out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement
ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity
Saturday, September 24, 2011
By John A. Ostenburg
“Going green” is a bit of a cliché these days. Nonetheless, what the phrase represents is as meaningful as ever. Indeed, it may be even more meaningful than ever before.
Our earth is abundant with natural resources and every one of them has been a major contributor to the wonderful quality of life enjoyed by so many. When natural resources dwindle or are altered, the results are famine, ill health, and overall deterioration of the human condition.
How ironic that man has taken many of the earth’s natural resources and restructured them into debilitating chemical combinations that have resulted in contamination of air, earth, and water. Those actions, in multiple cases, are the very causes for the land not to produce food, for the air to do harm to the lungs, and for water to spread disease.
Against this set of circumstances, how can it be anything short of a mandate for governmental leaders to fight pollution in all its forms and to promote sustainability within our natural environment.
Persons who are elected to positions of leadership within government have an obligation to look out for the common good. That’s true whether they be elected to federal, state, or local offices. Each individual has the responsibility for his or her own well-being, but the collective well-being is something entirely different. We pick leaders precisely with the intent of having them protect us from the harm that can be imposed on us by others. That’s why our military forces fight against tyrants who threaten our nation; that’s why our police officers guard us against murderers and thieves; and that’s why legislation is needed to outlaw environmental threats to our human condition.
Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 until 1932, once opined that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” That’s an admonition that all lawmakers always need to keep at the forefront of their minds. As a fiercely independent people, we Americans value the right of the individual to make decisions as regards his or her personal way of living. However, as members of a democratic community, we also recognize that each of us has an obligation to make sure his or her personal liberty doesn’t do harm to the fellow next door.
So, while “Going green” may well be a cliché, the obligation of governmental units to protect the natural resources that provide for the well-being of the citizenry cannot be viewed as a fad whose time has passed. Call it what you may, but government must develop ways to assure that our natural resources are sustained.
An effective governmental policy on sustainability must incorporate federal standards along with state and local dictums. Climate-change, for example, might best be addressed by federal legislation; guarding against air and water pollution from factories might best be handled by state officials; local leaders may be in the best position for fostering attitudinal changes among the populace through such efforts as curbside recycling, regulating lawn-chemical usage, promoting community gardening, etc. Bottom line: the gestalt of sustainability requires all governmental entities working in concert.
It’s somewhat troubling that the current attitude among so many lawmakers, whether in Washington, D.C., or in a number of state legislatures, is to insist that government should stay out of the business of environmental protection. A major reason they do so is the argument that government regulation interferes with the right of some persons to make a living. That’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing U.S. adherence to international climate-control measures. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing curtailment of off-shore oil-drilling. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in fighting regulation of air and water pollution by major corporations.
Yes, it’s true that regulations might affect the ability of the persons involved in these endeavors to earn a living by continuing them. But it’s also true that drug laws affect the ability of drug-dealers to make a living by practicing their trade. It’s also true that laws against bank-robbing affect the ability of those practicing that trade to earn more money. It’s also true that arresting “coyotes” who traffic in illegal immigration affects the ability of those individuals to earn through the work of their choice. All of those restrictions are in place, though, because the actions involved cause harm to the general welfare. That’s also the reason for governmental restrictions that protect our environment and natural resources.
In addition to enacting rules and regulations to protect the public from harm, however, government also must engage in programs that enhance good living conditions. Governmental actions to make it easier for individuals and businesses to maximize their uses of energy are in the best interest of everyone involved. Environmental research financed by tax dollars is akin to medical research financed in the same manner. Both are intended to improve the quality of life for citizens who might not be able to afford the improvements individually but certainly are better able to afford them when contributing collectively.
Lots of harmful things have been done to our environment over the years because of ignorance. Many of those who caused negative effects often did so with no harmful intent whatsoever. They thought their actions were contributing to improvements of society because they failed to see the harmful side-effects. Today’s research makes it obvious that those side-effects truly are present. No one in good conscience can claim ignorance to the harm that is being done to our environment by legions of pollutants.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States proclaims that one of the reasons behind the creation of that great document is to “promote the general Welfare,” and that’s exactly what is done by governmental regulation of pollutants and other elements harmful to our environment.
John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.
Comments