The Shredding of Our Moral Core

According to Immanuel Kant, "We can judge the heart of a (person) by his(/her) treatment of animals." In a more general sense, that behavior, along with how people treat the environment, probably also says something about the heart of a society.

It is with a heavy heart then that I have watched recent environmental policy coups play out around the United States. For example, as this article from BuzzFeed describes, the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives recently passed legislation to reinstitute the barbaric killing of wolves and bears on wildlife refuges in Alaska. The approved tactics include aerial shooting and killing pups and cubs in their dens. To say nothing of the fact that these activities would take place on wildlife refuges, the inhumane legislation reveals those supporting it as sadistic, sociopathic, and bereft of conscience.

Morally corrupt as it is, the wolf-bear policy displays a cunning level of strategy. Targeting wolves and bears proves a clever tactic for unraveling the threads of human concern and environmental policy. As apex predators, those species indicate the health of the ecosystems in which they live. When they're wiped out, proponents of environmental exploitation can more easily make the case that extracting resources will not damage an ecosystem anymore than it already is. Additionally, as charismatic megafauna, wolves and bears generate public concern, and people rally to save them. In short, these species are critical to environmental preservation, and it is no accident legislators are targeting them.

We see the reasons for using bears and wolves as strategic targets in environmental policy proposals and decisions across the country. Stripping the species of their federal protections takes the first step in breaking down the systemic mechanisms that foster, institute, and enact our environmental ethics. Eliminating key reasons to protect the land opens the door to proposals that allow for expanded environmental exploitation. For example, we've already seen a proposal to permit oil and gas drilling in national parks and renewed efforts by Democrats and Republicans in the state of Alaska to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Ultimately, taking federal government out of the picture puts our environment in the hands of private interests, which is exactly the point of these policies. One of the best (though most egregious) examples of this process comes from Oregon, where a state board led by Democratic State Treasurer Tobias Read voted to sell off the Elliott State Forest to private interests. Covering the story, Men's Journal calls the sale "the natural conclusion of a land losing federal protection" and "a bad sign for America's public lands." Throwing away our heritage of conservation and our responsibility to future generations, the board sold the forest for short-term profits.

In the place where our moral and environmental ethics once found their footing, a corporate callus now resides, an indifference to anything other than consuming resources and making money. That's how, according to Greenpeace, the public relations firm for Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, ended up writing the letter in which the Republican governors of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa asked the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the pipeline.

At their heart, these actions by our elected officials represent a bipartisan, corporate attack on the core of our society and the shredding of our moral and environmental fabric.

Lead the Money

"Follow the money." We've all heard that before, and it has a lot of value as an idea, but after we follow the money, we must also take the next step and lead the money.

Following the money helps identify the source of the problem. In the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), following the money points to corporate influence on government as the problem. Of course, corporate influence reaches well beyond this issue, but DAPL provides a clear example of how to take the next step of leading the money.

Simmering for months, the DAPL issue and the protests around it have drawn much attention recently. Intended to carry oil from North Dakota east, the pipelines's route passes Native American land and moves under the Missouri River, threatening water supplies. Tribes in the area led the protests against DAPL, the construction of which began before all permits had received approval. Within the last month, law enforcement protecting the pipeline escalated tactics to deal with protesters. As you can see below, police officers employ tear gas and water cannons in freezing temperatures on the protesters. According to a Grist report, police blew off a woman's arm with a concussion grenade.



The fingerprints of corporate influence appear all over DAPL. Despite the escalating use of force by police officers, the Obama administration has refused to step in and protect the protesters or halt the pipeline. Together with the recent decision by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to approve an expansion of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline through British Columbia, DAPL shows the influence corporations have (even on leaders who say they are committed to addressing environmental issues like global warming).

If we were to stop after following the money, we would not be able to address the problem. Luckily, however, DAPL has prompted renewed efforts to lead the money. This YES! Magazine article discusses how people are divesting from the banks that fund DAPL. Divestment hits back at corporate influence by retaking control of our money. Rather than bank with big, corporate banks, people move their money to and do business with credit unions and community banks.

For me, the DAPL divestment represents the continuation of a movement that began in response to the economic collapse in 2008. I joined a credit union in 2007 because it had the best rates on car loans. Following the economic collapse, which came about largely because of corporate banking malfeasance, I moved all my money into the credit union.

Individuals looking for alternative sources for credit cards can also play a part in this divestment. Many credit unions have their own credit cards. Another alternative comes from Beneficial State Bank, which is a B Corporation whose credit cards support nonprofit groups, including the Sierra Club. For more information on Beneficial State Bank's credit cards, click here.

With corporations exerting so much influence on our elected officials, leadership on social change issues must come from us, and leading with our money gives us a great power to create that change.