[MP-Ryan]

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/

Our Crushing Dilemmas
May 5, 2011

How do environmentalists fight without losing what we’re fighting for?

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 5th May 2011

In my column earlier this week, I discussed the crisis the environment movement is now confronting. I’m using this essay to expand on the problems I mentioned there, and in particular to consider the most interesting of the responses to the crisis proposed so far, by Paul Kingsnorth. Let me begin by spelling out, at greater length, the dilemmas we face.

Guardian readers may have read the short version already.

[JCDNWarrior]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

[Qent]

NUCLEAR POWER NAO!

Seriously.

[MP-Ryan]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record when asking this question on the first page of every thread, but did you actually read the article in its entirety before posting?

That out of the way, you have some fundamental misconceptions about a number of issues, chief among them apparently being energy production.  Read the article, and his related column linked to at the start.

[General Battuta]

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

Basically what MP-Ryan said, this is a serious misconception about what carbon emissions mean. And you've got your wish for low radiological emissions.

[Nohiki]

CO2 emmisions are very, very overrated. The entire human productin is jsut about 2% from the total production on earth, which is circa 260 Terragrams. So not much, really. Besides, CO2 has just about 20% efficiency in absorbing heat as simple water vapor in the air. I would be much more concerned with chopping down the rainforests.

I have seen the global statistics. Nuclear plants have about HALF of the number of deaths for a TWh of energy produced than water plant. That is Chernobyl included. The only "safer" power plant is wind, and those are so expensive in my country to ever massively spread.

About solar pannels, our country have just stopped the subsidities, because the pannels already destabilized our power grid enough to threaten with a major blackout. Furthemore, the subsidity conditions were poorly designed. While the germans only supported pannels on roofs of buildings, our stupid corrupted government finances also those on the FIELDS. Do you get the irony? How much DUST there is? Each fo those powerplants have to employ a person to just go round and rond to wash them, and what happens in 15 years? TONS of unrecyclable dangerous materials.

Now the Fukushima sent europe into such nuclear phobia that i think those people can't think for themselves, just follow the politicians like a stupid cattle. What are they afraid of? Waste with long half time is gonna be burned by the IV generation reactors pretty soon and the modern powerplants have multiple cooling mechanisms. About fukushima, well, not the brightest idea to build a powerplant on the shore in what's possibly the most seismically active area of the world, but hey, when did the tsunami struck Europe for the last time? Oh yeah, that's right, before the dawn of human race Even that is smarter than the stupid idea of France to build underwater plants. I can't imagine easier target for terrorists than that, unless they are willing to spend several dozens submarines and ships to keep it under naval quarantine. Just build the plants far enough (Oh yeah, unless your neighbor is Austria, in which case prepare for massive hysteria on the other side and blockade of your borders by civilians)

My apology to Frenchmen and Austrians who are sane in this matter, but that's the bitter truth. Howgh


EDIT: Ultimately, i think the nature can put up with everything. There are much more persistant organisms than humans, so we will go exticnt before all life is destroyed, and new one will evolve

[headdie]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

Low carbon emissions in terms of our industrial processes and mechanical transport.  It comes down to the carbon cycle, the locking away and releasing of carbon as a result of the processes of life.  Until the industrial revolution masses of the worlds carbon content was locked away in fossil fuels and the carbon in the environment was a fairly stable amount.  With the industrial Revolution we started releasing the carbon that was locked out of the environment into it increasing by massive volumes the amount of carbon in the cycle but without any means of removing said carbon from the cycle so over the last 100+ years there has been a significant increase in the amount of carbon in the environment which is contributing to issues like global warming and lowering air quality.

The best thing is many objectives such as preservation of animal x and/or habitat b would be greatly aided by campaigning on green issues like pushing for research into reduced carbon industrial processes and non fossil fuel based energy production and transport.

[MP-Ryan]

And you've got your wish for low radiological emissions.

Which, I might add in a somewhat less-exasperated tone, is and was a complete non-issue compared with the rest of the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Now that I'm less likely to move into rant phase, I will also point out that solar is a laughable energy alternative for most of the industrialized portions of the planet, and nuclear energy is hardly something we should be protesting (although better regulation of the extraction of resources for nuclear energy is a laudable goal).  Discussing the huge amount of ignorance displayed by people concerning genetically-modified organisms is not where I want this thread to go, but if someone cares to start a topic on it I'd be happy to educate them 

[JCDNWarrior]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record when asking this question on the first page of every thread, but did you actually read the article in its entirety before posting?

That out of the way, you have some fundamental misconceptions about a number of issues, chief among them apparently being energy production.  Read the article, and his related column linked to at the start.

Actually I very much understand your point, and decided to post this response just for the record, as well. I'm aware of the issues, just really wish I could explain better than i'm capable of.
However, the entire problem of adressing carbon as a problem, in my opinion, is that I'm not finding much proof that it's a danger to us or the planet - but rather that it's part of the life cycle. The only way carbon is a problem is when there aren't enough trees and plants, but it needs to be much higher than currently tracked to cause that. However, if you want a lower carbon emission the best way seems to be planting forests and plants in great amounts.

There's a lot more out-of-the-box solutions that have been researched, or just seem to be common sense, but seem to just rust away because of big interests in large industries, such as oil. It's important to expand attention away from trying to search for solutions -within- a box, but allow new technologies to take form in stead.

I do agree with him that nations that did away industry, becoming service economies, are in a dilemma. However looking at history, its much more serious than that. When you develop into a service economy, its often only a matter of time until you lose your service economy too, and being dependant on industrial nations, there's a large chance your country gets in debt and, without sufficient growth in jobs and manufacturing/export, very well may cause the country in  the end to become a 3rd world country.

The things he adresses; most of it makes sense, but he doesn't discuss the deeper, inner laying elements and effects, often domino effects, of such changes.

I think it's just really hard to decide on what to do without adressing the very important and often deep implications of the choices you have to make - the kind of very long term effects it has, and what it does to the average joe.

I'll leave it at this, lots of editing to get as close to what I mean to add to the discussion as possible.

(Also I dont like radiological emissions at all, even a low amount )

[MP-Ryan]

However, the entire problem of adressing carbon as a problem, in my opinion, is that I'm not finding much proof that it's a danger to us or the planet - but rather that it's part of the life cycle. The only way carbon is a problem is when there aren't enough trees and plants, but it needs to be much higher than currently tracked to cause that. However, if you want a lower carbon emission the best way seems to be planting forests and plants in great amounts.

I'm not asking this out of arrogance, but rather so I know to tailor [potential future] responses:  what is your highest level of education in biology and chemistry?

Carbon is an element.  In environmental discussions, carbon is most frequently used to indicate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (e.g. traps heat at a rate higher than air, although lower than water vapour).  However, it can also be used to discuss carbon monoxide (a more potent greenhouse gas), methane (CH4; a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas), and a variety of other volatile hydrocarbons (most of which trap heat at high levels).  Heat trapped in the atmosphere contributes to alteration in local climate conditions (making it hotter, colder, drier, wetter, etc).  The important elemental presence is carbon, due to its unique chemical properties in forming compounds and their stability (which allow them to absorb large amounts of heat for their atomic mass).

All aerobes (that is, organisms that require oxygen to live) give off carbon dioxide as a byproduct of cellular respiration.  Anaerobes give off a variety of compounds, including carbon dioxide and volatile organics.  A variety of organisms, most notably photosynthetics (plants, algae, etc) use carbon-based molecules to support life.  Thus, a balance of sorts has evolved, whereby fixation and release of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and sulfur are performed by a variety of different organisms on the planet.

However, humanity, as a byproduct of industrial process, produces massive amounts of carbon-based gases (and others) which cannot be fixated biologically at the rates they are produced.  This is altering the chemical composition of our atmosphere.  Not to levels unprecedented on Earth, mind you, but to levels which the current biosphere is unable to counteract.  Increasing the numbers of photosynthetic organisms sounds like a good prospect until you look at the fixation potential of these organisms and the raw numbers for tonnages of carbon-based elements being released.  They don't add up.  And while compounds like carbon dioxide have relatively-rapid fixation times, it takes much longer for other greenhouse gases.  This is all simple chemistry and biology, and takes into account none of the controversial aspects of "climate change" as a policy item.  The simple result is that human activity is releasing greenhouse gases at a rate that exceeds the ability of the biosphere to cope.  The net effect remains to be seen, although geological evidence seems to suggest that the Earth's climate has varied widely in the past based on atmospheric composition.  Whether human activity is simply accelerating a natural cycle or is actually increasing the magnitude of the effect is unknown (despite the various ideological parties shouting "the science is certain.")

All this is a very long-winded way of saying that planting more plants is not an effective way to address the potential effects of larger and larger quantities of greenhouse gas emission.  Even the planet's natural cycles don't balance the equation.  The Earth's climate is constantly changing, as is our atmospheric composition.  It just happens to be occurring on a geological timescale.

There's a lot more out-of-the-box solutions that have been researched, or just seem to be common sense, but seem to just rust away because of big interests in large industries, such as oil. It's important to expand attention away from trying to search for solutions -within- a box, but allow new technologies to take form in stead.

I hear the claim that industry quashes technological advancement all the time, but I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence.  The fact of the matter is that coming up with new alternatives is hard, and there must be financial incentive to do so.  I'm not saying industry can't do better, just that it isn't a simple matter of no interest in alternatives.

The rest of your post seems to be meandering thoughts rather than debatable position worth exploring further.

[Beskargam]

It would appear that you know way more on this subject than me. The article says we will need more electricity as we move away from fossil fuels (assuming we do). 

Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere.  It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.

If any of this is wrong or there are flaws along that please say so

[Nuke]

Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.

sometimes i wonder if the carbon emissions on all those graphs greenies keep putting up have more to do with human population growth than the industrial revolution. 6 or 7 billion carbon factories, i wonder if we should just eliminate a big chunk of those, and its not like we dont have the machines to make it happen. yes, i am definately a nuclear enthusiast, in more ways than one.

[Astronomiya]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll keep this short for now.  Nuke, the human population existing isn't a carbon problem in and of itself.  The world has seen much more biomass exist in the past, so having a few billion extra carbon-neutral entities added in doesn't really do anything to upset the balance.  No, it's what these extra carbon-neutral entities have been doing (i.e., building lots of industry and burning tons of stuff) that is the problem.  And climate change in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem either, just so long as it occurs on a geological timescale.  The problem right now is, climate change isn't happening over millenia or tens of millenia, it's happening over centuries and decades.  This is what causes massive disruptions in the biosphere, ones which will make life harder for us and our children.

Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere.  It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.

The problem with solar is that it does not provide space-efficient enough power generation for heavy, concentrated industry and dense urban areas.  Nuclear does, and does it very well in more places and with less environmental impact than hydro, the other big non-fossil fuel energy source we have.  You want to power your home with solar?  Fine, go right ahead; it'll work great.  Want to power those factories over there with solar?  I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...

[Mika]

Now that I'm less likely to move into rant phase, I will also point out that solar is a laughable energy alternative for most of the industrialized portions of the planet, and nuclear energy is hardly something we should be protesting (although better regulation of the extraction of resources for nuclear energy is a laudable goal).  Discussing the huge amount of ignorance displayed by people concerning genetically-modified organisms is not where I want this thread to go, but if someone cares to start a topic on it I'd be happy to educate them

 

I have been wondering about the opposition of the nuclear power for quite a long time - and the opposition on further developing it.

 

Also on the genetically modified organisms. But I'm of the opinion that the testing phase results should be slightly more open to general public - with their own language. Part of the opposition is because quite a lot of people don't actually understand what is meant by genetical modification here.

EDIT:

Want to power those factories over there with solar?  I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...

Exactly. Some of the factories here tend to have their own power supply at the yard of the factory, usually in the form of hydroelectric.

[Nuke]

still you eliminate people, you eliminate their need to expend energy to survive. so all those corpses dont need to make fires to stay warm and too cook things, they dont need to buy computers and cell phones, they dont need to go anywhere so they dont need cars or planes, and the survivors certailnly could use some extra meat. think of all the problems mass murder has solved.

the morale of this story is stop trying to reason with a psychopath

[zookeeper]

What, a reasonable and neutral-sounding article about environmentalists? Cool. I guess I mostly agree what he's saying, although in some parts I experienced what I think was a bit of a language barrier.

My main problem with environmentalist parties for example is the opposition of nuclear power. I have absolutely no problem with opposition to uranium mining done bad (which might very well be the vast majority of uranium mining; I don't know), but usually the anti-nuclear arguments focus on nuclear waste (and more recently disaster potential) which I don't find to be much of a problem at all.

[bobbtmann]

Also on the genetically modified organisms. But I'm of the opinion that the testing phase results should be slightly more open to general public - with their own language. Part of the opposition is because quite a lot of people don't actually understand what is meant by genetical modification here.

There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...

Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.

[MP-Ryan]

There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...

Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.

Neither of those issues is an inherent problem with GMOs; both are problems with the regulatory scheme in place for agriculture specifically.  Notwithstanding the fact that many countries (Canada among them) still produce seed variants for general use which agricultural industries can use in lieu of proprietary branding (AAFC has several research stations in Alberta alone [Beaverlodge, Lethbridge, Ft. Vermillion] that deal explicitly with yearly seed catalogues and experimental farming).

[Beskargam]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll keep this short for now.  Nuke, the human population existing isn't a carbon problem in and of itself.  The world has seen much more biomass exist in the past, so having a few billion extra carbon-neutral entities added in doesn't really do anything to upset the balance.  No, it's what these extra carbon-neutral entities have been doing (i.e., building lots of industry and burning tons of stuff) that is the problem.  And climate change in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem either, just so long as it occurs on a geological timescale.  The problem right now is, climate change isn't happening over millenia or tens of millenia, it's happening over centuries and decades.  This is what causes massive disruptions in the biosphere, ones which will make life harder for us and our children.

Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere.  It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.

The problem with solar is that it does not provide space-efficient enough power generation for heavy, concentrated industry and dense urban areas.  Nuclear does, and does it very well in more places and with less environmental impact than hydro, the other big non-fossil fuel energy source we have.  You want to power your home with solar?  Fine, go right ahead; it'll work great.  Want to power those factories over there with solar?  I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...

not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.

I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.

as for nuclear, anybody know how far we are away from pop fusion?

[Mika]

There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...

Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.

I'm aware of these problems with GM food. They belong under the regulation part in my opinion - and especially the first one (while reasonable from the point of view of the company) doesn't make sense, and I'd expect that those seeds would not see a lot of buyers.