Comments on: Radical environmentalism

By: Biofuels and oil « Carbonara: Carbon Emissions Trade in Europe

Biofuels and oil « Carbonara: Carbon Emissions Trade in Europe — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:08:56 +0000

[...] Once again a biological argument becomes a moral one. Because they require a change in human nature, moral arguments are not going to win against climate change; nor should they, indeed, as we have argued before. [...]

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:37:13 +0000

It seems that while White eagerly and cynically, denounces “…the current, scientific, rationalist and capitalist relationship,” he might actually have some insight into what COULD happen if these current methods do not work and are replaced by fear. With the more recent environmental evaluations, such as that of NASA’s Hansen, which confirm the seemingly euphemistic results of the Kyoto, our current efforts may truly be meek.
Although in his article, he does point out our collective disassociation with the enemy (ourselves), I’m not sure a unified and global recognition could make much of a difference. Maybe it’s just the cynical realist inside, but Chomsky might be correct to infer that no matter how much we try to do good, we will always do harm. His paradox of grace seems to resonate even greater when I see the manipulation of environmentalism towards an ultimate path of material wealth.

The definition of “environmentalism” itself is at stake. I am a complete advocate of adapting the current structure to the pure sense of environmentalism, but we must keep the vision clear. The question is whether we can successfully use the current “scientific, rationalist, and capitalist” methods and accept a truly sustainable cohabitation of this wonderful earth. I agree with White; we are weak and fearful. Unless these scientific, rationalist and capitalistic methods work, then it will be fear that will drive us to take forceful and survival-based actions, ultimately dissolving our choice for any alternate methods.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:12:05 +0000

Thanks, Calvin, for your comment. My post was mainly objecting to the revolutionary-political and moral-reform agendas which many environmentalists (including Curtis White, from his article) have. In that view of the world, it seems to me, environmentalism is not considered an end, but is a means to an end: their end is really the overthrow of capitalism and/or the complete remaking of human nature or human spirituality.

The main problem I have with such a viewpoint (apart from the practical infeasibility of these ends) is that attention gets focused on the wrong things: instead of thinking about what we can do here, locally, ourselves, now, to make things better, attention is devoted to some universal utopic millenarian future. White’s rejection of emissions trading markets is a good example of the consequences of this mis-attention. Focusing on long-term redirection of a flooded river when the person right next to you is drowning is something I personally find morally repugnant.

By: Calvin Jones

Calvin Jones — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:26:33 +0000

I agree with some of what you say but not all. It is important to realise the the right to ‘experiance material wealth and well-being just like the rest of us’ is just that, a right, not a physical law of nature. Laws of nature come first and capitalism aimed at infinte economic growth (which currently equates to material throughput of resources) cannot continue for ever. This is the ‘big idea’ of sustainability…we have to overcome this problem and although capitlism may be able to acive this, it is clear that many of the current institutions are not well equiped for the challenge. While, climate change is an issue of immediacy, there are many other areas where pollution i building up, resources being depleted and natural capital is dwindelling…a major reformest agenda is required.

‘Capitalism As If The World Matters’ is the best look at this topic that i have read, highly recomended.