Blind Spots in the Climate Movement
www.resilience.org
In the media and in activist circles, Climate Change is generally presented as a problem with one cause—carbon emissions—and one solution: a “green energy transition.” But this narrative is far too narrow, and unless we expand our collective perspective and responses, the already grievous consequences will worsen.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/31120146

A very long essay, but I think worth a read - for solarpunks especially - even if you end up disagreeing with the anti-growth and anti-renewables conclusion.

Tldr: the first blind spot is that land disturbance (such as, for example, turning forests into agricultural land) is the “other leg” of climate change: it disrupts the water cycle, making some areas drier and some areas wetter, leading to, eg, crop failures and natural disasters.

Why don’t we hear more about land disturbance as the other leg of climate change? Because capitalism demands growth. Capitalism can “solve” emissions with “green growth” - replacing old fossil fuel power plants with shiny new solar panels, and making a bunch of companies and developers richer in the process. But capitalism can’t make more land. It can’t solve the land disturbance problem by growing - it can only solve it by not growing. And that capitalism cannot do.

And the second blind spot is the tremendous ecological, environmental, and human harm done by the capitalist growth of “renewable” energy - from the slave children digging rare earths in the Congo to the pristine deserts paved over for giant solar projects. But because we are so single-mindedly focused on cutting emissions, we think “at least renewable energy doesn’t produce carbon dioxide, so that’s better, right?” And we put a nice green coat of paint on the world-destroying von Neumann machines of capitalism.

So what’s the solution?

That being said, personally I propose: Let’s start with the goal of no new energy infrastructure whatsoever from any source, make do with what we have now, and shut down infrastructure from there as we eliminate frivolous use. This is an attainable goal. What are examples of frivolous use? Here’s a few candidates: AI, next day shipping, cheap plastic shit from China, cut flowers imported from South America on airplanes, perishable food shipped halfway around the world, commercial air travel, weed-free mown lawns, streaming movies and music, fast fashion, video game consoles, big screen TVs, f’ing single-use coffee pods, and the list goes on and on and on.

  • blarghly@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    What are examples of frivolous use? Here’s a few candidates:

    I mean, the problem with your proposal is (1) who is making the choice as to what is and what is not frivolous? and (2) you end up playing whack-a-mole.

    For (1), if your plan is to depend on individual responsibility… well, we’ve been doing that for a while. It isn’t working - either to stop climate change or to avert any of the other negative things listed in this article. And if your plan is for some central planner to ban keurig cups… well, expect to be removed from power quite quickly. Yes, children mining cobalt in the Congo is very sad. But Billy, the 42 year old father of 2 who works as a miserable middle manager at a small construction firm in Lincoln, Nebraska is absolutely more politically motivated by a Keurig cup ban than by the suffering of African children, since it actually impacts his day to day life. Any reality based scheme must either be too boring for the average person to notice, or must make the average person’s life better.

    For (2) - okay, so you ban K-cups. Now they start selling single use disposable gourmet flavor shots for your coffee, since everyone is still using the keurig machines they bought but it turns out that it is literally impossible for them to make a cup of coffee that doesnt taste like shit. After 3 years of hammering out the legislation and pushing it through the legislature, you ban those, too. But by that time, they’ve already created a disposible swizzle stick that is imbued with flavor chemicals. You are now on an endless hamster wheel, trying to crack down on products being developed faster than you can legislate against them - and all the while, again, your constituents hate you because you are taking away their fun baubles.

    The solution to these problems is and always has been pigouvian taxes. If you don’t want wildlands to be destroyed, then you levy a tax on destroying wildlands. If you want less fertilizer runoff, then you levy a tax on fertilizers that flow into wetlands. If you want less garbage in landfills, you levy a tax on the disposible parts of products manufactured in or imported into your country. This makes products which cause the bad thing to be more expensive, which means people want them less, which means they are produced less. Of course, this will cause prices to rise, so you add a sweetener - the money raised via these taxes is directly redistrubuted to the people equally. Sure, even the staunchest environmentalist wrinkles their nose when they have to pay a high price at the gas pump - but who doesn’t like free money? Everyone can still buy keurig cups if they really want to - but they’ll see that the cost is going up, and will just choose to make a pot of Folgers instead. If the average person changes nothing about their lives, then basically nothing will change for them. But especially environmentally conscious people will get a nice payday, and the especially destructive people get an economic slap on the wrist for ruining the planet for everyone else.

    • Telemachus93@slrpnk.net
      1·
      2 months ago

      The problem with this way of thinking is pretty much the same as with a central planner. You just assume that we notice every damage we’re doing fast enough and that we can push through the necessary legislation fast enough and without loopholes… It’s just the same game of whack-a-mole that you mentioned.

      I agree that in our current capitalist and parliamentary-democratic system that might be the best solution we have… But it’s still a shitty solution overall.

  • hanrahan@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    2 months ago

    Clean energy might help deal with emissions, but it does nothing to reverse deforestation, overfishing, soil depletion and mass extinction. A growth-obsessed economy powered by clean energy will still tip us into ecological disaster.” - Jason Hickel