas for improving environmental stewardship based on
conservative principles. Scorned on the Left and denounced on the
Right, a conservative who cares deeply about protecting natural
resources and cleaning up pollution can feel like a man without a
country.
Conservatives should not cede environmental stewardship to the
Left. Conservatives should offer better ideas for environmental
stewardship. The public would be better served by having more than
one set of ideas on the table.
TAS: In what important ways
are conservative conservationists and liberal environmentalists
different?
ROB SISSON: Liberal environmentalists tend to
prefer top-down, centralized regulation for just about everything
having to do with environmental stewardship. To borrow a thought
expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in
America, liberals behave like Europeans. They turn first to
government for solutions to public problems. Conservatives don’t do
that. We believe free and fair markets will find efficient and
effective solutions. We believe, as Abraham Lincoln said,
government should only do for people what people cannot do for
themselves.
Private stewardship should be encouraged and supported. Land
trusts are a good example. Another is private labeling to help
consumers make informed choices (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council’s
seafood labeling program). When government must be involved, the
preference should be to leave matters to the least centralized
levels of government competent to deal with the question at hand.
Yes, there are matters that are properly the subject of federal
action — interstate air and water pollution, and care for our
national parks and wildlife refuges being a few examples. What we
need is a civil debate about regulatory reform that assigns the
federal government responsibility for truly national matters, and
ensures that states and localities take the lead for handling
regional and local matters.
TAS: Is it possible to be both
pro-big business and a conservationist?
ROB SISSON: It’s not only possible to be
pro-business of any size and a conservationist. It’s essential to
be pro-business of any size and a conservationist. No conservative
should want environmental stewardship to be left entirely up to
government. Government can’t do it all, nor should it. We can have
a strong economy AND a clean environment, but business
technological innovation and entrepreneurship will be the key to
aligning economic drivers with environmental goals. Many
environmental issues are complex technical questions. To borrow a
quote from Mark Twain, business can find cost-effective answers to
complex technical questions before the bureaucrats can get their
boots on. As a self-organizing mechanism for allocating resources,
markets multiply human intelligence. What conservatives can do is
show citizens how market-based approaches to environmental
stewardship will work better for the economy and the environment
than top-down, overly centralized, overly prescriptive
regulation.
TAS: How can conservatives retake the
conservationist mantle from the radical left?
ROB SISSON: Get back into the game! Don’t let
liberals monopolize the field of environmental stewardship ideas!
Rediscover Edmund Burke’s and Russell Kirk’s ethics of
intergenerational equity and the inseparability of freedom and
responsibility. Show citizens we care about clean air, clean water,
and protecting parks and other open spaces. Develop a set of ideas,
based on conservative ethics of limited government, support for
markets, and a prudent acceptance of facts and risks. Then take the
debate to the liberals and convince the voters.
This will take some courage on behalf of Republican and
conservative leaders in Congress. A tiny, but very vocal part of
the base will never accept that conservation is conservative. And
there are very powerful political donors whose wealth and income
are dependent upon the continued ability to download the cost of
pollution to the public. By the way, President Reagan called this
“the destructive trespass of pollution.” Ending this trespass
should be a libertarian value as well.
I’ve told more than one member of Congress that he or she can be
this generation’s Theodore Roosevelt, remembered and revered a
century from now. All it takes is one person.
We all need clean air and clean water, we all cherish the parks
and wide-open spaces that forged America’s history, defined our
culture as a freedom-loving, enterprising people, and inspire with
their exceptional beauty. Conservatives can show America how we can
be good stewards of our great nation.
