[holmes]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('formandfile', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'A')ny agenda that fails to acknowledge the urgent need to reduce the number of people on the planet as the single most imortant goal completely misses the point, and IMO points directly opposite of the concept of sustainability. Very few so-called "environmentalists" are willing to substintavely address the problem of population. They think that we can reduce our footprint on the Earth without reducing the size of the foot.

[smiley]

In my opinion "environmentalism" is mostly about blaming others to make one feel good about oneself. It is all about doing something for the environment without actuially having to do something. The big faceless corporations, the industries and the politics have provided a welcome target for these practices.

True industry has done a lot wrong and they are to blame for a lot of things. However the average person is not without blame. This fact seems to escape most environmentalists who still think that driving around in a battered old VW van without catalyst, engine management system and exhaust filters is a sign of caring for the environment (just paint a few peace signs on the side and it should be just fine).

You will never see them chaining themselves to cars, you will never hear them complain about food which is flown halfway around the world (for some reason environmental vegetarianism always seems to involve a diet of rare Indian beans). Nevertheless the knights in green armor remain ever vigilant about attacking any industrial chimney which pierces the sky, regardless of what is coming out of it.

I guess that is the reason the environmentalists are not interested in peakoil. There is no big corporation to blame. The only thing we can blame is our collective consumerism. And when it comes down to it the environmentalists are ordinary consumers just like us.

[Laurasia]

Let's go easy on the poor tree-huggers, pretty please. There may be some of the hypocrite in some of them, but let's show some mercy! Just because a lot of them haven't "got it" yet about Peak Oil does not make them objects worthy of our disdain. If you'd told me about Peak Oil a few years ago I would have got a bit worried, thought about it for a little while, and then gone on to saving the southern hardwood forests from the chipmills! I think a lot of them are not "head in the sand" but "head in the clouds" and there is a great deal of difference there. A lot of environmentalists are not very technically minded, and let's face it, among the Peak Oilers there's a lot of acronym-using, and technical jargon that goes WAY over my head, for sure. And believe me, once Peak Oil makes its way into the truly mainstream press, environmentalists will be among the most dedicated and enthusiastic people to have on your team.

Regards,

L.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'I')n my opinion "environmentalism" is mostly about blaming others to make one feel good about oneself.

[bart]

I'm puzzled by this discussion. Every point of view that has been expressed is "environmental" -- it has appeared earlier in some environmentalist group or another. And yet, the envrionmentalists are seen as "they."

Doesn't make sense.

If one is a Cornucopian, there's no problem-- the free market and technology will solve PO, global warming, etc. Otherwise, one is an environmentalist.

Being an environmentalist does not mean you necessarily agree with the Sierra Club or Earth First. It means you value the environment, and think the issues are important and worthy of study.

There are many different viewpoints held by environmentalists:

* Some advocate nuclear power (James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Hypothesis). Many are very opposed (Ralph Nader). Some advocate renewables; others are skeptical.

* Some are highly conscious of Peak Oil (Richard Heinberg, Jan Lundberg of Culture Change, David Hollmgren (one of the originators of permaculture). Many are unaware of PO or do not take it seriously.

* Some are hunters; others are opposed.

* Politics range from eco-Marxists, to anarchists, to libertarians, to Kerry Democrats, to Republicans (esp traditional Republicans).

* Lifestyles range from survivalist and back-to-the-land, to wealthy and yuppie

As it says in the Bible, "My father's house has many mansions." There's room for everybody.

If one is serious, I think there are two imperatives:

1. With those people we disagree with, let's work together as much as we can. As Caroline Casey says, we need to learn to be good allies. There are enough real enemies -- why beat up on each other?

2. We need to learn about the environmental traditions. That way, we're not constantly re-inventing the wheel. For example, much of the discussion about Peak Oil and resources is a repeat of what was said in the 70s. H.T. Odum, E.P. Odum, and the "Limits of Growth" team are wonderful sources for deepening one's understanding.

Whether we know it or not, we come from a long tradition. We are not that different, one from the other.

[JohnDenver]

Environmentalism is something you think about when you're not hungry. History shows that hungry, poor people will totally ravage the environment to survive. Furthermore, concern for the environment is high in rich countries, and low in poorer countries (China, Brazil). Environmentalism is directly proportional to wealth. If you want to protect the environment, you've got to pull people out of the poverty which leads them to destroy the environment.

That's why I think powerdown is a bad idea, if you care about the environment. Powerdown will just make everybody poorer, and they'll try to make ends meet by assaulting their local environment. If energy supplies get too low, or order breaks down, you'll have thousands and thousands of guys like holmes out shooting in the woods, and the deer will be extinct in a year. Then they'll move on to the rabbits and the squirrels. People will cut down every available tree and burn it. Anarchic survivalism and environmentalism are totally incompatible with each other.

[bart]

Finally! Something that JohnDenver and I agree upon!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')narchic survivalism and environmentalism are totally incompatible with each other.

[Windsun]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'E')nvironmentalists IMO pretty much have their heads in the sand as a whole, why should they begin to understand either the problem of peak oil or how much of a fantastic miraculous substance oil is in the first place?

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nteresting. You complain about it, then in the next sentence you blame environmentalists in an effort to feel good about yourself. Curious.

[Doly]

I remember there was once a test in the BBC site about knowing what's best for the environment. For each question, there were three answers: one wasteful, one environmentally friendly (at least, relatively speaking), and one that looked green but was actually wasteful.

A lot of people that consider themselves green are going for options of the third kind. This doesn't solve anything, it just makes people feel good while they are still part of the problem.

[PhilBiker]

For the record I just want to say I'm an "envornmentalist" in that I want us to use resources as efficiently as possible with as small a footprint as we can muster. And I'm a hypocrite of the first order, exactly the kind of person I ridicule in my first post. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

[Doly]

Meaning, you attend a lot of rallies instead of actually *doing* something?

[PhilBiker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')iven that, your post above about birth control pills seems a little off base.

[PhilBiker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'M')eaning, you attend a lot of rallies instead of actually *doing* something?

[mgibbons19]

Be reasonable. What are you actually going to do?

Chain yourself to a tree? - how effective.
Move to a unabomber shack? - how worthwhile.

Face it. The problem is the system and the individual is almost entirely powerless in the face of it. There is no choice except to be hypocritical - or ignorant.

We should all be pround on this board. We've moved from ignorant to hypocritical.

[mgibbons19]

My favorite are vegetarians who subsist on chips, beer, not dogs, and soy burgers.

Bet there wasn't much advanced processing or chemistry going into that diet.

OTOH, my very blue-collar relatives have quarters of beef stored in their freezers. And the beef came off my FIL's farm. These guys aren't anything like "environmentalists," but wrt food, I'll bet their footprint is smaller.

[bart]

For me, some of the most exciting environmental developments revolve around the issue of food.

Fresh local food tastes MUCH better, is better for the environment and helps local farmers. Crispy apples and tasty tomatoes are powerful motivators, when the more abstract ideals begin to feel shopworn.

For example, the Slow Food movement.
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-2om/Madison.html

Also, the Feasta (Ireland) conference on food that was mentioned on a forum here. ( http://energybulletin.net/4505.html ) The description of one session particularly intrigued me:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Feasta', 'F')ood as a Solutions Multiplier
Presentation of idea that by concentrating on creating sustainable food supply systems, many other environmental, social and economic problems can be reduced or resolved in the process.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')narchic survivalism and environmentalism are totally incompatible with each other.

[oowolf]

Environmentalists: Tairona, Koyukon, Hunzakut. American environmentalists are what Catton Jr. called "cosmeticists".

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', ' ')We have to return to a sustainable way of life and sustainable population densities. No group of humans in history has ever regulated themselves into being environmentally friendly. Indigenous peoples all over the world lived completely sustainable lives for tens of thousands of years with no more regulation than a bit of social taboo.