Howard Ernst: Fight for the Bay

By Alex McComas

Howard Ernst, author of Chesapeake Bay Blues and the recently published Fight for the Bay, has been commended by scientists, politicians, and citizens alike for his work in unmasking the political battles faced in the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay.

The Bay, once known for its incredible shellfish production, has deteriorated to the point where some believe it will never recover.  Some fault lies in the political action, or lack thereof, made by the federal government in its restoration.  In a lecture sponsored by the Eisenhower Institute on March 18^th entitled, “Chesapeake in Peril: Why a Dark Green Awakening is Needed to Save the Chesapeake,” Ernst compares, “Earthquakes don’t kill people; engineers kill people [in their construction of poor buildings]”.  He explains that, in the same way, pollution isn’t destroying the bay.  “Politicians are killing the bay.”

The statistics are staggering.  The oyster population is less than 1% its former amount, and yet, a moratorium has never been placed on oyster fishing.  The water, rife with extreme levels of nitrogen and phosphorus components, generates harmfully large phytoplankton blooms, threatens the life of the fish in the Bay, and constitutes a major problem to the Bay ecosystem.  The blue crab population, known historically as a chief export of Maryland, is faltering on and off the brink of dangerous levels.

Declared an impaired body of water by the EPA, the Chesapeake Bay has been a political focus since the 50s.  However, each legislation passed has failed to greatly improve the state of the Bay due to its tentative inaction, falling woefully short of proposed goals time and time again.  Ernst focuses in his books and lectures to identify the breakdown in policy that leaves the Chesapeake Bay it its dismal state.

Most politicians and citizens will agree when asked that more effective plans for environmental reform are important.  However, when it gets down to the gritty stuff, opinions begin to flay a little.  Ernst divides those involved with Chesapeake Bay legislation into two demarcations: cornucopian and environmentalist.

Ernst defines a cornucopian in such a way as to insinuate that this money concerned, free market guru bears the stereotypical greasy mustache, nearly cackling in his intrinsic evil.  The cornucopian, Ernst explains, is not concerned with the ideal of preserving the ecosystem and derives no other comfort from the Chesapeake than in its dollar sign.  The cornucopian ideal is a minority.  Most people take sympathy with environmentalists.

The environmentalists, however, are divided into four subgroups.  In short, Earnst attributes the success of the minority cornucopian and the failure of the majority environmentalist to this factor.  Illustrated in Ernst’s book, the divisions can be made through colors; there are Light Green environmentalists, Green moderates, Dark Green liberals, and Red radicals.

Ernst went into some length as to the differences between these groups.  Essentially, Light Greens work closest with legislatures and play within the rules to get action.  Greens set limits, focus on keeping political and environmental balance, and see the environment as a right or privilege that should be available to all.  The Dark Greens declare nature as spiritual, delighting in the intrinsic, connective, and religious aspects of nature, naming ecosystems “Green Cathedrals”.  The Dark Green proposal is that the one who creates the problem should fix it – that, in their mind, government should be held responsible.

Reds can generally be considered the animal rights activists, taking opportunities to fight legislation through brute force, generally against the law.  Certainly the most severe of the environmentalists, Reds are disgusted at human’s destruction of nature, and would rather the environment survive before them.

The issue with these subgroups of the environment is in their competition.  Rather than focusing on a unified attack against the issues in the political system, Earnst reports that these groups find distaste with each other and squabble amongst themselves.  The Reds are offended by everyone who doesn’t see the Bay issue as desperate enough for stricter action; the Greens hate the reputation earned of environmentalists by Reds, and wish that Light greens would stop trying to compromise.  Light Greens, consequently, see Dark Greens as pretentious; Greens just kind of hang out in the middle, watching the chaos as Reds make enemies with everyone and Light Greens express their mortification.

The web of dispute between the environmentalists becomes increasingly ridiculous as it is written out, nearing on the comical.  Essentially, this is the problem of the Chesapeake Bay; not necessarily pollutants or SAV depletion, but the people who can’t keep their heads together.

Ernst, concluding with a few questions and finishing comments, underlined the need for environmentalists to stop worrying so much about titles and ‘who done what’ and instead focus on their unified enemy, the cornucopian.

The lecture almost had the feel of a grotesque fantasy with these grossly exaggerated stereotypes, but Ernst’s embellished definitions served to rile the audience enough for them to pay attention.  The inflated stereotypes define in themselves the problem that needs to be eliminated in the fight for the Bay.

Dr. Howard Ernst is an Associate Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and a Senior Scholar at the UVa Center for Politics.  For more information on his work, books, and upcoming appearances, go to http://www.howardernst.com/Home