by MattSavinar » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 02:29:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plastic_Green', 'W')here are they?
Its not surprising, but still interesting that mainstream, and even not-so mainstream environmentalists have took a pass on PO. I'm going to an environmental science school, and there is nearly zero mention of the existence of PO there. People are like, oh yeah, that would be good for the environment, or they will trot out hydrogen or whatev. Anyway, also the Sierra Club and all those groups don't mention it....Heinberg says its probably because they would get slammed by the right for being Chicken Little and lose the rest of their power. That makes sense. One person at my school of considerable influence wrote an op-ed article mentioning PO and sent it to a bunch of newspapers-nobody would publish it!
Really, our society in some ways is a bunch of little kids hiding the broken cookie jar. Part of the problem with environmentalism is that it has been defined into a wimpy corner that is about saving fluffy bunnies and pretty little birdies. Really, its about survival and food and life. These things have been defined as the province of economics, which is fundamentally flawed in its neo-classical form. Perception is power, and power is not in the hands of the reality-based community. The environment should be renamed the economy, and the economy should henceforth be named the subeconomy. This way, people will PERCIEVE the human economy as a subsidiary of the earth. Maybe. Well, maybe not.
I've encountered the EXACT same problem. It really puzzled me for a while. When I initially learned about Peak Oil, I figured the enviros would take to it like fish to water.
What I've found is that enviros and, more generally, liberals/progressives are more resistant to this then conservatives.
Here's my theory as to why, using a hypothetical not that far removed from my own life:
First there is my friend Bill. Bill is a nice guy but his primary reason for going into the legal profession was to "get his." Bill works at a firm whose clients include several notorious energy companies, weapons makers, etc. . . .
Bill has no problem accepting Peak Oil. In his mind, it just means we've got to go kill us some people to take their oil. Survival of the fittest. Just like law school. He didn't finish at the top of his class by helping the people in the middle of the class. So why should he give a shat about some poor shumcks who can't afford to drive to work.
He's may not be thrilled about the situation, but hey, he's too busy "getting his" to gave a damn what happens to anybody else.
Besides, it's not like it's going to affect him, right? I mean he drives a Lexus and makes six figures so clearly he's insulated from the collapse. (Or so he believes.)
Then there's Barbara. She went into the legal profession because she wanted to help poor people.
If peak oil is true, what does it mean for her?
It means she took out a loan (which is just a proxy for a certan amount of energy) to go to law school to help people. When she got her bar card, she took out another loan to buy a car so she could commute to the nonprofit enviromental firm she works at.
She has to payback the loans plus interest. Which means she has to acquire more energy than the bank loaned her.
Since a stable energy supply requires military force, war, etc.. . it means she has royally screwd up as the only way to payback the loan is to reinforce the system she has dedicated herself to opposing.
It's probably also a bit upsetting to realize she is as addicted to petrodollars as Bill is. She requires the fruits of petroleum culture (cheap food, cheap gas, cheap heating) as much as he does.
You can see why she would resist this idea more than Bill. It is more of a shock to her identity.
Furthermore, unlike Bill, Barbara doesn't have much money on hand. So she can't delude herself with the comforting notion that she can buy her way out of the collapse.
So naturally, she has more incentive to belive it's really "just the fault of Big Oil and the Bushes" or "once we have Hydrogen powered cars and more solar panels, the problem will work itself out."
Matt
Good point about the fact that many environmentalists are realistic and understand energy and resource use and push that it be responsible. Every one of those people should be a huge nuclear energy proponent.