A Field Guide to the New Enviromentalists

Lord knows we have tried, Al Gore has tried, so may have tried to sell climate change as the big issue of the day. Unfortunately, poll after poll now shows that the price and availability of fuel has taken over. Peak Oil, Peak Food, Peak Everything are immediate concerns, while the climate crisis is sometime in the future. So how do we convey a message to people who care more about other things? Who are we talking to out there?

The new Alfred E Neumans

It is the boomer mantra- What, Me Worry? We might as well drill, drill, drill every inch of the continental shelf and the Arctic because the real effects will happen after we are gone, and in the meantime we won't need to look for our sweaters. We are what Joe Romm calls Climate Delayers, waiting for the "real science" to be settled, by which time we will have filled up our Escalades and died.

The New Narcissists

It's all about me. If gas is expensive I will complain about it and demand cheaper gas. If the roads are clogged I will demand transit- to clear the roads so that I can drive. If my monster house is too expensive to heat and nobody wants it, I want subsidies and my mortgage recalibrated. None of this was my fault, and the American way of life is non-negotiable.

The New Apocalypsians

The end of the world is actually a GOOD thing, and the Middle East is a big part of it. So let's just keep driving, pray that Saudi Arabia pumps more gas, and hope that this brings us to a dramatic rapturous conclusion.

The New Survivalists

Time to find our little piece of real estate, stake out the territory, grow our own vegetables and oil our gun. According to the New York Times, "People should "assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food," It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down." Just make sure that your land won't get flooded out or turn to desert. And that you have a high-speed internet connection.

The New Frugalists

They compete to see who can re-patch their underthings and wear them the longest. To use less of everything. Role models are the WW2 British stalwarts with their victory gardens; Elizabeth Renzetti writes in the Globe and Mail: "It's easy to see why wartime thrift is enjoying such a vogue: It's virtuous, it's green, and you're going to lose weight eating soup made from parsnips that you pulled from your victory garden. There's a great appeal to Keira Knightley's Atonement wardrobe of skinny evening gowns and noble nurse's uniforms."

The New Jacobins

Its pointless to change your lightbulb or stop using plastic bags, they are irrelevant and won't make any difference. "Spending too much energy on relatively marginal changes "is a diversion from greater acceptance of the need for more radical environmental change in our democracies." We have to man the barricades and start a revolution. Except revolution is messy and dangerous, so we will build a website instead.

The New Rationalists

We can go on (and did) about McMansions and SUVs and even compact fluorescents, but when electricity costs double and fuel hits four bucks a gallon, the market quickly does what four years of green whining couldn't. The New Rationalists are not moved by pictures of stranded polar bears or concerned about climate change, but know when it's time to ride a bike, get a smaller place closer to work, install a solar panel and insulate the attic. They are not going green to get rich as David Bach suggests, they are going green to survive.

The New Hippies

As we noted in our review of Alastair Gordon's Spaced Out, Past is prologue; Once again people are growing their own food, practicing voluntary simplicity, thinking about how to build with recycled materials, setting up modern versions of communes. Except instead of growing marijuana, they are making cheese.

Comments

[SixBillionPlus]

There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort. Fighting alone, they may win temporary skirmishes, but united they can win a decisive and lasting victory to provide food and other amenities of a progressive civilization for the benefit of all mankind.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-acceptance.html

There's what 'the father of the green revolution' said in his nobel appectance speech. Weird. Sounds like he really thought human overpopulation was a problem.

[ShawnMichel]

It's amazing how dead people are. Comment after comment after comment ... all dead, just like the people who wrote them. Zombies. Unbeings.

Want a field guide, Mr. Alter? But why? When die-off starts, and the bodies are stacked like cordwood, and the cities are uninhabitable, the water is poisoned, and the air is blackened, and the ground is acid--poisoned, blackened, and acidic being perfect descriptors of their spirits who did such things to their world--will you need your guide then? Will you be laughing then, Mr. Alter? Just curious.

[Cjwirth]

It is time for environmentalists and everyone to face the crisis of Peak Oil:

Global oil production is now declining, from 85 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. At the same time demand will increase 14%. This is like a 45% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.

We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

[ScooterLiddy]

This post is hilarious! I love it! Lloyd Alter is now a "favorite" poster of mine.

[markie1111]

you guys, you really need to stop for a moment and take a look at what is going on from a perspective that includes the whole. the fact of the matter is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not is: this planet you live on is currently losing a percent or so of it's biodiversity per year. it's no joke that we are causing the sixth known great exticntion of species. it's easy to sit here and say, "not in my backyard". but it's way harder to sit there acknowledge the consequences of our actions. think about this: there were fewer humans on the planet in 1900 than there is in india today..... it's easy to get caught up in the present but tad bit harder to think of the future.

[leduck]

where's your punchline?

[slg]

Take a look at what it costs to decommission a nuclear power plant after a few decades, it's in the billions, and add that to your cost of energy. You can't dismiss "waste disposal" either without counting the long term costs for generations ahead. It's not the panacea you're imagining it is.

Back in the seventies the vast majority of the population had no interest in conservation or efficiency and they weren't the Boomers, they were the self labeled "greatest" generation. They despised the kids who vigorously denounced war and endless acquisition. We're living with the result of 40 years of blind ignorance and insatiable greed.

[SixBillionPlus]

Hmm.....
So that's the ticket? everyone has gotten their very own GROUP? I guess that means I have to add one....
CLUB OF ROME GROUP
They wrote 'The Limits to Growth' back in the '70s and everyone told them they were crazy. OVERPOPULATION couldn't possibly be a problem. GAS RATIONING now is not necessary. Let's wait till gas is $20 a gallon before we start that.
Every 'environmentalist' that has more that 2 kids should lose their SUV. In fact you could solve this problem real easy.....
Every Family in America could do this:
if they have no kids they can have 2 cars
one kid one car
2 or more kids no car.

See there are solutions. It's just that no one has the guts to actually tell you what they are, except of course for me, because I don't count :-)

[mulegino]

The Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth", just like Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" were totally wrong in what they predicted. As is usually the case, human technology, innovation and the "green revolution" made up for the rise in population. That is the civilized human response to such things, not the animistic, superstitious Gaia religion.
Oh, and by the way, America is still a democratic republic with a constitution and founding principles which are still valid and which generally preclude a totalitarian government from dictating to families the number and spacing of children. How is this squared with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
I have nothing against those people who work for a cleaner environment. I detest and oppose the Malthusian eco-fascists. Guess what? Most of the sane regimes on the planet will continue to put people first, not polar bears. And that is just the way it should be. For every eco-fascist, there are hundreds of people in the Third World who yearn for the chance at a better life through access to electricity, basic sanitation, nutrition, and education, all of which can be achieved through economic development and progress, who no doubt are part of the "surplus population".

[leduck]

there are no limits to growth on a ball?
sweet
there is no population problem?
then why stabilize?
why use contraception or education?
why not just let the third world continue to grow like mad?

you know Mexico's population in 1910
when the revolution started was aout 12 or 15 million
about the same as it was during the conquest (10 million)

now it's about 100 million
think mexico needs more people do ya?

i don't
my father came from mexico (1950s) and so did my mother's family (1914)
trust me, mexico was a better place 50 years ago

if you like growth so much, wait until the U.S. looks like china or india and lets see if you're still so fond of growth

green revolution exists because of fossil fuel (natural gas fertilizer)
remove fossil fuels and the green revolution goes

if we truely put poeple first, would the third world be so poor (please don't call it the developing world -- it will never develop)

ever hear fo the words depletion?
or Peak Oil?
sustainability?

the problem with this world is ignorance, and stupidity
we waste too much time trying to educate the lame and
not enough time trying to manage the transition

[mulegino]

How about adding a group-"the solutionists"?
Government should start a crash program to develop and build new alternative power plants, with nuclear power having pride of place, with strict government oversite of safety and waste disposal. After all, when it comes to efficiency, no other source even comes close to nuclear power. That power would in essence provide relatively inexpensive fuel for a new national high speed rail system, which would gradually replace the highway system as the chief route for freight and eventually, passenger traffic.
Solar and wind are pretty much limited in potential and are highly land inefficient. Hydroelectric and tidal/wave technologies are pretty efficient but limited to certain geographical locations, and could be used to complement the new nuclear power grid.
A gradual weaning off of fossil fuels should be begun now,while they are still relatively abundant, in a manner that does not make for economic disaster and its concomitant social upheavals.
Instead of passively expecting the worst, governments should begin to encourage research into how to deal with the changes brought about by climate change with respect to agriculture, fisheries, etc. and how to take advantage of them, in a manner conducive to the general welfare.
This may sound like a pipe dream, but what is the alternative? Do we kill 99.9% of the population and have the rest go back to becoming hunter/gatherers?

[oldpotsmuggler]

Ooh, nuclear power! I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

Except that it has already been tried and failed. Failed at least in the sense that the only way it is even marginally viable is to provide massive governmental operating subsidies (and to virtually ignore the disposal problem, of course). Funny that you forgot to mention that tiny detail. That and the fact that if we spent at least fifty billion dollars (before cost overruns), and waited five to ten years we would finally start getting some electricity.

As for solar energy, which you so blithely dismiss, we could spend a few thousand dollars and have some electricity almost immediately, and scale things up in a like manner from there. The fact is that you don't know exactly what we would have at the end of a fifty billion dollar crash program except that we would almost certainly be living in a new world, one, unlike your "nuclear vision", that even Third World countires could afford to partake of.

And we wouldn't be looking around for some place to stash our red hot garbage for the next 250,000 years or so.