![]() |
The "growth" curve. |
Just seven years after that song was released, Rachel
Carson published Silent Spring. With the publication of that book the
modern environmental movement was spawned. Within two decades the environmental
movement was global and large. A number of international environmental
organisations arose, notably Greenpeace and Friends Of the Earth
(FOE). Books were being published almost monthly it seemed, along with
environmental journals and magazines.
The movement began with a desire to protect and
preserve animals, birds, fish, and other non-human species. The desire to
protect and preserve extended not just to living creatures but also to natural
ecosystems: forests, rivers, lakes, mountain tops, and “wilderness” areas.
It wasn’t long before the environmental movement
became a vocal critic of the systems that were exploiting and damaging the
environment. Books such as Limits to Growth, The Population Bomb,
Small Is Beautiful, and a plethora of others clearly articulated the
systemic mechanisms that were causing environmental destruction. In 1982
William Catton stated the basic problem up front, right on the cover of his
classic, Overshoot.1 “Overshoot” he wrote, is “growth
beyond an areas carrying capacity.” Catton was not one to mince his words.
On the first page of his opening chapter, he claimed that “Today mankind is
locked into stealing ravenously from the future.” Furthermore, the subtitle
of his book was: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (my
emphasis.) This was no tinkering with systems.
Indeed, the environmental movement began as a movement
critical of our myths of: progress, growth, the superiority of humans
(anthropocentrism,) and our faith in technology. The environmental movement
introduced the concept of zero growth: zero population growth, zero energy
growth, and zero economic growth. This was developing into a radical movement.
The environmental
movement of the 1960s through to the 1980s concerned itself with a number of
issues: deforestation, the damming of rivers, the plight of ocean creatures (e.g.
Save the Whales,) air and water pollution, nuclear proliferation and the
storage of nuclear waste. It was this last issue that brought the environmental
and peace movements together. In the Pacific, the issue of Indigenous rights was
also to the forefront and the three movements merged into the Nuclear Free
and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement.
Then, towards the end of
the 20th century a new concern emerged. Initially known as global
warming this challenge began to be noticed by those with environmental
concerns. However, things were to change.
Leap forward forty years. Where is this environmental
movement today? Were Pete Seeger to write another verse to his classic song, he
might ask, Where have all the environmentalists gone?
Oh, individual environmentalists are still with us.
But an environmental movement is very difficult to find. It is hidden away
behind the movement that claims to be its descendent – the climate change
movement.
Caveat lector (Reader beware)
These next paragraphs may upset some readers, they may
even get me labelled as a traitor. Indeed, it is with some sadness that I write
this.2 However, we can no longer keep thinking that the climate
change movement of today is an environmental movement – it is not. The
solutions it offers and promotes are those of an anthropocentric movement. In
other words, it is a movement that seeks to find ways to perpetuate human life,
without changing our lifestyles and the systems that have contributed to
the problems that beset us. Permit me, at least briefly, to outline some of the
reasons for writing this, seemingly treasonous statement.
Perhaps the shift was a tactical one. To get the
message out there, the nascent climate change movement had to couch its message
in a way that suggested to citizens that climate change would harm human existence
and undo the comforts of human (especially westernised) life. If so, it came to
be a tactical error.
Like any movement, this new movement looked around and
analysed what was going on. The planet was warming, the climate was changing.
What was causing this, the movement rightly asked. The answer was obvious:
Rising CO2 in the atmosphere. The next question became: Why is this
rising? The answer: Humans are burning fossil fuels that emit CO2 into
the atmosphere, thus causing the planet to warm, and that in turn leads to
climate change. All very logical, and all backed with scientific evidence. So
far, so good.
The enquiry then recognised that fossil fuels are
burnt for energy production (including the production of electricity.) So, what
to do about this? The solution seemed to be obvious. We had to reduce CO2 emissions,
and that meant we had to shift from fossil fuels to alternative sources of
energy.
And, therein was the fateful error. The climate change
movement assumed, as a given, that we must find alternatives to our energy
sources. There were little, if any, other solutions proposed. There was no talk
of reducing our dependence upon energy. There was no talk of zero growth in our
energy supply. We simply had to swap one form of energy for another.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. But, like many
“good ideas of the time” this one, too, had adverse outcomes.
So it was that the climate change movement offered
“renewable, alternative, and green” energy sources as the solution to climate
change and the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We can now look back over the past 10, 20, 30, even 40
years and find that “renewable” energy sources have not made any dent in either
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor in how much energy we use.
There has been no replacement of fossil fuels by renewables. Renewable
energy sources have simply been added on top of energy derived from fossil
fuels. Not surprising really, especially as renewables have become cheaper.
Stanley Jevons in the 19th century noticed our human propensity to use more of
something once it became more efficient to use it. Nowadays, this trait of
humans is named after him – the Jevons Paradox. It could almost be argued
(although I am reluctant to do so) that the increased use of renewables has
increased our use of fossil fuels.
Before continuing further, it is worth pointing out a
couple of unfortunate misuses of words. First, let’s be clear: “Renewables” are
not renewable. They are simply re-buildable. The materials used to construct
solar panels, wind turbines, dams, and even nuclear power stations require
materials dug from the earth. Second, energy and electricity are not synonymous
terms. Electricity is a form of energy. And, when it comes to “renewable
energy” it is electricity that is being generated – and electricity is only
about 20% of total energy in almost every country on the planet. (Hence, to
claim that Germany, for example, has managed 100% renewable energy production
at any one time is a falsification of the true picture. 100% electricity
production is not 100% energy production – far from it.)
This blog has only begun to touch on the question of Where
have all the environmentalists gone? Next week’s blog will explore more in
depth the reasons for claiming that the climate change movement is no longer an
environmental movement. Indeed, I have (reluctantly) come to the conclusion
that the climate change movement is exacerbating environmental problems, and is
an impediment to the drastic structural and systemic changes that we need to
make.
The climate change movement has not failed because of
its opposition to fossil fuels (that is to be applauded.) It has failed because
it is offering the wrong solutions, including solutions that are doing
environmental harm.
Before I finish, and before I get to next week’s blog,
I wish to add this rider. This blog should in no way be read as endorsing the
continued burning and reliance upon fossil fuels. Our use of fossil fuels since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have undoubtedly been one of the
most tragic uses of the earth’s resources that humans have ever invented.
Notes:
1. William R. Catton, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis
of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago,
1882
2. My involvement with the environmental movement began
in the early 1970s. It was a movement I was passionate about. So, it is sad to
see a movement that seemed able to rigorously critique the growth-fetishism and
the socio-economic systems of society become a movement that is more determined
to save humans in the lifestyles we have become accustomed to than it is to
preserve the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.