Politics and Environmentalist Values
A reader comments: As a conservative environmentalist, I find the looney-right to be far less dangerous to public acceptance and support for positive environmental action than the environmental left. The left entwines leftist ideology with environmental issues. As a result, when the general public rejects the leftist dogma, unfortunately genuine environmental policies are also rejected. Your latest article, (while well-meaning and as always well-written), is just such an example ….
It is true that I am at once left of center politically and deeply committed to environmentalist values. It’s also true that readers may reject my environmentalist messages simply because they disagree with me politically, thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were.
That’s a risk I take every time I open my mouth. It’s the reason that I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in Washington. I simply express my viewpoints as they exist in my mind; I don’t modify them according to what I think will be popularly accepted.
Having said all this, I actually do believe that there is a large and growing band of the population who agrees with me on most of these issues. The real reason that the Republicans are going to have such a tough time in the 2016 elections here in the United States is partially based on the economic recovery that we’ve seen over the last seven years, but it’s also based on the fact that the core Republican values are out of step with the belief system of the vast majority of Americans today.
When you hear the Republican presidential hopefuls talk about repealing Obamacare, opposing gay marriage, challenging women’s right to abortion, championing unlimited gun rights, cutting food stamps, going to war in Iran–as well as their stance on environmental issues: building pipelines, offshore drilling, dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, and all the rest, you need to realize that none of this parallels most voters’ feelings on these matters. On top of it, you have things that are both astounding and infuriating to most voters, e.g., covertly inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington and sending a letter to Iran suggesting that the President of the United States has no real power and authority. The vast majority of Americans are highly patriotic and don’t like to see the office of the U.S. presidency humiliated and denigrated like that.
But, reiterating my main point, it’s perfectly possible that people reject my politics and thus my approach to environmentalism. So be it. These are my true and authentic viewpoints, and they’re not for sale.
Craig, apparently your political agenda trumps your environmental agenda. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive or joined at the hip.
For example, if you oppose alternative energy that is generated by big business in a concentrated format just because you believe in distributed generation by long haired hippies with a solar hot water heater on their deck………….you get my point.
Nuclear, especially 4th generation Thorium can only be logically attacked by using this sort of political argument.
Large scale wind turbine deployment would be more acceptable to the left leaning so-called environmentalists if it was owned locally.
Politics can be separated from environmental progress but only if the environmental concerns trump the political world view. This applies to both ends of the political spectrum. JMO
Craig is not unalterably opposed to nuclear energy. Where energy is concerned, he tends to be a pragmatist which, in my opinion, is reasonable.
Sent from Fiji, where I happen to be at the moment.
Environmental concern has not always been associated with only the political left, indeed possibly the most evil right wing regime in history, that of Nazi Germany had within its overall philosophy certain environmental aspirations
“The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature”.
Indeed it appears to have been the case that even the Nazi death camps were carefully designed to minimize contamination to the surrounding land.
http://ohioswallow.com/book/How+Green+Were+the+Nazis%3F
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
Data does not discriminate by party ideology, but unwise ideologues ignore data. This fact affects outcomes to the extent that ideology changes or maintains behavior. Refusal to accept the data on climate disruption won’t save coastal and low-lying communities. Denial won’t end droughts or stave off other forms of extreme weather and the impacts that result.
Willful ignorance of the tracks beneath one’s feet and deafness to the blare of the approaching horn won’t prevent the collision.
In all the years I’ve known Craig, I’ve never observed willful ignorance, and I don’t expect to now or at any time in the future. He is not an unwise ideologue. I say this as a political independent.
Humanity will not be well-served by insistence on the pursuit of research for a possible solution on the horizon to the exclusion of proven and scale-able functioning technologies that are in in operation today. Time is not unlimited. We must begin massive implementation now – on the scale of WWII efforts – using the last hours of filthy ancient sunlight left to us before the oceans exceed the acidity in which our food chain can thrive, and before our climate slips beyond feedback loop after feedback loop.
Concentrating Solar Thermal is well-proven well-understood technology for which there are no resource barriers and comparatively minimal biosphere impact, as well as comparatively manageable cost. A full nationwide installation satisfying all present needs can be built beginning tomorrow for about the same cost as ten years of our foreign oil imports – that includes HVDC grid expansion to carry the energy from the Sunbelt to Maine and Montana.
That’s a debt worth incurring and one that will pay dividends – unlike the trillions in war debt we’ve built up defending access to filthy foreign fossil fuel.
Certainly we must phase out fossil fuels. But concentrated solar? I don’t believe that it is capable of providing for the power requirements of most large prosperous countries. It is intermittent and except when geography is favorable, there is no practical way to store the generated power for use when the sun is not shining. Moreover, concentrated solar power is even more intermittent than con-concentrated solar power. Non-concentrated solar power will at least generate some power when there are light clouds, but under those conditions, concentrated solar power will generate no power.
We need to do more R & D to find nuclear power systems which eliminate the problems associated with out current nuclear technology. However, even our current nuclear technology makes more sense than continuing to depend on fossil fuels.
From your comments it is not entirely clear that you understand the technology of concentrated solar power (CSP) All solar power and most renewable energy must be concentrated to be useful. Photovoltaic is concentrated electrically. Hydroelectric is concentrated using dams. But CSP refers not to photovoltaic panels (PV) but a type of solar thermal energy where sunlight is concentrated with mirrors and sometimes lenses to produce high levels of heat. Because CSP captures the heat aspect of solar energy it can easily be stored as heat, often in salts that melt at around 500 deg C. CSP plants are being build that use little to no water for cooling and operate 24/7 using stored heat when the sun doesn’t shine. Such plants have a capacity factor approaching that of coal. They are the antithesis of “intermittent.”
Siting such a plant within the exclusion zone of a typical nuclear power plant will produce more electricity than the nuclear power plant with less pollution and far less risk. Sure let us do some advanced nuclear reactors, but I can’t pretend it is because it is better… only because diversification may give us more options.
Craig, your conservative environmentalist has made an argument that sounds bad and means nothing. It is flawed on many levels. The right doesn’t like left environmentalism because it is left…. well … the same thing can be said in reverse. It is just another bigoted statement of irrational preference.
But, you have placed me in the surprising position of disagreeing not just with your other comments, but perhaps some of the underlying philosophy behind them. First is is fundamental that environmentalism is traditionally a conservative value. Traditionally conservatism was an ideology of maintaining and not changing. It is a definition. When it comes to the environment the alternative is to manage the environment with specific goals in mind. Some of those goals may be to clean out the deadwood and exploit the resources. To this “progressive” perspective “people” are a higher priority than [the rest of..] “the environment.”
But a strange thing happened on the way to 2015. The Republican party swapped these perspectives (and forced liberals to take the conservative view in opposition.) So now we have to ask, are you a “traditional conservative environmentalist” or a “neo-conservative environmentalist” The key differences seem centered on preserving the environment unchanged and possibly returning it to a state before human influence or managing the environment for “humans” that in a double switch very often becomes a euphemism for the opposite of “the people” in an economic sense: business profits.”
This is monumental, because it wasn’t accidental. It was contrived step by step with a net result of essentially confusing where people stand. Our essential foundation, our understanding of underlying terms has been essentially destroyed so that anything can mean anything.
This brings us to the your second comment that the Republican party is going to have a hard time in the election. I disagree. Not because you are wrong about the essential values that a majority of people want, but because the Republican party is in lockstep with those who control conversation and the conversation has been intentionally confused. Sadly most people will follow the conversation. (At least one studie showed that those who follow Fox news are less informed than those who do not follow any news.)
Democratic politicians largely don’t have a clue. They are also trying to follow the conversation. They are trying to respond to “the Republicans” the way politics was traditionally done. But Republicans have long ago sold out to their talking points and are only mouthpieces. It truly is corruption at the highest levels in the sense of control with money being incidental to power.
So what are we to do. It takes a time for terms to become settled and have meaning. We may have to pay less attention to what is said and concentrate on value. We have to listen carefully and understand what is truly valuable to our lives and then focus intently and learn to see value in others. I may sometimes disagree with what you say, and perhaps even a bit of the philosophy behind your perspective, but I do value your presentation and intent. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind words. And yes, tragically, the term “conservative” has been turned on its head, as it no longer has anything to do with the conservation of resources; it now means the conservation of old-world values–principally making money. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but it seems that a) the Republicans have become the party of big business, and b) the interests of big business run counter to those of environmentalism in most (though not all) cases.
Craig,
I’m sorry if you to my observation to heart. My observation was intended as a generalization, and not limited to just the US political climate.
Political extremists are usually easily identified, and their motivations easily recognize by the general populace. In reality, political extremists make a lot of noise, but except in very unusual circumstances, have very little influence on mainstream politics.
The old conservation/environment movement used to be broad and inclusive. By focusing on achievable priorities, free of any political ideology, it could gather massive support and acceptance from all sectors of the community.
However, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the exposure of the socialist-left economic agenda as being not only, obsolete, but unworkable, the old leftist ideologues, found themselves redundant, and irrelevant. They still possessed formidable organizing, political, and propaganda skills, but lacked any creditable cause.
That’s when they re-invented themselves (globally) as passionate environmental warriors. Infiltrating the non-political environmental movement was easy. The environmental movement already had a large base of supporters among students, and many anti-nuclear protestors who found themselves without a sponsor with the death of the old Soviet empire, were able to redefine themselves as “environmental activists”.
Green and Leftist political parties, world-wide, began campaigning heavily on some environmental (not all ) policies. Their activism encouraged extremism.
The old anti-capitalist, anti-western liberal democratic, anti-individual, collective dogma, was able to be refined, (and disguised) as “Green”.
Even scientific research into the effects of “Climate change” and resources became ferociously politically charged, and debate monopolized by fanatics and their acolytes.
‘Climate Science’, became a fanatical new religion. This new faith even had it’s own “Inquisition” ! Terms like ” Denier” were chosen to denigrate “heretics” and all dissenting voices. Some advocates even demanded that “climate change deniers ” be prosecuted, and imprisoned ! (One group even deman for the death penalty ! ). Few of these ardent adherents, had very little scientific knowledge, and no scientific integrity.
Naturally, as project after taxpayer funded project failed, along the wild claims and predictions of catastrophe, that never occurred, the public grew disillusioned with all the rhetoric, and lost interest.
If the ideologues, had been a little less self-important, less selfish, and more honest, they would have understood that this would be the inevitable result of their intransigence.
The damage done to the environmental movement, has been considerable. Instead of concentrating on harnessing the best talents to address key priorities, the left ideologues have created political discord, and bitter division.
In the real world, the only organizations that can command sufficient resources, capital and authority to bring about wide-spread change, are big corporations and governments.
Both are motivated by self interest. That’s the nature of all civilizations and organized societies. That’s not to say altruism and Public Service, don’t exist and are not strong motivators of social behavior.
However, these traits are best evident in prosperous societies, with economic surpluses.
Realistically, do the math ! The US Oil Industry creates employment for tens of millions of US citizens. The industry is estimated as 28% of the US economy. US Oil companies are America’s largest (and most valuable) taxpayers, not only on the total taxes paid, but pays the highest corporate percentage rate.
The profits from this industry are so reliable, that it funds almost the entire US retirement and superannuation industry. More than 80% of Americans, rely on the Oil Industry, in one way or another, for their economic existence.
So ranting about the “evils” of these corporations, or complaining that they have “corrupt influence, and should be banished, beaten down, or demonized, is absurd. The Oil Industry doesn’t give a damn about the posturing of politicians, because it always has a trump card, the nation needs the wealth oil creates. Any real attack on the oil industry, would be political suicide. (like sharks, politicians don’t willingly commit suicide ! :).
Nor do voters want to lose the benefits, the oil Industry provides !
Craig, I apologies for the length of this post. I also appreciate your honesty in declaring your political position. I also appreciate that what the rest of the world considers “right’ and ” Left ” has a different meaning in the US context.
One thing that is evident, is your sincerity and genuine commitment to environmental progress.
It’s a tragedy that the US Republicans have abandoned the pragmatic inclusiveness of President Reagan, and the Democrats seem to have abandoned the inclusive principles espoused by Robert Kennedy.
Environmental issues should be something we should encourage all sectors of society to bring their talents to assist resolve. It shouldn’t be a political battlefield for ideologues, (of any persuasion) to advance irrelevant agendas. Combining issues such as “gay marriage” with environmental issues, is counter-productive to both causes.
The answer to environmental problems, doesn’t lie with Cameron Atwood’s, vision of a new ” socialist state” on a “war footing”, or ignoring environmental problems, in the hope they’ll just go away !
Environmental problems besetting the Bio-sphere, are best addressed by providing a profit motive ( yes, making money) for better technologies. That means identifying real priorities, and harnessing the resources from all sectors, to assist a resolution.
This is how the general public is beginning to view the environmental debate;
Don’t like coal ? Fine, nor do I . Currently , the only technology able to operate on a massive industrial scale, is aThorium Nuclear Reactor.
What’s that ? You hate Coal and Thorium Nuclear power, because you want the government (other peoples money) to borrow some more money it can’t repay, to fund a technology that doesn’t work yet, but might, at some ill-defined time in the future ?
Why ? Oh, because you hate the idea of “Big Corporations, and someone making money, more than you want to help the environment “!
While that sort of political argument rages, any real progress has to emerge far more painfully than should be necessary.
(one again, sorry about the length of this comment) .
No need to apologize. I appreciate your viewpoints; they give me (and everyone here) a great deal to ponder.
Re: your comments on thorium: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/06/thorium-based-nuclear-reactors/.
Sometimes a reply has to be long to cover the subject adequately.
when mother earth will seek her vengeance on humanity, she will not care which way you leaned politically.
That is very true. I guess the goal here is to prevent her from seeking her vengeance in the fist place. Let’s keep Mom happy.
“Stop fighting and clean up your mess!” – Mother Earth
🙂
“Or I’ll send you to your rooms!” Oops. Your rooms are vanishing quickly…..
breathonthewind,
Actually, I have a very good understanding of technical issues.
CSP generally, but perhaps not always, refers to concentrating sunlight, usually with mirrors, before using it to heat a heat transferring medium or to shine upon a PV system. That does have certain advantages, but it requires tracking devices and results on no power output on cloudy days whereas PV systems without mirrors or lenses will at least generate some power on cloudy days.
Often when I strive to make a point, people assume that I know nothing at all about the subject. Actually, I have a good background in physics and have read extensively on a variety of energy and power systems.
Craig,
The results of the UK general election are evidence of what can be achieved by “conservative, responsible environmentalists “.
The voters rejection of Green-left politicians, in contrast to the popularity of environmentalists like the conservative Mayor of London, and newly elected Tory MP Boris Johnson, shows the public’s willingness to accept rational environmental policies.
when you say voters reject anything you mislead the public. The vote is a meaningless theater, proven by 500,000 votes thrown out in 2004 election, by a vote counting system owned by corporations and unverifiable by the public and by G.W. Bush’s non-election by supreme court to keep Gore out of office and global environmental issues out of the oval office