Chapter 2 of ‘A Big Fix:Radical Solutions for Australia’s Environmental Crisis’ by Ian Lowe (Black Inc 2005) is titled ‘Defining Sustainability: What does it Mean?’.
As I began reading the chapter I thought of Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park and other best sellers) and his irreverent definition of sustainability:
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.”
Lowe’s definition of sustainability is somewhat different, he quotes Victoria’s Environment Minister John Thwaites and adds some:
“It means never having to say ‘sorry’ to our grand-children. So there are some obvious criteria to test whether the way we live can be sustained. Are we likely to run short of critical resources? If we are, our society will not be sustainable. Are we doing serious damage to the natural systems that support us? If we are destroying the capacity of natural systems to produce basic needs such as air, water and food our society will not be sustainable …”
Lowe goes on to suggest that economist really don’t know what they are talking about. He writes,
“The entire notion of economic planning has been abandoned in favour of a naive faith in the magic of the market.” (pg 34)
Instead of markets, Lowe suggests:
1. We need to ensure that the total scale of human activity is ecologically sustainable,
2. We should distribute resources and property fairly,
3. We should allocate resources as efficiently as possible.
He continues,
“So there is a role for markets in ensuring efficient allocation of resources, but first, science must determine the scale of resource allocation we can responsibly allow and society needs to work out the principles of fairness within which markets can operate.” (pg 35)
In ‘The Republic’ by Plato, the ideal ruler has the virtue and wisdom of a philosopher. Perhaps Lowe is suggesting a society where scientists will be the philosopher kings?
…………..
This is part 2 of ‘As Lowe as it Gets’.
Part 1 is here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000853.html .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
RealClimate rips into anti-science schlockmeister, Michael Crichton –
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Jen having read your report on state of the environment I am still none the wiser on your opinion on the general state of the environment. I see a list of issues that you think are not correctly reported but not an overall analysis/summation.
Environmentalism could also be seen as a reversion to pagan beliefs, worshipping the god Mother Earth as supreme deity.
Environmentalists are challenging Judeo-Christian beliefs and values by subjecting human activity to the scrutiny of Mother Nature.
Environmentalists also want to sacrifice the freedoms of economy and society on the idol of Gaia.
The road to serfdom lies through tranquil green pastures!
The Communist Manifesto lives on!
The road to serfdom still unwinds
Phil
Maybe you didn’t read to the end of the link I gave you. If you need it in one sentence then perhaps look at the title of the piece:The Australian environment is undergoing renewal not collapse.
Following are key points lifted from the summary at the end:
4. The Great Barrier Reef is healthy and not affected by agriculture.
5. Australia has significant water resources which continue to be well-managed. Water efficiency in agriculture is comparatively high on a global scale, and improving.
6. Issues of salinisation including rising salt levels in the Murray River have been addressed. Salt levels in the Murray are now half of what they were when they peaked in the early 1980s, and dryland salinity is not spreading.
8. High profile environmental campaigning, and the success of the same campaigns, does not correlate with environmental need. For example there has been a successful campaign to close coral trout fisheries where the yield is arguably well below sustainable levels. At the same time no action appears to have been taken to effectively address all issues of over-fishing in the South East Fishery.
9. Several marine fisheries appear to be over-fished, yet there is no formally agreed recovery plan for the same species, including the southern bluefin tuna fishery.
10. Australian forests are generally well-managed.
11. Changing community values, driven by environmental campaigning, has resulted in large areas of forest that were once managed for multiple-use becoming part of the national reserve system, with logging now banned.
12. There has been a general increase in forest cover, particularly in northern Australia.
13. Australia’s climate has always changed. Contrary to popular perceptions much of Australia has gotten wetter, not drier, over the last 100 years.
As I stated in my comment yesterday, I think I side-stepped some of the difficult rangeland issues. I don’t think our rangelands are generally well managed but the issues are complex.
Rog, are you on drugs? You’re chanting like a voodoo priest!
WAKE UP.
Contemporary environmental thought may have been encouraged by 60s hippy-like mentality, but it is predominantly now driven by white collar professionals, business, and science – people who are concerned about the environment because humans depend on it for our quality of living and even survival.
Contemporary environmentalism is human-based, not mother-nature based.
I hope so Steve, is Lowe advocating the surrendering of the free market to a centralised planning body controlling *the total scale of human activity*?
This is exactly what Hayek et al warned against – the erosion of individual freedoms to the State.
rog – the other major difference is that environmentalism, as you term it, it about a REAL entity. The earth and its life support system exists and is responsible for keeping all life on the planet alive.
It is not a entity in the conscious sense and environmentalists do not worship it in the way that religious people do. Religious believers worship an entity that they cannot see or test in any physical measure, however they have faith in that entities’s existence.
Your premise that environmentalists equals the new religion is therefore flawed from that start. Religious people, by definition worship, an invisible entity that they call god or gods that they have faith exists despite there being no physical evidence that these entities exist. They also follow prophets of these entities that they claim, again with no physical evidence, have a divine connection with these entities.
Environmentalists, by contrast, revere and want to protect a real, physical, and tangible thing, the Earths ecosystems, that requires no faith to admit their existence. As Steve says this movement is a human thing based on the reality that our continueing life on the planet depends on how we look after it.
With a few minutes thought you could have avoided the skeptic catch phrase meant to demean care for the environment.
rog – also flawed is the premise that environmentism = serfdom. The truth of the matter is that serfdom is a free market thing where labour is not regulated leading to exploitation.
In the free market drive to lower costs and deliver increasing returns to shareholders as corporations are legally obliged to do, workers in countries that do not have the economic and political clout to resist large corporations are sold into virual slavery to produce consumer goods. Free markets are far more guilty of producing serfs than the enviromental movement.
The imagined ravings of people who want to enrichen themselves from the Earths resources without any exposure to the consequences do not have any basis in reality other than these people perceive that their profits will be diminished if they have to take account of such trivialities such as safe toxic waste disposal, worker health and well-being and resource depletion.
Tell me you are joking Ender, that you are not serious, that you dont believe in the collective socialist state.
It doesn’t have to be so black and white Rog. Its not free market vs. collective socialist state.
How about a regulated market, ie what we have now?
Such a system can value the ability of markets to efficiently allocate resources, while still protecting some of the things/values that free markets fail to deal with adequately.
Like crime? I assume you are happy with the govt/judicial system regulating our actions in this respect because the free market couldn’t deal with violence and cheating etc in a way that most people would accept.
Steve,
White collar professionals may be so removed from the reality of the environment that they have less of an understanding than the average hippy ever did. And while they may embrace market concepts generally, they may be inconsistent and emotionally driven when it comes to environmental issues and insist on regulation or the banning of productive and sustainable activities – because they don’t understand and believe the propaganda. I make reference to ‘the elite’ losing touch in an earlier post: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000638.html .
Ah rubbish Rog – Ian’s an OK bloke – just tell him to bugga off if you don’t like him… and don’t buy the book.
Wow – talk about bring back the biff …
Rog – mate – you are in John Howard’s Australia and you’re worried about greenies getting control ? hahahahaha ….Surely you don’t think you have carte blanche to do ANYTHING that you want in the name of personal freedom. e.g. trash any amount of the environment – shoot somone if you don’t like them etc. Do you have any limits ??
OK – stop chasing trolls (fun though it is) …meanwhile back at the blog …
Jen – might give you some of those… how about a spatial analysis of rainfall – are you saying it has gotten wetter everywhere??
More northern forest cover – or do you mean degraded woodland thickened rangelands…. through lack of fire and/or overgrazing
Water efficiency is high but we have over-extraction and over-allocation. Think the ever clever cotton guys may tech (more efficiency still) and trade (give up some) their way out of this…
Salinity spread ? well probably depends on decadal climate cycles to manifest – hard to say… but we have stuffed our share nonetheless…
I previously gave my list which may be rangeland and agriculture based…: “salinisation, soil acidification, cropping land soil loss, land degradation from overgrazing, woody weed invasion, inappropriate fire regimes, native species losses, introduced vertebrate pests, self created macropod problems, over allocated water resources, noxious weeds, soil compaction, yield decline syndrome, millions in drought aid – the place has had three 1 in 100 bailouts in the last 15 years, declining terms of trade, and decling rural services and population”
This list includes most of our land area which you have left out (said respectfully)
I suggest while I’m at C+ you’re at a B+ for the report card (feel free to argue) … but perhaps we are both optimists in the need to do better. And the role that science has in that…
Or perhaps I’m just a sucker for tree crops and saltbush, new plants etc…
I seriously think we can terra-form our farms for better overall land use and that need not be adversarial – if Rog wants to sit there on his completely cleared block ploughed right up the back steps, smelling that pesticide in the morning mist, with greenie skulls lining the driveway – well good on him. “It’s a free country”…
rog – you are right I do not believe in the collective socialist state nor do I believe in the pure free market state.
In Australia we have a reasonable blend of the two. Enough socialism to ensure the less fortunate members of our society are looked after and their rights preserved and enough free markets to ensure wealth creation without excessive exploitation.
In less fortunate countries this is not the case and corporate and government excesses lead to human rights abuses. The key is to find a balance and neither pure markets nor pure socialism are the answer.
The answer is a reasonable blend of the two taking the advantages and leaving the disadvantages.
Jen – one last point – in all environmental indicators it is very necessary to separate out the climate signal (El Nino/La Nina – Pacific decadal, secular and climate change) from the direct anthropogenic land management effect.
Separating climate from management.
Given our climate variation – not an easy task.
But I guess we all do know stuffed when we see it … i.e. A and B horizon gone…. down to the C horizon. Or salt crytsals shining in the sunlight.
The problems of land degradation, climate and rural economics are subtle. It probably pays to flog the land down to the point where you push it over the edge. So flogging pays maybe for 30 years before things start to happen.
You cant have a free regulated market, same as half a hole, it doesnt exist.
The rule of civil and criminal law has nothing to do with this issue, no free society should be made to tolerate criminal acts.
Most of the world incl China is moving from a regulated system to a market system which by nature incorporates globalisation and consumerism. Countries that have refused to change like Cuba and North Korea are free from the perceived evils of consumerism and consumption.
Those that have ecological interests should feel free to work within a market based system and not feel the need to impose their beliefs through regulation drafted by academics.
rog – Sorry rog that does not work. A pure free market will not respect or preserve the environment. The only way to do this is with Government regulation.
holey doley – a negative reality inversion
Market !! free market – efficient market mechanisms … externalities all internalised …
Yes Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, silicon implants, asbestosis, ciggies all brought to you by the free market … thank the lord for salvation …
…. China is a free society …
US doesn’t regulate it’s trade …
As John Elliot used to say “pigs …”
I know let’s have regulation by the mob … or perhaps like with agriculture – let’s get into some good old agrarian socialism and capitalise gains and socialise the losses…
I think most animals know not to foul their own nests – we humans are slower…
And incidentally how many academics have we got in parliament anyway ??
Rog – the barbarians are the gates – and it ain’t the greenies….. they’re off in a collective meeting somewhere having a rocket leaf sanger and a chamomile tea …
I didn’t say ‘free regulated market’. I said ‘regulated market’.
Can you move away from your black and white view? Or are you a faith-based extremist?
Jennifer: You are constructing an *emotive* argument of elites-who-know-nothing running the show at the expense of the common people who know the ‘real’ issues.
It is an emotive argument with no basis in fact. You are contradicting yourself.
Steve, Not meaning to be emotional. But reality is that a lot of environmental policy has nothing to do with science or economics but everything to do with propaganda campaigns that the metropolitian elite have mostly gullibly swallowed. I live in the electorate of indooroopilly – we are apparently the best educated in the state and yet have such an emotional attachment to most of what the Wilderness Society drops in our letter boxes that most of the electorate can’t recognise it as pure propaganda. Why do audiences laugh when I describe, quoting Critchton, environmentalism as the new religon of choice for urban atheists? Because there is an element of truth in it.
Not for me – it’s Backyard Blitz, Big Brother and Australian Idol…. then footie, cricket ….
Look I use a yellow wheelie bin, buy the dolphin free tuna and free range eggs ? you want more !!
And the wife likes the Prado – high above the traffic – she feels safe in it – and it’s easy to load and so easy to drive too …
And now that Pete has banned tree clearing I can run my air-con with impunity.
OK but seriously – I reckon we’re all really really selfish – environment doesn’t rate that high. All we care about are interest rates and the house renovations. But probably still better than New Orleans culture if it comes to it.
Rog is really safe from the greenie hordes. Sleep well – you can always squirt them with the Dieldrin you still have under the house. (well let’s face it – all those new fangled girly enviro-safe pesticides (sorry Jen) are useless – they actually degrade and don’t bio-accumulate – hopeless)
You are so right Phil, I am safe from greenie hordes – I live in the country. Where I live is too confronting – open spaces, fresh air and scenery.
Greenies I know are busy in the ‘burbs projecting their anxieties by agitating about greedy developers and rainforests. Local council meetings are a free-for-all as greens clog up business with irrelevant issues such as AWAs.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p3d.htm
Tree planting is a concept, when it comes to doing it agendas are suddenly full. Even when I suggest a bushwalk its eye-roll time. The greenies I know are scared of the dark.
Jennifer, I would laugh at the irony, religious choice in the name of atheism, but in all seriousness, there is a missionary zeal at play in contemporary environmentalism that exploits the collective decency of middle Australia (if for no better reason than to avoid the discomfort of being seen as politically incorrect).
I have commented in the past on the emergence of a new all-inclusive earth-centered faith. When Name Calling was posted I thought immediately of the Pauline Hanson phenomena and its relevance to Australia’s environmentalism.
If the disenfranchisement of marginal Australia continues in the name of environmentalism, inevitably there will be a voter-backlash at the polls for a retrospective environmental agenda.
People and comunities are a part of the natural environment and while it may be overlooked in a sea of suburban sprawl, the transmission of a national conservation ethos to future generations requires an inclusive approach that responds to the exclusivity and elitism of what you previously described.
Jen says:
“But reality is that a lot of environmental policy has nothing to do with science or economics but everything to do with propaganda campaigns that the metropolitian elite have mostly gullibly swallowed.”
If you want to know who the *real* elitists are, the people who think they know better, who think they have a better way of life yet seem to always be battling, the people who enjoy the cleanest air, the cheapest prices, the most space, the people whose vote counts for more, the people who claim to be the hardest done by on just about every national issue, the people who claim to be the backbone of the country, the people who claim to represent the identity of Australia, etc etc etc blah blah blah elitism elitism elitism….
…
look no further than regional Australia.
To twist Jen’s words to demonstrate a point:
=But reality is that a lot of Australian government policy has nothing to do with science or economics but everything to do with propaganda campaigns prepared by the regional pastoral and mining elite that the voting public have mostly gullibly swallowed.=
Rog, reckon Telstra should be privatised? Reckon it should be able to decide on its own how much resources to devote to the regions?
How’s that for a provocative emotive argument, supported with no evidence?
Before you get shirty, my point is not to attack the regions, it is to expose the bulldust being peddled about the nature of the environment movement, and the supposed stupid, gullible, good-for-nothing metropolitan elite.
Steve, My best friends are part of the ‘metropolitian elite’ and they are mostly good people but they don’t understand the environmental campaigns they support. I don’t see how what I have written is ’emotional’ or ‘shirty’. I understand the phenomenon has been studies by a fellow called Dunlop – an American I think – his studies showed that the richer you are, and further away you are from an environment, the more likely you are to believe that environment is in crisis.
Of course Telstra should be privatised; Govt should not be running private business, as business should not run govt. Conflict of interest.
I’ve never been a particular fan of P J K but I agree with him when he said that there are 4 dinosaurs in Australia- Qantas, Telstra, ABC and Kim Beazley.
The Banks were privatised and guess what? the roof didnt fall in.
Steve,
I profess to being a fan of George Orwells. Two quotes are perhaps relevant:
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.
Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent.
🙂
OK Jen – rack’em up…. let’s debate each indicator/issue in succession :
Take my list and your list anyone else’s list…
Let’s do 2 a week ….
How about to start:
(1) Surface condition and soil loss rates in our rangelands
(2) Species extinctions since European settlement
By the way Rog – what sort of enterprise do you run with what natural resources may I ask ?
Think…plants, trees, rehabilitation, revegetation, reaforrestation…some years my wholesale nursery a/c is >$100K….big contracts…now I am taking it a bit easier..LOL..
Heres a good essay for you to read Phildo
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html
My city friends have strong negative opinions about the environmental impact of the cotton industry. Their views are largely derived from what the ACF tells them, and in my experiece the ACF leave out much of the story in an effort to present their case a lily white perfect- in short its propaganda not science. Mostly my city friends they never seek first hand information, , or alternative sources to ACF, and have never seen a cotton farm or a cotton farmer, but the cty folk are generally honest and good meaning.They are representative of a city-rural divide where the city is quite easly led by lobby groups to approve policies that harm the farmers and even do no good for the environment.
One doesnt have to listen to shouting matches about politics to see this can be done better and fairer.
Yep agree with “d”. Cotton farmers are good operators. Heavily into R&D. Better pest management systems that Ender would dream of – but have been delivered in part. Tail-water retention, removal of drums, precision spraying, insect resistant varieties. The industry has problems with water usage but otherwise is more maligned than it should be. And funny how people love to wear cotton – “green, natural fibre” – but are unaware of its source. Pity it all has to go overseas to be made into garments.
Re eject-eject-eject Rog – yep pretty good – I can dig it.
But sheepdogs have no place in a lot of the global paddocks they are in. They are not fighting a noble battle. A noble battle would be to find Osama and drag him from his cave in revenge for 9/11 not a geopolitical stunt for oil. You don’t put our military in harms way without good reason. We don’t go to war without good reason.
And young kids who should be in school driving around drugged up nuking distant targets through view finders listening to heavy metal is pretty dark stuff…
And one last comment “people voted him into office with the biggest number of votes in American history” – huh ? is that right – who got most of the votes …
Anyway not to diminish the article – yep good shite.
Meanwhile back at the thread ….
I hope everyone has noticed the patronising and elitist tone that country sympathisers such as d and jennifer take when attempting describing well meaning but dumb elite city people – which includes most of the Australian population by the way.
Jennifer, i don’t think you are shirty, or emotional. I do think that your arguments here are emotive rather than evidence-based. I’m arguing so vigorously here because you claim often that you like evidence-based analysis, and this is not it.
You’ve written about Prof Lowe by likening him to a philosopher king, and arguing that he is full of propganda. You haven’t provided any evidence.
On top of that, you keep pushing this divisive concept of well meaning but ignorant urban elite vs. knowledgeable, abused and alienated country people.
Lets look at your approach against your rules of propoganda.
Rule1: guilty. You are setting up a city(bad)/country(good) divide.
Rule2: guilty: you are smearing Lowe as a philosopher king, propogandist, and generally calling city people well meaning but dumb – making a parody of any city person who disagrees with you.
Rule3: Undecided. THe charge is that you are guilty of manipulating the emotions of country people to assist in your mission of arguing with mainstream environmental thinking.
Rule 4: Not guilty
Rule 5: Not guilty, although you are in danger. You repeatedly push the idea that you are for evidence-based inquiry. But that alone doesn’t mean that you actually practice it. You need to stop saying it and start doing it, and arguing emotively about a supposed city elite isn’t helping.
Which is why we need a more formal assessment of how much of crisis the environment is actually in …. (or not !)
We could cherry pick some arguments for each side or go through the nation’s ecosystems and regions top to bottom …
We could look at national audits and state of the environment reports but …
Not sure where I suggested country folk were good or knowledgable?
Too late Jennifer, you have been found guilty as charged – for failing to provide sufficient evidence against breaches of Rules #1 – 5 of the contemporary environmental manifesto (emphasis on mental eh Phil?)
Jennifer: i think it’s fair to say you imply it. You imply that people who are out of the cities who are on the land somehow have greater knowledge of enviro issues than dumb city people. By calling urban people the ‘elite’ (you use it as a bad word) that implies that the non elite people are out of the city.
Rog: i was using the rules of propoganda that jennifer posted. They are not part of some manifesto. The link to the rules is here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000579.html
Oh, Steve, you actually know the people that I’m referring to? Why do you call them dumb, because I didnt?
I do sometimes confuse people unintentionally and it seems I have here.
Let me be completely clear: I am part of what can be described as Australia’s ‘metropolitian elite’.
I live in a leafy suburb, play tennis on Monday nights, have access to a wonderful local high school (where I send my daughter), am surrounded by good private schools, wonderful and safe parks, gardens, libraries, the best hospitals (private and public), a university close by. Best of all I have a broadband cable connection for my internet.
Many in rural and regional Australia don’t have access to such great facilities. Many in metropolitian Australia also don’t have access to such great facilities.
I consider myself priveledged, but not superior.
I have the opportunity to travel a lot in rural and regional Australia and the facilities just aren’t as good, so the opportunities aren’t as good. The facilities and opportunities also aren’t as good just to my south and west.
Interestingly the people who live in my type of environment/the leafy suburbs in metropolitian Australia tend to be more likely to vote green and support Wilderness society campaigns. I have seen some figures – but don’t have any handy.
Jennifer: by using ‘elite’ as a bad word and applying it to the urban group, you are implying that good people are from the country.
Rog. The rules of propoganda were posted by jennifer, and are nothing to do with any manifesto.
Sorry for posting the same point twice – i didn’t think the comment had worked. Happy for you to delete my most recent comment, and this one.
d, you imply they are dumb because apparently they are unable to tell whether the ACF is telling them propoganda or not. You imply they believe it unthinkingly.
“Interestingly the people who live in my type of environment/the leafy suburbs in metropolitian Australia tend to be more likely to vote green and support Wilderness society campaigns. I have seen some figures – but don’t have any handy.”
Have you seen in analysis of why this is the case?
Is it because:
1. Such people are more easily lead, and prone swallow propoganda?
or
2. Such people are more likely to be educated?
or
3. Such people are less insular than their country friends, and therefore more likely to think about their own impact on the rest of society.
or
4. Such people are generally well off and able and willing to look for ways to improve their world, rather than just focus on earning a crust.
or
…?
Gawd, more lists….multiple choices….worry wory….hey Steve, can I phone a friend? (give us 10 mins, I’m still on dial up, lucky to have the phone at all.)
Back to the ironing..
Steve,
Four good questions. I have done some reading on this (but not recently), some of my friends who read this blog, but never comment, have expertise here, so please accept the following as a quick response, to stimulate discussion, rather than anything definitive. In respone to the questions:
Q1. I think people are generally easily led and very prone to propaganda – city and country. I try very hard to take an evidence-based approach because I know I, likely everyone else, am prone to propaganda.
Q2. Yes. More likely to be tertiary educated. There is some research, I think, that indicates a university education tends to cultivate and reinforce ‘left and green’ views.
Q3. Not sure here. Depends how you define insular? Generally live a long way from the issues they are concerned about including water quality in the Murray, Tasmanian timber communities, Queensland’s rangelands – research by Dunlup is relevant here.
Q4. NOt sure here. Perhaps more disposable income and therefore more targetted by the propagandists. There has been a fair bit written about the ‘doctors wives’ and the last election including the concept of ‘conspicuous compassion’.
I think I need a hug …
That’s it rog, make fun when you have no return argument. Do you have any friends to phone? ha ha.
Thanks for your comments jen. My reasons were also just meant to elicit discussion. I don’t know why people who live in metropolitan green leafy suburbs are more likely to vote green either. My point was that you can’t prove that because they vote green they are not insightful.
If memory serves me, the greatest environmental vandal was the former USSR. If no one owns it, then no one looks after it, since it is always “someone-elses” responsibility.
As for the free market, no such thing, it is an unhampered market. We are free to choose but in order to do so, we willingly make short term sacrifices for long term gain, and these ideas are discussed in detail on, say, http://www.mises.org
Actually the 1930’s German National Socialists were, apparently, quite ecologically concerned.
And to make an interesting observation, I have noticed that critics of capitalists make much ado about their perception that we are “greedy”. I have noticed that spiritual greed seems even more problematical, not to say ideological greed if there be such a thing.