Can Liberals Really Be Green?

Today, liberalism is one of the mainstream political philosophies which define the development of both national and international politics as well as the contemporary world at large. In fact, liberalism influences not only political but also socioeconomic and cultural sphere of life of the modern society. In such a situation, liberalism cannot fail to affect burning issues which disturb the modern society. In this respect, the problem of the environmental protection is one of the central issues and liberals often tend to argue that they can ensure effective environmental policies and minimize the negative impact of human activities on the environment (Charleston, 1999). Nevertheless, their opponents argue that liberalist concern on an individual, individual rights and liberties as well as interests, make effective environmental policies impossible because such ideology rather stimulates consumerism that environmentalism (Morgenthau,2006). In such a situation, liberals and their opponents come into clashes in regard to environmental issues because, in spite of criticism, liberals attempt to demonstrate their ability to conduct efficient environmental policies, while in actuality, the environmental protection implies the consistent limitation of individual rights and liberties that apparently contradicts to the traditional liberal ideology.

In order to better understand the environmental polices of liberals and to evaluate their ability to conduct efficient environmental policies, it is important to dwell upon the essence of liberalism. It is necessary to underline that liberalism holds liberty as a primary political value that should define international policy, as well as domestic one. In broader terms, liberalism seeks “a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy, that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed” (Charleston 1999, p.310). Being applied to international relations, these basic principles of liberalism underlines the necessity of the existence of plurality of state actions in the international arena. In other words, states should be able to make free choices according to their preferences, which are the primary determinant of state behavior. Naturally, the preferences would vary depending on a state because each state has its own particular culture, traditions, set of moral values, as well as economic and natural conditions, political system, and so on.

Furthermore, it is also extremely important to emphasize that liberalism stands on the ground that “interaction between states is not limited to the political (high politics), but also economic (low politics) whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals” (Powell 1994, p.322). In such a way, liberalism attempts to overcome a kind of anarchy that could be developed in the result of difference in political preferences of all states which differ dramatically. Instead, liberalism attempts to increase the role of cultural capital which, according to liberalism theories, should create “opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power” (Nincic 1999, p.29). One of the examples of such cultural cooperation may be found in the sphere of cinematography and media where American films are so widely spread and popular that they contribute to the growth of popularity of American culture worldwide and it stimulates the creation of markets for American goods. In addition, it should be said that liberalism suggests quite an idea, which seems to be a kind of utopia, that peace in the world can be achieved by cooperation and independence of states.

At the same time, one of the milestone ideas of idealism is the individual rights and liberties. In actuality, liberalism stands on the ground that an individual rights and liberties are the major values that have to be respected and fully protected. In fact, liberalism lays emphasis on the fact that the liberty of an individual cannot be restricted by the state or any other power or authority as long as the liberty of an individual does not cause any harm to the liberty and rights of other individuals within the society. In actuality, it is this theoretical assumption which raises doubts in the ability of liberals to conduct efficient environmental policies (Powell, 2004). Nevertheless, liberals argue that their focus on individual rights and liberties does not impose any restriction on environmental policies, but, in contrast, stimulates the introduction of efficient environmental policies which ensure the safety of an individual and his or her environment, including safety and protection from the negative impact of other individuals (Gray, 2002).

In such a context it is necessary to take into consideration both positions, the one of critics of liberalism and the position of liberals. In this respect, it should be said that liberals attempt to present the problem of the environmental protection as the problem of the protection of an individual right to live in a safe environment, while the pollution of environment is the violation of individual rights and liberties because it limits consistently the business and social activity of an individual (Morgenthau, 2006). To put it more precisely, liberals argue that an individual rights and liberties should be protected and people cannot live in the unfriendly environment, while the pollution of the environment is a direct threat to each individual. Therefore, liberals develop the idea that they can develop an efficient environmental policy which can protect an individual rights and liberties and ensure that individuals will be protected from the negative impact of human activities.

At this point, the means with the help of which liberals can achieve such goals are unclear, taking into consideration the possible conflict of interests between an individual needs and interests, on the one hand, and the environmental pollution, on the other. To put it more precisely, liberalism, which stresses the importance of individual rights and liberties, supports the idea of the limitation of the control over an individual actions in order to provide an individual with larger liberty and possibility to exercise his or her natural rights and liberties. However, critics of liberalism point out that, in such a situation, green intentions of liberals come into clashes with individual needs and interests since each individual mainly stands on the utilitarian ground, while liberalism maintains this ideology stressing the supremacy of individual interests and rights over interests of the community.

In actuality, it is obvious that the focus of an individual interests and needs above interests of the community naturally stimulates an individual to develop utilitarian values. As a result, an individual is growing more and more concerned with his or her needs and interests, ignoring interests and needs of other people. Such a situation is potentially dangerous in terms of efficient environmental policies. It proves beyond a doubt that an individual naturally strives to satisfy his or her needs, while liberalism encourages such inclination of an individual through elimination of any restrictions which are not harmful to rights and liberties of other people. Consequently, liberalism encourages consumerism because individuals, being influenced by the dominant liberal ideology, tend to satisfy their needs, while the satisfaction of current needs engenders new needs. However, the modern civilization is unable to meet all the needs of an individual without causing harm to the environment. For instance, the introduction of various conveniences, including elementary ones, such as vehicles, various electronic equipment, including computers, mobile phones, and other devices, imply the use of energy and industrial production which pollutes the environment. Liberalism does not limit the consumerism of an individual. In stark contrast, liberalism stimulates consumerism because it fully meets the idea of protection of individual rights and liberties. The desire of an individual to get high standards of living is natural and liberalism maintains this desire of individuals, while, in actuality, the maintenance of high standards of living is achieved through the pollution of the environment.

At this point, it is possible to speak not only about abstract human rights and liberties, but it is possible to speak about specific economic, political and social rights of individuals in terms of such consumerist policies supported by liberals. For instance, liberals do not accept the idea of egalitarianism because it limits economic rights of individuals, but egalitarianism apparently leads to the consistent limitation of consumerism. At any rate, egalitarianism prevents individuals and the society at large from unreasonable expenses. In contrast, liberalism stands on the ground that an individual cannot be limited in his or her wealth or expenses. Instead, liberals emphasize that an individual can be as rich as he or she is capable to be and, therefore, an individual can consume as much as he or she can afford. It proves beyond a doubt that such a policy naturally leads to the growing competition between individuals within the society as they want to get rich and take a higher social position. Liberalism takes such individual success for granted, but the growing prosperity of one part of the population naturally lead to the pauperization of another part that naturally undermines the environmental situation and increases pollution and the negative impact of people on the environment.

In this respect, it should be said that both the rich and the poor have a negative impact on the environment. On the one hand, the rich are unwilling to protect environment because it limits their opportunities to satisfy their needs and wants. On the other hand, the poor cannot afford the use of environmentally friendly technologies or precuts or services developed on the basis on environmentally friendly technologies. As a result, liberalism stimulates the ongoing pollution, while the limitation of consumerism or individual use of  various products, services or technologies will be viewed as the violation of individual rights and liberties. For instance, liberals are unlikely to limit traffic through the introduction of public transport instead of individual vehicles because such a measure is offensive in regard to an individual right to free movement.

Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that liberalism cannot conduct efficient environmental policies. In fact, all the declarations of liberals concerning their ability to conduct efficient environmental policies are not relevant to the essence of liberalism. The ideological ground of liberalism implies the respect of individual rights and liberties above all, but the lack of control over individual activities naturally lead to the increase of the environment pollution, while consumerism maintained by liberals aggravate environmental problems even more. Therefore, liberals cannot be really green because truly green policies imply consistent restrictions of individual activities, while the latter inevitably raises issues related to the limitation of individual rights and liberties.

Works Cited:
Armesto, F. F. The World History. New York: Allyson and Bacon, 2008.
Canellos, P.S. “Just don't call Barack Obama liberal, okey doke?” Boston Globe, February 26, 2008. Retrieved on April 7, 2009 from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/just_dont_call_barack_obama_liberal_okey_doke/
Charleston, P.F.  Theories of International Relations. LA: McGraw Hill, 1999.
Gray, C. S. Thinking Asymmetrically in Times of Terror. Paramter, Spring 2002.
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. LA: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Nincic, Miroslav. “The national interest and its interpretation.” The Review of Politics Winter, 1999 v61 i1 p29(2).
Powell, Robert. “Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate.” International Organization Spring, 1994 v48 n2 p313-344.