THEORY

Introduction

The environment needs to be protected; that is a real issue, but it is not the only important issue. It is also important to improve access to food, water and sanitation and reduce disease. It is important to realize that although our protective feelings for the environment are sincere, that they are sometimes clouded by an unrealistic sense of reality. This causes polarization between conservation and development objectives; resulting in complex and ineffective environmental management.

By simple examination of our motives and by sometimes challenging these, we can make informed decisions and real progress.

Protecting the environment

Understanding our relationship with the environment is vital when protecting the environment. The natural environment is beautiful and we do depend on mother earth, but man’s relationship with the environment is not only about adoration and reliance, but also about fear and survival.

Nature is stronger than we are and does set us limits. By appreciating nature’s beauty, it may become easier to accept these limits and that may also motivate us to protect the environment, but that hasn’t stopped us from striving to overcome these limitations.

From the relative safety and comfort of our homes it is only too easy to forget how fragile we are and that we had to fight for food and shelter not so long ago and that so many people still do. It is understandable that we wish to maintain this level of comfort, and to have a pristine environment, but that may not be possible.

We thus have a dilemma; we do want to protect the environment, but we also want to triumph over nature’s limitations.

The Box of Blame

We don’t deal with this dilemma very well.

First of all, we find it difficult to put a prize on the beauty of the environment. We do value the environment highly, yet our monetary system doesn’t allocate value to it directly. This poses a problem when is comes to assessing the significance of our impacts. Secondly, we find it difficult to be objective when it concerns environmental impacts. By defining the environment as beautiful, we are bound to criticize anything that harms it. And criticizing environmental impacts is what we do; with vigor. And although we even criticize our own environmental impacts, we may find it much easier to feel guilty about these than to surrender any comforts. Often, the reason for feeling guilty remains subconscious and this also poses a problem.

This poses a problem because our feelings of guilt translate into blaming others that are jointly responsible for our environmental impacts (with government, industry and traffic at the top of many lists). This blaming of others doesn’t seem to be softened by the fact that we elect our leaders and that we benefit from industrial products and drive cars ourselves. We may even support environmental organizations to do some of the blaming in an organized way on our behalf, and it doesn’t stop there. We also seem strangely addicted to our feelings of guilt. Given a choice between good news about the environment and bad news, we tend to go for the news that confirms these feelings; the bad news.

All of this contributes to the polarization of environmental issues into two sides of the argument. On one side are the arguments in favor of environmental protection, while the arguments in favor of development feature at the other side. The moral high ground seems to be on the side of environmental protection. Causing pollution is bad; those that point this out are good. And criticizing environmental protection initiatives is perhaps the greatest evil.

Those called to justify their pollution have a tough job on their hands. Financial, scientific and societal benefit arguments all seem to do the environment an injustice. In fact, environmental impacts can never be fully justified when they are seen as damaging a good and beautiful environment. But worse; being called to justify ones pollution causes reactivity and this demobilizes creativity and proactiveness.

The Sacred Ground

I suggest to take environmental management outside of the Box of Blame and into what I refer to as the Sacred Ground. Environmental issues cannot be resolved without agreement about their nature and about the ways to resolve them. Bringing problems to the table and expecting a certain resolution simply does not work.

I certainly do not know how it should be. The TINA Way of environmental management offers a framework within which environmental issues can be addressed more effectively. This works with the concerns, relies on the human desire to reduce its impacts, is responsive and opens dialogue; a simpler and more positive approach by far.

Summary

To more effectively manage environmental issues, I suggest we take account of the dualistic nature of these issues, examine our motives, and place environmental management into its wider social context.

The TINA Approach to environmental management can be effective in focusing resources onto significant issues and creating dialogue between parties and this will simplify the management of your environmental issues and increase the acceptance of your efforts at the same time.

Theory 1 2 3 4