 | Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 6:38:53 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Nick012
"The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone -- to preserve it untouched by human activity. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy -- even ones that are supposedly green and renewable-will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation."
This assumes that all environmentalists hold the same ideal. While its undoubtedly true that there are many deep ecologists who hold that any interference with nature is wrong there are also many environmentalists who simply seek to diminish the amount of harm done to the environment. For example, in the UK recently there was a protest against a coal fired power plant in Kent that was framed by the fact that the company running it wanted to build a second one. While I am not an environmentalist I recognize that there is scientific evidence that supports the theory that humans are having a negative effect on the planet. While it is inevitable that this will be the case if we wish to enjoy a standard of living that is significantly better than it would be if we were to take environmentalism too far, this does not mean that renewable sources of energy aren't a good idea. Many of the people at the protest weren't campaigning against powerplants or industry (I'm sure a fair few of them were), but against the kind of power plant being proposed. It could be argued that it is irrational to continue building powerplants that emit significantly higher levels of CO2 than their alternatives in the same way that it could be argued that using lead pipes to get water to your house is. Conseuently, I take issue with the assertion that "Ultimately, what this means is that environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether". I think, in this instance, Keith Lockitch has accepted a bad premis as the basis for his argument as the basic premise for the majority of environmentalists in this day and age is perhaps closer to 'live well causing the least harm possible'.
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 14:24:44 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
I also tried unsuccessfully to post a comment. This was my comment:
"If environmentalists truly cared how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere, they would not advocate allowing forest fires to burn. They have a big problem with humans using forest products, but they don't mind at all if the forest goes up in smoke.
"Environmentalist opposition to the use of coal and petroleum isn't actually about pollution -- environmentalists really don't want humans to have the use of the energy."
Of course environmentalists claim that coal and petroleum are not part of the natural carbon cycle, but that trees are. However, if "fossil fuels" came from former plant and animal matter, then the carbon in petroleum and coal was once part of the natural carbon cycle, yet "the environment" survived.
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 20:58:03 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Nick,
"It could be argued that it is irrational to continue building powerplants that emit significantly higher levels of CO2 than their alternatives in the same way that it could be argued that using lead pipes to get water to your house is."
If one understands the advantages of coal-fired power plants over the presently available alternatives, it is irrational (except in special local circumstances) not to use coal. Coal is extremely plentiful. It is cheap to produce very large amounts of energy from coal (and would be far cheaper if environmentalists were out of it). Virtually everything mankind produces requires energy to produce and transport. If energy is cheap, more wealth can be produced, and at a lower cost, making us all richer. The more expensive energy is to produce, the closer we live to dirt poverty. It makes an enormous difference to one's life whether one works for 20 years to produce a certain amount of wealth, or whether one must work for 50 years to produce the same wealth, or whether one does without.
Burning coal produces CO2. I'm not going to argue, presently, why human-produced CO2 is not a global pollutant. The burden of proof is on those who claim it is harmful, and they have not proved this. Here's something for perspective, though: if Earth's atmosphere and water were deprived of CO2, all life on Earth would die.
How do you, or the protesters, come to the conclusion that one existing coal-fired power plant is good and right, but that it's wrong to build two? Or that it's good and right to release X amount of CO2, but that it's wrong to release more? You indicate that you think it harms "the planet" for humans to have a better standard of living than they could have if environmentalism were taken "too far" -- i.e. if environmentalism were practiced too consistently. You say,"...there are also many environmentalists who simply seek to diminish the amount of harm done to the environment". If Man's life is the standard of value, then it's right for humans to build as many coal-fired power plants, produce as much cheap electricity, and release as much CO2, as will do humans any good. Is it Man's environment you're referring to? Coal-fired power plants are part of the environment we live in, and if coal-fired power plants are good for humans they're good for Man's environment.
But if the standard of value is unaltered "nature", then building a second power plant, or releasing more CO2, would certainly be wrong. But if that were the case, then so would it be wrong for mankind to build even one power plant or release one gram of CO2. It would be wrong for a human to subsist at all -- wrong to obtain food, clothing and shelter, let alone to make fire or to manufacture so much as a stone knife in order to barely survive, even for the short span of a caveman's lifetime.
One who thinks the well-being of humans wrongs the environment (via production), holds a standard of value other than Man's life. To the extent one holds valuable the survival and flourishing of humans, one is not an environmentalist, even if one thinks that coal-fired power plants are inherently harmful to humans (with which I do not agree) and that some other form of energy would be better. To the extent one holds that pursuing human values wrongs nature, and that nature has intrinsic value to which human values should be sacrificed, one is an environmentalist, and does buy into the idea that nature should be untouched by human activity.
"...humans are having a negative effect on the planet. While it is inevitable that this will be the case if we wish to enjoy a standard of living that is significantly better than it would be if we were to take environmentalism too far, ..."
Translation: Taking environmentalism "too far" would prevent humans from harming the environment. Any standard of living that's significantly better than going "too far" with the environmentalist destruction of human life, well-being and wealth, harms "the planet". In other words, any standard of human living that is acceptable (to whom?) inevitably harms "the planet".
"...this does not mean that renewable sources of energy aren't a good idea. "
"Renewable" sources of energy are definitely not a good idea as replacements for coal-fired power plants -- not if what is "good" is better lives for humans.
|
