I feel like environmentalism always had a bit of a legal/corporate feel to it even in the beginning. It has always had a bit of a selfish flair to it as well.
I think of the tree hugger idealized on a single tree as a prime example of the selfishness. It's a bit selfish to think a single tree is worth "saving" while the rest of the trees could benefit more efficiently from a more conservationist mindset. It's also a bit corporate to ignore the efficiencies in one's actions. Environmentalism, to some degree, has had a heavy focus on what brings the biggest headlines and increases their bottom line, which is to attack their perceived enemy at all costs, whether it actually makes sense for the environment they're supposedly aiming to save.
You have to read California's LA Times news to really appreciate the death of environmentalism in California. June 4, 2024, a LA Times headline "Killing Joshua trees to save planet? Thousands of the protected species will be removed to make way for a solar project in Mojave Desert. Developers say its benefits will outweigh the loss." This is all about the coming soon Aratina Solar Project which will remove 3,500 of the protected tree. It's not clear to me what removing means: relocating or killing? To say nothing about the other plants and animals at the site.
That same day the LA Times Climate Columnist adds his take "Boiling Point: Why razing Joshua trees for solar farms isn’t always crazy" Joshua Trees are unique, iconic, and hundreds of years old. In California they are protected by the Joshua Tree Protection Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml? bill_id=202320240SB122. Except when project permitting involves Climate Change.
As the LA Times columnist states "Hence the need to accept killing some Joshua trees in the name of saving more Joshua trees." My take: 1) In California, any destruction is possible if you insert addressing climate change. 2) Liberal use of "some." 3) Where's the science, the numbers, to show how the project will reduce CO2, or slow down the centuries old southwestern USA drought that is a major threat to the species in its southern range? 4) Should we take seriously a columnist writing about a scientific issue under the byline "Boiling Point" and finalizing his defense of Joshua Tree destruction by claiming this is all ExxonMobil’s doing. I will let the reader fill in that answer.
The death of environmentalism in California is on display and nicely condensed in the Aratina Solar Project and its LA Times defense.
Robert, I don't think environmentalism is necessarily dead, but I agree that it has been misappropriated. I propose a new paradigm for responsible human stewardship of God's creation. I call it "Deep Green." The concept itself should be discussed and debated. It is a green that is "deeper" than cleaning up an oil slick or cleaning up trash. Primary tenets as I see them are that environment-focused projects are self-sufficient, not government-subsidized. Technology can and should be used, and effects should be evaluated in terms of preserving both non-human and human well-being. Topics: The Darwinist hypocrisy of endorsing the evolution of species even while going into contortions to "save" dying species is not a factor. Gene-altering technologies should probably be avoided until all down-genetic-line effects are accounted for (Non-GMO good, RoundUp likely bad; MRNA injections No!; genetic "treatment" or "prophylactic vaccination" of food animals eschewed as likely harmful to eaters (humans). Maybe a Substack devoted to Deep Green would be worthwhile, with links to discussions on various energy forms, various new and old technologies, environment-related efforts whether or not they kill whales or eagles.
If the anonymous donors described in Robert Bryce's article were disclosed, I believe it would yield the unsurprising result that businesses whose profitability is enhanced by opposing nuclear power are significant dark money donors. Rod Adams has been covering this issue for decades in his "Smoking Gun" series available at his Atomic Insights blog https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun/
Robert, so well written, and sadly , so true. I often wonder why intelligent people cannot see the fallacies in this movement, whether they look at land use, energy density, costs, or time to market. On all most any measure, they fail the test. thanks for clarity in your writing and factual analytics. Well done. again.
Robert-- I don't disagree, but why do you think all those billions are spent? What's the ROI to those entities, whether private or public, get out of it? Tax write-offs? Power? Influence? I don't know.
So if we replaced the gross, disgusting, environment destroying, habitat wasteland of a low energy density green tech with nuclear power what is the difference in land footprint? I assume its at least 2 orders of magnitude and a nuclear plant has a lot of open land that is amenable to plants and animals unlike the solar or wind farms. Oh yeah, and a nuclear plant runs 24/7 at near 90% capacity day and night and even when the wind is still or blowing 50 mph - green tech can not touch this - its freaking amazing and seems like a vastly superior technology to what was around in the 1500's and being pushed on us in the 21st century as if its new and revolutionary.
One of my favorite movies is the Bridge over the River Kwai. The NGOs are Alec Guinness. Perhaps a more generous characterization than they deserve but tragically flawed in their execution of the green agenda at all costs. Oh what have I done. Also, I agree, follow the money. 💰
CONSERVATION died in the 1970's and was replaced by environmentalism which has been replaced by climate politics, err I mean climate science. Yeah, we will call it science and make all the science nerds dependent upon govt grant money to continue their work and they will "fully support" our green agenda. No pro green energy science reports then no grant money for you - eazy peazy.
wonderful pithy counterposition of the self image - pro nature, environment, ecosystem, habitat - of big green NGOs, and their contrary behavior, a rigid politicized push for symbols of environment that trample on actual real habitat and climate. why has this tangent been taken? do organization + politics corrupt inevitably? do sound bites always trump precision and persistence? probably, but there is also a hardening of paradigm and a confluence of trends over time. the growth of a governance strata has exploded across many knowledge domains since the 70s (see Charles Maier, 'The Project State') creating a social strata who exercise policy via 'unbiased self evident benefit'. coming into its own this strata has moved from neutrality or hands off of ethical questions, to a concern with victims, to eliciting more victim-clients to feed its empathy and feather its nest, to persecution of the Nizzas meaning all critics, with censorship of social media, deplatforming, and expulsion from professional association. science is being sanitized, chilled, with pre determination of correct results prior to completion of research. the advocate wing has become New Puritans, worshipers of victims - Mother Nature being one. Big Oil, the 1%, technology, neo liberalism, global trade are the colonizzas of Mother Nature and 'renewables' create ever more nature victims to save. This nature worship congeals among the wack woke intersectionals as well as among disparate elements that fear disintegration of the military-industrial structural component of US society if narratives of distinctly western virtue arent found. Mundane objects like energy-less windmills become crucial for the free world. All this evolved for a while but it is the rise of nativism and Trump Derangement Syndrome that created urgency, the urgency to unite across intersections and establishment, the urgency to move from dialogue to censorship, and actual real habitat, climate and ecosystems have been thrown overboard in the bargain.
Thanks again for a great article Robert. As an environmentalist I despair at the intrusion into the ecology of our planet by these so called renewables.
A question I have on my mind and whether you or someone else can answer is: Solar panels are black and absorb heat at a great rate. Doesnt that add to the warming of the planet?
I feel like environmentalism always had a bit of a legal/corporate feel to it even in the beginning. It has always had a bit of a selfish flair to it as well.
I think of the tree hugger idealized on a single tree as a prime example of the selfishness. It's a bit selfish to think a single tree is worth "saving" while the rest of the trees could benefit more efficiently from a more conservationist mindset. It's also a bit corporate to ignore the efficiencies in one's actions. Environmentalism, to some degree, has had a heavy focus on what brings the biggest headlines and increases their bottom line, which is to attack their perceived enemy at all costs, whether it actually makes sense for the environment they're supposedly aiming to save.
You have to read California's LA Times news to really appreciate the death of environmentalism in California. June 4, 2024, a LA Times headline "Killing Joshua trees to save planet? Thousands of the protected species will be removed to make way for a solar project in Mojave Desert. Developers say its benefits will outweigh the loss." This is all about the coming soon Aratina Solar Project which will remove 3,500 of the protected tree. It's not clear to me what removing means: relocating or killing? To say nothing about the other plants and animals at the site.
That same day the LA Times Climate Columnist adds his take "Boiling Point: Why razing Joshua trees for solar farms isn’t always crazy" Joshua Trees are unique, iconic, and hundreds of years old. In California they are protected by the Joshua Tree Protection Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml? bill_id=202320240SB122. Except when project permitting involves Climate Change.
As the LA Times columnist states "Hence the need to accept killing some Joshua trees in the name of saving more Joshua trees." My take: 1) In California, any destruction is possible if you insert addressing climate change. 2) Liberal use of "some." 3) Where's the science, the numbers, to show how the project will reduce CO2, or slow down the centuries old southwestern USA drought that is a major threat to the species in its southern range? 4) Should we take seriously a columnist writing about a scientific issue under the byline "Boiling Point" and finalizing his defense of Joshua Tree destruction by claiming this is all ExxonMobil’s doing. I will let the reader fill in that answer.
The death of environmentalism in California is on display and nicely condensed in the Aratina Solar Project and its LA Times defense.
Robert, I don't think environmentalism is necessarily dead, but I agree that it has been misappropriated. I propose a new paradigm for responsible human stewardship of God's creation. I call it "Deep Green." The concept itself should be discussed and debated. It is a green that is "deeper" than cleaning up an oil slick or cleaning up trash. Primary tenets as I see them are that environment-focused projects are self-sufficient, not government-subsidized. Technology can and should be used, and effects should be evaluated in terms of preserving both non-human and human well-being. Topics: The Darwinist hypocrisy of endorsing the evolution of species even while going into contortions to "save" dying species is not a factor. Gene-altering technologies should probably be avoided until all down-genetic-line effects are accounted for (Non-GMO good, RoundUp likely bad; MRNA injections No!; genetic "treatment" or "prophylactic vaccination" of food animals eschewed as likely harmful to eaters (humans). Maybe a Substack devoted to Deep Green would be worthwhile, with links to discussions on various energy forms, various new and old technologies, environment-related efforts whether or not they kill whales or eagles.
If the anonymous donors described in Robert Bryce's article were disclosed, I believe it would yield the unsurprising result that businesses whose profitability is enhanced by opposing nuclear power are significant dark money donors. Rod Adams has been covering this issue for decades in his "Smoking Gun" series available at his Atomic Insights blog https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun/
Boy this only going to get worse when the recent and forthcoming graduates succeed to corporate and government leadership around 2040 or so.
Robert, so well written, and sadly , so true. I often wonder why intelligent people cannot see the fallacies in this movement, whether they look at land use, energy density, costs, or time to market. On all most any measure, they fail the test. thanks for clarity in your writing and factual analytics. Well done. again.
As always great information presented in a very understandable manner. The charts are great.
Robert-- I don't disagree, but why do you think all those billions are spent? What's the ROI to those entities, whether private or public, get out of it? Tax write-offs? Power? Influence? I don't know.
So if we replaced the gross, disgusting, environment destroying, habitat wasteland of a low energy density green tech with nuclear power what is the difference in land footprint? I assume its at least 2 orders of magnitude and a nuclear plant has a lot of open land that is amenable to plants and animals unlike the solar or wind farms. Oh yeah, and a nuclear plant runs 24/7 at near 90% capacity day and night and even when the wind is still or blowing 50 mph - green tech can not touch this - its freaking amazing and seems like a vastly superior technology to what was around in the 1500's and being pushed on us in the 21st century as if its new and revolutionary.
Climate change took over the often good work early environmentalists did.
One of my favorite movies is the Bridge over the River Kwai. The NGOs are Alec Guinness. Perhaps a more generous characterization than they deserve but tragically flawed in their execution of the green agenda at all costs. Oh what have I done. Also, I agree, follow the money. 💰
A green, socialist, utopia can be better controlled by global elites.
CONSERVATION is dead. Environmentalism inevitably led to climate & renewables hysteria.
CONSERVATION died in the 1970's and was replaced by environmentalism which has been replaced by climate politics, err I mean climate science. Yeah, we will call it science and make all the science nerds dependent upon govt grant money to continue their work and they will "fully support" our green agenda. No pro green energy science reports then no grant money for you - eazy peazy.
wonderful pithy counterposition of the self image - pro nature, environment, ecosystem, habitat - of big green NGOs, and their contrary behavior, a rigid politicized push for symbols of environment that trample on actual real habitat and climate. why has this tangent been taken? do organization + politics corrupt inevitably? do sound bites always trump precision and persistence? probably, but there is also a hardening of paradigm and a confluence of trends over time. the growth of a governance strata has exploded across many knowledge domains since the 70s (see Charles Maier, 'The Project State') creating a social strata who exercise policy via 'unbiased self evident benefit'. coming into its own this strata has moved from neutrality or hands off of ethical questions, to a concern with victims, to eliciting more victim-clients to feed its empathy and feather its nest, to persecution of the Nizzas meaning all critics, with censorship of social media, deplatforming, and expulsion from professional association. science is being sanitized, chilled, with pre determination of correct results prior to completion of research. the advocate wing has become New Puritans, worshipers of victims - Mother Nature being one. Big Oil, the 1%, technology, neo liberalism, global trade are the colonizzas of Mother Nature and 'renewables' create ever more nature victims to save. This nature worship congeals among the wack woke intersectionals as well as among disparate elements that fear disintegration of the military-industrial structural component of US society if narratives of distinctly western virtue arent found. Mundane objects like energy-less windmills become crucial for the free world. All this evolved for a while but it is the rise of nativism and Trump Derangement Syndrome that created urgency, the urgency to unite across intersections and establishment, the urgency to move from dialogue to censorship, and actual real habitat, climate and ecosystems have been thrown overboard in the bargain.
well done Robert!
Thanks again for a great article Robert. As an environmentalist I despair at the intrusion into the ecology of our planet by these so called renewables.
A question I have on my mind and whether you or someone else can answer is: Solar panels are black and absorb heat at a great rate. Doesnt that add to the warming of the planet?