Hello list members:
 Posted below is a contribution to the discussion launched by JT on the
respective merits of Al Gore and Ralph Nader. It is a book review of Gore's
book, written in December of 2000. It was published in The Northern Forest
Forum, Candlemas 2001, Vol.8, No.6.

For the Earth,
David
*********

Al Gore's Ideological Limitations: A Commentary on _Earth in the Balance_

By David Orton

   "The United States has long been the natural leader of the global
community of nations."

    Al Gore, _Earth in the Balance_, p. 171.

        This is a commentary on _Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human
Spirit_ by Al Gore (paperback, Penguin Books USA Inc., 1993, ISBN
0-452-26935-0). I have had this book sitting on my bookshelf for several
years. I bought it because it was frequently mentioned favourably in some
environmental circles._Earth in the Balance_, I came to feel, was one of
those "duty" books (about 400 pages), that I felt I should read, but did
not have much enthusiasm for. I was also curious how Gore had manifested
his environmental principles (which I knew included particularly a concern
for global warming), while serving as the Vice-President of the Clinton
administration - an administration marked generally by environmental
evasiveness within the dominant industrial capitalist paradigm, including
on climate change.

        What made me finally read Gore's book, were the sharp polemics which
erupted within the US environmental community in the recent presidential
election campaign, in which Gore was the Democratic candidate, Ralph Nader
ran for the Green Party, and George W. Bush ran for the Republicans. (I am
leaving aside here the even sharper but different kind of discussions which
arose over the vote-counting in the state of Florida for the presidency,
which Gore ultimately acquiesced to following a "partisan" US Supreme Court
ruling. This showed, in my view, that for Gore, under pressure, it was more
important to uphold the continuity and institutions of American society -
here the ruling of the Supreme Court, than his former basically just
principle of "one person, one vote", which he used to argue for a recount
in Florida.)

        Supporters of Gore frequently referred to his environmental credentials,
while Nader opponents pointed out examples of Gore's environmental
duplicities. I knew then that I had to read his book, and see whether or
not I could  at least support the theoretical position outlined. The
following comments express my views on Gore's basic position as expressed
in _Earth in the Balance_. They are given from the perspective of someone
who is a supporter of deep ecology and, within this philosophy, the
theoretical tendency of left biocentrism.

Basic agreements

        This is generally an erudite and environmentally informed text. Gore
describes the degraded environmental situation well. He brings out that we
are all part of a global civilization. Because of who he is (elected to the
House of Representatives in 1976 and to the Senate in 1984), Gore has had
access to and has tapped into the thinking of scientists and other
academics, well informed about environmental destruction and the
accompanying social decay. He discusses the usual ecological issues
intelligently. Some of the ideas in his book were new to me. Two examples
of this: we need to redefine technology, so that as well as tools and
devices, it includes systems and organizational methods "that enhance our
ability to impose our will on the world." (p. 211) Or, he notes how
fertilizer use discourages genetic diversity among crop varieties by
"compensating for differences in local environments and soil types." (p. 142) 

        His agreement with deep ecology (which he ignorantly and contemptuously
dismisses), is the call for a fundamental change in values in how humans
should relate to the Earth:
        "...the same philosophical error that has led to the global environmental
crisis
        as a whole: we have assumed that our lives need have no real connection to
        the natural world, that our minds are separate from our bodies, and that as
        disembodied intellects we can manipulate the world in any way we choose. 
        Precisely because we feel no connection to the physical world, we trivialize
        the consequences of our actions."  (p. 144)

        But he differs from deep ecology in that his is a God-centered
"stewardship" vision, with humans still at the center, but exercising their
"dominion" intelligently with, say, a "seventh generation" perspective and
"intergenerational equity" in mind. For him, this is a Christian
requirement because, in the end, the Earth "also belongs to God" (p. 244)
not just humankind. Yet any experienced environmental activist knows that
those who exercise "dominion" by working the land or sea, e.g. loggers and
fishers, usually become vocal exploiters, not environmental defenders - and
vigorously oppose new woodland-containing parks, or marine protected areas
which exclude commercial fishing.

        He also states a fundamental organizing principle in _Earth in the
Balance_ that deep ecology supporters would also agree with, but note the
qualifier which discredits the principle:
        "...the new ‘central organizing principle' of the post-Cold War world -
namely,
        the task of protecting the earth's environment while fostering economic
progress."      (p. xv)

        Gore sees the need for a fundamental spiritual transformation, like most
deep ecology supporters, to resolve the global environmental crisis, but
unfortunately interprets this in a narrow, sectarian manner.

        Many of the ecological and social reforms which Gore proposes in his
ecological restoration "Global Marshall Plan" could be supported in
themselves, but are undermined by some basic beliefs which are taken for
granted. Such beliefs reveal a kind of ideology - and hence become serious
limitations for the new required thinking. The US fixation on economic
growth and a consumer lifestyle is, it seems, a given and basic belief,
which cannot be touched:
        "Who is so bold as to say that any developed nation is prepared to abandon 
        industrial and economic growth? Who will proclaim that any wealthy nation
        will accept serious compromises in comfort levels for the sake of
        environmental balance." (p. 279)
The proposed reforms then can be seen as ultimate tinkering, while the
Earth continues to be destroyed. Moreover, the basic beliefs to which Gore
subscribes are also part of the global environmental crisis and have helped
to bring it on. Gore turns out to be not bold, or deep enough, by far, even
if "balanced" from a shallow ecology perspective.


Ideological limitations

Some positions in the book which reveal Gore's ideological limitations:
- Gore accepts a modified market economy as the only possible economic
system and links free markets, "democracy" and social justice. "Ownership"
becomes necessary to protect the environment. He supports the global
economy and bemoans that economic decision-making so far does not include
environmental values. He also supports trading in emission rights, is for
biotechnology, and says that nuclear weapons "over the long term may prove
beneficial" (p. 205). Gore does not want to acknowledge that the
economic/social system he continually celebrates in his book has to be
replaced, to resolve the environmental global crisis. He ultimately
remains, in his thinking, a prisoner of his own culture.

- For Gore, the US and other countries can have more economic growth,
‘sustainable development' is fine, and there are no economic limits to
continual growth. He opposes "a simplistic conclusion by some that
development itself is inherently undesirable." (p. 280)

- He equates "democracy" with the US political process, and does not
acknowledge any systemic corruption. There are also untouchables, such as
any delegation of partial sovereignty to a global UN-type authority in the
United States:
        "The fear that our rights might be jeopardized by the delegation of even
partial
        sovereignty to some global authority ensures that it's simply not going to
happen."
        (p. 301)

- He has an exaggerated, but often typical US view of that country's
importance and leadership role in the world today.

- He says a person needs a "faith" to have an ethical system. As a Baptist,
the Christian god is the center of his ethical understanding. Gore
advocates a conscious role for humans as stewards of the environment or the
Earth. He interprets the biblical "dominion" over the Earth to mean
stewardship and in this way, looking after other "creatures":
        "The old story of God's covenant with both the earth and humankind, and
        its assignment to human beings of the role of good stewards and faithful
        servants was - before it was misinterpreted and twisted in the service of the
        Cartesian world view - a powerful, noble, and just explanation of who we
        are in relation to God's earth. What we need today is a fresh telling of our
        story with the distortions removed." (p. 218)
Other life forms clearly do not have equivalent moral standing in Gore's
cosmology. He further makes the amazing claim that all the major world
religions "mandate an ethical responsibility to protect and care for the
well-being of the natural world." (p. 243)

- Gore displays an ignorance of deep ecology, along with a two-page
misrepresentation in his book, which enables him to arrive at the
conclusion that "The new story of the Deep Ecologists is dangerously
wrong." (p. 218) Deep Ecologists, according to Gore, have made "the deep
mistake of defining our relationship to the earth using the metaphor of
disease." (p. 216) 

- He still remains a Cold War warrior, with many denunciations of
"atheistic" communism. There is lots of talk of "free societies." But at
least, he is refreshingly frank about this:
        "Opposition to communism was the principle underlying almost all of the
        geopolitical strategies and social policies designed by the West after World
        War II." (p. 271)
For Gore, the struggle in Europe was "democracy" versus communism, not
capitalism versus communism (p. 178). For him, the features of communism
"were infinitely worse" both individually and environmentally than anything
"our" economic system has brought about. (p. 195)

- In the US, he presents the Republicans as the main obstacle to
environmental progress, so his book is partisan in this way.

- He sees no contradiction between the US ‘leading' environmentally and the
creation of "millions of new jobs." (p. xvi)

- A primary theme of Gore's book is the pressing need to address climate
change. Yet he has served two terms as Vice-President in the Clinton
administration, where nothing of substance concerning global warming has
been done, except in an obstructionist sense.

- Gore gives a number of examples where he supposedly asserts a leadership
role, that can only be called boasting or hubris. (This boasting also
became an issue in the electoral campaign for the presidency.) In his book
he claims, "I helped lead the successful fight to prevent the overturning
of protections for the spotted owl." (p. 121). For other boasting examples,
see backhauling legislation (p. 154), and information superhighways (p. 327).


Conclusion

        Al Gore illustrates in his book what Arne Naess might call the full
development of a "shallow" ecology, where the existing industrial
capitalist paradigm of values is not fundamentally challenged. He is a
reformer, not a revolutionary. He does not want to see the core beliefs to
which he clings - which perhaps might be called "the American way" -
undermined or replaced. I was surprised by his depth of knowledge of
environmental issues, but also by his prejudices. Yet Gore is also an
example of a certain style of "American" environmentalism, that is,
mainstream, Christian, anti-communist, and seeing the United States as the
center of the universe.

        I think Gore shows the futility of an individual, however informed, trying
to change industrial capitalist society, even moderately from within the
system, without any mobilized constituency for ecological ideals. Talk or
eloquent writing do not overcome corporate and institutional self-interest.
This should also be a lesson for some in the green community, who pursue
electoral dreams. The problem of climate change, expressed so passionately
in Gore's book, was not manifested positively in the Clinton
administration. At the recent Hague climate conference in the Netherlands,
the US - the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world - as usual led
the obstructionists. The carbon sink demands for "carbon credits" were to
minimize energy change in the US. (This also applies for Canada.) Those who
live well and dominantly (and short-sightedly) off industrial capitalism,
are not going to end the fossil fuel economy and quietly ‘reform'
themselves out of existence. This is a lesson for many environmentalists.

        Al Gore, of course, had to be preferred over George W. Bush. But, for both
of these persons, like former President Bush senior at the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit, at rock bottom, the American destructive consumer lifestyle, so
promoted throughout the world, is not on the negotiating table. If I lived
in the United States (not something I desire) and if I had voted, I would
have 'wasted' my vote on Ralph Nader. He is someone I can personally admire
- someone who seems to live by some Spartan principles, and a very
knowledgable capitalist reformer. But wasn't the Nader candidacy about what
the late US/German Green, Petra Kelly, would have called "ecological social
democracy"? Is this enough for electoral greens? How will this assist and
not obstruct the needed, fundamental industrial transformation?

December 31, 2000

                                ************