‘Environmentalism’ versus environmental management

It is important to realize and highlight the fact that the goal of a human environmental impact equal to '0' is very distant. Furthermore, this goal also is an unattainable and intangible line. Environmental impacts can be minimised, changed, be contained or transferred to a different location. But human civilization will never stop producing negative environmental impacts.

That’s not all. It no longer surprises me that 'positive environmental impacts' are never mentioned or taken into account by ‘environmentalists’. A classic example of this is the positive impact that tourism has on protected natural areas. Visitors learn about ecological processes and that can help promote sustainable practices in the cities.

If we want to help the planet, there is no better approach than to start implementing environmental risk management' or ERM. We have now developed processes, practices, technologies and resources of the highest level. All are able to manage environmental risks. It is enough to observe environmental management practices carried out by many mining companies: that despite making a severe impact on the environment; these organisations manage their risks in an incredible way. Again, and not randomly, these same companies are those attacked by environmental groups who propose no solutions to the matter. It is a fact that human civilisation (all of us) still needs raw materials. We cannot stop mining.

To differentiate ‘Environmentalism’ from ERM, it is enough to analyse whether an 'environmental risk assessment’ ERA' was carried out. An ERA is the preliminary step to the implementation of any ERM tool. An ERA will define priorities for risk management in a rational way, following a logic that determines the risk and probability of an environmental impact. ERA is the foundation and the first step of ERM, not of activism.

‘Environmentalism’ is, paradoxically, contaminated. Yes. It is polluted with politics that exploit the ignorance of the people. Many political parties aim to capture votes with green policies. Citizens looking to redefine their own human existence by returning to Mother Nature, turning away from big cities and the rush of modern life, are easily netted by those politicians.

Classically, the measures advocated by ‘Environmentalism’ display a lack of rationality and effectiveness, as opposed to a proper ERM. For instance, many government agencies focus their resources on innocuous activist actions, such as promoting ‘permaculture’ and organic crops in the middle of of highly dense populated area or  implementing 'phyto-remediation' in water courses too contaminated or too large for such a solution. Another clear example: renaming tree-lined avenues, or urban artificial parks, ‘biodiversity pathways or corridors'. When 'Environmentalism' appears in such ways; it becomes 'greenwashing'.

If we really want to manage environmental risks in the context of urban sprawl, a proper ERM would set different priorities: noise levels; waste management, run-off pollution, energy and water usage, air quality. Very often, genuine urban biodiversity is almost inapplicable and in any case clearly not a priority in many high density conurbations.

ERM includes a number of risk management tools that have already been implemented and are capable of minimising environmental risks. Among others, these tools are: EIA or Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Audits, Environmental Indicators, Environmental Management Systems or EMS, Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Due Diligence, Life Cycle Analysis or LCA, Economic Tools, Environmental Engineering, Laboratory Analysis, GIS. All these practices and processes are currently being used in many jurisdictions. They give predictability, systematization and rationality to political and business decisions which otherwise become totally capricious.

True ERM will happen when pollution has been allocated a fair price, and the irrational use of resources has also been properly priced. Correctly regulated market forces will determine human activities as never before. Properly regulated markets may lead to efficiency in environmental issues. Conversely, too often, when environmentalists hear the word 'companies' or 'market'; they run away. They ignore the reality that the solution to the problem awaits them right there: in human economic activity, in financial centers; and not in national parks.