I grew up in a family of planners. It became sort of a joke: what would we do next July if the water level of Lake Michigan was too high for our little patch of beach? What would we have for dinner two weeks from now when friends visited? What will we pack for next year’s trip? Where do we want to be buried?
It seemed like a perfectly normal conversation… until my husband Peter came into my life and pointed out that not all families spent so much time planning and speculating about next month’s weather and menu, much less the welfare of the next generation. Nevertheless, it was part of my family’s conservative ethos to think about their grandchildren to the point of estate planning two generations hence and making sure that our family’s values and treasure were safe-held and buttressed from any foolishness that might imperil our wealth, our “wealth” being defined as more than our finances: our traditions, our connection to our community, our environment. I learned these values from my father, a life-long Republican and decorated war hero, who appreciated the beauty of the earth and our responsibility to each other.
Which is why I’m perplexed about the current controversy over scientific evidence and the peril to our planet. I have always felt that it is a conservative as much as a liberal value to embrace preserving the source of our livelihood, prosperity, and connectedness. We were brought up to believe that good fortune should be shared, that our lands, air, and waters are to be cherished, that we need to assess information pragmatically and to adjust course accordingly.
There are many theories about the break down between conservatives and environmental stewardship. Some cite theology, stating that Christianity is incompatible with caring for the planet. Others cite business interests, stating that the status quo of infrastructure and energy are critical to maintaining the economy.
At Caldera, we debate these points of view. We feel that it is not only in the best interest of our larger community and, hence, ethically imperative to weigh the science and adjust accordingly, but in our economic self-interest to anticipate risks and stave off disaster.
Before partisanship intruded upon solutions, citizens on both sides agreed. The framing might be different, but the objectives were similar: reduce environmental hazard, maintain our resources, look to the future.
Now, five years after the devolution of the conversation about the correlation between man-made greenhouse gases (GHG’s) and overall warming globally, it is clear that most people agree, regardless of politics. What is challenging is how we frame the conversation, including the solution. At Caldera, we are looking for common ground, places to meet up, opportunities to broaden the conversation, areas to agree upon, the coming together of disparate stakeholders in order to uphold a vision of caring for not only ourselves, but for the generations to come.