Canyon Country Zephyr page 27

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

For more change without changing.

As expected, governments in developed countries are ignoring what Hansen and his state-of-the-art colleagues have to say. Instead, they are promoting cap and trade plans; their idea is that by gradually reducing the annual quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, humanity can keep future warming within safe levels without unnerving either the business world or the public.

Hansen is scornful of these cap n' trade schemes. He's too polite to simply call them bullshit, but that's what he means. Here are his reasons: (l) merely reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases are emitted will only delay our arrival at the tipping points, not prevent it. (2) That's because cap n' trade does not force governments to collectively choose which huge reserves of fossil fuels - almost certainly coal and fuels like tar sands - to leave in the ground. Forever. (3) It's also because cap n' trade schemes do not rapidly make renewable sources of energy less expensive than fossil fuels, thereby leaving the latter with the bulk of their historic subsidies. (For the above, see Hansen's new book Storms of my Grandchildren).

When it comes to global warming, Hansen's reasons delineate the difference between change without changing and change itself.

So: do the major environmental organizations you're interested in keep 350 ppm front and center on their websites?

350.org does, but I bet you'll find few others.

A second motivation is that green credentials are important to protecting one's brand in the global business world these days. So there is a kind of perverse common sense operating when an environmental scoundrel shovels money into a well known green group and then participates as a board member (think of the photo ops). It reminds me of my childhood in the small town South in the 1950s and 1960s, where the local businessmen were solid financial supporters of the respected churches around town. This was a necessary step in order to bolster their business reputations. If they slipped off to the whorehouse after being seen smiling in church, their reputations as respectable businessmen were nevertheless safe. There may be a comparable process happening with green credentials today.

It often happens that when we set out to solve a vitally important problem, we end up perpetuating it, in spite of our best intentions and our initial idealism

A solid indication of what's behind change without changing in big time environmen-talism can be found in Jim Stiles' outstanding story, "The Greening of Wilderness (Part 2)," in the August/September 2008 issue of the Zephyr. He describes mainstream green board members who are, let's see, up to their asses in coal or nuclear, or backing an airline that massively farts C02, or who have been convicted of securities fraud, and so on. Not exactly behavior that is congruent with green exemplars like Rachel Carson, John Muir, Adolph Murie, or Edward Abbey. Mainstream enviros have responded to Stiles' story by either ignoring it or dismissing him as a "disgruntled conservationist."

Which meant that he hit the bulls eye: more than a few of the people who donate bag-fuls of money to mainstream environmental organizations or who serve on their boards are ardent fans of both market failure and political failure. That's the point.

I can think of three motivations for their largesse to the major green groups.

A third motivation for some is a sincere desire to help the environment, while avoiding any risk to their economic interests.

To wrap up now. It often happens that when we set out to solve a vitally important problem, we end up perpetuating it, in spite of our best intentions and our initial idealism. It's particularly sad in the case of establishment environmentalism, because there is much to respect in the people who work within it. Many of them have given up business or professional opportunities which would have made them much more money, and they carry out pragmatic tasks that matter.

Functioning as they do within the mainstream environmental box, they probably do not like the idea that on a fundamental level their work is perpetuating the system they entered the field to change. I expect they are even less fond of the thought that they are conferring green business credentials upon polluters who come to them with mixed motivations at best.

And they especially don't appreciate Jim Stiles calling attention to the absurdity of their circumstances.

Absurdity and sincerity make strange companions within one's psyche.

Wealthy environmental donors and board members know that once recipient organizations have large operating budgets they will be exquisitely careful to not bite the big hands that feed them.

Scott Thompson lives in Beckley, WV and is a regular contributor to The Zephyr.

Speth gives us the first: "The eco-efficiency of the economy is improving...However, eco-efficiency is not improving fast enough to prevent impacts from rising...things are getting worse at a slower rate." (The Bridge at the Edge of the World, p. 51). The irony is that by slowing down the rate of environmental destruction, mainstream environmentalism is in fact supporting exponential economic expansion, and with it ever-increasing population growth and ever-increasing C02 emissions. It has unwittingly given an unworkable system even more time to degrade ecologies and continue its relentless trajectory toward global warming tipping points. Change without changing.

Wealthy environmental donors and board members know that once recipient organizations have large operating budgets they will be exquisitely careful to not bite the big hands that feed them. And that in time they will learn to carefully avoid advocating for change itself, because that's precisely what the bite is.

Join the Zephyr BACKBONE

AND RECEIVE A COMPLIMENTARY SIGNED COPY OF

BRAVE NEW WEST

By Jim Stiles

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>


	For more change without changing. As expected, governments in developed countries are ignoring what Hansen and his state-of-the-art colleagues have to say. Instead, they are promoting cap and trade plans; their idea is that by gradually reducing the annual quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, humanity can keep future warming within safe levels without unnerving either the business world or the public. Hansen is scornful of these cap n' trade schemes. He's too polite to simply call them bullshit, but that's what he means. Here are his reasons: (l) merely reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases are emitted will only delay our arrival at the tipping points, not prevent it. (2) That's because cap n' trade does not force governments to collectively choose which huge reserves of fossil fuels - almost certainly coal and fuels like tar sands - to leave in the ground. Forever. (3) It's also because cap n' trade schemes do not rapidly make renewable sources of energy less expensive than fossil fuels, thereby leaving the latter with the bulk of their historic subsidies. (For the above, see Hansen's new book Storms of my Grandchildren). When it comes to global warming, Hansen's reasons delineate the difference between change without changing and change itself. So: do the major environmental organizations you're interested in keep 350 ppm front and center on their websites? 350.org does, but I bet you'll find few others. A second motivation is that green credentials are important to protecting one's brand in the global business world these days. So there is a kind of perverse common sense operating when an environmental scoundrel shovels money into a well known green group and then participates as a board member (think of the photo ops). It reminds me of my childhood in the small town South in the 1950s and 1960s, where the local businessmen were solid financial supporters of the respected churches around town. This was a necessary step in order to bolster their business reputations. If they slipped off to the whorehouse after being seen smiling in church, their reputations as respectable businessmen were nevertheless safe. There may be a comparable process happening with green credentials today. It often happens that when we set out to solve a vitally important problem, we end up perpetuating it, in spite of our best intentions and our initial idealism A solid indication of what's behind change without changing in big time environmen-talism can be found in Jim Stiles' outstanding story, "The Greening of Wilderness (Part 2)," in the August/September 2008 issue of the Zephyr. He describes mainstream green board members who are, let's see, up to their asses in coal or nuclear, or backing an airline that massively farts C02, or who have been convicted of securities fraud, and so on. Not exactly behavior that is congruent with green exemplars like Rachel Carson, John Muir, Adolph Murie, or Edward Abbey. Mainstream enviros have responded to Stiles' story by either ignoring it or dismissing him as a "disgruntled conservationist." Which meant that he hit the bulls eye: more than a few of the people who donate bag-fuls of money to mainstream environmental organizations or who serve on their boards are ardent fans of both market failure and political failure. That's the point. I can think of three motivations for their largesse to the major green groups. A third motivation for some is a sincere desire to help the environment, while avoiding any risk to their economic interests. To wrap up now. It often happens that when we set out to solve a vitally important problem, we end up perpetuating it, in spite of our best intentions and our initial idealism. It's particularly sad in the case of establishment environmentalism, because there is much to respect in the people who work within it. Many of them have given up business or professional opportunities which would have made them much more money, and they carry out pragmatic tasks that matter. Functioning as they do within the mainstream environmental box, they probably do not like the idea that on a fundamental level their work is perpetuating the system they entered the field to change. I expect they are even less fond of the thought that they are conferring green business credentials upon polluters who come to them with mixed motivations at best. And they especially don't appreciate Jim Stiles calling attention to the absurdity of their circumstances. Absurdity and sincerity make strange companions within one's psyche. Wealthy environmental donors and board members know that once recipient organizations have large operating budgets they will be exquisitely careful to not bite the big hands that feed them. Scott Thompson lives in Beckley, WV and is a regular contributor to The Zephyr. Speth gives us the first: "The eco-efficiency of the economy is improving...However, eco-efficiency is not improving fast enough to prevent impacts from rising...things are getting worse at a slower rate." (The Bridge at the Edge of the World, p. 51). The irony is that by slowing down the rate of environmental destruction, mainstream environmentalism is in fact supporting exponential economic expansion, and with it ever-increasing population growth and ever-increasing C02 emissions. It has unwittingly given an unworkable system even more time to degrade ecologies and continue its relentless trajectory toward global warming tipping points. Change without changing. Wealthy environmental donors and board members know that once recipient organizations have large operating budgets they will be exquisitely careful to not bite the big hands that feed them. And that in time they will learn to carefully avoid advocating for change itself, because that's precisely what the bite is. Join the Zephyr BACKBONE AND RECEIVE A COMPLIMENTARY SIGNED COPY OF BRAVE NEW WEST By Jim Stiles


	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>