Everyone Should Be On Board with Environmentalism
Frequent commenter Marco Polo offers this suggestion to a reader who’s weighing her options re: cleantech: Like most consumers, you will decide on the technology’s convenience and value for money first and ideology second. That’s not wrong, it’s just common sense; the rest is just arrogant nonsense by ideological advocates seeking to impose their own philosophies and lifestyles on others.
A couple of notes:
People who make lifestyle decisions based on what’s right for the environment are not rare, and our numbers are growing by the day. If you Google “purchase criteria Prius,” you’ll see that, of the 4+ million people who have bought hybrid-electric cars (Prius has a 41% market share), you’ll see that buying a “green car” is by far the #1 purchase motivation that owners provide. If you walk through Costco’s household products aisles, you’ll note a large and growing number of eco-friendly products, most of which cost more than their planet-buster counterparts. And I have news: if it’s on a shelf at Costco, it sells. When they make a (rare) mistake and stocks something that doesn’t move, it’s gone in a matter of hours (yes, hours, not weeks or even days. Costco has cutting-edge information systems, and they identify and remove their purchasing miscalculations in very short order.
Living so as to protect our environment isn’t some random philosophy or doctrine that people are free to either accept or reject. There’s a difference between “You should convert to Judaism” and “You should refrain from urinating in the swimming pool.” As sentences, they’re both constructed with the same syntax that makes up a moral command. But the former is, as you put it, an attempt to impose one’s philosophies on others. That can’t be said about the latter, however; anyone who deems it acceptable to despoil our planet deliberately is a profoundly defective human being.
Craig,
You have a genius for quoting me out of context !
To be fair, Craig, you also misrepresent your reader (Ivy) who wasn’t so much “weighing her options” , as advocating an opinion :
Ie: “Renewable energy is a hot issue all over the world. Because it is harmless to the environment”.
My reply was in the context renewable energy can have negative aspects to the environment.
In principle, being environmentally aware is praiseworthy. However, advocating or endorsing technology because it suits a particular political or ideological viewpoint is neither logical or environmental.
The best example is the continued production of US corn-ethanol.
This product still has support from people who would describe themselves as ‘environmentally’ conscious but in reality are more motivated by hatred of oil companies than love of the environment.
For many years the ever growing body of evidence has long established the economic, environmental and human devastation US Corn-ethanol mandated production has created in not only the US, but in developing nations.
My remark was intended to remind Ivy that simply indiscriminately cheering for technologies claiming “environmental credentials “, without checking the authenticity of those claims, can be counter-productive.
In Australia I have solar panels in three locations, however I am concerned if any planning has been undertaken for the disposal of these panels when obsolete in 20-25 years time.
Since it’s unlikely I’ll be around to deal with the problem, naturally I’m concerned if I’m creating a new pollution problem for my children?
Many ardent environmental advocates, (including yourself) seem unconcerned and even annoyed at the subject of Solar panel disposal being raised. ( I’ve yet to discover a single policy statement in any Green Party platform addressing this issue).
Endorsing and eulogizing technologies because they fit some preconceived ideological mantra or lifestyle that doesn’t suit a majority of consumers, just sows social discord while discouraging the development of more suitable technologies.
Tidal power is a great example. The technology is exceeding dubious, very difficult to upscale and claims in the media of spectacular results never reach fruition. In the meantime more practical technologies are neglected or wither for lack of support.
This state of affairs is true in nearly every area of environmental concern.
The claim “global warming is killing Coral reefs” became so prevalent and widely accepted it nearly prevented the discovery of the real cause of reef degradation.
Even today, a huge number of environmental advocates persist pressuring politicians and public opinion with this completely erroneous belief preventing focusing resources on effective reef rehabilitation.
The reason I used Ivy remark as an example, was not a criticism of Ivy, but a comment on the growing trend to mistake renewable energy announcements for potential technologies, as if these proposed technologies were fully mature and operational.
Craig,
Speaking of environmental experts, in my continuing odyssey across the great American coal fields, I’m enjoying meeting American environmental experts and analysts of international stature, as well as environmental advocates.
In Arlington VA, we had the privilege of listening to the highly regarded senior team members from Energy Ventures Analysis Inc, Seth Schwartz, Emily Medine and Sam Kasyan.
Later we met with a senior official of the US Dept of Labour who confirmed the figure of 35,000 mew jobs created in the coal industry since the election of President Trump was accurate, in addition to the 11,000 jobs scheduled to be terminated has been reversed.
We are now St Clairsville, Belmont County, Ohio, home of Robert E. Murray, of Murray Energy. Murray Energy and FirstEnergy have reputations as the ” bad guys” of the coal/energy industry. These guy’s are outspoken critics of Global Warming and even reasonable environmental safety regulations. They make David and Charles Koch look liberal !
I want to talk not only to the corporate chiefs, but to the workers and residents of eastern Ohio about their knowledge and experience of the Coal industry.
Ironically, Robert Murray is suffering from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease associated with mining.
President Trump has been very supportive of the coal industry, but was too experienced to accede to the demands demands from these two coal corporations to issue an emergency order protecting coal-fired power plants.
Curiously, despite the dire threats made by both corporations to close and file for bankruptcy, it’s the President who seems to have gained respect from local coal miners, not Robert Murray.
Next week I’m really looking forward to spending the weekend in Columbus Ohio, (I’ve always been a fan of James Thurber).
I’ve always regretted the Deshler-Wallick Hotel was demolished before I could afford to stay in that famous old establishment. However, I guess a river view suite in the new hotel located in the fabulous historic LeVeque Tower will be just as exciting !
While in Columbus we will be meeting with entrepreneurs, scientists and developers in the field of carbon sequestration.
One of most promising technologies will be adaptations of the process developed by British chemical engineer and inventor Rodney Allam, using supercritical CO₂ to avoid energy losses occurring as water shifts between gas and liquid states. The process eliminates several otherwise necessary components of a steam-electric power plant.
As a result, power plants could produce electricity for as little as $7 per megawatt-hour, allowing the sale of byproducts further reducing the price.
This is just one of many potential “cleaner fossil fuel ” technologies presented.
Like most new technologies, I try to keep an open mind, while accepting many will never be commercialized.