The false dichotomy of environmentalism…

Peter at Not PC has made the claim (or rather, repeated George Reisman’s claim) that environmentalists are just recycled communists and fascists with a greenwash. Specifically:

The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent.

We are presented with the argument that it’s either survival through unrestrained capitalism, or the death of our species and our civilisation through ‘environmentalism’. Either we survive, or we knock ourselves of for the good of the planet.

This argument is a cop-out, because it presents the issues that we face today as a blatant false dichotomy.

There are a very small few individuals who believe that the world would be better off with a smaller population of humans, but it is disingenuous to represent those views as part of the broader environmentalist movement and then demand that the rest of us distance ourselves from them. The vast majority of us [environmentalists] do not advocate a culling of human populations and we most certainly do not condone those views. To tar us all with the same brush, and then claim that the onus is on us to prove that we are not genocidal maniacs is reprehensible.

The second claim, that the reduction of our environmental impact will inherently lead to the destruction of all that is good and holy in human civilisation is blatantly false. The exact opposite is true. If we continue on our current path of consumption and waste, the human civilisation that we obviously hold so dear is unsustainable. Our consumption of resources is well beyond what is available to us in the long term. All that environmentalism demands is restraint, and a true evaluation of our needs and wants as individuals.

Capitalism has acted, particularly in the latter half of last century, to change our role in society and democracy from citizen to consumer. We are living in the age of the Thing. We confuse our want of things for needs, the result of billions of dollars worth of advertising, PR and an unholy alliance between our businesses and our political systems.

There is of course no problem in consuming things, but when we consume beyond what we really need to profligate excess, and simply discard what we no long feel we want, there will be consequences. Climate Change is but one consequence to our culture of consumption; a long term effect that in my view will have less of dire effect on the ability of our species to survive than our destruction of habitats across the globe, aquatic and terrestrial. The survival of our species is inherently dependent on the survival of our ecosystems. On a basic level we require oxygen from the oceans and our forests, but more subtley, the ability of life to withstand perturbations, catastrophes and disasters is dependent on how diverse and robust our ecosystems are. We are not helping ourselves by ripping it up, filling it with shit or introducing invasive species.

To claim that reducing our consumption (and as a consequence our carbon dioxide emissions) will drastically reduce the quality of life of Americans (and by association the western world) is utterly false when we consider that the quality of life of the consumer is padded with excess and waste. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we walked or cycled or bused to work or school 2 or 3 days a week. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we did not eat meat 2 or 3 days a week. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose not to use plastic bags to carry our shopping. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose to switch to renewable energy sources. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose to use a more fuel efficient vehicle rather than the obscene and frankly selfish vehicles that some of us think we ‘need’. Our quality of life is likely to be increased – we would save money, we would live healthier lives and would begin to appreciate our resources.

Consider this small fact:

If all American households used their clothes dryers for only half of the year, enough energy would be saved to turn off an entire nuclear power plant. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 3.3%, simply by hanging washing on a line for only half of the year. Currently 60 million Americans who belong to home owner’s associations are not allowed to use washing lines because they are unsightly and unsafe, despite over $90 million worth of damage occuring annually from drying machine fires.

Granted, It will take a lot more than just using the clothes line to decrease the impact of mass consumption, but it is possible to do it without decreasing our quality of life. All it requires is a change of mindset and a breaking of habits, thinking about where our products are coming from, how they got to us and whether or not we want them or need them. It will require turning our backs on being selfish and questioning whether or not the way that we are acting is harmful to other people (through slave labour and exploitation) or to our planet. It will require a change in our business models – a shift from short term profiteering to long term viability. In the long run, the ability of our civilisation to survive is dependent on our need to wake up from the opiate of things and realise where that path is taking us. I don’t hold out much hope. It is easier to accept the soma of convenience, excess and consumption than accept the hard truths about the consequences. Waste in the landfills; heads in the sands.

I find Reisman’s final quote the most ironic, steeped as it is in hypocrisy:

Accept moral responsibility for the ideas you propound and stop standing in the service of mass destruction and death.

Consider which economic system has caused the most mass destruction and death

Plastic Broth

Further to my rant of last week, the Herald (and the Independent, via No Right Turn) reported today on just exactly where a large portion of our plastic crap ends up (that is, if we’re not burying it in the ground along with our heads in the sand): in a giant broth in the North Pacific.Fantastic.

This is an outcome of a system that prizes consumption over consequence. But hey, it’s best just not to think about it.

Please don’t stop the Music

Today’s story about plastic bags in the Herald really got me fuming. It is simply unfathomable that 100 BILLION plastic bags are used in the United States every year. It is simply disgusting that less than 1% of these are recycled. It gets even more depressing when you learn that over 12 million barrels of oil are used to produce those bags. Before you can say that that’s just a symptom of the grotesque profligacy of the Land of the Free, it’s not that much better here, with an estimated use of over 1.4 billion bags every year.The problem with plastic bags, other than their quite obvious environmental implications, is that their use is entirely without cost or consequence to the uber-consumers that we have become. They’re free in almost every establishment in this country, except Pak’N'Save; they are not regulated, or taxed. They are a just used and turfed and it means nothing.

What made me most angry, though, was the silver tongue of complacency of Paul curtis, of the Packaging Council of New Zealand:

“Taking a bag may fast be becoming the crime of the century but what would we do without them?”

I’ll tell you what we’d bloody do: we would take a serious look at the consequences of our actions and use an alternative. The “Make a Difference” campaign of Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises has all but failed. Tellers can not be relied upon to gently remind us no to use plastic bags; I have to literally restrain the teller at my local from putting my things into a bag. Moreover, consumers cannot generally be trusted to make a less convenient choice when the more convenient choice is consequence free; the market simply doesn’t work that way. Either vendors need to start charging their customers for plastic bags, and pass the impact of the bags onto consumers, or the industry needs to be regulated and taxed to discourage plastic bag use. Instead, Curtis lulls us into a false sense of security by assuring us that being quietly reminded not to use plastic bags will solve the problem; that thinking twice is better than paying the price.

Anyway, since nothing is likely to happen in this country about this issue, here are my own experiences and tips on plastic bag use:BUY ALTERNATIVES: Cloth and recycled plastic bags, both of which are eminently reuseable, are cheap and reliable. I have had mine for over 6 years and they still work perfectly.

PLAN AHEAD: Make a habit to sit down and make a shopping list, and get your cloth bags out of the pantry or cupboard when you do. Not only will you start to get into the habit of taking them, but you will probably save money: people who use and stick to shopping lists generally spend less money at the supermarket.

DON’T PACK YOUR VEGES OR FRUIT IN PLASTIC: Do you REALLY need to pack each different type of vegetable into a plastic bag? Think about it: 10 types of fruit and veges means ten extra bags – as many again as you would get for your total grocery trip.

BE PREPARED: Keep a cloth bag in your car for small unplanned trips to the supermarket – that was the real killer for me.

REFUSE PLASTIC: If you are asked whether or not you want a plastic bag (which you probably won’t be, but hey), just say no. It’s actually very easy, and it’s one less plastic bag that will end up in the rubbish.