Why environmentalism isn't working as well as it could.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,089
That's right. As much as I hate to admit it- that is true more often than I would like to believe.
Let's look at this from two very different angles:
First angle: From the perspective of conservationists and those who truly strive to understand ecosystems, balances within nature and the human impact on environment. Last night after Thanksgiving dinner a conversation was struck up between my brother-in-law who, along with Jared Diamond, are founding members of the Society for Conservation Biology ("an international professional organization dedicated to promoting the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity"), a cousin of mine who has worked tirelessly as an environmental lawyer for many years and myself, of much lesser credentials, a long time observer and part-time student of environmentalism.
The conversation revolved very much around the failures of the environmental movement. At one point my brother-in-law looked down and shook his head and remarked the every action taken to increase environmental protection has been fought, defeated, reworked and fought again. Of course he was probably exaggerating but the point is that environmental legislation has been met with continual resistance since its inception. The progress has been pitifully slow and for every advance made another is put down.
At one point we veered off into a discussion of solar energy. I've very frequently proposed the notion that we would do well to ween ourselves off of oil and increase our use of renewable energy. I've also tried to point out even more strongly that what we need to do is learn to conserve and use less. Case in point: desert solar panels. A huge movement is on toward the manufacture and installation of massive arrays of solar panels in desert regions. This movement is support by several environmental groups. Does this mean that this activity is good for the environment? My cousin certainly does not believe it is. He points out that the arrays are and will further continue to permanently destroy delicate desert ecosystems. If you've ever been around a large desert tortoise you'll appreciate what magnificent creatures these are. Large arrays of solar panels will likely wipe these creatures out and this is but one example of the destruction this greedy need for energy of ours will produce. My cousins summation of this: "Oh, environmental groups- the trouble they can cause."
Second angle: Those who fight advancements in conservation and professional climate deniers (who are generally employed by corporations). These are people who stand too lose a lot of money. They are insanely blinded by greed. R.D. Laing said, "Our behavior is a function of our experience. If our experience is destroyed, our behavior will be destructive". This is the endless cycle of destruction with which we find ourselves subject. The motive of many of some people is to accumulate more money than they can ever spend, an abstract accumulation of wealth, a form of greed that is based on short term gain and which holds no regard for the future. This is a form of insanity.
So now what?
Labeling ourselves "environmentalists" is not enough. Sending money to The Sierra Club or any other groups calling themselves environmentalists is not enough. We need to be better educated about ecosystems and our human impact on the planet that sustains us. Most of all, we need to learn to live with less, tread lighter on the planet, bring ourselves down several notches and hope for a softer fall rather than a hard crash. If we don't look more critically at what we often to quickly label as "environmentalism", I suspect we may be headed for the worst.
Let's look at this from two very different angles:
First angle: From the perspective of conservationists and those who truly strive to understand ecosystems, balances within nature and the human impact on environment. Last night after Thanksgiving dinner a conversation was struck up between my brother-in-law who, along with Jared Diamond, are founding members of the Society for Conservation Biology ("an international professional organization dedicated to promoting the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity"), a cousin of mine who has worked tirelessly as an environmental lawyer for many years and myself, of much lesser credentials, a long time observer and part-time student of environmentalism.
The conversation revolved very much around the failures of the environmental movement. At one point my brother-in-law looked down and shook his head and remarked the every action taken to increase environmental protection has been fought, defeated, reworked and fought again. Of course he was probably exaggerating but the point is that environmental legislation has been met with continual resistance since its inception. The progress has been pitifully slow and for every advance made another is put down.
At one point we veered off into a discussion of solar energy. I've very frequently proposed the notion that we would do well to ween ourselves off of oil and increase our use of renewable energy. I've also tried to point out even more strongly that what we need to do is learn to conserve and use less. Case in point: desert solar panels. A huge movement is on toward the manufacture and installation of massive arrays of solar panels in desert regions. This movement is support by several environmental groups. Does this mean that this activity is good for the environment? My cousin certainly does not believe it is. He points out that the arrays are and will further continue to permanently destroy delicate desert ecosystems. If you've ever been around a large desert tortoise you'll appreciate what magnificent creatures these are. Large arrays of solar panels will likely wipe these creatures out and this is but one example of the destruction this greedy need for energy of ours will produce. My cousins summation of this: "Oh, environmental groups- the trouble they can cause."
Second angle: Those who fight advancements in conservation and professional climate deniers (who are generally employed by corporations). These are people who stand too lose a lot of money. They are insanely blinded by greed. R.D. Laing said, "Our behavior is a function of our experience. If our experience is destroyed, our behavior will be destructive". This is the endless cycle of destruction with which we find ourselves subject. The motive of many of some people is to accumulate more money than they can ever spend, an abstract accumulation of wealth, a form of greed that is based on short term gain and which holds no regard for the future. This is a form of insanity.
So now what?
Labeling ourselves "environmentalists" is not enough. Sending money to The Sierra Club or any other groups calling themselves environmentalists is not enough. We need to be better educated about ecosystems and our human impact on the planet that sustains us. Most of all, we need to learn to live with less, tread lighter on the planet, bring ourselves down several notches and hope for a softer fall rather than a hard crash. If we don't look more critically at what we often to quickly label as "environmentalism", I suspect we may be headed for the worst.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington PostPost edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
short of people/corporations who stand to profit from environmental destruction - there really isn't an argument against environmental protection ... if one objectively and critically thinks about it - it's a no brainer ... but, we've failed in the arena of public perception in so much as we've allowed it to become a partisan issue ... obviously, there are a number of forces at play ... ones we couldn't foreshadow (how evil corporations really are, how easily manipulated people are, how complicit gov'ts would be to these special interests groups, etc.) - but in the end, we should have realized all those things sooner ... and now we live at a critical moment in our planet's health and we have every day people talking the same lies fed to them by corporations a decade ago ...
so, yes - we have failed ...
our species has shown, throughout time, has always been reactive instead of proactive. unfortunately, you can't fix the environment, you can only protect it.
so we're fucked.
maybe, MAYBE, if a world power, were to pioneer environment conservation as a serious issue, we're doomed. And the only world power that I think would even make a difference with their influence, is also the least likely to spearhead it: the US. Environmentalism is a political loser. No one will touch it. Not even a democratic second term president who has nothing to lose. Why? because what's the point if something doesn't become law? it will take more than one term of any president to turn things around. it needs to be a global shift in the way we live.
and I dare say that's impossible.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I agree, polaris_x, environmentalism should never have become a partisan issue. Unfortunately, too often people will say, "Oh, if we just had a super majority of Democrats in power, everything would be alright". If that were the case, I think we would make much more progress on social issues and a more progress on environmental issues but with regards to the latter, I would say probably not enough. The very act of making environmentalism, as you say, a partisan issue has placed too many of those issues into gridlock.
It often feels to me like we are in a state of mass insanity. If we see ourselves as all piled into a gigantic car in which the brakes have gone out that is racing toward an impenetrable brick wall, it would make sense for us to all put our heads together and say, "OK, what can we do to slow this vehicle down, preferably make it stop, but at the very least get it to slow down enough to lessen the impact. But no, instead we have political divisions yammering on incessantly while we hurdle to the inevitable crash. One group is saying, "What wall? There is no wall." Another is saying, "If we just through enough money on the brake peddle maybe it will start to work right again." Some seem to be saying, "Maybe if we speed up we'll just crash right though it and the lucky ones will live". A lot of "maybe" and "if" there. It would make so much more sense to get together and work toward sensible solutions.
I'm going to bring up Fukushima again. Talk about hiding our heads in the sand! Why hasn't every country in the world (or at least every developed country) pooled it resources and heads together to seek a solution to this potentially word-wide calamitous situation? One report says this:
“If the cooling water supply is lost to the high-level radioactive waste storage pool in Unit 4, it could be just a matter of hours before the irradiated nuclear fuel is on fire,” warned Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear. “A fire in the Unit 4 high-level radioactive waste storage pool could release up to eight times more hazardous cesium-137 than the Chernobyl reactor explosion. That in turn would mean the site would have to be evacuated, risking the potential for all seven high-level radioactive waste storage pools at the site to ignite. If that happened, Fukushima Daiichi would release 85 times the levels of cesium released by Chernobyl, potentially forcing an evacuation, and permanent condemnation, of hundreds to thousands of square miles,” Kamps added.
Does this sound like a partisan issue to anyone? I don't get it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
i'll explain it to you in a simple math formula
stupid people + greedy corporation + lazy minds - critical thinking = we're fucked!
Sure seems like we're screwed. And yet I keep hoping for a miracle or even just a little headway, just a little hope.
But then, math was never my strong suit.
... But yeah .... We're fucked. :(
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It takes $2 to save $1 with green energy! It also takes alot of CO2 to produce the tax dollars wasted on the green energy subsities that we have witnessed! Talk about insane! LOL
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
Our house can do a better job of it, but I have noticed a marked difference in how often I take the trash out.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree, fear4freedom, that our actions and the way we go about our business is hugely important. Everything you mention here is helpful. But at the root of useful and effective action is good education and the ability to be well educated requires good critical thinking skills. That's why I mentioned the desert solar arrays earlier. We hear "solar energy" and think, "great for the environment!" Not necessarily so. Things aren't always that cut and dry. But an outright dismissal of green energy on the other extreme does not lend itself well to constructive solutions either.
Nor does putting so much stress on division by using phrases like "conservative" and "liberal". Environmental issues are not partisan, they are not conservative or liberal (you can use both those terms reverse: liberals believe in conservation/ conservatives give liberal license to oil companies in extracting oil). Making environmental issues divisive only serves to slow down progress. But then I know there is a rather radical viewpoint that humans are incurring so much damage at such a fast pace that the sooner our civilization collapses and we kill ourselves off, the better. Perhaps that is what your goal is. If not, I would think you would be more in favor of taking a unified approach to seeking solutions. Or maybe this is all just a way to keep yourself amused. I'm not accusing you of that.... but sometimes I wonder.
I know college is good for something...
I just expressed what I see between conservatives and liberals and their actions of littering and cleaning up after themselves. I see all my conservative family recycling everything and consuming less! That is a fact! I see all my liberal family, not care so much and not recycle! Its that plain and simple! No agenda here but to tell you what I see! Oh and I have a HUGE family, mainly liberal Democrats, that live in 3 blue states! I am from Pittsburgh and I grew up a liberal Democrat! Now, I am a conservative Libertarian and I will vote for the other guy from whoever runs as the DEM! ITS WHAT I SEE!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
I'm not doubting you about this. If your "liberal" friends and family espouse conservation and environmental protection and do the opposite I urge you to call them on their shit. There are hypocrites on both sides of all of the fences. Neither liberals nor conservative people refuse to recycle. The only people that don't recycle are either uneducated people or lazy people. And that doesn't even mention the issue of using less in the first place. I just don't see the value in making environmental and conservation issues "liberal" vs "conservative" issues or partisan issues. My advice is to think and act like a sensible individual, not like a label.
And I certainly see no point is outright trashing all efforts at creating renewable energy sources. Trash the bad ideas, sure- hell yes. But the whole lot? Why? That makes no sense... unless the point is to foster divisiveness.
When Earth Day started up, it coincided with Arbor Day, a day on which school kids solemnly planted trees believing what there teacher and parents told them, that they were helping to save the earth. Unfortunately, a lot of these trees being planted should be killed. Why? Because many that were planted were non-indigenous, aka exotics. Besides loss of habit, fragmentation (discontinuities in an organism's preferred environment) and climate change, the spread of exotic invasive species is equal in its contribution to species extinction which is leading us into a major extinction event.
I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone else regarding planting exotics. It's good to have this information next time I plan on planting a tree or anything else in the yard. Of course what I have planted is nothing as horrific as, say, spreading spurge in grassland areas. (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plan ... MTJ3neyksw) This year, I'll look to put in native plants around the yard.
But it we keep bringing it down to left/right, rep/dem, etc. we have no chance.
'The day the earth stood still' was on TV last night. Reminds me of this thread a bit.
Yes, Redrock, absolutely right- conservation, environment and climate issues should have nothing to do with partisanship. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, would not be concerned about environmental issues. It's a subject that is only lightly touched on in our schools and most homes and almost never in our churches- at least that's true here in the US, I don't know about elsewhere. It's so much more than about just recycling, that's for sure.
Yeah, aside from the Jesus metaphor, I can see the connection with "The Day the Earth Stood Still". I haven't seen the remake- might have to check it out.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Hey... ta-da! Thanks Mickyrat!
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/co ... s_cid=e662
"Coming soon: 100% renewable power"
Thank you, JonnyPistachio. As much as I want to applaud this, it does raise some concerns for me. One of my close relatives works with environmental law and he pointed out that some of the vast arrays of solar panels in the great basin area are destroying sensitive habitat. Although this is a better solution than oil dependency, I think we have to see the broader picture- that using much less energy in general is the only way to even approach sustainability.
In any case, thanks for keeping watch on this subject and looking for solutions!