Great environmental success has come when agencies, industry and stakeholders have come together to render their divergent views mutually consistent. It is not always easy, and the ability to set aside historical narratives that cause one group to delegitimize the ideas of another requires a skill founded in risk management, consensus building, and the ability to recognize value in all arguments. ACOEL Fellows (and the environmental lawyers in general) have an opportunity, and unique ability, to bring these skills to bear in fostering reconciliation of our most difficult environmental issues, especially since perennial policy makers cannot by definition create stability for us.
Four years ago very good friends and colleagues were in the deepest depths of despair at the prospects of the administration of President Biden, while another group of friends and colleagues were enthused and elated with the focus of that administration. Four years later I now find that these same friends and colleagues have swapped elation for despair and despair for excitement. As for environmental stewardship, an evaluation of options is timely. I have written before, (and mentioned at the Deer Valley Annual Meeting) throughout history notable philosophers have championed the concept of reconciliation between varying social, scientific, and political views to resolve disputes and social divisions within societies. Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Kepler often come to mind, as successfully reaching reconciliation between the scientific developments and social policies of their times. These, and other great minds also worked to reconcile vastly divergent political and social ideas. Such a champion is needed now, can someone (or several “someone’s”) become the notable philosopher(s) of this century?
It seems the spirit of reconciliation is lacking in how government, EPA, and stakeholders approach policy issues and lawmaking. It has been a long time since we have seen the concept of reconciliation, instead we have for decades watched as divergent sides have demonized one another and their ideas, rather than building bridges toward common ground. Such policy action is not conducive to stable and resilient environmental stewardship (however you choose to define successful stewardship), rather than focus on the ever-swinging policy pendulum, stakeholder reconciliation should be championed. An outcome of reconciliation is to identify common ground and work to make divergent ideas compatible with each other. While there are many factors that interfere with reconciliation, perhaps the most damaging is social delegitimization. On a personal or social level delegitimization is to diminish, adopt extreme stereotypes, or invalidate the beliefs of another. Delegitimization is usually the result of historical actions and hard to abandon, yet seems alive on all sides of the issues. Of concern, it seems at the core of environmental conflict. We must take a step forward embracing the ability to render divergent ideas compatible while adopting a willingness to abandon the delegitimization of those that have views different from our own – recognizing value in competing viewpoints. Reconciliation requires listening and an attempt to understand, to compromise even if one cannot adopt wholescale another’s view.
The ability to slow or prevent ever changing political policy is unrealistic and thus it is my belief that ACOEL Fellows must take the lead and champion reconciliation – working together for environmental resilience in the face of ever-changing environmental policy and vastly divergent views. If we are to see sustained environmental stewardship, agency, industry, and NGO counsel must themselves seek to achieve reconciliation on broad environmental issues and not just with individual projects or the policy of the day. If we are to have a chance for permanence, then rather than demonizing the view of another, those in the trenches must use their skills to find mutual consistency. Its time to stop poking each other in the eye and work for a negotiated resolution.
