User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2

  1. #1

    Arrow George Monbiot: All Greens are Lost, and other comments

    Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project.

    All of us in the green movement are lost before the planet's real nightmare: not too little fossil fuel – but too much

    You think you're discussing technologies, and you quickly discover that you're discussing belief systems. The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, who we want to be, how we want society to evolve. Beside these concerns, technical matters – parts per million, costs per megawatt hour, cancers per sievert – carry little weight. We choose our technology – or absence of technology – according to a set of deep beliefs: beliefs that in some cases remain unexamined.

    The case against abandoning nuclear power, for example, is a simple one: it will be replaced either by fossil fuels or by renewables that would otherwise have replaced fossil fuels. In either circumstance, greenhouse gases, other forms of destruction and human deaths and injuries all rise.

    The case against reducing electricity supplies is just as clear. For example, the Zero Carbon Britain report published by the Centre for Alternative Technology urges a 55% cut in overall energy demand by 2030 – a goal I strongly support. It also envisages a near-doubling of electricity production. The reason is that the most viable means of decarbonising both transport and heating is to replace the fuels they use with low-carbon electricity. Cut the electricity supply and we're stuck with oil and gas. If we close down nuclear plants, we must accept an even greater expansion of renewables than currently proposed. Given the tremendous public resistance to even a modest increase in windfarms and new power lines, that's going to be tough.

    What the nuclear question does is to concentrate the mind about the electricity question. Decarbonising the economy involves an increase in infrastructure. Infrastructure is ugly, destructive and controlled by remote governments and corporations. These questions are so divisive because the same world-view tells us that we must reduce emissions, defend our landscapes and resist both the state and big business. The four objectives are at odds.

    But even if we can accept an expansion of infrastructure, the technocentric, carbon-counting vision I've favoured runs into trouble. The problem is that it seeks to accommodate a system that cannot be accommodated: a system that demands perpetual economic growth. We could, as Zero Carbon Britain envisages, become carbon-free by 2030. Growth then ensures that we have to address the problem all over again by 2050, 2070 and thereon after.

    Accommodation makes sense only if the economy is reaching a steady state. But the clearer the vision becomes, the further away it seems. A steady state economy will be politically possible only if we can be persuaded to stop grabbing. This in turn will be feasible only if we feel more secure. But the global race to the bottom and its destruction of pensions, welfare, public services and stable employment make people less secure, encouraging us to grasp as much for ourselves as we can.

    If this vision looks implausible, consider the alternatives. In the latest edition of his excellent magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie responds furiously to my suggestion that we should take industry into account when choosing our energy sources. His article exposes a remarkable but seldom noticed problem: that most of those who advocate an off-grid, land-based economy have made no provision for manufactures. I'm not talking about the pointless rubbish in the FT's How To Spend It supplement. I'm talking about the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles (except the hand-loomed tweed Fairlie suggests we wear), ceramics and soap: commodities that almost everyone sees as the barest possible requirements.

    Are people like Fairlie really proposing that we do without them altogether? If not, what energy sources do they suggest we use? Charcoal would once again throw industry into direct competition with agriculture, spreading starvation and ensuring that manufactured products became the preserve of the very rich. (Remember, as EA Wrigley points out, that half the land surface of Britain could produce enough charcoal to make 1.25m tonnes of bar iron – a fraction of current demand – and nothing else.) An honest environmentalism needs to explain which products should continue to be manufactured and which should not, and what the energy sources for these manufactures should be.

    There's a still bigger problem here: even if we make provision for some manufacturing but, like Fairlie, envisage a massive downsizing and a return to a land-based economy, how do we take people with us? Where is the public appetite for this transition?

    A third group tries to avoid such conflicts by predicting that the problem will be solved by collapse: doom is our salvation. Economic collapse, these people argue, is imminent and expiatory. I believe this is wrong on both counts.

    Last week something astonishing happened: Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, revealed that peak oil has already happened. "We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006." If this is true, we should be extremely angry with the IEA. In 2005 its executive director mocked those who predicted peak oil as "doomsayers". Until 2008 (two years after the IEA now says it happened) the agency continued to dismiss the possibility that peak oil would occur.

    But this also raises an awkward question for us greens: why hasn't the global economy collapsed as we predicted? Yes, it wobbled, though largely for other reasons. Now global growth is back with a vengeance: it reached 4.6% last year, and the IMF predicts roughly the same for 2011 and 2012. The reason, as Birol went on to explain, is that natural gas liquids and tar sands are already filling the gap. Not only does the economy appear to be more resistant to resource shocks than we assumed, but the result of those shocks is an increase, not a decline, in environmental destruction.

    The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much. As oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal; as accessible coal declines, they'll switch to ultra-deep reserves (using underground gasification to exploit them) and methane clathrates. The same probably applies to almost all minerals: we will find them, but exploiting them will mean trashing an ever greater proportion of the world's surface. We have enough non-renewable resources of all kinds to complete our wreckage of renewable resources: forests, soil, fish, freshwater, benign weather. Collapse will come one day, but not before we have pulled everything down with us.

    And even if there were an immediate economic cataclysm, it's not clear that the result would be a decline in our capacity for destruction. In east Africa, for example, I've seen how, when supplies of paraffin or kerosene are disrupted, people don't give up cooking; they cut down more trees. History shows us that wherever large-scale collapse has occurred, psychopaths take over. This is hardly conducive to the rational use of natural assets.

    All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project. I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.
    I reckon that's a vane hope, Marx did as much when critiquing political economy and simultaneously attacking socialists and investing hope in socialism. See how that turned out.

    I believe that the greens are dead ducks, most of the "pale" greens, the moderates, could be absorbed into the conservationist wings of any of the moderate, main stream parties (the reformating of the conservative party in the UK concentrated on this introducing a green tree as party logo, replacing the red, white and blue torch), while the "deep" greens, Earth First, the fascists etc. have all disappeared into obscurity.

    He's right that the total failure of politics has meant that the economy will work this out, the proprietors will utilise the "ugly" sustainables, like windmills or sea turbines or geo-thermals when its profitable enough to do so, I'll by that stage it'll be a gold rush for investors and hedge funds and the question of dividends will hopefully feature higher in peoples minds than the impact on the postcard landscapes.

    I personally like the windmills and other supposedly "ugly" tech, if they were errecting huge wind traps like in Dune I'd not even complain, one of my few encounters with a genuinely middle class through and through "protest group" was a group petitioning against windmills, once they cut the crap about migrating birds, comparisons with nuclear energy etc. one of them leaned over and whispered with raised eye brow "And what will it do to house prices?". It was one of those "yeah, I could give a shit about that and now that you mention it I could give a shit about your message" moments, a little like finding out how much most university "socialist" groups hold working people in contempt.

    I dont believe that collapse as the harbringer of positive change is going to happen, that's a serious hangover from Marxism and the various socialist camps that a lot of the green movement migrated from.

    Although I do think that if scarcity did become a greater problem, not because it was engineered as agrarian optioners want, many things will become the preserve of the uber-rich. This sort of thing I think mirrors many of the "revolutionary" dreams of libertarians and bitter capitalist tax dodgers. Big populations of consumers will quietly starve off, or sell their organs or some shit, because they arent part of the plan anyway.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Similar Threads

  1. Why are some things ugly and others beautiful?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2012, 03:58 PM
  2. How is it that some people are Sensors and others Intuitives?
    By trickyleg in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 04:03 PM
  3. Are all 6w5's Introverts and are all 6w7's Extraverts?
    By Mondo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 08:44 AM
  4. The Plane, Moon, Lost at Sea and other Survival activities.
    By Synapse in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 10:36 PM
  5. [MBTItm] New graduate. All my "mentors" are idiots, and looking to get on a power trip. Help!
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 09:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO