By Jason Sibert
In response to my recent story on former United Kingdom Deputy Prime Minister John Prescot, SDUSA member Adam Minsky asked why I support conservationism but have reservations about environmentalism. Well, for starters, I agree with “Conservationism Vs. Environmentalism: What’s the Difference?” by writer Brian David Crane, who said that conservationists tend to see humans as beneficial while environmentalists see them as a plague. He also said: “Conservationists by and large see the natural world as dangerous, awe-inspiring, and in need of being tamed in order to support human flourishing. Environmentalists by and large see the same natural world as benign and in need of protection from harmful human influence.”
I find Crane’s definitions to be accurate. I also find the idea held by environmentalists that humans didn’t change the environment at one time, and then things fell apart when we did, to be dubious. Some environmentalists say this is when the car was invented, and others say this was at the start of the Industrial Revolution. However, if one looks at the history of humanity, one can see that humans have always changed the environment. At the beginning of the agricultural revolution, people cleared forests to make room for the planting of crops. They burned the forests, remembering that wood is more carbon-intensive than coal, and the earth warmed. The warming was not as intense back then for various reasons – high infant mortality rates, high number of deaths in war, and lower life expectancies, to name a few. In the hunting and gathering stage of our history, which preceded agriculture, humans hunted animals and changed animal ecology. We’ve always changed the environment; the question is, are we going to change it for the better or for the worse? As stated earlier, conservation is about improving the ecology we depend on and promoting human flourishing through conserving our environment. One could say that conservation is a milder form of environmentalism. I called myself a conservationist and somewhat of an environmentalist because conservationism is more in line with history and our future.
Another beef I have with those who call themselves environmentalists is their views on energy. Most want to convert our entire energy portfolio to renewable energy, something that’s never been done in a wealthy, industrialized country. One version of this is the Green New Deal, a promise made by Bernie Sanders during his Presidential campaigns. I realize I am going against the SDUSA’s position on this issue, as the organization does support the Green New Deal. The problem with most forms of renewable energy, and I don’t hate this form of energy entirely, is first, that it’s intermittent – the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Our country’s economy needs energy around the clock to function. Second, renewable energy is more expensive than other forms, making it harder for those trying to pay utility bills, although its price has been reduced. Third, renewable energy is land-consuming, making less land for trees, and forests are a carbon sink, as they absorb carbon we put into the atmosphere. I realize 24 percent of the United States’ energy portfolio is renewable, but remember, that’s primarily hydroelectric, not solar and wind. However, I think geothermal energy has potential, a matter beyond the scope of this story.
Am I denying the problem of global warming like most of the Republican Party? Do I consider it a hoax? No. I, along with the Defense Department, the only part of the government that ever knew anything when I was growing up in the Reaganite 1980s, according to the conservatives at least, agree that global warming is a security challenge. However, I wish to widen the debate amongst social democrats.
I went along with an ideology like the Green New Deal once in my life. Being a Clintonite, I would have argued from the 1990s to the 2000s that this could be done in a free market way. Maybe by doing things like former President Barack Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax, and something like this might still be a part of the mix. However, I read a book by hippie prophet Stewart Brand called Whole Earth Discipline: An Eco-Pragmatist Manifesto, a continuation of his Whole Earth Catalogue, and my mind was changed. I just had to admit I was wrong. Brand endorsed nuclear energy and biotechnology – something I never had a problem with – to deal with the climate change issue. He also said environmentalists should look at the Earth’s ecology like an engineer would look at any system and do what’s necessary to make it function. He endorsed geoengineering the Earth’s climate, which would be complex with the geopolitical tension our nation has with the Russia/China orbit.
Nuclear energy would generate a lot of carbon-free energy for our economy, and Brand isn’t the only individual who has advocated nuclear energy as a solution to the security challenges of climate change. Scientist James Hansen, who has testified before Congress on climate change and written books on the subject, and environmentalist and scientist/inventor James Lovelock – the originator of the Gaia Theory – both support(ed) nuclear energy. Former Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister Olaf Palme, hardly a right winger, promoted nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. Filmmaker Oliver Stone, who is also left of center, has endorsed this form of energy.
Isn’t nuclear energy dangerous? What about accidents like Three Mile Island? Those are just a few instances of problems in the history of nuclear energy. I’m not advocating antique (most common) nuclear power plants for today’s America, the type that has caused trouble. Fourth-generation nuclear power plants – an upcoming technology – generate nuclear waste but recycle (something environmentalists agree with) the waste to produce more energy. Unlike today’s plants, the waste becomes weaker over time, eliminating the problem. The current model of nuclear power plants creates a lot of energy and waste, and storing a large amount of waste is the problem, but burning coal – which generates more greenhouse gas emissions – creates an even larger problem. It’s also important not to equate nuclear energy with nuclear war, as they’re two different things. It’s also important to note that social democratic France generates a small amount of greenhouse gas emissions for a country of its size, and that’s because it uses nuclear energy, not because it transitioned to renewables.
Fusion power is another possibility. Nuclear energy is created by splitting atoms, and fusion power is generated by fusing atoms. There’s no waste in fusion power, making it more politically saleable. So, fusion power would be an even better option than nuclear power whenever it comes online. Using fusion and renewables would be an excellent weapon in our fight against greenhouse gas emissions!
Environmentalists also regularly engage in gloom and doom talk when it comes to climate change as well as other issues. However, there is something to cheer about in the climate change debate – the US has decreased its greenhouse gas emissions since the early 2000s because our share of the energy portfolio from coal has declined, and the share from natural gas has increased! Now, I realize that methane emissions are a problem in natural gas production, as methane is a lethal greenhouse gas. However, natural gas is cleaner than coal, which produced 50 percent of our energy in the early 2000s. According to Tim Gould and Christophe McGlade, chief energy economist and head of the energy supply unit of the International Energy Agency, writing in The Environmental Case for Natural Gas, even when adverse effects of methane are taken into account, the case for replacing coal with natural gas remains clear: “Despite these issues, taking into account our estimates of methane emissions from both gas and coal, on average, gas generates far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than coal when generating heat or electricity, regardless of the timeframe considered.” Writer Michael Lind used the above quote in his story Beyond Green: Down with Al Gore Once and for All—the Case for a Rational Energy Policy.
Other voices cited by Lind include environmentalist Barry Commoner, who ran for president of the left-wing Citizens Party in 1980, who advocated using natural gas as a bridging fuel for a greener future. He also thought renewables would be next in line after natural gas, which differs from where I see it. Journalist Robert Bryce has advocated what’s called the N2N strategy (natural gas to nuclear), as stated by Lind. In Bryce’s plan, there would be a global build-out of zero-carbon nuclear power plants, with government subsidies provided as necessary. In the short run, high-emission coal in electricity generation would be phased out worldwide in favor of natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. Lind also advocated climate change adaptation in Beyond Green, which is a wise choice. This would involve adapting to hotter-than-average temperatures and the higher sea levels caused by global warming. How about sea walls to protect the coasts and storm walls for New York City?
One alternative to the Green New Deal is the Green Real Deal, promoted by Obama Administration Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz and George W. Bush Administration Assistant Energy Secretary for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Andy Karsner. The Green Real Deal means increased energy efficiency across all economic sectors, a very low-carbon electricity system, and the electrification of buildings, transportation, and industry. It also means using solar and wind energy and natural gas, advanced nuclear technologies, and the capture, storage, and use of carbon dioxide. Another key feature of a Green Real Deal is the need to accommodate regional differences in climate solutions fully.
The ideas for a low-to-no-carbon future are there. All we must do is elect the right leadership and implement them!
Jason Sibert is the lead writer for the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis and a member of SDUSA’s National Executive Committee.
