Essay for 10/8/2008 - Outlook

Angela D. Sanchez

Joshua Daniel

English 111

8 October 2008

            In Charles Krauthammer’s, “Saving Nature, But Only for Man”, he argues
that we should only protect the environment when environmental changes directly
affects man. Krauthammer asserts that in order to come up with an effective plan to
“save nature” which will in turn win universal public support we need to not
sentimentalize the earth. As well as distinguish the difference between
environmental luxuries and environmental necessities and the difference between
fundamental and aesthetic environmental goods. I disagree, I believe that in order
to save nature we need to respect it and understand that if we work with our
environment rather than against it we will make a positive impact for future
generations. In my writing I’m going to help you to understand why I question and
why I disagree with Krauthammer’s views on ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect,
oil production, and environmental aesthetic goods. I plan on proving my opinion by
pointing out Krauthammer’s inability to back up his evidence with the names of his
sources, how he contradicts himself in his writing, and the examples he uses to
define environmental aesthetic goods.

            This reading is about Krauthammer wanting to show us how to choose the
best path for us to take so that way we may come to a conclusion on what to do when
it comes to “saving nature”. He says we first need to distinguish between
environmental luxuries and environmental necessities.  He believes that the only
environmental necessity is combating ecological change that directly threatens the
health and safety of people and anything else is a luxury. So basically, he wants
to save nature not for the sake of the environment, but because if we don’t it'll
have a negative effect on mankind. The examples that he uses are things such as
empty breadbaskets caused by the greenhouse effect, lives of Americans due to war’s
fought in part over oil and, the threat to man’s habitat because of the depletion
of the atmospheric ozone.

Krauthammer says, “Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are human disasters.”
He also states, “They occur in the environment. But they are urgent because they
directly threaten man.” He supports this by saying, “A sane environmentalism, the
only kind of environmentalism that will win universal public support, begins by
unashamedly declaring that nature is here to serve man.”  He goes on to further
say, “After all, it is hard enough to ask people to sacrifice in the name of other
humans. (Think of the chronic public resistance to foreign aid and welfare.)” 

Krauthammer believes, “The U.S. does need a sizable energy tax to reduce
consumption. But it needs more production too.” He supports this by saying, “The
U.S. has just come through a war fought in part over oil. Energy dependence costs
Americans not just dollars but lives.” Here is where I believe Krauthammer
contradicts himself he talks about ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect being
environmental necessities, but then he insists we need to drill for oil in the
ANWR. As we all know oil production directly contributes to ozone depletion and the
greenhouse effect. This is where I believe he loses all credibility.

Krauthammer supports his belief that we should not sentimentalize the earth by
stating that his nature worship stops with a May cyclone that killed more than
125,000 Bengalis and left 10 million homeless. He fails to address his sources. The
same goes for the statement he makes about the cost of preserving the spotted owl.
He states that the cost is equal to the loss of livelihood for 30,000 logging
families. I think Krauthammer’s purpose of putting in these statistics was to try
to persuade his readers by making us fell sorry for these people but he fails all
together because again he doesn’t supply us with his sources.

When speaking about the animal population he agrees,”…the variety of nature is a

good, a high aesthetic good. But it is no more than that.” Here Krauthammer uses
the spotted owl as being an example of an environmental aesthetic good. I’m sure
I’m not the only one to think of this as ridiculous. He believes, “The important
distinction is between those environmental goods that are fundamental and those
that are merely aesthetic.” In his words “Nature is our ward. It is not our
master.”

Krauthammer thinks, “When man has to choose between his well-being and that of
nature, nature will have to accommodate. Man should accommodate only when his fate
and that of nature are inextricably bound up.” For example, “When the threat of man
is of lesser order (say, the pollutants from coal- and oil-fired generators that
cause death from disease but not fatal damage to the ecosystem), a more modulated
accommodation that balances economic against health concerns is in order.”

In conclusion I would like to say that Krauthammer makes some good points when
talking about a sane-environmentalism. He has helped me to understand that we do
live in a selfish world and I agree when he says, “A sane environmentalism is
entirely anthropocentric…” I believe this to be an important fact because our
environmental issues are urgent and we need to find a way to get through to mankind
so that way we may resolve these issues before it is too late. I’m not a believer
in the solutions he has for resolving specific environmental issues. My reasoning
for this is that I think of myself as being a spiritual environmentalist. Over the
years we have put our needs above the needs of our environment and look where we
are at now, trying to reverse the negative impact we have had on Mother Earth
because of our selfish actions.

Works Cited

Hughes, Langston. “Saving Nature, But Only for Man” 75 Readings across the
Curriculum

            ed. Chris Anson New York McGraw Hill, 2008. 485-488

Connected to Microsoft Exchange