Reclaiming Environmentalism
brianlux
Posts: 42,038
Since Derrick Jensen posted this on his cite as an open letter, I assume it to be fair game to reprint here. This is very, very heavy reading. To submit to this vision of a new environmentalism requires a huge degree of commitment and I'm not even sure how it can be achieved. And yet when you read the points Jensen makes- strong points that are difficult to argue with- to not commit to something like this could be hugely disastrous for both humans and much other life. Yeah, I know, this all sounds like so much doom and gloom. Forget that, just please read the letter at face value before drawing any conclusions from anything I say. What do I know?
I'm curious as to what some of you think so thanks in advance for anyone willing to check this out thoroughly.
http://www.derrickjensen.org/open-letter-to-reclaim-environmentalism/
Open
Letter
to
Reclaim
Environmentalism
Lire en français
Once, the environmental movement was about protecting the natural world from the insatiable demands of this extractive culture. Some of the movement still is: around the world grassroots activists and their organizations are fighting desperately to save this or that creature they love, this or that plant or fungi, this or that wild place.
Contrast this to what some activists are calling the conservation-industrial complex–big green organizations, huge “environmental” foundations, neo-environmentalists, some academics–which has co-opted too much of the movement into “sustainability,” with that word being devalued to mean “keeping this culture going as long as possible.” Instead of fighting to protect our one and only home, they are trying to “sustain” the very culture that is killing the planet. And they are often quite explicit about their priorities.
For example, the recent “An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy,” signed by a number of academics, some conservation biologists, and other members of the conservation-industrial complex, labels nuclear energy as “sustainable” and argues that because of global warming, nuclear energy plays a “key role” in “global biodiversity conservation.” Their entire argument is based on the presumption that industrial energy usage is, like Dick Cheney said, not negotiable–it is taken as a given. And for what will this energy be used? To continue extraction and drawdown–to convert the last living creatures and their communities into the final dead commodities.
Their letter said we should let “objective evidence” be our guide. One sign of intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns: let’s lay out a pattern and see if we can recognize it in less than 10,000 years. When you think of Iraq, do you think of cedar forests so thick that sunlight never touches the ground? That’s how it was prior to the beginnings of this culture. The Near East was a forest. North Africa was a forest. Greece was a forest. All pulled down to support this culture. Forests precede us, while deserts dog our heels. There were so many whales in the Atlantic they were a hazard to ships. There were so many bison on the Great Plains you could watch for four days as a herd thundered by. There were so many salmon in the Pacific Northwest you could hear them coming for hours before they arrived. The evidence is not just “objective,” it’s overwhelming: this culture exsanguinates the world of water, of soil, of species, and of the process of life itself, until all that is left is dust.
Fossil fuels have accelerated this destruction, but they didn’t cause it, and switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy (or windmills) won’t stop it. Maybe three generations of humans will experience this level of consumption, but a culture based on drawdown has no future. Of all people, conservation biologists should understand that drawdown cannot last, and should not be taken as a given when designing public policy–let alone a way of life.
It is long past time for those of us whose loyalties lie with wild plants and animals and places to take back our movement from those who use its rhetoric to foster accelerating ecocide. It is long past time we all faced the fact that an extractive way of life has never had a future, and can only end in biotic collapse. Every day this extractive culture continues, two hundred species slip into that longest night of extinction. We have very little time left to stop the destruction and to start the repair. And the repair might yet be done: grasslands, for example, are so good at sequestering carbon that restoring 75 percent of the planet’s prairies could bring atmospheric CO2 to under 330 ppm in fifteen years or less. This would also restore habitat for a near infinite number of creatures. We can make similar arguments about reforestation. Or consider that out of the more than 450 dead zones in the oceans, precisely one has repaired itself. How? The collapse of the Soviet Empire made agriculture unfeasible in the region near the Black Sea: with the destructive activity taken away, the dead zone disappeared, and life returned. It really is that simple.
You’d think that those who claim to care about biodiversity would cherish “objective evidence” like this. But instead the conservation-industrial complex promotes nuclear energy (or windmills). Why? Because restoring prairies and forests and ending empires doesn’t fit with the extractive agenda of the global overlords.
This and other attempts to rationalize increasingly desperate means to fuel this destructive culture are frankly insane. The fundamental problem we face as environmentalists and as human beings isn’t to try to find a way to power the destruction just a little bit longer: it’s to stop the destruction. The scale of this emergency defies meaning. Mountains are falling. The oceans are dying. The climate itself is bleeding out and it’s our children who will find out if it’s beyond hope. The only certainty is that our one and only home, once lush with life and the promise of more, will soon be a bare rock if we do nothing.
We the undersigned are not part of the conservation-industrial complex. Many of us are long-term environmental activists. Some of us are Indigenous people whose cultures have been living truly sustainably and respectfully with all our relations from long before the dominant culture began exploiting the planet. But all of us are human beings who recognize we are animals who like all others need livable habitat on a living earth. And we love salmon and prairie dogs and black terns and wild nature more than we love this way of life.
Environmentalism is not about insulating this culture from the effects of its world-destroying activities. Nor is it about trying to perpetuate these world-destroying activities. We are reclaiming environmentalism to mean protecting the natural world from this culture.
And more importantly, we are reclaiming this earth that is our only home, reclaiming it from this extractive culture. We love this earth, and we will defend our beloved.
I'm curious as to what some of you think so thanks in advance for anyone willing to check this out thoroughly.
http://www.derrickjensen.org/open-letter-to-reclaim-environmentalism/
Open
Letter
to
Reclaim
Environmentalism
Lire en français
Once, the environmental movement was about protecting the natural world from the insatiable demands of this extractive culture. Some of the movement still is: around the world grassroots activists and their organizations are fighting desperately to save this or that creature they love, this or that plant or fungi, this or that wild place.
Contrast this to what some activists are calling the conservation-industrial complex–big green organizations, huge “environmental” foundations, neo-environmentalists, some academics–which has co-opted too much of the movement into “sustainability,” with that word being devalued to mean “keeping this culture going as long as possible.” Instead of fighting to protect our one and only home, they are trying to “sustain” the very culture that is killing the planet. And they are often quite explicit about their priorities.
For example, the recent “An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy,” signed by a number of academics, some conservation biologists, and other members of the conservation-industrial complex, labels nuclear energy as “sustainable” and argues that because of global warming, nuclear energy plays a “key role” in “global biodiversity conservation.” Their entire argument is based on the presumption that industrial energy usage is, like Dick Cheney said, not negotiable–it is taken as a given. And for what will this energy be used? To continue extraction and drawdown–to convert the last living creatures and their communities into the final dead commodities.
Their letter said we should let “objective evidence” be our guide. One sign of intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns: let’s lay out a pattern and see if we can recognize it in less than 10,000 years. When you think of Iraq, do you think of cedar forests so thick that sunlight never touches the ground? That’s how it was prior to the beginnings of this culture. The Near East was a forest. North Africa was a forest. Greece was a forest. All pulled down to support this culture. Forests precede us, while deserts dog our heels. There were so many whales in the Atlantic they were a hazard to ships. There were so many bison on the Great Plains you could watch for four days as a herd thundered by. There were so many salmon in the Pacific Northwest you could hear them coming for hours before they arrived. The evidence is not just “objective,” it’s overwhelming: this culture exsanguinates the world of water, of soil, of species, and of the process of life itself, until all that is left is dust.
Fossil fuels have accelerated this destruction, but they didn’t cause it, and switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy (or windmills) won’t stop it. Maybe three generations of humans will experience this level of consumption, but a culture based on drawdown has no future. Of all people, conservation biologists should understand that drawdown cannot last, and should not be taken as a given when designing public policy–let alone a way of life.
It is long past time for those of us whose loyalties lie with wild plants and animals and places to take back our movement from those who use its rhetoric to foster accelerating ecocide. It is long past time we all faced the fact that an extractive way of life has never had a future, and can only end in biotic collapse. Every day this extractive culture continues, two hundred species slip into that longest night of extinction. We have very little time left to stop the destruction and to start the repair. And the repair might yet be done: grasslands, for example, are so good at sequestering carbon that restoring 75 percent of the planet’s prairies could bring atmospheric CO2 to under 330 ppm in fifteen years or less. This would also restore habitat for a near infinite number of creatures. We can make similar arguments about reforestation. Or consider that out of the more than 450 dead zones in the oceans, precisely one has repaired itself. How? The collapse of the Soviet Empire made agriculture unfeasible in the region near the Black Sea: with the destructive activity taken away, the dead zone disappeared, and life returned. It really is that simple.
You’d think that those who claim to care about biodiversity would cherish “objective evidence” like this. But instead the conservation-industrial complex promotes nuclear energy (or windmills). Why? Because restoring prairies and forests and ending empires doesn’t fit with the extractive agenda of the global overlords.
This and other attempts to rationalize increasingly desperate means to fuel this destructive culture are frankly insane. The fundamental problem we face as environmentalists and as human beings isn’t to try to find a way to power the destruction just a little bit longer: it’s to stop the destruction. The scale of this emergency defies meaning. Mountains are falling. The oceans are dying. The climate itself is bleeding out and it’s our children who will find out if it’s beyond hope. The only certainty is that our one and only home, once lush with life and the promise of more, will soon be a bare rock if we do nothing.
We the undersigned are not part of the conservation-industrial complex. Many of us are long-term environmental activists. Some of us are Indigenous people whose cultures have been living truly sustainably and respectfully with all our relations from long before the dominant culture began exploiting the planet. But all of us are human beings who recognize we are animals who like all others need livable habitat on a living earth. And we love salmon and prairie dogs and black terns and wild nature more than we love this way of life.
Environmentalism is not about insulating this culture from the effects of its world-destroying activities. Nor is it about trying to perpetuate these world-destroying activities. We are reclaiming environmentalism to mean protecting the natural world from this culture.
And more importantly, we are reclaiming this earth that is our only home, reclaiming it from this extractive culture. We love this earth, and we will defend our beloved.
“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.
0
Comments
Good read Brian. I saw you mention the underlying problem in another thread awhile back. There are just too many of us. This planet cannot sustain the amount of people currently inhabiting it. I don't have a rational answer or suggestion that would solve that problem. Unfortunately it will come down to the Earth taking care of it in it's own natural way.
You are deluding yourself and ignoring the empirical evidence to believe "we have the means to use these energies while protecting the earth at the same time"
WhatYouTaughtMe, Yes! Population is so much of the problem. I don't have an answer for that either. I never had kids of my own (but am a dad and dad-uncle) but I would never be so brazen as to tell others not to have children. I can only hope people world-wide will recognize the problem of population and act accordingly (like maybe have one and adopt if more are wanted). (Thanks for the Bill Burr video clip!)
rgambs, hope is looking at Jensen's open letter this morning and seeing how many new signatures have been added to that list and passing this along and watching that number grow. Hope is doing what make sense no matter how things turn out. You're probably right in that the world will probably not step back. I just hope we can get enough people to realize what is happening so that maybe the slim chance of something being done will happen before we really screw up this planet. Chances are the earth will rebound after we are gone but are we sure of that? If the ocean die, the earth could could lose it's ability to support life. Do we really want to play Russian Roulette with the life of the planet? Or for that matter, do we really want to make the planet at the very least inhospitable for large mammals including homo sapiens? In any case, rg, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand the frustration of what seems like futility. I just have to keep putting it out there and hope for the best!
If Jensen's letter rings true to any of you, please sign the letter and forward the link to others. Thank you!
And that's the biggest flaw. Because we live in a capitalistic world, where money and business trumps the planet. In order to save our planet from our obsession with money and gluttonous consuming nature, we need to teach our younger generations that money does not equal happiness, nor does it solve the planet's problems. Because they are the future and they will be dealing with harder environmental problems, much moreso than we are.
Look at the items sold within the little world of the Ten Club here. They're charging - and people (we) are paying - quite a bit for hoodies and dog collars and posters. Almost a dozen categories of things to buy, for monetary profit.
So does it come down to who the collective deems approved when it's OK to make any profit?
We all have needs and I know a lot of us try to to over-consume but what Jensen's letter does for me is motivates me to take yet another look at how I live. I've really flipped out over the band Dinosaur Jr lately when I ran across a used CD copy of "Where You Been?". I could have been patient and waited for more used copies of other records but went and bought a bunch of new stuff. I like supporting good bands but after reading Jensen's letter I'm thing, wow- did I need to get carried away like that? I'll enjoy those records and I'm not going to beat myself up over it but I'll go back to proceeding with caution as I generally try to do.
Hedo: Good question. Personally, I don't think any band needs to sell all the trinket stuff. Just give us the music! Now if they started selling t-shirts made from hemp I would be on that! We all need clothes and hemp is... well that's all in the hemp thread!
I'm with you on the cutting down of amassing trickets, oftenreading. I don't think we should expect a rock band to be on the forefront of environmentalism or any other movement although when they are, it's a big boost. And if a band does advocate for something, I would hope they go all out and not just give it lip service.
Would it be possible for communities to use grey water to flush toilets and water lawns? Or better yet, replace portions of lawns with plants that don't need to be watered or mowed.
Which U.S. Cities Have the Most Homes With Swimming Pools?
I really don’t think people understand sea level rise and a drought can happen at once. You can’t drink ocean water but they seem to be confused at these scientists and their mixed messages. You can’t have both too much water and too little right?
unless they think we can somehow pipe it in direct from the glacier to Arizona
whatever happens though the democrats will be blamed for rationing water that there isn’t enough of. They are coming for your pools
I still think the worst thing to ever happen to the environment was Al Gore. Not because of the content but because it made the issue political, at least to republicans. We have never recovered from that. A non partisan issue being partisan at the worst possible moment.
Arizona is the perfect example. Republican led and the junior water rights partner on the Colorado. A democratic state will get blamed (Colorado or specifically California) for any lifestyle changes. Who knows if they will force the water they do get to be used sparingly
blame will get focused in the wrong places. I’m convinced of that
kind of lost track after the first few seasons
Great!