Technician Logo
In the current hyper-bipartisan atmosphere of politics, you may have heard the “pro” prefix thrown around more often than glitter at a Kesha concert. The subjectivity of most political issues is fissuring down the middle, and from opposite rims of the canyon left behind, political parties are yelling a stream of dualities. One of these is the pro-business/pro-environment divide. And, like the pro-life/pro-choice schism, the “pro-ers” are more concerned and vocal about the “anti-ness” of the other side than their own stance. If you’re not with me, you’re against me. Often this leaves the less polarized individuals wary of voicing their opinions: “I don’t hate business; I just like the environment.”
And this is really the main point. When we form the stance of being pro-environment, it is really only because we want for a better environment. And who wouldn’t? Who isn’t pro-clean-water? Who doesn’t support the notion of less respiratory problems for the young, elderly and asthmatics because our air has less mercury and ozone in it? I can undoubtedly say that I’m pro-a-world-where-my-future-nieces-and-nephews-can-swim-in-the-Neuse-without-worrying-about-nerve-toxins-from-algae-blooms-caused-by-poor-water-quality-management. It’d even be cool to eat the fish I catch in William B. Umstead Park without having to worry about a warning sign telling me there are too many PCBs in the water to consume the fish.
In the pro-environment world, the majority of us aren’t anti-business. How could we be? It’s hard to imagine a functioning society without the exchange of goods and services. I love buying books at bookstores — to a lesser extent, textbooks. What I don’t love are negligent business practices that value profit margins over public safety, especially when one comes at the expense of the other. And, to be clear, thousands of examples of socially responsible businesses currently exist. Enter Google, Disney, Toms and Microsoft. Patagonia even encourages its customers to buy less, curtailing consumerism and making it easy to be pro-business. On the other hand, I don’t have to support BP’s Gulf of Mexico spill wrecking ecosystems and thousands of livelihoods in the region out of gross negligence.
To this extent, I don’t support Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods creating pig populations whose waste they can’t handle, wrecking air and water quality in eastern NC and forcing nearby locals to stay indoors. I don’t support cheap solutions to serious issues caused by Duke Energy that result in historic discharges of toxic coal ash to our state’s waters. I don’t support them then lobbying against efforts in our state to stimulate clean energy, and I definitely do not support our governor, their former employee, low-fiving them with a paltry fine, having stock in their company and then suing our own state legislators in order to be put in charge of organizing the “independent” committee charged with Duke’s oversight.
What pro-environmentalists aren’t is anti-business. What we are is against disregard for what’s best for everyone. We’re against leaving the world a worse place. We’re against corporations being allowed to drop millions on lobbying, who remain unaccountable for their harm on the environment and then cry, “The costs will be passed on to the consumer!” when threatened with regulation; we’re against privatizing profits then socializing costs.
And that, in essence, reveals the issue with the polarization of politics. People on either side will say you can’t be in one camp and the other when it’s the middle ground we have to reach. Pro-environmentalism isn’t anti-business. Rather, we have serious issues with the fatal flaws that allow it to continue to corrupt our air, water, soil and government. If the success of a business hinges on the decline in health of any portion of the people, then maybe it is time for that enterprise to go the way of social Darwinism and expire.