Last week, we discussed the need for environmentalism to be able to reconcile poverty along with energy needs, where the US and its allies have often blocked financing of power overseas. The implication of eco-modernism is to change strategies for combating climate change, acknowledging, “Most societies will not follow low-energy, low-development paths, regardless of whether they work or not to protect the environment.”
Last week, there was an interesting piece in Truthout which laid bare the environmental movement, which has been “stubbornly White.”
Olivia Aguilar writes, “Environmentalists don’t have a diversity problem, they have an identity problem. And it’s rooted in a racist history and unchecked biases.”
She writes, “Historians have noted that even in the early 19th century, long before the modern environmental movement began, racist rhetoric was used to push for clearing Native Americans from potential land preserves.”
Rachel Carson’s seminal work, Silent Spring, Ms. Aguilar argues “did little to help.” She writes, “The book, often cited as the impetus for the modern environmental movement, filled readers with fear, as Carson described the horrid death of spring’s creatures in picturesque neighborhoods. These were the very neighborhoods to which baby boomers worked hard to escape in their white flight, and now they were threatened.”
“Consequently, the environmental movement became a movement for people of means, predominately White, middle-class citizens on a ‘do-gooder’ mission to protect the natural environment,” she continued.
Ms. Aguilar writes, “This forged identity created an imaginary dualism between those who cared about their environment and those who did not, and it largely ran along class and color lines. And because the ‘do-gooders’ were doing good, privilege and power were never questioned, even when their actions went against the welfare of others. Instead, it was environmental justice activists, often people of color, who took up the call to protect communities harmed by environmental catastrophes.”
The key problem is not bringing people to the table, but rather this point, “The mainstream environmental movement leaves little room to consider human suffering.”
Ms. Aguilar argues, “Remember that the human species is among those that could likely disappear if this perilous journey toward climate disruption continues. I’m not suggesting environmentalists turn away from protecting other species; however, they must loosen their grip on their identity and reconcile that human issues are also environmental issues, that we are part of the natural world we are trying to protect, that harm inflicted upon it is harm inflicted upon us. Rather than hold firmly to a mission focused on protecting this planet, perhaps there is room to consider how protecting the planet is a means to protect ourselves as well.”
But I think Ms. Aguilar could go further. The environmental movement needs to understand that the efforts to combat climate change are intricately linked with billions of impoverished people living in underdeveloped countries – countries that, as the New York Times argues, “If billions of impoverished humans are not offered a shot at genuine development, the environment will not be saved. And that requires not just help in financing low-carbon energy sources, but also a lot of new energy, period. Offering a solar panel for every thatched roof is not going to cut it.”
They argue that changing the conversation will not be easy. “Our world of seven billion people — expected to reach 11 billion by the end of the century — will require an entirely different environmental paradigm.”
Eco-modernism may pave one path forward. As the drafters note, “We offer this statement in the belief that both human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet are not only possible, but also inseparable. By committing to the real processes, already underway, that have begun to decouple human well-being from environmental destruction, we believe that such a future might be achieved. As such, we embrace an optimistic view toward human capacities and the future.”
To mitigate climate change, spare nature and address global poverty requires nothing less, they argue, than “intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry and settlement — so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world.”
But, as we noted last week, in the 1970s, environmentalists across the country were opposing nuclear power, but now some increasingly see it as a potential saving grace, allowing the production of significant power without the introduction of additional carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere.
They argue that nuclear fission “represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy. However, a variety of social, economic, and institutional challenges make deployment of present-day nuclear technologies at scales necessary to achieve significant climate mitigation unlikely. A new generation of nuclear technologies that are safer and cheaper will likely be necessary for nuclear energy to meet its full potential as a critical climate mitigation technology.”
They conclude, “In the long run, next-generation solar, advanced nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion represent the most plausible pathways toward the joint goals of climate stabilization and radical decoupling of humans from nature.”
All of this remains linked. If the environmental movement wishes to diversify, they must embrace the linkage between human suffering and environmental degradation, especially climate change, and seek to solve both.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Truthout,org, Olivia Aguilar? If crap like this is all one reads then it’s apparent where that person gets their world views. I like to suggest that anyone relying on these far left activist resources for their information needs to broaden out and take in something a little more fair minded.
Do you really believe her point here is wrong?
Sorry David, when I read things like “white flight” and “stubbornly White” being injected into the environmental movement I do completely ignore the context.
I think it raises an important point about the environmental movement. It has been at times rightly accused of being elitist. She raised the point about white flight as a common disparagement of the movement. Again, you think her point here is wrong?
To David’s 8:05 post: Seems you were ‘laying in wait’ to pounce on BP (who I disagree with on this). 4 minutes. BP acknowledged having their ‘chain jerked’. Apologized. Assuming the word “sorry” was sincere, and I have no reason to doubt it. Yet you repeated, “Again, you think her point here is wrong?”. Yes or no, David, ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’. You made your point, David, BP backed off (scary that I’m defending BP, but maybe I think I’m next), and you ‘counter-attacked’. Nice. “Unconditional surrender”, right? So much for promoting open discourse.
I saw his statement as “sorry David” not meant as an apology but rather an explanation of his original comment. Perhaps I’m wrong there.
In most places where I am asked to speak outside of the United States and Western Europe the focus is on the economic need for my company’s technology. Mostly as a way to take garbage and turn it into clean energy. It is only in wealthier nations where the governments or conference organizers that ask for presentations that focus on water savings or greenhouse gas benefits. Raising the issue of the environmental benefits in the developing world is almost frowned upon… I say “almost” in that there are alway forward thinking people in every country I visit, but the context of the economic advantages so outweigh the environmental ones where there is real poverty. I guess I don’t really see a racial undertone here as I see one of need. In a place where your immediate needs are met, you are free to look further forward to spot the upcoming ecological disaster if we as a species don’t take better care of our home. We are priviliged to come from a nation where for most, our immediate needs are met and we are free to look ahead for environmental solutions that can be shared with the world. There must be a recognition that governmental solutions will not work. The solutions must be economically viable or they will never be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world population. The good news is that there are actually very cost-effective solutions to creating clean energy, water, sanitation and food. The hard part is making sure everyone knows about them!
The future is already here, it is just not very evenly distributed. – William Gibson
http://www.sierraenergycorp.com
you raise interesting points. the only problem with “the context of the economic advantages so outweigh the environmental ones where there is real poverty” is that the environmental degradation of the planet will likely to contribute to more poverty. however, ii think you make a strong point as to why we need to take the lead on these issues but the eco-modernists raise the point well that without dealing with poverty, we can’t deal with the environment.
I think you need to cross this off your list of talking points because it fits in the same category of probability as does another large meteor strike or a visit by hostile aliens. I would give greater probability to nuclear war killing off a great percentage of the population and creating environmental calamity. Or maybe disease that we are unable to prevent because anti-industrialization pursuits have killed much of the pharmaceutical market. Or maybe WW-III from the continued grown of Islamic extremism infesting all the poverty-stricken areas of the globe that lack industrialization. Or the most likely of all, the collapse of modern western society due to the economic collapse of America resulting from the success of environmental extremists, liberals, Marxists, communists and socialists to once again destroy their host society because they can never quite feel good enough about fitting in.
Nuclear power still has the serious problem of what to do with nuclear waste; the spent fuel from fission reactors that is highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years. The proposed Yucca Mountain waste disposal site in Nevada was stopped for political reasons. No matter where it is proposed to put the spent fuel, there will be insurmountable political opposition. This is not a trivial problem as this material is extremely dangerous if not handled properly.
Nuclear power also has a long history of problems including Three Mile Island, Chenobyl, and Fukushima among many others.
There is also the problem of nuclear proliferation and concern that countries or terrorist organizations could obtain nuclear materials that could be used as weapons of mass destruction.
When all of the problems are considered, I do not see nuclear power as a “Saving grace”.
“Three Mile Island, Chenobyl, and Fukushima.” Quite a trio. Three Mile Island was unfortunate, but harmed nobody. Two weeks later America watched Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas stir up an anti-nuke meltdown in China Syndrome. Hollywood got rich and the mythological base for Homer Simpson was established. Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi involved unsafe nuclear power reactor designs that the NRC never allowed in the USA.
i was always an anti-nucular (intentionally) type, but three mishaps in forty years, two not on american soil, is not a horrible track record.
Sandia National Laboratories has taken a new look at an old idea. Recent advances in deep bore drilling make it possible to dispose of high level nuclear waste at depths of 3 miles or more, well beneath the level of circulating ground water. Somehow, I think there will be less NIMBY opposition to this idea as opposed to the relatively shallow vaults of Yucca Mountain.
http://www.mkg.se/uploads/Bil_2_Deep_Borehole_Disposal_High-Level_Radioactive_Waste_-_Sandia_Report_2009-4401_August_2009.pdf
This idea is gaining some traction in the UK from the University of Sheffield.
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/nuclear-borehole-sheffield-university-1.456716
There will be more opposition to locating a waste disposal site anywhere in the USA than you might think. Public opinion has turned against nuclear power. I certainly can’t imagine any nuclear power plants or waste disposal sites being even considered in California.
In California, construction of a new nuclear power plant is prohibited by law until NRC establishes a nuclear waste facility. The moratorium was enacted in 1976. The PG&E Diablo Canyon plant is the only operating nuclear power plant in CA. It produces 21% of PG&E power.
The author makes many good points. There are few in the main “environmental movement” who are poor. Most are “privileged” compared to 90% of the world’s population. They “have theirs”. Like many Davis HO’s who bemoan further residential development, in order to ‘protect the environment’ (noble goal), and/or ‘protect THEIR environment’ (housing values, local traffic, inconvenience, etc.).
As to the environmental folk, they are not monolithic, and they fall into their own ‘bell curve’… those who believe that humans are NOT part of the environment, to those that believe that humans rule and everything else in their environment should only further their interest. Truth, and “survival”, in my opinion, lies between those third/fourth deviations on the curve.
So the “Eco-modernist” argument is that we need more use of genetically modified organisms to raise yields. We need more use of herbicides and pesticides to increase yields. We need more factory farms with animals confined in conditions that animal rights advocates would consider cruelty. We need more hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract more energy. We need to greatly expand to use of nuclear energy which will require enrichment of nuclear materials.
I can’t see the logic in “Eco-modernism”.
i don’t see that as a core tenant. rather that we can’t address the environment without dealing the human condition concurrently.
Despite the background of the author or the underlying agenda for taking the discussion in this direction, I think it a good and useful direction. It illuminates one of the points that really cause me to feel great irritation with environmentalists. That irritation is manifest by the self-ordained halo of righteousness dismissing the needs of humanity while being part of humanity. And with that, also dismissing the fact that humans are in fact part of the natural world.
I really, really dislike that.
I have a small cabin in the mountains in an area of California that I like because it is relatively void of people. I prefer going to a remote location in nature not having to share it with others. I dislike seeing trash in nature and usually pick it up and dispose of it appropriately. I donate time and efforts to repair damaged natural lands to bring them back to their natural state. But I also donate time and money to repair trails.
I grew up hunting, fishing, hiking, camping. There is nothing that clears the head and soul and gives renewed perspective to what it means to be living than to spend time in a more natural setting. It is awe-inspiring to me how natural vistas and landscapes are awe-inspiring to humans. It is obvious to me that we are wired to love and appreciate the natural world around us… AFTER OUR BASIC NEEDS ARE MET.
And this last point is where many environmentalists build a divide rather than a bridge. They either ignore or deny the needs of humanity as having a seat at the environmental stewardship table.
If you REALLY cared about the long-view state of the environment, you would work to better satisfy the basic needs of humanity in the most sustainable way. But knee-jerk policy that artificially forces scarcity on people has the opposite effect.
Here is an example… after the financial and real estate bust of 2008/9, the town where my cabin is located went from about 3500 population to 2500. Home values plunged. Foreclosures skyrocketed. In just a few months the vacation home construction boom went bust and the local economy shrunk by 50%. Restaurants closed. Even the bowling alley closed to be replaced by a Dollar General store.
Now there are more old appliances found discarded in the woods. There are more junk cars spewing exhaust. There are more homeless people permanently camping and doing their business in the woods and leaving their trash.
You can see similar results in inner cities ghettos… trash, graffiti, pollution.
Certainly industry can foul the environment. But we already have a huge pile of regulations to safeguard us. In fact, I would say that we have gone too far and the regulations are stifling the growth of the economy and causing human sociology-economic decline that in-turn fouls the environment.
As in everything in life, it is about striking a balance. The human condition and the environmental condition are the two sides of the teeter totter… environmentalists are well advises to stop piling on all their weight on the non-human side.
I’m not going to argue climate change further – its simple. if my adversaries had decent substantive arguments they would have presented them by now. their arguments are more philosophical and political than data based.
having said that, I would argue yes their is an elitist tinge to the environmental movement. Race based? no. Arrogant yes. fact driven? no. I think many of them simply run over whoever they have to to get what they want.
I would argue class – do the environmentalists actively try to hurt the poor? no. do their policies hurt the poor yes. do they give a crud? no.
example – capn trade. they want to punish people for using their cars too much. but guess what…. the poor often have the biggest commutes. Not to mention the poor pay just as much $ wise at the pump for a tank of gas. Do environmentalists want to cut gas taxes? no because it would defeat their purpose – to force people to pay lots for gas to reduce consumption. but this would help the low income.
conflict? yes.
unfortunately i had to leave town late last week, i thought your discussion was good.
a few points to be made:
first, “its simple. if my adversaries had decent substantive arguments they would have presented them by now” which may be true, but you’d probably benefit less by a political adversary and more from scientist who could explain this stuff better. i had a science background in undergraduate school, but i went to college in the 1970s. i have been practicing law for over 30 years.
“are more philosophical and political than data based.”
i think that’s true of most political discourse. the senator who held up a snowball as though it disproved climate change was farcical.
“Race based? no” – you say no. i am less sure. you have the zpg folks who are anti-immigration and anti-third world birth. i think there is some overlap there, especially if you go back far enough.
you have the middle class flight from the sixties that i do think have a racial basis.
do i think the typical environmentalist is racist? no. elitist is probably a better world. single-focused might be even better.
I don’t debate denialists online because there is little point and there are lots of sites where you can pursue that. Some links you might find useful, spanning the spectrum of climate skepticism and information:
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/index.php
http://realclimate.com
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
http://judithcurry.com
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/biblio?s=year&o=desc&f%5Bterm_id%5D=225
Environmental organizations that take a more pragmatic approach can be more effective than those that hew rigidly to the tactics of the 1970’s.
its all good don because I’m not really interested in debating alarmists online any further at this point either.
thank you for the ammunition.
another example of anti poor – smog check. who ends up failing smog inspections? poor people with their old clunkers because they cant afford the new car that will easily pass inspection.
and who dies from respiratory diseases attributable to air pollution? look at photos from the early 1970s compared to today and you realize that environmental laws have cleaned up a good portion of the air. interestingly enough, there are theories that some of the pollution blocked out the sun and therefore counteracted the onset of global warming.
“and who dies from respiratory diseases attributable to air pollution?”
I don’t know. perhaps algore can tell you in his private jet tour around the country.
“there are theories that some of the pollution blocked out the sun and therefore counteracted the onset of global warming.”
yes, everyone and his brother these days has the latest “theory”. when one theory doesn’t pencil out – it gets replaced by another.
So now we can add clean air to the list of things that might cause global warming.
You couldn’t make this shit up if you tried.
“So now we can add clean air to the list of things that might cause global warming.”
that’s an incorrect interpretation of what i said. however, aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions were competing forces. a high level of pollution by sulfate aerosols (which also caused acid rain) cooled the planet. we have significantly reduced aerosol emissions through the clean air act, and that means that our failure to reduce co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions meant that the warming agent had more control over the atmosphere and warmed up the planet.
“I don’t know. perhaps algore can tell you in his private jet tour around the country.”
and you were complaining about the other side…
I’m sorry, I’m just being stubbornly white.
you’re certainly not interested in having a real conversation about this.
LNB – Thanks for your words of wisdom on this topic. I think we are processing from a similar perspective.
Read the first part of what DP writes below and I think it helps explain the disconnect.
I call it 180 degree feeling logic.
That is, think about it until you start feeling anxious/sad/angry/happy and then stop and make your point.
The other 180 degrees of fact do not come into play when feelings drive the debate. That side of the debate is icky and those that go there will be shouted down for their insensitivity.
That is why we had incandescent bulbs made illegal to be replaced with fluorescent bulbs that contain mercury and cost money to dispose of safely.
That is why we ban plastic bags even though paper bags have a higher per-unit environmental cost/impact.
That is why we get 100 gallon, ugly containers made of petroleum products for green waste.
I believe there are a handful of true and honorable environmentalists, but environmentalism in the global warming alarmist era has been overrun by people afflicted with those strong egalitarian feelings, and others seizing the opportunity to make millions and to grab political power.
What is my point here?
That I think you are correct in your refusal to debate with global warming alarmists.
But only if your goal is to change their mind and win a debate. Because you won’t and you can’t.
But maybe give consideration that you are debating for the benefit of the 360 degree logic thinkers that might read your posts. That is why I keep seemingly beating my head against the wall.
“That is why we ban plastic bags even though paper bags have a higher per-unit environmental cost/impact.”
i think you’re missing another more valid point – there is no monolithic agenda but rather a patch-work of different goals. and that’s not a defense, it’s a criticism of the “movement.” why plastic bags? because they cause specific damage to eco-system. why not paper bags too? politically difficult to ban both. so they ban plastic while charging a fee for paper. does that make them wrong? no. just, inefficient. perhaps opportunistic.
But that is the point… in Davis plastic bags do not cause specific damage to the Eco-system… especially calculating the impacts of the alternative. But the ban was pursued anyway.
A trend toward the irrational signals the death-knell of a well-functioning democratic system. These irrational policy things mount and mount and then society as a whole gets used to it. They stop caring about math and facts and truth.
I get that it is a patch-work of players. Even my father who is a strong conservative wanted to ban plastic bags because he hates seeing them blown up against the fence. Also, he is sensitive to the impacts to marine life. Even though he concedes that 95% of the trash blown against the fence is other paper and plastic, and that in this area no plastic bags are killing marine life, and that the production of paper bags does more to harm the environment, and that reusable bags will likely come down in price until they too are discarded when too many are collected and that the single-use bags are rarely used only once and are very convenient… he still supported the ban. His opinion was/is irrational. I think the difference is that he admits that his opinion is irrational. He did the 360 degree thinking and then came back to valuing getting rid of 5% of the stuff that blows against the fence and impacts his views.
But the environmental arguments were that plastic bags were/are bad for the environment. And that was a lie considering the real facts. But there were still a large group of people in Davis that supported the ban even though they knew it was a lie. And this gets back to the problem with the global warming alarms.
that’s the general problem with the environment – an individual, an individual neighborhood, company, community, doesn’t by itself and in general cause specific damage to the eco-system. but the weird thing is now you, the arch-conservative, are arguing for a national/ international approach rather than a local one.
Please explain. I don’t see it.
It is real simple what I am advocating. To pursue solutions of assisted abundance rather than forced scarcity.
Nuclear power has made some great strides in recent decades. The best of the current generation III+ nuclear power reactors employs modular design and passive safety features. An extensive introduction to the Westinghouse AP 1000 may be found here. AP1000 is still a light water reactor that generates nuclear waste typical of its type. China is currently building several AP1000 plants. Two AP1000s are being built for Georgia Power.
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR
Small Modular Reactor Summit 2015 was held last week. SMRs involve many different designs that offer state of the art passive safety systems. SMRs make infrastructure improvements to power transmission grids unnecessary. SMRs produce and deliver electrical power where it is needed.
http://www.nuclearenergyinsider.com/smr/conference-agenda.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
As part of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan Department of Energy granted a miniscule $13M last year to help develop the Next Generation Nuclear Reactor project. Idaho National Laboratory did much of the ground-breaking science.
http://www.law360.com/articles/592497/us-dept-of-energy-awards-13m-for-nuclear-reactor-r-d
NGNR (Generation 4 reactors) will produce less nuclear waste and can use nuclear waste as fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Thanks DanH. Still waiting for that small composting fission reactor to power my Delorean, but this stuff will do fine in the meantime.
Now, if only there was something that would power a smart phone for more than one day between charges.
A nuclear powered Apple watch! that’s what we need. Maybe the Eco-modernists can figure that one out.
As someone who has worked in the waste stream for a lot of my life I have tried to quantify the energy required to make something as opposed to the energy it is supposed to save, i.e. electric cars. Making cars from the 50’s and 60’s, arguably the heaviest ones built, to today’s cars, they employ materials using huge amounts of oil before the fuel even goes in.
Just as the people marched in support of plastic bags to quit butting trees, now they want paper sacks back. Crickets from the tree huggers.
The comedy over the years of CARB dictating the fuel we put in vehicles has risked the environment more and public health to boot. The M85 (Methanol) spent millions to corrupt that while claiming to clear the air while driving down mileage and putting formaldehyde into the air, and poisoning people at the pump. Then MTBE. All to reduce specific things out of the air, while spitting up more of some chemists’ dreams. Now: Ethanol. Let’s pay more for that, and go 40% less miles. OOH!