The origins of sustainable use rhetoric
The use of “more harm than good” and “unintended consequences” prevents any progress from being made in wildlife conservation.
Note: Words are just words. The meaning behind words is often context dependent. In this article, I specifically refer to the words “more harm than good” and “unintended consequences” in the context of industry lobbyists attempting to fight bans on practices that the general public perceives to be harmful.
The goal of the rhetoric, as used by sustainable use activists, is to shift the general public’s focus away from the very real harm and consequences of a practice by putting a spotlight on the hypothetical harm of a potential ban. This has the dual effect of making a practice appear much safer than it is and making any problems associated with a practice appear unsolvable.
The rhetoric that bans may do “more harm than good” or come with potential “unintended consequences” was popularized by the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. The rhetoric has been appropriated by sustainable use activists campaigning against trophy hunting and wildlife trade bans.
Appropriation of the rhetoric is likely uncoincidental and probably due to the long history of collaboration between sustainable use activists and conservative think tanks that lobby on behalf of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.
Use of “more harm than good” and “unintended consequences” by the fossil fuel and tobacco industries
One of the simplest things that governments can do is to ban investments in oil and gas developments when it comes to combatting climate change. But the fossil fuel industry does not want that to happen, obviously.
Exxon Mobil’s CEO, much like sustainable use activists, lamented, “Narrowly focusing and taking action on one aspect of the challenge could potentially lead to significant unintended consequences” and that “the best intentions poorly executed can do more harm than good.”
But, there are many different types of climate policies that have been put forth from the US government that don’t even involve bans. These potentially restrictive policies get the same reception, nonetheless.
Chevron’s CEO said that a proposed US climate bill could “do far more harm than good to our economy and American workers.” And don’t we all know that Big Oil cares deeply about the working class?
The fossil fuel industry is also responsible for the dramatic levels of plastic pollution plaguing the planet. But doing another simple thing like banning single-use plastics would hurt the profits of those poor multibillion-dollar global fossil fuel corporations.
The Times published propaganda for BP to help make the case against plastic bans. The propaganda, titled Plastic may do less harm than alternatives, says BP, stated, “Ditching single-use plastics could have the unintended consequence of increasing carbon emissions that cause climate change, says BP.”
Big Oil’s propaganda, of course, came from Big Tobacco’s disinformation playbook.
British American Tobacco’s website states that it, much like sustainable use activists, supports “regulation that is based on robust evidence and thorough research, respects legal rights and livelihoods and delivers on the intended policy aims, while recognising unintended consequences.”
A pro-smoking blogger used the rhetoric in a bizarre letter that they sent to a professor that criticized the tobacco industry.
“Write to the Minister of Health and tell him that you think that the current antismoking campaign has become ‘counter-productive’ (or something like that. I’m sure you’d be able to come up with the right formula of words). Suggest that the smoking ban should be relaxed, because it’s doing far more harm than good. Set out to persuade your colleagues of the merit of your new arguments. Call for a ‘rethink’. Or a ‘moratorium’.” – Frank Davis, someone that really likes lung cancer and major corporations.
Philip Morris’ and RJ Reynolds’ communicator published a hit piece on the tobacco industry’s nemesis, the Environmental Protection Agency, titled More harm than good? A look at the EPA’s record. A campaigner enlisted by the Tobacco Institute and Philip Morris published propaganda that said “a proposed nationwide smoking ban would hurt business, cost jobs and generally do more harm than good.”
The World Health Organization was another thorn in the side of the tobacco industry. One particular point of interest for Philip Morris was the WHO’s contention that the CITES ivory trade ban was a success and, thus, international frameworks for tobacco control could also be effective.
Philip Morris published propaganda titled Unintended Consequences of International Conventions which featured a section titled Sustainable Use of Endangered Species Under CITES: Is It a Sustainable Alternative? According to Philip Morris, “Stopping all trade in endangered species did not universally protect species and in some cases it harmed more species than it helped” and that actually “the increasing populations [of elephants] led to the re-emergence of the concept of sustainable use, which would permit carefully monitored trade in ivory.”
Appropriation of “more harm than good” and “unintended consequences” by sustainable use activists
When a group of sustainable use activists, mainly from IUCN SULi, sought to oppose calls for wildlife trade bans due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they did so by saying, “Indiscriminate wildlife trade bans risk doing more harm than good, both from a conservation and development perspective.” When a similar set of sustainable use activists were featured in a trophy hunting propaganda film, the tagline was, “Banning [trophy hunting] could do more harm than good.”
IUCN SULi member and vocal sustainable use activist Amy Dickman wrote a sob story defending trophy hunting, noting that a proposed trophy hunting import ban bill was based on misinformation and risked “doing far more harm than good.” Dickman also responded to trophy hunting criticism with a cohort of sustainable use activists by saying that the smart position on trophy hunting bans was to “advocate a “journey” rather than a “jump” to end hunting, in the interests of limiting unintended consequences.”
IUCN SULi member and entomologist Adam Hart stepped away from his bug studies to ensure that his voice was also heard in the trophy hunting debate. Hart stated, “Bans will, in short, do more harm than good.”
Dickman joined her trusted IUCN SULi colleague Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes in criticizing a ban on captive lion breeding saying, “I am very worried about the potential unintended consequences of this decision.” Likewise, Hart expressed dissatisfaction with people that didn’t want to see lions caged and bred to be killed for profit.
“[T]he consequences of bans will be severe and anyone who suggests these animals can be adopted or introduced to the wild is naive in the extreme. There would be other unintended consequences too, as land currently being used for wildlife and hunting becomes financially inviable.” – Adam Hart,
someone that supports captive lion breedingsomeone that studied bugs.
Probable explanation for appropriation of rhetoric by sustainable use activists
It’s easy to see where sustainable use activists might have gotten the rhetoric when you consider that the founding fathers of sustainable use at IUCN (and the precursors to today’s IUCN SULi members) were collaborating with conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been funded by the fossil fuel and tobacco industries to promote climate change denial and tobacco disinformation.
For instance, Steve Edwards authored a chapter in a CEI book that downplayed the seriousness of environmental issues and Grahame Webb blamed conservation failures on “people from a scientific background” at a conference hosted by Center for Private Conservation, a CEI project.
CEI’s founder wrote a report that argued that political arrangements “can actually do more harm than good” when it comes to sustainability and protecting plants and animals. At a CPC roundtable discussion, a CEI member stated that applying a public trust model to habitat loss has “done a lot of harm, and probably more harm than good, for some species at least.”
Additionally, Sas-Rolfes, Dickman’s trusted colleague at IUCN SULi, was a research fellow at UK-based conservative think tank Institute of Economic Affairs while the organization was engaging in climate change denial and tobacco disinformation on behalf of their fossil fuel and tobacco industry funders.
Sas-Rolfes’ colleagues at IEA were Roger Bate and Julian Morris, two free market economists recruited to the climate change denial cause, and Matt Ridley, a climate denier from Oxford University with a financial interest in coal mining that wrote an article titled Is climate policy doing more harm than good?
Bate wrote an IEA report that argued that, essentially, we shouldn’t do anything about climate change because the science was still up for debate. Julian Morris wrote the foreword for Bate’s report, stating that “policies based upon unsound science may cause more harm than good.”
“We don’t know that the world is definitely warming, given recent satellite data. If the world is warming, we don’t know what is causing this change – man or nature. We don’t know whether a warmer world would be a good or a bad thing.” – Roger Bate, someone that provided IUCN SULi economist Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes with “considerable assistance.”
Another note: There are certain sustainable use activists, like African Wildlife Economy Institute COO Deborah Vorhies, that have attempted to defend IEA against climate change denial accusations because they’ve had prior working relationships with the conservative think tank.
Scientists, politicians, and even the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and its primary cause decades before IEA became one of the UK’s leading climate change denial organizations.
For any sustainable use activist, like Vorhies, that wants to defend IEA - Why has BP been secretly funding IEA since 1967?