The GHSE and the Protection of the Natural Environment
Richard T. Ely (1854-1943) (1917, 12) was one of the pioneers of the conservation movement in the US, which sought to prevent the waste or destruction of natural resources. In fact, he regarded conservation as one of ‘the foundations of national prosperity’ (ibid.: V).
He explained that Americans who studied in Germany were exposed to the importance and merits of conservation by the theorists of the GHSE, who were already raising awareness about the need to protect the natural environment (ibid.: 12). This is because they were conscious of the fact that any changes to the natural environment and climate could affect all life on earth. For example, Georg Friedrich Roscher (1817-1894) was concerned about climate change and highlighted the importance of striking an ecological balance. In particular, he pointed out that climate change would be destructive for agriculture sectors, as the production of many agriculture products would be impossible at certain temperatures. When Roscher (1878V1, 122) explained the role of the ‘climate, and of its heat or moisture’ on economic activities, he emphasized the importance of:the average temperature of the whole year, but especially with the distribution of heat among the several parts of the day and the different seasons of the year, and the maximum summer heat and winter cold (the isothermal and isocheimenal lines).
In fact, he argued that ‘the lines called isothermal, that is, lines of equal annual heat, are, therefore, of greatest importance to public economy, because the “zones of production” depend mainly on them’ (ibid.). Roscher also emphasized that human activities could degrade soil quality, which is essential to the yields produced by agriculture sector. Broadly speaking, he argued that since all of the raw materials that the land provides are ‘the indispensable foundation of all economy,’ it was crucial to protect the natural environment (ibid.: 164).
Ely (1917, 19) also mentioned that the importance of conserving the natural environment was taught ‘in the lectures of Professor Karl Knies [18211898] on Practical National Applied Economics and Economic Policy.’ Knies supported state actions that were favorable to the conservation of the natural environment (ibid.). Additionally, Roscher, Karl Heinrich Rau (1792-1870), and Adolf Wagner (1835-1917) were among the German political economists who played major roles in promoting positive state actions that protected natural environment. They regarded the state as the main institution for conservation, with interventions and regulations being its main tools (ibid.: 13). For example, they supported the state ownership of forests as the best way
The New School on the Conservation of the Natural Environment 199 to protect the natural environment. In fact, the conservation of forestry was ‘developed in Germany for a longer time and to a more refined degree than in other countries’ (Fernow 1911, XI). As such, it was generally accepted that ‘both the science and art of forestry are most thoroughly developed and most intensively applied throughout Germany’ (ibid.: 22). According to the adherents of the GHSE, anyone who was opposed to the notion of state forests was ‘fit for the lunatic asylum’ (ibid.: 143).
Contrary to the GHSE, the conservation of the natural environment did not receive very much attention during the prominence of classical economics, because it was in conflict with the laissez-faire doctrine and methodological individualism (Ely 1917, 12). However, the fact that the GHSE focused on the realities of life and favored a ‘look and see’ approach ‘compelled a careful study’ of ‘most of what is embraced in conservation’ (ibid.: 14). More precisely, the ‘look and see’ approach allowed the Germans to observe that their nation did not have ‘fertile soil’ or rich ‘mineral deposits’ (ibid.: 13). Thus, they realized that they were ‘obliged to use with care the natural resources of the land, and to improve the natural heritage in order to provide for a rapidly growing population’ (ibid.).
As a result, the natural resources in Germany were not ‘slaughtered; on the contrary,’ they were ‘cultivated, so as to yield maximum returns’ (ibid.: 14).Unlike in Germany, where the GHSE supported various measures that were taken to protect the natural environment, adherents of classical economics in the US promoted the capitalist system that allowed for unfettered business practices and wasteful consumption, which were extremely detrimental to the environment. For most of the 19th century, conservation efforts essentially did not exist in the US, and Americans had ‘at many points been wasteful in the true sense of that term’ (James 1911, 9). At that time, Germans already looked upon the US as ‘a nation of butchers,’ because they were ‘butchering or slaughtering the gifts of nature, wasting’ their forests and mineral treasures, and degrading their soil (Ely 1917, 11). Since the early days of the US, its sparse population, abundant land, and seemingly unlimited natural resources were key factors that encouraged wasteful exploitation and consumption and contributed to the lack of interest in protecting the natural environment.