For those of us willing to look around objectively, the prospects of a green future look better than they have in decades. That’s despite the major threat this world faces from global warming, continued air pollution, and mass extinctions. The reason things are looking more green is that Green is becoming a political force. It already is outside of this country, and even here in the US there are signs of shifting winds.
There are, however, fundamental differences between the US and those nations with an already-strong Green movement/party. For one, the US never adopted fully the socialist-populist political ideology. Sure, we may eventually provide health care to everyone, but that’s because the other way is totally screwed up more than out of a genuine widespread belief in the social equality of it. I’d venture to say that social equality is not high on the list of priorities for many Americans, and to be a traditional (I call it a conservationalist) Green, you have to believe deeply in the social equality tenet. That’s because to be a traditional Green, you have to abstain from doing things that are good for you but affect others negatively in a not terribly visible way.
Some might call it individualism, others maybe arrogance, but whatever the name Americans are not ready to modify their actions en masse based on the simple principle that they are hurting others even though they can’t see it. This is the crux of the problem for conservationalist greens in this country: in order to save the Earth for future generations, the behaviors of today’s generations have to be greatly modified.
The new green Pragmatists see things differently. They deny the conventional wisdom that cleaning up industry will be a drag on the economy, and they deny the basic argument of the conservationalist that greening our actions is hard, and that it being hard is good for us. Over at Terrapass’s blog, there’s a quote from a Greenpeace spokesperson in regards to Virgin Atlantic deciding to offer carbon offsets to its passengers. As a Pragmatist, this is a very positive step forward in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But, as Greenpeace is very much a conservationalist organization, this is how they feel:
Virgin should not be criticized out of hand for this scheme, but it promotes the idea that dealing with climate change is easy and cheap rather than being about the difficult task of changing consumer behavior, government policy and investment.
Old-school greens really actually believe that saving the Earth should be difficult, because it is only through this arduous task of recreating ourselves as green individuals that the planet may be saved. They would, of course, argue that a person cannot be truly green simply by purchasing carbon offsets, using greenhouse gas-free power, and recycling virtually everything we throw away. Still, waste is generated. And waste is bad, whether or not that waste really affects anything other than generating more entropy in the universe.
Damn if that doesn’t sound a little bit like religious belief to me! Sounds a bit like the contention that a person cannot be free of sin, and therefore must go through the very difficult process of ingratiating oneself to a loving and forgiving diety. Both the conservationalists and the devout believe that their difficult transformation is ultimately empowering and uplifiting, and that the human soul is better for it.
We’ve all met those religious people who, deep down, can’t wait for the Rapture to arrive so that their sinful enemies will be immolated in the fires of Hell. Some even say it, but I don’t even mean those wackos. I mean the people that buy the “Left Behind” series and read it avidly from page 1 because of the dark desire in their hearts to be proven right about their beliefs. Actually, that’s not such a dark desire after all. They simply want their beliefs to be validated by empirical evidence, and a Rapture sure would be empirical evidence. But also, all those sinners sure would repent as they are strapped into their seats on the Greyhound to Hell!
Okay, now that I’ve deeply offended some potential readers, let me offend some more. There are many, many, conservationalists who secretly hope for those horrible predictions of the effects of global warming and mass extinctions to come true because that terrible tragedy would prove them right. Take that Dick Cheney! And Florida, you still haven’t gotten your due for 2000, so it’s time for the phallus of America to get a circumcision. What a horridly crooked and irrational belief, but I’m willing to defend this contention with a simply syllogism.
A) Conservationalists reject efforts to reduce global warming by cheap and easy methods.
B) The bulk of the American public will not accept drastic changes to their lifestyle that are not cheap and easy, and groups like Greenpeace know this.
C) Therefore, conservationalists do not wish success to efforts at reducing global warming.
But, the cold truth of this logical statement is rejected because of the belief that continued evangelism can persuade the American public to change their ways. Repent, and we shall all be saved!
I reject this idiotic, irrational, and self-destructive belief. It’s time for the voices of old-school Conservationalism to be further marginalized. They need to be rejected not just by their traditional foes on political Right, but by the Pragmatic Left and Center as well. Because after decades of efforts, they have succeeded at virtually nothing other than inflaming passions and spouting rhetoric. Luckily, groups like Terrapass, Virgin Atlantic, Yahoo, and all of the companies mentioned in Friedman’s geo-green piece I wrote about yesterday are moving forward without them. The rest of us will just keep moving forward while the conservationalists foam at the mouth shouting their condemnations about our wasteful American lifestyles.
Michael Crichton’s State of Fear article and book was actually on some of this very concept. The critics slaughtered him in the media, saying that he was an author who didn’t know anything about environmental science, but his response was that he was a sociologist who knew plenty about religion and religious movements, and that for all intents and purposes, a large part of the environmental movement, especially global warming, was a religious movement. Take “An Inconvenient Truth” for example, which predicts cataclysmic events in the near future, events that the U.N. panel on climate change says are far off, and that panel itself has been harshly criticized for overly exaggerating the effects of climate change by a sizable minority of climate scientists…
I think that if you surveyed a majority of the people opposed to most of the legislation aimed at encouraging a cleaner society you would find that most of them are actually for improving the environmental efficiency of our daily and industrial lives, but that it is the dogmatic “repent of your carbon or burn in a soon to be hell on earth” that repels them, especially since oftentimes the environmentalists projecting that attitude are harshly critical of more traditional religions.
taoist,
Thanks for your comment, it’s nice to see that we’re in agreement about most of what’s going on here.
I take issue somewhat with the climate change analogy, simply because much of what the public hears that scientists say is the amplification of a few strident voices (surprise surprise). Most climate scientists do not predict cataclysmic events in the near future, but they aren’t so interesting to interview for documentaries. The general consensus as I understand it, somewhat more on the inside as a graduate student in environmental sciences, is that our actions will soon lead us to a tipping point that will lead to catastrophic effects in the next 100-200 years.
Anthony, I agree that it’s the amplification of just a few voices, and that most scientists don’t say that. My point though is that there’s a smooth transition from those few voices to the dogmatic non-scientific environmental community, and that both aspects, the religious belief in environmentalism and the cataclysmic extremes, do much more harm then good.
Taoist: “The general consensus as I understand it, somewhat more on the inside as a graduate student in environmental sciences, is that our actions will soon lead us to a tipping point that will lead to catastrophic effects in the next 100-200 years.’
This may be true if humankind heads in the same direction that it is heading now and natural events play out in the forecaster’s calculated manner. But that rarely ever happens. Natural events and man’s response to them can’t be calculated 10 or 20 years in the future let alone 100 or 200.
A small change in some remote part of the world could cause big unforeseen changes. Either way.
I’m not sure of your age but I’m pretty sure I’ve got at least 30 on you, so some perspective is called for. When I was a punk in the 70’s it was widely accepted the world wouldn’t be able to feed future populations. I forget the exact figure and date certain that was used back then but we surpassed both some time ago. Back then, global cooling was going to mean the end of mankind with ice covering ¾ of the United States. But it never worked out that way because mankind and, more importantly, natural events just don’t move in a straight, predictable line.
What scares me today is that Global Warming™ (or Climate Change™, depending) is now big business to the tune of 300 billion (yes, with a ‘b’) a year from a few million just a number years ago. That 300 billion generates a lot of screaming and hyperbole from people who want to keep their jobs, their funding or pad their personal resume on the backs of others (telephone for Al Gore).
I’d also like to add if I may.
Anthony sez: “Damn if that doesn’t sound a little bit like religious belief to me!”
I think it’s way beyond “a little bit”. There is now solid proof that the greens look at the Global Warming™ issue as part of their Religion of Environmentalism.
From a recent news report:
“Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won’t find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ former Vice President Al Gore’s book about global warming.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ
Ok Anthony, you’ve sat on your duff for too long, time for you to post. There’s an interesting article in the link below. It contains some compelling facts. I’ll be writing about it, but would be interested in your take as well. The meat:
and the link:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/868/1