What is the value of the common good?

Part of the problem in making sense of the conflicts over climate change and the biodiversity crisis is that there is not only a polarisation of opinions, but these opinions are based on very different principles. I have been concerned for some time about the morality of business in that not only are big corporations obsessed with short-term profits at any cost, but their goals seem to be based on a fresh interpretation of business morality – in particular by regarding any idea of ‘the common good’ as being out of date and no longer relevant. This contemporary way of thinking, chiming with modern capitalism (‘late-stage capitalism’ to its detractors) holds that the interests of the individual are paramount and should be pursued most aggressively, ignoring or evading collateral damage affecting others that their business might cause. This atomised view of society seems to fuel argument about ‘wokeism’, ‘the nanny state’, and now even objections to the ESG movement (ESG: disclosure of Environmental Societal and Governance policies of a corporation). No man is an island, and no corporation operates in a vacuum, although the denial of global realities is the current fashion.

A rare relatively untouched wilderness . Copyright EM/ACACIA Productions

Scientific enquiry has led to an understanding that the stable conditions making the Earth a liveable planet are underpinned by vast complexities of interdependence both physical and biological. Without getting into any discussion of the impact of humanity it is clear that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (from whatever sources) have led to instabilities causing increasing droughts, fires, storms and floods while increasing pollution and the degradation of many natural environments have led to biological losses and threaten  global extinctions on a massive scale. Ice-melt at the poles threatens further turbulence with sea-level rises and major changes in the global system of ocean currents now inevitable. The world will be very different in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, whatever we do. This goes far beyond politics, whatever the popular press, ignorant politicians and corporate bosses would have us believe. After all, as we all know perfectly well; ‘there is no planet B’; at the present rate in a century or so there may not even be a planet A, fit for humanity.

Interdependence of the natural world – flowers and pollinators. Copyright EM/ACACIA Productions

Ever since Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ extolled the virtues of free-market capitalism the idea that there should be no limits to growth and human wealth has gained such currency that even reminders that we live on a finite planet are now regarded in some quarters as politically biased. With Governments seemingly less and less able to control or even influence significant events, political decision-making seems to drift further away from reality, reduced to concerns about marginal electoral gains while deflecting attention from real issues.

Take a recent judgement by the US Supreme Court in the case of Sackett v the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). This turned on an apparently obscure argument about the meaning of the word ‘adjacent’ when discussing waterways and limitations of the influence of the EPA. This Federal Agency was set up as recently as 1970 (by Republican President, Richard Nixon) ‘to protect human health and the environment’ – indeed ‘for the public good’. But the Supreme Court, for sectional political reasons, wants to limit the scope of its activity, whatever the cost to public health, the environment and biodiversity – one could even say the future of humanity. Henceforth the EPA’s powers to curb industrial or agricultural polluters of waterways and wetlands is to be limited, whatever the cost. This alarming judgement is effectively a charter for polluters, when what is needed is the opposite – with waterway pollution already reaching critical levels in many parts of the country compromising biodiversity and the health of all citizens.

industrial pollution of watercourses. Copyright EM/ACACIA productions

Judgements like this may win votes but one wonders what other values are more important than the public good – presumably the profitability of polluting industries like chemical plants or intensive poultry farms. As investigative journalists frequently discover, politicians and even lawyers who make such judgements tend to have short-term financial interests which appear to cloud their judgement. It’s worth keeping in mind what are known in UK as the Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life, the first of which is ‘holders of public office should act solely in term of public interest’. These principles supposedly are the basis for public service in UK; in how many other countries is even lip-service paid to them? Since clearly commercial entities are unlikely to limit their activities voluntarily, effective regulation becomes more and more important – indeed more important than political considerations of competing political parties. I am reminded of Nero reportedly playing music unconcerned that his capital was burning.

But all is not yet lost. A more recent court case gives hope for the future, will surely spawn many similar cases and likely override decisions like Sackett v the EPA. In what has been termed ‘a monumental decision’ the State Court in Montana ruled in favour of a group of young plaintiffs that by failing to take climate change into account the State was violating their right to a ‘clean and healthy environment’, an aspect of the issue that the Supreme Court clearly ignored. One can imagine such a case being brought in many jurisdictions, and not just in the USA. Matters like floods, droughts, fires and pollution don’t just affect every individual; the collective is inevitably involved. The public good here coincides precisely with individual freedom. Extremist politicians may object to the idea of public health, the public good and common benefit, but when the very conditions of human existence are threatened, reducing such ideas to a political debate is plainly nonsense. There are clearly limits to the extent that even billionaires can opt out of life on this planet; perhaps this is why some of them seem obsessed with travel to Mars!

Planetary Health Weekly: Biodiversity Blog 17 – by Edward Milner (views my own)

N.B. First published in Planetary Health Weekly, a free weekly blog about the health of the planet.