Can ecology and liberalism be compatible?

Quite surprisingly, even disconcerting, everyone seems to have become aware of the immense challenge that ecology represents in the years to come and, yet, very few people seem to want to confront the problem head on. To try to relieve this tension, Gaspard Koenig in a way delivers the story of his conversion to ecological and environmental concerns.

“The history of Western thought is a history of indifference to the earth”

“Anyone from this century cannot, rationally, not consider that the environmental question constitutes the central problem of the time, whatever their political philosophy, their intellectual family, their culture”exclaims Gaspard Koenig. Contrary to an approach to the subject centered on climate change and carbon emissions, the philosopher advocates an entry into ecological discourse through the prism of biodiversity, an approach that basically “much more sensitive and existential”in his words. “When we realize that we have lost 75% of insects in 40 years, 60% of birds on agricultural land, 80% of earthworms on land cultivated using conventional agriculture, we understand that we are eliminating life under and on the earth”. It shows to what extent Western thought has been totally indifferent to land and soil since the Greeks: “Thales did not listen to the advice of the Thracian servant who told him to look under his feet rather than at the stars”. In line with Greek thought, Christian theology remains essentially a theology of heaven. Gaspard Koenig stands up against 2500 years of human history to try to connect thought and soil: “we only know 1% of the species that live under our feet. Starting from our own relationship to the earth, to the humus [terme relatif à la décomposition des végétaux, NDLR]to construct one’s own thoughts”this could be Gaspard Koenig’s motto.

“The action of human beings can be beneficial to their environment”

Asked about the links between ecology and liberalism, the thinker replies that his political philosophy tends more towards anarchism than towards liberalism to the extent that his philosophy grants a central place to local decision-making and direct democracy procedures. “It is by being politically responsible for our immediate environment that we will best take care of it”he explains. And this, from a perspective of sharing resources among the human community. “I agree with Élisée Reclus who, in the 19th century, thought about the interaction of man and nature. He did not say that it was necessary to “park” man but on the contrary to make him aware that, through his action , it can have a beneficial effect on biodiversity for example”.

How can we explain the absence of ecology in the political debate?

Regarding the absence of ecology in the political debate or, at least, its relegation to the background, Lucile Schmid points out the growing gap between a political world “more and more closed in on itself, and the terrain of reality represented by ecology or social questions”. For her, the political world often perceives ecology as one more problem that would be added to an already complex daily life. Hence the temptation not to deal with this theme but to “use it as an extra element of soul in speeches. This is what Michel Barnier did very recently since he raised the subject in his general policy declaration but without supporting it with means and a course”. For his part, Gaspard Koenig attempts to explain the relative disinterest of the political world in these questions by emphasizing an incompatibility between the time scale of mandates, built over a period of 5 years which can be sufficient to show a positive economic outcome, and the ecological time scale, much longer, which would require a much longer time to regenerate soil or grow a forest. In other words, according to the philosopher’s words, “it is not politics that is bad in itself, but the incentive system that pushes people to relegate the ecological issue to the background compared to the subjects on which the elected official will be judged at the end of their mandate”.