Broken Not Crushed life as a statement, not an apology

Rusty at Evangelicals for Social Action was gracious enough to respond to me and to print my letter in their publication. Here is his response:

Hi Christian,

It was very good of you to write, and to cause me to rethink the way I wrote that article. I did find myself allied more with the poor who suffer from mountaintop removal mining than with the corporate executives and stockholders who profit from it, and you rightly pointed out my bias.

I don’t want to be provocative with the question, but could you elaborate on what the “other side” is in this issue? I think I may have anticipated your objections with the data I cited–it’s not an issue of jobs vs. environmental protection, since MTR destroys jobs. It’s not an issue of cost-benefit analysis, since the data show that the costs to society far outweigh the benefits to the corporations (only a tiny fraction of which makes its way to state tax revenues). It’s not an issue of energy affordability, since so little of the nation’s electricity can be traced back to these destructive practices.

You called the coal companies “evil”. I never did. I used words like “violence” because those are words that defenders of MTR use–claiming that when God supposedly gave man dominion over all the earth, he gave blanket permission to use any means necessary to claim and appropriate that wealth. See for example the interview with MTR defender E. Calvin Beisner in the Bill Moyers documentary “Is God Green?” (you can find it online).

If one can’t use the word violence to describe the wholesale, explosive destruction of mountains and smothering of headwater streams with little regard for local people, their welfare or their heritage, when would it be appropriate to use that word? As for the word “barons,” I agree that it is imprecise. I should have called them “robber barons” for their egregious infraction of property rights and willingness to use public resources as a free waste disposal system.

As for “awful argumentation and poor philosophical principles,” it would be really useful for you to mention specific examples that we could learn from. Those certainly sound like things that we would want to avoid.

Thanks for writing, and for reading the ePistle.

Rusty Pritchard Creation Care Editor, ESA ePistle

and here was my response:

Dear Rusty–

Thank you for responding to me with such a prompt and thoughtful email. I’m embarrassed it’s taken me so long to get back to you!

You’re right– I was intentionally short on specifics, to keep my note from being too long. I also think some of my words were poorly chosen (“awful argumentation”), given my failure to back them up with specifics.

The thrust of my concern for the “other side” is this: In your article, you didn’t acknowledge that this issue MAY not be as cut-and-dried, black-and-white, as it may appear at first blush. I don’t think you represented the interests of mining companies in a way that would have satisfied THEM, which is the first rule in “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

I don’t have a dog in this fight — I’m far removed geographically from Appalachia, and I’m not invested in mining. I AM invested in stewardship, and in proper argumentation, and if I WAS in the mining industry, I wouldn’t want to partner with you, based on the pejorative language you used. The article “The Death of Environmentalism” makes the point that, to make REAL progress, the environmental movement needs to drop its combative stance and look for ways that it’s in the best interest of BUSINESS to operate in a more earth-friendly manner.

The other side looks something like this: “There are some very real principles at work here: profit, property rights, sustainability, human rights, employment, economic development, freedom, stewardship, creation care, etc. Why do the mining companies believe its in their best interest to mine this way, especially if its not really profitable? What’s the best way to halt this practice: through court action that essentially voids a valid contract, or through other means? What could those “other means” look like? Is there a way to compensate the mining companies for their lost revenue if their permit is vetoed? How much did the mining companies pay for the “right” to mine these areas? Is “mountaintop removal” violating any laws? If yes, how is that law being enforced? If not, is it JUST to “prosecute” (through lost revenue) the coal companies, if they aren’t breaking a law?

How will it affect the surrounding towns that rely on mining for employment? How will even “marginally” higher utility prices affect the poverty-stricken in Appalachia? What might be some of the trickle-down, or unintended, consequences of halting this practice?

What (if anything) are the companies doing to mitigate this damage? How are they cleaning up after they finish (I’ve seen pictures on the internet that indicate they DO mitigation; it’s an easy Google search).

Do we want to support the precedent of courts or Federal agencies voiding property rights? How does this differ from Chavez’ theft of oil company assets in Venezuela? How might this impact other “undesirable” industries (churches in areas that don’t want them)?”

You mention “egregious infraction of property rights”…how does that differ in principle from your willingness to void the property rights of the mining companies? Principles are universal, so if “property rights” is a principle worth protecting, it also applies to the mining companies. How could the same goals be accomplished while respecting the rights of the mining companies?

Name-calling may appeal to those already on your side, but will only engender hostility from the “other side”. The willingness of many within the environmental movement to characterize business as evil (while you didn’t specifically use that word, “rape and pillage” connote that), often mischaracterizes their concerns and hinders your efforts. Unless you can get business to “think win-win”, to be able to characterize your position as anything but enemy, to view you as a partner, you won’t make lasting progress. “Progress” by court action will lead to a lot of litigation, and searching for loopholes, but won’t win any converts. There are LOTS of examples, however, of business operating in a more “sustainable” fashion because it actually helps their bottom line.

Thank you again for your willingness to dialogue.

Respectfully,

Christian Henderson