Advent of the Trump Administration Changes Environmentalists’ Focus
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo asks: I’ve noticed (as have others) your change in attitude in the last 18 months. Prior to the 2016 election you seemed very focused on clean energy technology and genuinely interested in promoting debate, discussion and different viewpoints and methods concerning combating all kinds of pollution. (What changed?)
I have always considered this blog (and the entire focus of my work at this stage of my life) to be about exploring human civilization with an eye towards achieving a sustainable course going forward. Prior to the 2016 election, among the largest single threats was long-term environmental damage stemming from fossil fuel consumption that, it seemed to me at least, was in the process of being phased out, via the development of low-cost renewable energy technologies and government stimulus/mandates.
While no one knows what would have happened had Donald Trump not been elected U.S. president, it looked like the most probable course was a short skirmish with the oil companies that might have lasted perhaps a couple of decades until fossil fuels were phased out almost entirely in favor of clean energy and electric transportation.
All of this went out the window on November 8, 2016.
Now, we have the aggressive demolition of all the environmental progress this culture has made over the past half century, and, perhaps worse, a greatly diminished recognition of the very problems themselves. It isn’t bad enough that our Environmental Protection Agency is run by a man completely dedicated to tearing it apart, while erasing the accomplishments it had made recently. At the same time, we’ve done things like removing all references to climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gases from federal government websites, even banning all discussion of this subject in certain state legislatures, e.g., those of North Carolina and Florida.
I would love to be discussing breakthroughs in things like hydrokinetics and biomass, but that’s far less interesting to me now, given the context of the environmental wrecking ball that is the Trump Administration.
So yes, there is a shift in focus, but there is also a shift in emotion. Though environmentalists are hardly a homogeneous bunch, we were generally a great deal more aimed at advocacy, intellectual curiosity and pleasant banter at cocktail parties before all this happened. Now we’re angry.
We’re infuriated that the future of humankind is threatened by a hateful, narcissistic conman. This has gone from the spirit of a high school pep rally followed by cheering at a football game against a perennial rival to an all-out war against the Nazis. (I use the word “Nazis” figuratively, though there’s obviously some literal truth to it.)
Speaking for myself, I’m seething that I live in a country that has suddenly become a moral cesspool, featuring indifference to (and actually reveling in) human suffering, in all its manifestations, of which destroying the environment is only one.
Maybe it’s the difference between a game that we were winning to one we’re losing. In any case, we’re looking at good and evil here, and it hurts like a b**** to see evil gaining the upper hand.
I sure miss those cocktail party days. Maybe we’ll get back there, but that doesn’t appear to be on the horizon at this point.
Craig,
After carefully reading your explanation, I think I understand the cause of your anguish is your misguided motivation in becoming an environmentalist advocate.
You have increasingly identify yourself with the type of environmentalist who chose the environment as part of a wider, disruptive, combative political/ideological agenda.
Increasingly, your rhetoric contains extremist, emotive language. You chose terms which depict a struggle of “good” and “evil”, championing a ” Holy Crusade”.
Like all ‘Crusaders’, you confuse your own (and a small group of like minded supporters) as a majority. History is littered with small, fanatical groups (usually leftist) claiming to speak and represent “the people”.
This is a very dangerous delusion ! This delusion inevitably leads to disappointment, frustration and anger as the delusion must inevitably crumble, leaving a desolate feeling of impotence. In truth, you never spoke for “the people” You secretly despise “the people”, and “the people” certainly never embraced you or your political ideology.
What next ?
Once you realize your aspirations and concepts are not accepted, that leaves only 3 options.
1) Become even more bitter, angry and radical while refusing to accept the situation is of your own making. After all, you decided to alienate support by adopting a crusader approach.
2) Really just a variation on 1) , but still maintaining the illusion the war is still being waged. (light on the hill, the fools will one day realize you were right)
3) Learn. By learn, I mean change not the message, but the style of advocacy. Abandon the combative approach and animosity of a self-righteous crusader, and become more inclusive.
The problem with the third option, is you can no longer give yourself permission to indulge in vehement abuse, extremism, political cant, emotive fanaticism or labeling dissenters as “evil”.
Using our recent contretemps as an example, imagine how an independent and impartial observer would have evaluated your reply to my providing a list of ingredients (supplied by the synthetic meat manufacturer).
Would an independent observer be impressed and convinced by your tirade of gratuitous and mostly irrelevant abuse ? Do you really believe you served the cause of synthetic meat adoption well with such an emotive outburst ?
Was your reply effective, or simply provided your victim an even greater opportunity to damage your credibility (and that of your cause) with a calm and reasoned reply refuting all your in inaccuracies ?
That’s the problem with the ‘crusader’ approach, it’s very combative and alienates the undecided. Crusaders must always be proving themselves 100% right, while their opponents only have to create a reasonable doubt to do great damage.
President Trump always had the advantage over Clinton(although she still fails to realize why she lost). Trumps advantage is “what you see is what you get”. Any improvement of his behaviour comes as a pleasant surprise. He is, what he is, and people think they know his strengths and weaknesses. One thing he’s not, is a hypocrite.
Hillary Clinton chose the high moral ground, when she was revealed as possessing human character flaws, and errors caused by her own hubris, she chose to lash out blaming everyone for her own inadequacies, but herself.
She should have won by a landslide ! She had a hugely resourced campaign machine, vast funding, enormous goodwill as female candidate, popular former President as husband, the darling of the media, but as the campaign progressed a single word destroyed her. The word was “deplorables”. For enough voters the word symbolized the contemptuous arrogance of the Washington political elite.
To go back to the example of our own contretemps. Imagine if you will instead of your emotive and bizarrely belligerent reply, you had written something like :
Hi Marco,
“Yeah, I can understand how cattle farmers like yourself must view “meatless meat” ! But I don’t think you need fear ardent lovers of beef and steak will be flocking to buy “meatless” burgers.
However, I’d ask you to consider how many millions of people who don’t eat meat for cultural, religious or philosophical reasons. Maybe “meatless meat” can satisfy the need for more protein in the diet of these folk.
I think this product could also be very beneficial for millions living in countries where the soil and land simply can’t carry large scale cattle herds.
Thanks, for posting the list of ingredients. Some do appear a bit dodgy, but nothing’s perfect and the amounts involved seem to small to pose any serious heath effects.
“Meatless meat”, isn’t perfect, but with rapidly increasing populations don’t you think it might be an economical and attractive method to improve the diet of less affluent peoples, or those who have already decided to live on a meatless diet ? ”
Craig, contrast the reaction of an impartial observer to the above, with your actual reply. Which do you think is more effective ? (my question is genuine).
Which reply do you think serves the cause of synthetic meat better ?
More importantly, by being conciliatory, it leaves your opponent no opportunity to reinforce their message.
When discussing EV’s I don’t rant on about “evil” oil companies etc, it only alienates not inspires people to adopt the technology. I usually give them a ride, and point out the similarities to the advantages of a normal ICE vehicle, I let them discover the advantages for themselves.
I’m an early adopter of clean technology. Clean tech is an important and easy way to interest people in the environment. No one likes to be preached at, berated or bullied into adopting anything.
The message of clean technology can be a subtle method of introducing environmental issues in a positive, non-political, and non-divisive way. People don’t want to engage in a crusade, they don’t want to join a church, but might engage with an exciting new technology.
Once again, won’t you abandon your angry negative crusade, and lend a hand to a more positive, inclusive approach ?
I know there are people who feel like you do, i.e., that all viewpoints need to be respected, all discourse needs to be civil, etc. That’s hard to believe, since Hitler rose to power in the living memory of some, precisely because of the Germans’ failure to identify evil and extinguish it in its infancy.
Fortunately for this civilization, it features a hell of a lot of people who, like me, simply refuse to accept what’s going on.
Craig,
It’s not about being polite, but being effective.
Hitler didn’t rise to power because there was a lack of opposition, in fact it was the fear of his main opposition and the violet tactics they employed which enlarged Hitler’s support among the middle and lower classes.
When 600,000 German people died in a bitter winter from cold and malnutrition, while nearly one third Germany’s food and coal production was exported as war reparations, the people had had enough ! Their money was worthless, their children starving, unemployment rife and the government cravenly lying and impotently blaming everyone but themselves. In the streets the communists and excitable militia’s fought ferocious street battles, in desperation people turned to the best organized of the two extremes.
Hitler’s message was simple and tailored to popular sentiment. He stood in contrast to Stalin who was too extreme. Hitler’s role model seemed to be Mussolini, who was far more effective, but less extreme that the communists.
To win support, Hitler moderated his message for the final push.
Fortunately, we don’t live in times as traumatic as the death throes of the Wiemar Republic.
Effective opposition requires patience and sincerity, building trust and credibility. A sensationalist, one eyed approach conveys a message of uncertainty, desperation and insincerity. The message becomes all about the advocate and his beliefs, and not about what people care about.
That’s the problem with just preaching to the devout, while alienating the rest of the public.That’s not a social movement, that’s a cult.
As a business advisor you must be aware if something isn’t working, the answer isn’t to shout louder, but restructure the message in a more credible and less confronting manner.
Yours is a valuable voice, but your message is now lost by highly partisan, biased, intolerant, abusive, inaccurate, gratuitous tirades.
You don’t stand in contrast to what you oppose, you are in danger of becoming simply another rival petty demagogue, without authority or credibility.
It’s not a matter of “accept what’s going on”, but how to more effectively convey the message, otherwise you simply identify as someone who loves to complain loudly about everything, but lacks anything positive to offer.