Today, the United States enjoys the dubious honor of being “the world’s only superpower.” But could we eventually suffer the fate of those other great powers? What should we be doing to avoid this?
There are, of course, many reasons why those once-great powers failed. Each would need to be studied individually, and that is outside the scope of The Green Elephant. But they all had at least one attribute in common: eventually, they suffered from a serious collapse in either their natural resource base, the quality of their ambient environment, or both.
We could quibble over whether environmental deterioration was the main cause of the decline of these cultures, but—while other factors were certainly at play—a decline in environmental support systems has been clearly established in each instance as a major cause. As a contemporary case in point, one need only note that today, because of horrible environmental conditions, the average life expectancy of workers in some of the major coal mining regions of Russia is under 50. Many Russian rivers are so polluted that their waters cannot even be used beneficially by industry.
Environmental deterioration is also a major reason why many smaller nations, such as Haiti, Malagasy, and numerous others, may never be able to achieve economic affluence.
Fortunately, our country is nowhere near these sad examples. But it is not difficult to point to certain trends that are cause for concern.
Let’s take as one example our country’s timber supply. We once had vast reserves of this key resource. No other country in the Earth’s temperate zone was ever as generously endowed with timber resources as the United States. There has always been a need for cut timber, and there always will be. But from the time the first white settlers arrived, the removal of these forests commenced with gusto; the economy required it. As a result, little ancient forest land is left today.
Timber is a renewable resource that can and should be utilized on a sustained-yield basis. Unfortunately, this has seldom been done, either on private or governmental lands. What if, in just the Twentieth Century, both the Forest Service and private timber companies had selected suitable lands for sustained-yield silviculture, and scrupulously followed a “one tree cut, one tree planted” reforestation policy? We would have plenty of harvestable second-growth timber today without having to argue over the last of our ancient forests. Spotted owls and marbeled murrelets would have secure homes, and small logging towns would have jobs.
But we blew this assignment badly. Rather than re-using already cut-over lands, we just kept cutting virgin forests. As a result, many parts of America have been deprived of the rich array of biotic resources that their ancient forests once contained. As a result of an overly-permissive policy concerning the cutting of our forests, our country has been clearly impoverished with regard to at least this one essential resource that future generations of Americans will need. We cannot justify cutting what little of our ancient forests remains.
Nor is this the only possible example. One can immediately think of other key resources, such as topsoil, salmon runs, drinkable water supplies, tidal marshes, Appalachia and Lake Erie, that have been greatly deteriorated in the Twentieth Century. We’re going to need all of these to be highly productive in the coming century.
Now let’s consider the other key word in the title of this essay. “Patriotism” is defined by Mr. Webster as “love and loyal or zealous support of one’s own country.” Patriotism comes to the forefront of our consciousness mainly on national holidays, when we honor those who helped make our country great and keep it free.
But there are other ways to love and support one’s own country. High among these are efforts to ensure that our children and their grandchildren have the same rich endowment of natural resources with which to build a dynamic America of the future, as we had to build the America of today. We have both an ethical and a patriotic duty to do this, which is probably why most Americans strongly support environmental protection.
This connection between conservation and patriotism goes back at least to the time of President Theodore Roosevelt, who stated: “Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it Teddy’s way. Since that’s the case, let’s consider the reverse situation. Does this mean that a person who deliberately takes actions that destroy, deplete or seriously deteriorate America’s natural resource base is being unpatriotic? In terms of assuring America’s future, we at REP America agree with T. R. that the answer is yes. People cannot be truly patriotic if they fly the flag on the Fourth of July and pollute a productive American river on the fifth.
As we enter the twenty-first century, let’s begin to employ an expanded definition of patriotism. There’s nothing wrong with flags and parades and all other expressions of patriotism, but let’s enlarge the concept. Let’s make it an act of patriotism to restore our logged-over forests and protect our large roadless areas, remaining ancient forests, wetlands and endangered species. Let’s insist on fair market value for all extractive uses of our public lands, and full restoration afterwards. Let’s see to it that our air is fit to breathe, our water safe to drink. Let’s make our elected officials know that failure in any of these areas is not only unwise natural resource management, but that it is downright unpatriotic as well.
Let’s teach our children that conservation of our natural resources —saving America’s prime agricultural soils, reforesting timber lands, restoring endangered species, cleaning up our rivers, etc.—is not just good common sense, but that it is also the patriotic thing to do.
Because it is.
Philip R. Pryde holds a Ph.D. in Geography from the University of Washington and is a professor at San Diego State University. His academic specializations include water resources, land-use planning, preserved natural areas, regional geography of the U.S. and environmental problems and nature reserves in the republics of the former USSR. He’s the author and/or editor of books, book chapters, professional articles and monographs, including many dealing with preserved natural areas.
A REP member since 1997, Phil was elected to our board in 1998. In addition to REP, he is also a member of the Audubon Society and is a past president of San Diego Audubon, where he chaired the Silverwood Wildlife Sanctuary Committee. He currently serves as chair of Audubon’s task force on the Salton Sea.
In addition to this article, Phil has written several other pieces just for REP, including the papers on Oceans and Wetlands that appear in the Policy Positions section of our web site.
We appreciate the time that Phil has invested in making REP a better organization, and we thank him for this excellent original essay.
