The Exploitation of Natural Resources and the Rise of Conservation Efforts in the US

The political economy department at the University of Wisconsin ended up becoming ‘a pioneer in the development of land economics’ and ‘agriculture economics,’ both of which focused on conservation efforts (Ely 1938, 191).

Eduard Fernow (1851—1923), who previously studied and practiced forestry in Germany and was ‘the founding president of the Canadian Society of Forest Engineers in 1908 and he served on the federal Commission of Conservation from 1910 to 1923,'¹ gave ‘a course of lectures on the economic aspects of forestry under the auspices of the Department of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin’ (Ely 1917, 17—20). This was ‘the first course of for­estry lectures in the country,’ and it predated any similar offerings in England (ibid.: 17). Fernow’s class ended up having an ‘historical role in the con­servation movement’ across English-speaking nations (ibid.). Henry Charles Taylor (1873—1969), a former student of Ely, also focused on the conservation of natural environment. He was also known as the ‘father of agriculture economics’ and worked as director of the Farm Foundation in the US. In 1909, Taylor (1923) was credited with creating the first academic department that was dedicated to agricultural economics in the US at the University of Wisconsin. Its courses often highlighted the importance of conservation efforts to protect the natural environment. Ultimately, many of Ely’s former students from Wisconsin obtained important positions at the Bureau of Agri­cultural Economics which focused on conservation issues.

Many prominent adherents of the New School earn reputations for raising awareness about the importance of conserving the natural environment, in­cluding Ely, Henry Carter Adams (1851—1921), Thomas Nixon Carver (1865— 1961), John Bates Clark (1874-1938), Henry W. Farnam (1853-1933), Edmund Janes James (1855-1925), Simon Nelson Patten (1852-1922), Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman (1861-1939), Lewis Cecil Gray (1881-1952), and Taylor. These academics were likely exposed to the topics of environmental protection and conservation by their mentors from GHSE or by their German-trained professors at the American universities. They believed that the detrimental outcomes associated with the excessive exploitation of the natural environment were much more serious than many other issues of their time. More precisely, they were critical of the fact that private businesses in the US were exhaust­ing mineral deposits, clear-cutting forests, stripping away natural pastures, and eroding the quality of soil. Theorists of the New School argued that such business practices involved the destructive appropriation of natural resources for the satisfaction of immediate human wants and the desire for rapid accumu­lation of private wealth. Furthermore, they pointed out that the unmitigated exploitation of natural resources was indifferent to common welfare and the economic prosperity of future generations. For example, Patten (1889, 34) ar­gued that ‘the crude and the selfish’ exploitation of ‘new lands and mines has allowed an agricultural retrogression’ to occur. Meanwhile, Clark (1914, 20) claimed that ‘natural resources have been wasted in a prodigal way’ in the US. He was also concerned about the overexploitation of natural resources, noting that ‘natural gas and oil have been burned with no regard for the future’ (ibid.). Edwin Francis Gay (1867-1946) (1929, 11), who obtained his PhD from the University of Berlin, having written his dissertation under the supervision of Schmoller, underlined that Americans ‘with superabundant natural resources’

The New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 201 have ‘always been open to the charge of wastefulness’ and the overexploitation of natural resources.

We have undoubtedly used at many points wasteful methods in the cut­ting off of our forests, and have failed to observe that the larger interest of the community as a whole demanded a greater care in the removal of our timber wealth.

According to James, when it came to the importance of forests for rainfalls, the best development of ‘national resources demands that a certain proportion of the surface of the country be covered with forests’ (Ely 1910, 52). Clark (1914, 20) was also particularly concerned that in the US, ‘forests have been recklessly cut, fires been invited and the soil itself has been sacrificed.’ Ely (1917, 3) was also worried that the depletion of forests across the US resulted in soil being ‘washed by rapidly flowing surface water from mountain sides.’ He also pointed out that the excessive cutting of forests raised the risk of fires. Meanwhile, Seligman warned that protecting forests was an immediate concern and necessity, because they played an important role in preventing climate change, which is ‘the most difficult to alter’ (Seligman 1910, 42). He pointed to ‘the history of the Italian Maremma’ during Roman times, which was known for its advanced farms before the neglect of drainage and the overexploitation of natural resources led to the ruinous decline of agri­culture and, ultimately, the disappearance of the human life from the area (Seligman 1910, 43). According to Seligman (1910, 43), the case of Maremma demonstrated ‘the alternate consequences of neglect and intelligent effort on climate and soil.’ This led him to emphasize the importance of forests in ‘affecting the rainfall,’ ‘equalizing the flow of the rivers,’ and ‘obviating the sudden alternations of inundation and drought with their devastating effects on cultivation’ (ibid.).

bring all the land into cultivation, while the owners of the forest lands may profit by it, the owners of the other lands will lose more than the first gain, and on the whole the country will lose, since, the gross production being diminished, a less population than before can be supported.

(ibid.: 25)

Additionally, Gray (1913, 500), who was highly influenced by the views of Ely and Taylor on the topic of conservation during his time at the University of Wisconsin, suggested that ‘the conservation of resources such as forests’ does not ‘involve the more difficult and fundamental phases of conservation,’ given that ‘a forest destroyed can be restored.’ That said, he made it clear that if ‘the original stock is exhausted, the problem becomes one of economical production and consumption,’ because ‘the replacement of forest requires a long period of time’ (ibid.).

Economists of the New School were also concerned about the overex­ploitation of mining and oil and gas resources. According to Gray (1913, 501), ‘the most serious phases of the conservation problem grow out of the fact that some of the most important elements, such as coal, petroleum, and iron, are being rapidly and completely used up without hope of replacement.’ Meanwhile, James (1911, 10) pointed out that Americans were creating ‘great waste in the exploitation’ of their ‘stores of iron, and such waste ought to be stopped.’ James (1911, 8) further stated that:

We have mined our coal oftentimes in such a way as to destroy forever the value of a large part of it. We have allowed our natural gas in great quantities to escape into the atmosphere or be burned as it came from the bowels of the earth, with no resulting economic gain.

Similarly, Charles Kenneth Leith (1875—1956), who headed the geology de­partment at the University of Wisconsin for 30 years and coauthored The Foundation of National Prosperity Studies in The Conservation of Permanent Na­tional Resources (1917) with Ely and Carver, was concerned about the ex­ploitation of mining and mineral resources. That is to say, Leith (1917, 187) maintained that ‘mineral resources are being wastefully mined and used.’ With that in mind, he explained that ‘the movement for conservation of mineral resources in the United States has been based’ on ‘the recognition of the fact that the reserves of the mineral products are not unlimited’ (ibid.). In fact, Leith (1917, 187) advocated for the careful conservation of mineral resources, since increasing the exploitation of such ‘reserves will exhaust them within a period comparatively short as compared with the future of the race.’

Another environmental problem that was of great concern to adherents of the New School was the degradation of soil quality. Seligman (1910, 36) em­phasized that ‘man, like all animals, is indissolubly bound to the soil.’ With that in mind, he was worried that unsustainable farming practices caused land to rapidly lose its fertility, as even ‘the best land can become the poorest through wasteful cultivation’ (ibid.: 44). Since man is ‘dependent upon nature for what he is and what he has accomplished,’ he argued that it was crucial to protect the quality of soil (ibid.). Similarly, Ely (1910, 52) was concerned that even though the US had a great variety of soils and climates, its ‘sys­tem of land laws’ permitted farmers ‘to adopt a system of culture’ that only

The New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 203 took present profits into account. This situation exhausted the quality of soil, making it less fertile (ibid.). Meanwhile, Patten (1889, 34) was very critical of the reckless exploitation of new lands for agricultural purposes. In particu­lar, he believed that the poor usage of the best arable lands was ruining their quality, as ‘the rich lands lose most in fertility under improper tillage’ (Patten 1885, 27).

change on account of a better adjustment of themselves to nature, they can supply the wants of an increasing population only from soils less fitted than those before in use for the production of the commodities desired by those not conforming to nature.

(ibid.: 70)

In other words, the ‘greater the conformity to nature the more will all the qualities in land be brought into use, and the larger will be the ratio of the good land to the poor’ (ibid.). Additionally, Patten (1885, 26) was concerned about rivers being ‘precipitated so rapidly into the valleys below that they are overf lowed, and much of the best land in the country rendered useless for cultivation.’ Carver (1949, 270), who was an advisor to the US Department of Agriculture, was also concerned about erosion that carried away ‘incal­culable tons of topsoil most of which can never be replaced.’ In response, he proposed greater efforts to delay ‘the rate of further erosion and rebuild a little of it’ (ibid.). He also advised future generations to find new frontiers by which to improve the quality of soil. Likewise, Adams (1886, 9) explained that since ‘many industrial conditions are determined by the character of the soil,’ efforts to improve soil quality needed to be a priority for every nation. As such, he called for the development of environmentally friendly farming techniques that could protect and improve the quality of soil (Adams 1887, 394). He also believed that broader economic activities needed to be adjusted in ways that safeguarded soil.

Seligman (1910, 44) pointed out that people across different places and civilizations worked on improving the character of their soil, because they were fully aware of its importance for the survival and economic develop­ment of society. He also noted that if the soil is well taken care of, then even ‘the worst land can be converted into the most fruitful’ (ibid.). According to him, the improvement of soil requires the use of ‘manures, both animal and mineral, and the replacement of an extensive by an intensive cultivation with the proper rotation of crops,’ which would alter ‘the chemical ingredients of the soil’ (ibid.). Basically, Seligman was explaining that properly caring for the soil would change the poor land of today into the fertile land tomorrow. Similarly, Gray (1913, 502) contended that ‘through rotation of crops, animal husbandry, and other scientific methods, it is possible to prevent the impair­ment of soil fertility.’ James and Patten also suggested that ‘a suitable rotation and variety of crops be observed’ if people wanted to develop their resources in the best manner possible and for the best interests of society (Ely 1910, 52).

Seligman (1910, 37) believed that people had the ability to change the natural environment to some extent in ways that could improve the quality of soil and increase the size of forests. At the same time, he cautioned that the economic activities of people could induce climate change, which could lead to significant ecological imbalances that are irreversible (ibid.: 42). Seligman believed that since economic resources are dependent on the ways in which man modifies the environment, people had to be very careful when they en­gaged in economic activities that could alter the climate. As such, he advised for the development of strategies to mitigate climate change.

Seligman (1910, 40) tried to emphasize the importance of preventing cli­mate change by explaining that the life cycle of ‘the vegetable and animal’ are ‘a result of the climatic and geological conditions.’ He also highlighted that the ‘rain, sun and chemical ingredients of the soil’ were key factors in ‘the possibility of raising all the staple crops like hay, wheat, cotton, rice, tobacco, sugar, coffee or tea, or of obtaining the timber, rubber, cork and other products of the forest’ (ibid.). An increase in temperature would affect ‘the forestry conditions, as well as the size and therefore the economic utility of the rivers’ (ibid.: 38). It could also cause many species of plant to die off in large numbers, which would substantially disrupt the food chains that rely on them. Seligman further stressed that since only a portion of the globe was liv­able and economic life as well as life in general were dependent on the forces of nature, it was necessary to conserve the natural environment in order to prevent climate change. He also noted that ‘even in the habitable portions of the globe the climatic conditions are of the first importance. At the very outset the influence of temperature is obvious’ (ibid.: 37).

Among adherents of the New School, James (1887, 61) took the damaging effects of pollution on people very seriously, as he believed that it represented a real danger to ‘the power of regenerating the moral as well as the physical life of man.’ He was particularly concerned that higher levels of pollution would have a disproportionate impact on ‘the poorer classes,’ because they usually lived ‘in the least ventilated and most smoky districts’ (ibid.). The poor are also ‘less able than other persons to get away to fresher air and purer surroundings’ (ibid.: 62). Moreover, he contended that the pollution of the:

town atmosphere is one of the chief reasons of people living out of town and thus necessarily withdrawing to a great degree their active sympathy and various social inf luences for good from their poorer brethren who are compelled to remain continually in town.

(ibid.)

Some of the theorists of the New School were highly concerned about over­consumption, because they considered it to be the most immediate obstacle to conservation efforts in the US. In fact, Patten (1885, 59) warned about wasteful consumption as early as 1885, pointing out that fashionable goods and articles generated ‘a great waste of labor and material.’ According to Gray

The New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 205 (1913, 516), overconsumption was ‘neither based on welfare, nor on enjoy­ment; it is solely dictated by convention.’ He pointed to ‘the enormous waste of coal required for the electrical advertising’ in American cities as being ‘il­lustrative of this exploitative consumption’ (ibid.). He specifically stated that ‘every great White Way in every American city is nightly one more chemical orgy of waste, a crime of competitive advertising for which some day thou­sands of individuals must shiver for months’ (ibid.).

Ely (1917, 39) suggested that excessive consumption led to Americans spoiling a lot of food, much of which simply ended up in the garbage. He attributed this ‘wicked waste’ to the fact that ‘food was superabundant’ in the US (ibid.: 38). Ely (1917, 39) also believed that ‘when an excessive amount of food is consumed,’ ‘intellectual activity’ is impaired and ‘diseased condi­tions of the body’ are generated. He argued that the prevention of wasteful consumption and behavior necessitated the improvement of ‘the human race’ through the ‘intellectual and moral education’ of the people (ibid.). Mean­while, when it came to preventing the overexploitation of natural resources, Leith (1917, 187) proposed modifications to the ‘method of extraction’ and a reduction in the use of natural resources. He believed that such changes could be achieved through the education and self-development of the people to some extent (ibid.).