Re: Environmental Stewardship, Regrettably, We’re Not All on the Same Team
Robert Murray of Murray Energy, right, hugging Energy Secretary Rick Perry
In response to one of my recent posts on the Trump administration’s assault on the environment, “Concerned Citizen” writes:
It is healthy to agree to disagree but please don’t stoop to degrading behaviors because we are all on the same team. We are concerned citizens who realize that positive change is needed in the world. So let’s work together to accomplish the goals and accept the fact that we may not agree with every detail presented.
How is the Trump Administration responsible for the environmental sins of the men and women who held positions of authority for decades prior to his arrival in DC? It is amazing to me that humans tend to have selective memory when it is convenient and fits the theme. Coal was the primary fuel used to produce electricity long before the last election.
Perhaps I’m sometimes more combative than I need to be, but your saying that we’re all on the same team is gross naïvety. There are forces of both good and evil in this world that are in conflict against one another, and most of these cases are differences that are vast and obvious, not of “every detail presented.”
In the arena of our environment, there are people who, in response to what our scientists are telling us, are trying their hardest to reverse our decline before it is too late and this planet’s capacity to support life begins to circle the drain. These people are opposed by those who wish to profit from our extractive economy, regardless of the devastation it’s wreaking on the health of our planet and its people.
I believe very strongly that the latter are the “bad guys” and that “calling out the bad guys” is not, in any way, “stooping to degrading behaviors.” People who will not stand up and say, “That’s wrong,” when they see our world being willfully torn apart by people acting out of greed, are almost as culpable as the evil-doers themselves (not that this is a new idea).
I don’t fault Trump for most of this environmental onslaught; he is actually a tool in the hands of rich polluters who contribute vast fortunes to his party. And I certainly don’t blame him for “sins” that happened decades ago; I don’t think I know anyone stupid enough to do that.
Re: your point “Coal was the primary fuel used to produce electricity long before the last election,” believe it or not, I was aware of that.
Having said that, I wouldn’t call coal an “environmental sin” until the last few decades, when we fully understood the enormous environmental harm it was causing.
Nor do I advocate getting rid of coal immediately, as I know the incredible damage to human well-being that would result therefrom. Making coal go away responsibly is going to take some time and a great deal of hard work.
What is most definitely an environmental sin is deliberately expanding coal, given our current understanding of the extensive damage it’s causing, so as to prop up the fortunes of Robert Murray (pictured above) and the other coal barons, which is something that U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry (also pictured above, enclosed in Murray’s fatherly embrace) is working on feverishly (if unsuccessfully).
We now live in a world in which it’s abundantly clear that coal is destroying our health, warming our climate, ruining our air and water, acidifying our oceans, and causing mass extinction of plant and animal species. At this point, encouraging the use of coal is morally indefensible.
We could pretend otherwise. Or we can think of all these people as teammates. Either way, That’s Wrong. I’m not afraid to say that, nor should you be.
Craig,
The trouble with dividing people into “good guys’ and “bad guys” is sooner or later you start saying ” anyone who disagrees with me is evil”.
This sort of thinking allows you to lose objectivity and become disingenuous. I have a photo of myself and a leading trade unionist embracing warmly at a conference. It doesn’t mean I agree with his policies or beliefs, nor am I in any business relationship with that individual. I was simply pleased to see he had decided to stand as a candidate for Parliament.
(He was defeated by the candidate I support).
Unlike the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump received very little support by way of donations from his party, and even less from big business.
In office, the President is simply implementing his election platform to the best of his ability. For the first time in many decades, this President is beholden to no special interest groups.
When combatively demanding the end of Coal and other fossil fuels you must be able to demonstrate a realistic, practical and economically viable method of replacement.
Just complaining futilely while offering only unrealistic alternatives isn’t helpful. In fact, such behaviour has disillusioned and alienated a huge proportion of the general public who were once sympathetic.
I think I’m on fairly safe grounds calling terrorists, Nazis, war criminals and those who destroy the environmental for profit as evil. If you sincerely object to any of this this, you may consider starting your own blog on moral relativism.
Craig,
Ah, but you don’t stop at just Nazi’s and terrorists, do you ? You subtly broaden the definition to include a wide range of activities which you label as “evil” depending on your philosophy, ideology or just political preferences.
That’s the talent (and danger ) of Puritanism, it always start so reasonably.
You remind me of an existing example of this thinking, found among the secret party organs of in the totarilarian Peoples Republic of China. Who would think the seemingly innocuous “Committee for Peace, Harmony, Enlightenment and Correct Thought” would actually be the Party organization that authorities tens of thousands each year to grim work camps, even executions, internal banishment and controls the insidious activities of the Special Party Police ?
“those who destroy the environmental for profit as evil”, that’s a very subjective sort of judgement. It could apply to almost anyone in the industrialized world, certainly all those subsistence farmers burning timber of clearing land.
Even the term “war Criminals” (as opposed to crimes against humanity), can be very difficult, and since the definition of a war crime is often only applied to the loser in any conflict, or by some as applying to all those taking part in a conflict regardless of context.
By your definition, cattle farmers are Evil”. Now, I don’t think I’m evil ! (although I agree I make a profit).
However, none of this is relevant. What is more relevant why yopu feel the over zealous and reckless use of emotive and abusive terms to wide ranges of people who don’t share your enthusiasms, is effective or not counter-productive ?
Why unnecessarily alienate large numbers of people with labels such as “Evil” for simply disagreeing with your view point ? Do you image a 5th generation Coal Miner is going to suddenly have an epiphany and throw down his tools of trade, simply because some guy from Santa Barbara calls him “evil” ?
It just makes it harder for people like me to enlist his cooperation in reducing emissions by embracing superior, cleaner more efficient, environmental mining practices.