Collide-a-scape

On Friday, when most environmentally-inclined people were despairing about the the torturous climate talks in South Africa (since ended, good roundup and assessment here), a short op-ed appeared in the NYT, arguing that despair over the fate of the planet was getting a bit stale. The three authors of the piece–a journalist and two scientists–don’t downplay the massive footprint of humanity, and the stress it has put on the planet’s ecology. That said, as the authors note,

humans have been changing ecosystems for millenniums. We have learned that ecosystems are not — and have never been — static entities. The notion of a virgin, pristine wilderness was understandable in the days of Captain Cook — but since the emergence of modern ecology and archaeology, it has been systematically dismantled by empirical evidence.

Yes, it’s time we made peace with this fact. That doesn’t mean throwing in the towel, the authors write:

We can accept the reality of humanity’s reshaping of the environment without giving up in despair. We can, and we should, consider actively moving species at risk of extinction from climate change. We can design ecosystems to maintain wildlife, filter water and sequester carbon. We can restore once magnificent ecosystems like Yellowstone and the Gulf of Mexico to new glories — but glories that still contain a heavy hand of man. We can fight sprawl and mindless development even as we cherish the exuberant nature that can increasingly be found in our own cities, from native gardens to green roofs. And we can do this even as we continue to fight for international agreements on limiting the greenhouses gases that are warming the planet.

The authors go on to suggest that it’s time for “a new, more positive and forward-looking environmentalism” to be built:

This is the Earth we have created, and we have a duty, as a species, to protect it and manage it with love and intelligence. It is not ruined. It is beautiful still, and can be even more beautiful, if we work together and care for it.

But can environmentalism rise to this challenge? Can it abandon doom and gloom over what’s done and move on to a new narrative for the new epoch?

It’s really a shame that the U.S. environmental community doesn’t have anyone with the chops or reputation of George Monbiot, the popular British columnist. Monbiot, who has a high profile perch at the Guardian, combines essential talents for a communicator: He is lucid, engaging, and smart. He is also not afraid to call out his own constituency.

For example, Monbiot this year has shredded European greens for their anti-science position on nuclear power, and laid out the implications of this for climate change. (I wrote about his methodical takedowns here.) He’s at it again in his latest column, with a damning indictment that begins:

It’s a devastating admission to have to make, especially during the climate talks in Durban. But there would be no point in writing this column if I were not prepared to confront harsh truths. This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet’s living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved.

As a result of shutting down its nuclear programme in response to green demands, Germany will produce an extra 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020. That’s almost as much as all the European savings resulting from the energy efficiency directive. Other countries are now heading the same way. These decisions are the result of an almost medievel misrepresentation of science and technology. For while the greens are right about most things, our views on nuclear power have been shaped by weapons-grade woo.

The U.S. green movement isn’t infected with the same strain of anti-nuclear hysteria (at least not anymore) as its European cousins. But it’s still surprising to see baseless nuclear fear-mongering from self-professed champions of science who counsel urgent action on climate change. When it comes to peddling disinformation on risks and harms associated with nuclear power, the anti-nuclear crowd, as Monbiot says in his column, is second to none:

Anti-nuclear campaigners have generated as much mumbo jumbo as creationists, anti-vaccine scaremongers, homeopaths and climate change deniers. In all cases, the scientific process has been thrown into reverse: people have begun with their conclusions, then frantically sought evidence to support them.

Remember, this is coming from a card-carrying environmentalist, who worries as deeply as anyone about the health of the planet and the threats posed to it by climate change.

Were there only more like him, speaking truth to green woo.

Other than Stewart Brand, the U.S. doesn’t have any well-known environmentalist writers who dare to challenge conventional green wisdom. I suppose The Death of Environmentalism authors could qualify, but I consider them more wonky polemicists than writers. Andy Revkin might soon qualify, as he transitions from mainstream science reporter to environmental writer/teacher.

In the UK, however, there is George Monbiot and Mark Lynas, each who have earned high-profile reputations as advocacy journalists. In recent years, both have made mea culpas on core green issues. With Monbiot, it’s been nuclear power, which I’ve written about here and here.

Lynas has undergone a similar transformation–perhaps even more so: He now embraces nuclear power and GMO’s, positions he explains in his new book, The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans.

I recently interviewed Lynas for Yale Environment 360, which you can read here. He talks about the consequences of his turnabout on nuclear power (“I’ve lost friends”), the irrationality of some anti-nuclear activists (“these people are nuts”), the concerns about GMO’s (“clearly overblown”), and a notorious pie-throwing incident ten years ago.

Check out the full interview here.

In recent years, some influential writers have been making noises about the staleness of the green movement. At the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, I take stock of an emergent narrative that challenges foundational environmentalist precepts.

Will it take hold? Let me know what you think over there.

They capture our imagination. They help frame public discourse on important issues.

Just one problem: some of our most famous eco-metaphors have not held up to the test of time.

At the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, I suggest that some of the more popular ones stick around past their expiration date. Have a read and let me know over there if you agree or disagree–and if you think any other eco-metaphors should be retired.

Henry David Thoreau famously wrote:

In wildness is the preservation of the world.

Since the late 1800s, the notion of wilderness as nature incarnate has been an animating force in American culture. A host of seminal, hugely influential environmental writers and activists, from John Muir and Aldo Leopold to David Brower and Edward Abbey, have idealized and championed wilderness.

In the 20th century, the wilderness ethos gave rise to the Sierra Club and the first wave of nature-centric environmentalism, energized the nascent conservation movement and influenced the emergent science of ecology.

The ideal of nature as undisturbed by humans and civilization was codified in the 1964 Wilderness Act, which defined the characteristics of wilderness as

an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain; an area of underdeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation and which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.

Before going any further, let me just say that I’m as big a fan of wilderness protection as anyone. So is environmental historian William Cronon, who sits on The Wilderness Society’s Governing Council, but who also published this provocative 1995 essay. Here’s his thunderclap of an opener:

The time has come to rethink wilderness.

This will seem a heretical claim to many environmentalists, since the idea of wilderness has for decades been a fundamental tenet—indeed, a passion—of the environmental movement, especially in the United States.

And indeed, such a claim was treated as heresy of the highest order. Cronon argued that wilderness, while intrinsically valuable, was nonetheless a cultural construction that encouraged a romanticized view of nature.

The blowback at the time was fierce (which Cronon responded to here), foreshadowing a similar outcry that followed ten years later, after this larger critique of environmentalism appeared. To me, the respective environmentalist tantrums of 1995 and 2005 exhibited a green movement stuck in a state of arrested development. (For more on why this is still the case, look for a follow-up post later today that will serve as a bookend to this one.) Alas, in the uproar over Cronon’s demythologizing of wilderness, this other important point he made in his essay got lost:

…the convergence of wilderness values with concerns about biological diversity and endangered species has helped produce a deep fascination for remote ecosystems, where it is easier to imagine that nature might somehow be “left alone” to flourish by its own pristine devices.

What’s the problem with this, you ask? Later on in his piece, Cronon writes:

Without our quite realizing it, wilderness tends to privilege some parts of nature at the expense of others.

Fortunately ecologists have matured, as I noted last year in a discussion of this article on urban ecology. More evidence of an important paradigm shift underway comes in this NYT piece on Emma Marris and her newly published book: The Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World.

In the NYT interview, Marris says:

We’re at a moment in ecological and conservation thinking where this notion of the “wild pristine” gets pulled apart, and we see that wild and pristine are almost opposite. You can never have 100 percent pristine, you can only approach the pristine. It’s a little bit of any empty concept in some ways because it presupposes that there was some sort of magical moment when everything was right.

And because everything has been a moving target forever, there was no real magical moment. So “pristine” is a word that we use when we mean things looking like they did at the beginning of our cultural memory, which tends to be very short.

I’m thrilled that we’ve finally arrived at this moment in time, where our ideas of nature and ecological restoration have become more sophisticated. I just wish there was more public discussion accompanying this shift in cultural and ecological consciousness.

Because as ecologist Daniel Botkin writes in the postscript to his pioneering book, Discordant Harmonies:

Nature in the twenty-first century will be a nature that we make; the question is the degree to which this molding will be intentional or unintentional, desirable or undesirable.

When I lived in the affluent, liberal, eco-friendly universe of Boulder, Colorado in 2007-2008, I noticed that bikes and SUV’s were ubiquitous.

Similarly, here’s an observation from a reader who resides in another well-to-do community:

I live in a very ‘eco friendly’ community just outside of Seattle. Styrofoam cups have been banned, various street signs are solar powered etc etc etc.

The community soccer field is about 1/2 a mile down the road. I’ve never seen even a single econobox parked in that parking lot. It’s GMC Yukon city at soccer practice time. There are plenty of ‘no war for oil’ bumper stickers on the back of those GMC Yukon’s.

That’s political reality. The very demographic that should be the most supportive of action on climate change (upper middle class, educated, liberal) is completely blind to the fact that their lifestyle’s are the problem.

Until someone figures out how to make a vehicle as safe, convenient and comfortable as a GMC Yukon that doesn’t guzzle fossil fuels, action on climate change is going to be limited to ‘feel good’ measures.

This generation really needs someone like Phil Ochs, my all-time favorite folk singer.

If you want to know why the old school, inflexible wing of environmentalism is rotting from within, look no further than this gem of a comment at Dot Earth:

Keith Kloor, Mark Lynas, Steve Nordhaus, and Roger Pielke Jr. share several characteristics: rudimentary knowledge of climate change (absent any scientific discipline), a way with words, and, worst of all, rank careerism. Each has tried to carve out a niche by covering the middle ground, thinking that this will gain them credibility. The problem is that each time they try to do so they betray their glaring weakness, which is knowledge of the actual science.

They deserve zero respect, and should be ignored. The world is careening toward a crisis on an unimaginable scale. Their petty and ill thought out solutions gain nothing except ceding ground to the oil, coal, and gas companies. These corporate horror shows will seize that ground and launch giant tanks from it.

The funny thing about this comment is that it doesn’t even speak to the issue of GMO’s, which is the topic of Andy Revkin’s post. It’s just an absurdist rant. I mean, as Revkin responds:

How in the world can you possibly place Mark Lynas in the climate “middle ground”? Because he’s okay with nuclear power, or…? Have you read anything by him?

Heck, has the commenter read anything by me, other than what appears in this blog?

Anyway, as nutso as this comment is, it’s not the most disturbing one on this particular Dot Earth thread. I’m still trying to comprehend this response from NYT food columnist Mark Bittman, who wrote:

The one thing you might have left out is “does this GM stuff do anyone any good?”

I agree there’s no reason to attack the stuff. I agree the fears are likely unfounded. I think the GM boom is likely unfounded also – what has it done so far, besides produce herbicide resistant seeds that have spawned herbicide resistant weeds?

Does this GM stuff do anyone any good? What has it done so far…?

This has to be a statement borne of willful ignorance. But for anyone who wonders the same, here’s some good answers.

Greenpeace continues its descent into anti-science oblivion.

Last Thursday, the environmental group carried out a destructive anti-GMO stunt that has outraged scientists in Australia. Over at Sustainablog, agricultural scientist Steve Savage describes what happened:

On July, 14, three Greenpeace activists dressed in hazmat suits scaled a fence, and used weed whips to destroy a GMO wheat experiment in Canberra, Australia.  The experiment was being conducted by CSIRO (the USDA equivalent for Australia).  The activists posted video of the attack on You Tube.  They also posted “explanations” by activists who could be easily identified.  Although this is technically a criminal activity, it was more likely about publicity.  Greenpeace has been at the forefront of the anti-GMO movement since the late 1990s, and it has claimed victory for stopping the development of GMO wheat varieties.   Those heady days are fading for Greenpeace. 15 years and billions of acres into the GMO revolution, Greenpeace may just be attempting to defend conquered ground.

So why is this stunt damaging, nonetheless? Christopher Preston, an agricultural scientist at the University of Adelaide, explains:

These trials are not just about the development of genetically modified crops that may at some future time be developed commercially, but frequently provide spin-off information that is of use in our understanding of gene action in the environment. This important information is also lost.

This particular act of eco-vandalism by Greenpeace seems to have struck a nerve in Australia’s scientific community and among some science journalists. Here’s a biting response from Wilson da Silva, the editor of Cosmos:

GREENPEACE WAS ONCE a friend of science, helping bring attention to important but ignored environmental research. These days, it’s a ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda, whatever the scientific evidence.

It was once the most active, independent and inspiring civilian group for the environment. Whether riding zodiacs alongside boats carrying barrels of toxic waste to be dumped in the open sea, or campaigning against CFCs and HFCs that were depleting the ozone layer, Greenpeace did admirable work.

But in the last decade or so, Greenpeace abandoned the rigour of science. When the science has been inconvenient, Greenpeace chooses dogma. Which is why it has a zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, no matter how imperative the need to remove coal and gas from electricity production. Or why it is adamant organic farming is the only way forward for agriculture, when organic could not feed the world’s population today.

In his must-read post, Steve Savage at Sustainablog explores the bigger picture:

…this argument about GMO wheat is a mere sub-set of something bigger than even agriculture.  It is really about the choice between risk management based on sound science or risk avoidance based on the “Precautionary Principle.”  The same is true of the Climate Change and Vaccine/Autism debates, as well as many more.

As for a certain leading group of the environmental movement, Silva in Cosmos ends his piece with withering contempt:

Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity.

Because Ed Abbey and David Foster Wallace are no longer around, I’m nominating Charles Bowden to attend this upcoming conference sponsored by the European Science Foundation:

Eco-Chic: Connecting Ethical, Sustainable and Elite Consumption

As anthropologist Adam Fish observes:

Eco-chic, like many other socio-cultural manifestations of neoliberalism is rife with contradiction. The fundamental contradiction being that it is a social justice movement within consumer capitalism. The producers of eco-chic goods and experiences are structured by capitalism’s profit motive. Likewise consumers of eco-chic goods and experiences are motivated by ideals that try to transcend or correct the ecological or deleterious human impacts of capitalism. Thus both producer and consumer of eco-chic are caught in a contradiction between their social justice drives and their suspension in the logic of neoliberalism.

It’s a contradiction made all the more perverse when the eco-chic lifestyle is adopted by the rich and famous who then become green celebrities. But even as a guiding philosophy for commoners, it just doesn’t square. The problem with the eco-chic lifestyle, Fish asserts, is that it is a massive contradiction

between doing good and doing well, being ecologically sensitive while being hedonistic, being trendy while being independent, and being a creative producer while also being a conscious consumer. These contradictions don’t fly.

Most media coverage has either chronicled what Wired in 2006 called the “Rise of the Neo-Greens” or celebrated the eco-chic lifestyle. But I’m not aware of any critiques of the movement put forward in places like Harper’s or Mother Jones magazine, whose readers might be considered a prime eco-chic demographic.

It’s time someone with literary and intellectual chops explored the eco-chic contradictions that Fish lays out, and the implications for environmentalism as a sustainable, politically relevant movement. Harpers’s and Mother Jones each has a stable of talented writers up to the task.