In the end of the Who Rules the Earth by Paul Steinberg, Steinberg finally addresses the question that the title asks: who rules the earth? “The people who rule the earth are those who leave behind a legacy of rules that shape the actions and opportunities of generations to come” (Steinberg 2015, 264). Although a reader could come away with the single message of the importance of regulation, I believe that Steinberg has two arguments. Not only does Steinberg stress that changing government rules to solve societal problems is essential, but also Steinberg reveals that the history of rulemaking is fundamental to present systems. He further argues that to become a “rule changer” (267), one must understand why the problem occurs which involves looking into the past. Through Who Rules the Earth, Steinberg shows the reader that to affect the most change and to revise our flawed social and political systems, citizens should create strong and adaptable government regulation.
In chapter 2by Paul F. Steinberg, Steinberg has the reader imagine themselves walking on their favorite beach. He prompts the question:
“Why can we walk on this beach at all?” (Steinberg 2015, 19)
Steinberg answers the reader’s question by explaining that privatized waterfront regulation in Ireland and public trust laws dating back to the Roman Empire are some of the “invisible worlds” that surround a beach walk (Steinberg 2015, 20). He continues “the fact is that many of the simple pleasures we take for granted today, such as a walk on the beach, are possible only because others before us scrutinized the existing order of things, found it wanting, and changed the rules” (Stienberg 2015, 21). Through this anecdotal exercise, Steinberg cunningly describes the main argument of the book. By using history as an example, the book Who Rules the Earth emphasizes the importance of rules and regulations and the intersection where strong local governance can affect global governance.
Continuing to unveil the hidden web of governmental lawmaking that supports mundane ongoings of a citizen’s life, Steinberg furthers his argument the essential need for regulation. To disprove the assumption that government regulation and private property are at opposing ends, Steinberg uses an example of his peach tree, describing that for the ability to take pleasure in own his own peach tree in his own yard there must be an assortment of property laws to control the use and growth of his peaches. Steinberg stresses the importance of local property rights when he explains the plight of the cerulean warbler, a migrating bird, who is currently threatened because of habitat loss. Steinberg emphasizes the importance of looking at a habitat’s history to determine why and when deforestation occurred or why and when the habitat became a haven for the warbler. Although the warbler can seek refuge in Manu National Park in Peru, its forested habitat is decreasing because of an influx in sun-grown coffee in Colombia. Property laws and regulations are important in protecting our natural world because “property rights specify who gets to make the decisions concerning the physical environment, what we may extract from it, and what obligations, if any, we have toward the planet and one another when using these resources” (Steinberg 2015, 65). Steinberg argues that the protection of the natural world and private property is achievable through localized governmental rules.
Throughout the book, Steinberg has delved into the history of rulemaking to explain who rules the Earth. Although historical rules can often create problems, Steinberg also highlights the rules that have had lasting success throughout history. He explains that “likewise our greatest environmental successes (an 80 percent reduction in LA’s air pollution) and most abysmal failures (the loss of 94 percent of America’s old-growth forests) can be traced to the rules that prodded human initiative along one or the other path” (Steinberg 2015, 241). From June Irwin’s creation of local rules banning pesticides in Canada that created global change to the creation of national parks in Costa Rica that created a sanctuary for the cerulean warbler, rules can create change that will benefit future generations and ecosystems. On the other hand, many present environmental problems are from past rules and their inability to change. The prevention of state governance of pesticide use in the U.S., by pesticide companies or the logging of the US forests through the Forest Service, has created inflexible environmental problems. Steinberg argues that rules can create tremendous changes, but we must realize that these rules will continue to affect the future. Finding a rulemaking system, that balances adaptability and permanence is crucial. Steinberg uses the term “rut” to describe lawmaking that is too permanent and immune to change, and he argues that we must “establish good ruts” that will adapt to new ideas of normality (Steinberg 2015, 33) .
Steinberg’s last section in Who Rules the Earth is “And Yes, Keep Recycling” (Stienberg 2015, 278). In this section he addresses fitting the institutional acts required for change with one’s personal life: “it is a matter of balance, complementing these everyday acts of individual conscience with larger actions that promote social change” (Stienberg 2015, 278). Although I will still compost my peach pits, as a student I can continue and share my learning with others, and as a citizen, I can lobby local and national government for more environmental regulation. It is a matter of connecting the intersecting parts of myself, a scholar, an environmentalist, and a citizen, and becoming engaged with institution around me.
Works Cited
Steinberg, Paul F. 2015. Who Rules the Earth?: How Social Rules Shape Our Planet and Our Lives. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.