Newts

curbed the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, were wildly successful because the reduction of the ozone layer led to increased incidence of human cancer. In general, cleaning up the airs and waters of the world was an easy sell because of the connection to human health. But biodiversity and climate change are not so easily linked to human self-interest. Certainly there are connections — but the connections can be pretty tenuous, and the sacrifices required to halt global warming or prevent species extinctions are substantial and will be painful for some sectors. Conservationists like to pitch win-win solutions [5]; although these solutions exist they can be very hard to achieve. Thus using self-interest to rationalize and build support for resource restrictions and biodiversity protection has limitations. The fact is we have not had much success addressing large-scale environmental degradation such as global warming or massive habitat destruction. The treaties and political agreements that get approved lack teeth, and enforcement is nonexistent. In direct contradiction to Hardin’s scoffing at moral authority, Paul and Anne Ehrlich [6] recently argued that the scale of our environmental problems demand that we change attitudes and values, as well as strengthen government regulations. Whereas Hardin argued that environmental morality could never be enough and instead coercion was necessary, the Ehrlichs argue that coercion by itself will not work unless there is a commitment to changing social attitudes. They also reject the charge that such a call for attitude shifts is naïve. They base their optimism on what was accomplished by such inspirational leaders as Martin Luther King, Jr. And they emphasize the need for a change in attitudes because they see consumption and fundamental lifestyle choices as an underlying environmental problem that cannot be addressed by legislation. Paul and Anne Ehrlich [6] remind us that attitudes do change, and basic ethical values do evolve, with profound consequences for the quality of life. The tragedy of the commons may be real, but not inevitable. It is unclear whether ethical behavior is doomed to fail as a foundation for a sustainable environment, or alternatively that we have not put a great enough effort into teaching and promoting an environmental ethic. The tragedy of the commons is a powerful essay. It is now essentially a platitude that appears in the majority of introductory biological and environmental textbooks. Unfortunately, in the process of being canonized in our textbooks, the tragedy of the commons has escaped the arena of public debate. It is an idea with merit. No one would argue that we abandon regulation and legislation as a tool for environmental policy. But discussions about restricting certain behaviors — especially reproduction, which is arguably the behavior most in need of restriction — have been avoided, simply because they are too politically sensitive. And the very assumption that regulation is sufficiently effective is now being challenged. In the next fifty years, the success of the environmental movement may depend much more on its ability to change ethics and values, than its ability to lobby for the Kyoto agreement. Some might argue that the real tragedy would be if we were to give up so easily on the potential benefits of changing societal attitudes and values.