The Outpost Observer

Government's role in assuring we maintain a 'green' world

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.

Viewing Theodore Roosevelt as our 'green' mentor

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 11, 2010 

By John A. Ostenburg

President Theodore Roosevelt probably did more to create a culture of ecology in the United States than any other of our presidents. Yet, if he were alive today and undertaking some of his favorite pastimes, he'd be thought of as an environmental charlatan.

 

As Douglas Brinkley records in his wonderful biography, Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America, TR -- incidentally, he hated being called "Teddy" -- is the reason why America today is blessed with so many wonderful national parks and forests.

 

Mr. Roosevelt was aggressive in working through the administrations of Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and especially his own, to set aside large segments of the American landscape so citizens of future generations might enjoy a little of that magnificent natural state that once was the American territory. Because of him, far fewer species of North American birds and animals have become extinct than otherwise would be the case. 

 

However, to the revisionist ecologist, TR must be viewed as little short of a great despoiler of wildlife. He was an ardent hunter and in his early days was fond of serving as his own taxidermist in preparing for exhibit birds and small animals that he killed. He hunted bison and bears and other animals that today are endangered; and he shot many exotic specimen of fowl that rarely are seen today.

 

Simultaneous with those actions, though, TR was highly critical of buffalo-hunters who slaughtered bison in order only to help the westward advancement of the railroad, leaving thousands of their bodies to rot on the prairie landscape; in fact, he wanted them imprisoned. Likewise, among his greatest enemies were the killers of beautiful birds whose feathers then would be used by milliners to create the latest salable fashion-ware.

 

So, was Theodore Roosevelt a great conservationist or not? Indeed, he was. Yet, he also was a man of his times, albeit a little ahead of most others when it came to elements of natural history. He hunted because that was what the men of his era did; yet he abhored what he viewed as the wasteful slaughter of animals. As much as for any other reason, he wanted to preserve some of America's wildlife so future hunters also could enjoy the thrill of tracking bison for the kill and the danger of pursuing both cougar and bear, but their meat would be used as food. Likewise, he wanted to provide carcasses of exotic birds and animals for naturalists to study and classify. But, in accomplishing all of that, he just happened to create a national system of reserves that has protected various forms of wildlife against arbitrary slaughter to this day.

 

It's not that Mr. Roosevelt was a contradiction. Rather, it's that man's view of things has evolved since his day and as such we see as evil now many things that were simply commonplace in times gone by. 

 

I use Theodore Roosevelt as an example because I think too many contemporary environmentalists are myopic in their criticism of citizens of the past for their failure to protect our environment from the damage that it has suffered over the last few hundred years. Truth is, the vast majority of our predecessors simply didn't recognize the danger incumbent with so many of their actions.

 

I was astonished, for example, when I recently read a passage from Henry Miller's Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch, published in 1957, in which he stated "Even at the threshold of this new era, it has become evident to all that the resources of this planet are inexhaustible," adding that "I refer to physical resources." Now, I recognize that Mr. Miller was a master of satire and often spoke tongue-in-cheek, but this observation is one that is far from inaccurate as regards the attitudes even of many learned folks as recently as the late 1950s.

 

The lesson for us today, I believe, is to recognize that some of the attitudes about sustainability that we adhere to strenuously may be things that tomorrow's generations will see as misguided. But that's no reason why we shouldn't be trying to make things better nonetheless. We cannot abandon our commitment to improvement of our air, water, and good earth just because we might be traveling down paths that wiser persons of the future will recognize as too circuitous if not actually heading in the wrong direction. We must be TR-like in our determination to do all that solid scientific evidence and our good judgment may dictate to make our planet a better place on which to live.

 

One of the greatest annoyances for me personally is to hear someone say, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." It's been a too common position among many who oppose governmental action to preserve our natural resources. To me, such an attitude suggests that nothing ever is in need of fine-tuning and that corrective actions should be taken only after ruin has occurred.

 

When it comes to matters of ecology, we cannot wait until things are broken before we begin the fix. Should we wait until the streams are devoid of fish before cleaning them up? Should be wait until everyone must wear a gas-mask for a stroll outside before we clean up the air we breathe? Should we wait until our soil is so saturated with pesticides and other chemicals as to be incapable of producing food before we put in place laws to ban the use of such items?

 

So, just as did Theodore Roosevelt, we may in good conscience be doing some things today that will have to be altered or put to a halt in the future. However, if also like TR, we're on a course that takes at least two steps forward for every one we take back, I think future generations will be kinder to us than they would be otherwise.

 

After all, unless we make some efforts today for our planet's sustainability, there may not be future generations to pass judgment on us anyway.

 

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He recently retired as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Creating a personal environmental sustainability program

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

Friday, August 21, 2009 

By John A. Ostenburg

Environmental sustainability is the terminology applied to planned efforts to preserve natural resources with minimal dependence on synthetic products, especially those that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The sustainability movement is focused on concerted efforts to slow down the earth's current warming process.

Global warming is an international concern and has caused leaders of various nations to come together to establish certain standards they hope will help preserve our planet as we have known it for centuries. Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol have codified standards that some countries now are applying to the everyday activities of their citizens and to industrial/commercial endeavors within their borders.

Media attention on global warming -- especially that which resulted from the production of Al Gore's video lecture, An Inconvenient Truth, that won an Academy Award and positioned the former vice president subsequently to win the Nobel Prize -- has led to widespread concern within the general public. More and more Americans are looking to their federal, state, and local governments to take significant steps toward reversal of the current global warming trend.

While the administration of former President George W. Bush gave scant attention to environmental problems, the current administration of President Barack Obama seems headed in a different direction. Under the leadership of Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, himself a Nobel Prize winner, a program has been developed to promote energy savings by both governmental entities and individual citizens, which in turn will reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Much of the economic stimulus money allocated by Congress at the direction of the Obama administration, is earmarked for energy-saving projects that include both more and better research and also the creation of jobs in industries designed to promote environmental sustainability.

Municipalities also are becoming more involved in the sustainability effort. The Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and activities of such organizations as the National League of Cities are driving more and more local government leaders to develop sustainability plans for their cities and towns.

But individual citizens also can contribute to the environmental sustainability effort on their own. Each individual no doubt sincerely asks himself or herself the question, "What can I do?" without realizing that the combined effect of doing the same thing as numerous fellow citizens will be significant. Just stopping some daily actions -- those that contribute to environmental instability -- will have positive results; actually taking even small steps to reverse the way this currently are heading will be even more meaningful.

Recently I attended the first Green Cities Conference sponsored by the National League of Cities and was stirred by the comments of one of the speakers who was addressing the problem of plastics in landfills. He mentioned the number of plastic water bottles that are discarded every day and I suddenly got a rush of guilt feelings. At that time, on average, I was drinking about 10 bottles of water a week, either at home or at work. On the spot, I made a personal commitment not to drink bottled water again.

That was about four months ago, so I figure I now have eliminated about six and one-half cases of plastic bottles from landfills. If I live to be 70, that's a little more than 3,000 plastic bottles that I alone will keep out of the waste-stream. Those figures make me realize that indeed, one individual can make a difference.

So here are a few things that I think every individual can do as part of a personal environmental sustainability plan.

• Stop drinking bottled water, which -- incidentally -- is not as pure as your average tap water.
• Set one day each week on which you won't drive your automobile.
• Take canvas bags with you when you shop, rather than carrying home your goods in plastic bags.
• Run your dishwasher in the evening at a time when overall electric consumption is lower.
• Get a rain-barrel to use at your home as a means of watering plants in a more natural way.
• Buy produce that is locally grown and thus does not need to be transported across the country by fuel-guzzling vehicles.
• Use public transportation as much as possible.
• Walk more; it not only promotes environmental sustainability, but also human sustainability.
• Take plastic covers received with dry cleaning, tie the bottoms, and use them as garbage bags.
• Recycle, recycle, recycle.

These are just 10 steps that any individual can take to help preserve our plant. None is dramatic. None requires any great amount of sacrifice. But all will help to keep our planet green.

Meanwhile, encourage your local leaders to create sustainability programs for your city or town. In my community of Park Forest, we're doing that right now. The elected officials, the professional staff, and volunteer community members are joining efforts in establishing a program that hopefully will have long-term positive effects for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the good earth on which we live. The more communities that do the same, the better chance we have of passing on to our children and grandchildren an earth on which it is a pleasure to exist.

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He is the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.