Bishop Hill The inhumanity of the environmentalist
Jun 13, 2014 Climate: WG3 Greens Further to my post this morning about progressives firing Caleb Rossiter for his temerity in putting the needs of Africans today ahead of concerns over global warming, it's interesting to consider a couple of other stories from the last couple of days:
- a report of Greenpeace rejoicing after getting huge renewable powerplant cancelled in Chile
- a report of the alarming number of environmentalists who would have allowed a disaster like the Irish potato famine to continue unabated rather than deploy GM technology to combat it.
What seems to link these stories is a passionately pursued collective goal and an almost inhumane willingness to accept individual suffering as a price worth paying to achieve it. I wonder if Greenpeace leaders ever gave a thought to the Chileans or if those greens gave a thought to the horror of the potato famine. And I wonder if John Cavanagh, the man who fired Rossiter, ever considers the suffering of sub-Saharan Africans. I hope so, but if he does it's hard to understand his wanting to disassociate himself from someone who merely wanted to do something about it.
Margaret Thatcher famously saw individual men and women where others saw only "society". I think John Cavanagh and the greens probably exemplify the opposite view. Perhaps this helps us understand why they behave the way they do. It must be much easier to turn a blind eye to society than to living, breathing individuals.
Bishop Hill
Take a look at some of Cavanagh's writings on Africa. "Climate Justice" appears to mean letting Africans rot.
Reader Comments (88)
When your 'saving the planet ' how can you have to high a price ?
The energy crisis the greens would love to see come about would come with a very high price , but they willing to pay it partly becasue they don't expect they will be the ones footing the bill but also because they see it as an 'opportunity ' to see ideas such has the end of personal motorised transport and virtual no flying , forced on a population that otherwise would not touch them with a barge pole. AGW is very much seen as a route to the type of power they know that could never get through democracy, and yet they very desperately want and think they are entitled to in 'saving the planet'
@Brendan H
You quoted what you quoted so as to emphasize those views. No meta analysis or exegesis of yourself was required.
Good news from India today (Saturday). Greenpeace has been labelled bad for economic security after they criticised India's energy policy. Other NGO's will follow I am sure.
I think you are a bit too general in condemning "environmentalists". There are a lot of environmentalists that are against wind farms as they not only do not contribute to the overall supply of electricity (due to fossil-fired backup power stations running at less than their optimum, the CO" output is actually larger), but the kill birds and bats. There are environmentalist that fight against photovoltaic solar panels because using the suns heat directly (in water-filled thermal heat exchangers) produces about our times as much net energy, warmth that is needed anyway as heat is in far greater demand than electric power and heat can be stored. So the people you refer to should not be called environmentalists at all, it obfuscates the picture. A true environmentalist sees a place for all species, including the human race and tries to strike a balance.
Do the prats wittering about "delivering sustainable clean energy to Africa" actually have any meaningful experience of that? The answer is NO. Likewise the campaigning about Patagonia is seemingly dominated by non Chileans and almost entirely emotional - with maps and details of the proposed projects almost entirely absent.
The Cavanagh / IPS article also quotes a report submitted to the Congressional committee by GE on electricity in Nigeria - which was about fluffing up urban eco-Democrats and orthodox lefties in the USofA and not about delivering electricity in Nigeria - where utility distribution cables rarely stay in place overnight and it's advisable to fortify your generator with razor wire and a hefty steel cage (and I'm not talking about expats here).
Cavanagh and his crew use language that commandeers a twisted popular / all encompassing mandate - pretending to represent the entire population and the interests of the planet and seek to impose their desired outcome.
My ecofascist detector requires re-calibration after a short foray into their world - and it's abundantly clear a lot of them do not actually know what they're doing or even what they're talking about - something I have seen some NGO folk wallowing in - in Africa.
greenpiss is choccful trustafarians.
The HMRC does not need to have accounts of their own they can just ask for the members of greenpiss
Oona,
It is time for the enviros who do not want to be lumped in with IPS, Greenpeace and the other on the long list of poser parasites to do something about it. The victims or big green/climate obsession should not have to do this.
India is apparently joining Australia and Canada in challenging big green. My bet is more will follow soon. The misanthropes who have hijacked so much of environmental and climate science- not to mention media and government- deserve all the push back they get.
Will Nitschke: ‘You quoted what you quoted so as to emphasize those views.’
So now you’re telling me that you know my mind better than I do. I’d like to see your evidence for that.
The internet is a wonderful device for information and communication. Unfortunately, humans being humans, it also replicates the undesirable aspects of being human. These aspects include a propensity for misinformation and miscommunication.
The header post and your unsupported claims about what I think are regrettable examples of these undesirable aspects.
Fortunately, human beings also have a rational faculty that they can use to critically analyse even their own most cherished views. An initial suspension of judgement is also a valuable tool for making sense of the world, and especially the views of others.
I like to think that these tools have served me well, and I see no reason why others, such as yourself, cannot also make use of them to gain a deeper understanding of this sometimes complex world we live in.
Environmentalists and greens need a new title more befitting their views and actions. These people are dangerous and sinister. I am sure there are still a large number of well meaning people amongst them but the leadership of green NGOs are, almost without exception, scum.
Brendan H,
You would be more credible in your critique of this post if you offered more than a dismissal of the premise with no counter evidence.
I have read the links and the only way to sustain your assertion is to either ignore what the links say or to misrepresent them.
The misinformation flood seems to flow mostly from the climate obsessed/enviro extremists, not those who point out the misanthropy and deceit they rely on.
The rational faculty of humans is great. That is why even after years of self-proclaimed 'green' propaganda the movement is losing credibility. That is why after years of media and government push on climate the public is dismissing the fevered claims in larger and larger numbers.
Frax,
You are missing a key point.
The families depending on the potato and who were the heaviest impacted by the famine, had no realistic alternative.
The ever decreasing plots they had to live on (in very unfavorable areas from an agricultural perspective) made the potato the only crop that could possibly sustain them (in a calories per sq ft way if you know what I mean).
The penal laws forcibly moved them from their original land, blocked them from things like land or horse purchase, education etc.
People living on these plots had no alternative but to depend on the potato.
Brendan H, perhaps my imputing motives to Rossiter is unwise. But what the hell! He went out of his way to effectively criticise his employer in a paper that is read by the rich and repeatedly carries similar articles that push the opinions, interests and preferences of the rich. If he didn't know he was furthering the aims of the rich then he is a fool.
Will Nitschke, there are probably many arguments for and against the dams. But the author of the blog post presented none, only an accusation that Greenpeace is acting without considering the views of Chileans. He has no proof of this and does not try to convince readers, only to assert an untruth and wait for applause from his congregation - who are equally uninterested in the truth of the situation. Equally he distorts the research on GM attitudes beyond all recognition and there's not a murmur of disquiet among the faithful here. He might just as well drop the pretence of saying anything relevant and just post one liners: Greenpeace is evil! Greens are inhuman! Repeat after me, Greenpeace is evil...
2:58 PM La Buena
Your defence (if that's what it is...?) of Greenpiece is on very thin ice... After all, several prominent present officials of that organisation are on record as volunteering that the truth is irrelevant (or even worse, lies are OK) when promoting their own aims. Their record of mendacious and strident advocacy, alloying political ideology with an inflexible followers catechism speaks volumes about what they now are - and where they want to go....
I for one would be interested in some evidence - rather than opinion on the Chilean scheme. I can see that a huge effort has been put into trying to sink it by non Chilean organisations who've been spraying money around in Chile - invoking some pretty fatuous arguments like "this sewage scheme was commissioned under the last evil dictator - and we will stop it !!" and that... makes me suspicious.
tomo, I'm not defending Greenpeace per-se, but objecting to the blog post using it as a dog whistle to round up the congregation. There's no evidence that the writer knew anything about the dams or took the trouble to find out. The Santiago Times reports that:
Imagine there was a plan to flood half a dozen valleys in Scotland and that no plans were made to relocate an existing population. Would you see it as "inhuman" to protest about the plan or to be pleased when it was cancelled, even if it would have reduced the price of power for Glaswegians?Arrogant Environmentalist think they can save Africa with Eco Tourism how smug.
How about save Africa with Chinese TV factories and Korean Car Plants.Bring in some real tourist dollors
La Buena
aye, point taken - but if it was such a large project compensating / relocating (how many?) folk would be a piffling amount on the balance sheet. In general - Patagonia's not exactly densely populated.
It's not unreasonable to suspect that there's some other, underlying arithmetic or practical constraint (beyond the proffered reason) that wrecks the viability of the scheme(s).
As to Scottish power - well, that windmill thing isn't working out too well at the moment. In any major engineering project there are compromises to be made and if flooding a few valleys in the Highlands saved the SNP - do you think they'd blink before signing up?
The clock is ticking on fusion power (yeah... I know ... but these folks don't usually make idle boasts)
jamspid
I personally think Guardian writers / readers, Ed Davey and Greg Barker should only be able to leave the UK to holiday in Port Harcourt, Lagos and Abuja (in that order)
Brendan:
But I spotted what you did there. You changed his words, didn’t you? And in changing the words, you have changed the meaning.
Of course I changed his words - that was promised in the introductory phrase "If he had said..." But I didn't change his meaning - I simply made it clearer, since the effect of his argument is masked by the innocuous and wonderful words "clean energy." Hey - everybody likes "clean" - so it sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, all energy comes at a cost, and the only energy that environmentalists are willing to designate as clean (typically windmills, sometimes solar, rarely small hydro) comes with both an environmental cost (usually unacknowledged) and an intermittency cost (never acknowledged), as well as the high financial cost (sometimes admitted, but usually presented as a tolerable cost, given the wonderful cleanliness of the energy).
The intermittency cost is the real sinker - it is difficult (and may be impossible) to manage in a modern economy with an advanced electrical infrastructure, even with a relatively low proportion of "renewables." An energy system completely built on unreliable energy sources is very likely unworkable - at the best, it will condemn the users to a low level of economic development, since industry relies on a plentiful, cheap, and more-or-less constant energy stream. Adoption of this unworkable energy system as the desired end goal for African development has the concomitant result of condemning Africans to an under-developed state.
It is possible that Cavanagh does not know this; his knowledge of energy production and the characteristics of the systems he espouses is deficient. In that case, he should inform himself before his ignorance causes harm. It is also possible that he does know all of this, but that limiting African development is, in his mind, a reasonable trade-off. I'm not sure what it is a reasonable trade-off for, and even less-sure that the Africans whose opportunities will be limited would agree with him.
dcardno,
Cutting through to get to what the guy actually means is fair. Good work.
This thread, like others before it, traces some decision making paths and infers that one path is that "<Greenpeace did not like it, so it did not proceed."
I do not think these two parts in quotes follow as one from the other. The latter part would usually involve a governmental deision. In turn, this implies an entity like a Department of Capitulation.
Given the many perverse outcomes in the UK electricity generation policies, where does the Capitulation Dept hide itself? And why is it so powerful, able to ordain wood burning power stations, for heavens sake?
I can't understand the rejection of hydro in Chile until I understand Drax in UK.
How widespread is this Capitulation ailment, which at its base is simply a failure of analytical thinking?
This thread, like others before it, traces some decision making paths and infers that one path is that "<Greenpeace did not like it, so it did not proceed."
I do not think these two parts in quotes follow as one from the other. The latter part would usually involve a governmental deision. In turn, this implies an entity like a Department of Capitulation.
Given the many perverse outcomes in the UK electricity generation policies, where does the Capitulation Dept hide itself? And why is it so powerful, able to ordain wood burning power stations, for heavens sake?
I can't understand the rejection of hydro in Chile until I understand Drax in UK.
How widespread is this Capitulation ailment, which at its base is simply a failure of analytical thinking?
Hunter: ‘You would be more credible in your critique of this post if you offered more than a dismissal of the premise with no counter evidence.’
What premise? I’m dealing with a comment as shown in the above post. I offered a couple of quotes and some arguments to support them, more in fact than the blogger, whose whole contribution was: ‘Take a look at some of Cavanagh's writings on Africa. "Climate Justice" appears to mean letting Africans rot’.
La Buena: ‘tomo, I'm not defending Greenpeace per-se, but objecting to the blog post using it as a dog whistle to round up the congregation.
More like a dinner bell, I’d say. After all, we all heard it.
That said, the online media operates by values that are similar to the mainstream: catchy headlines, conflict, simplification.
The blogger also faces much the same pressures as the mainstream media: poorly paid, driven by the clock and the demands of the reader. In addition, many bloggers are lone practitioners, with few resources. It’s hardly surprising that there’s little time and incentive to critically analyse their sources.
As with most things GM related..the Potato famine thought experiment..was..just a thought experiment.
To be fair..could we have a survey of pro GM proponents being asked.."If you knew the Golden Rice Foundation" is suffering at the moment with "file draw problem"..ie, unpublished data on the supposed benefits of golden rice..will they now lobby the Golden Rice foundation.???
How do I know this.
Simple logic..There is no way that organisation would not have tried to prove their claims.
Since they have never published any supporting paper proving their beliefs..ergo.."file draw problem" :)
Sorry..whats good for the goose etc.. :)
dcardno: 'But I didn't change his meaning - I simply made it clearer, since the effect of his argument is masked...’
You are confusing ‘his meaning’ with ‘effect of his argument’. Meaning in this case is the intention of the writer. Absent other evidence, the meaning is in the words stated.
‘Effect of his argument’ is your own claim. You have inserted your own meaning into the words of another, and then claimed that your meaning is the ‘real’ meaning of the sentence.
This manoeuvre enables you to morally condemn Cavanagh, not merely show him mistaken. But you have arrived at this condemnation not through argument or evidence, but by resorting to semantic manipulation.
This manoeuvre enables you to morally condemn Cavanagh, not merely show him mistaken.
Saying It is possible that Cavanagh does not know this... is a pretty clear signal that I allow that he is merely mistaken - but authors have a responsibility to understand the implications of their proposals. Cavanagh either does not, or is indifferent to the impact of what he argues for. Neither looks particularly good on him. Sorry Brendan, but it isn't "semantic manipulation" to try to cut away the obfuscation inherent in a fluffy phrase like "clean energy" - it is simply identifying and clarifying a euphemism.
"The header post and your unsupported claims about what I think are regrettable examples of these undesirable aspects."
I think what Brendan H is asserting is that anything he disagrees with is unsupportable, because, as far as I can work out, he says so.
Brenda H,
All you have offered is your inability to read for meaning.
You and La Buena show up out of nowhere defending the indefensible...rather poorly. It is almost as if you are looking for discussion of certain people or topics and are trying to hijack discussions in those areas of interest.
Hint- you are both doing lousy jobs.
I was in Chilean Patagonia just a few months ago (the tail-end of the Chilean summer). The volume of water moving through the rivers was astonishing, not least because they rise so close to the sea.
Chile's government has turned overtly left, lately (it has been vaguely, but generally harmlessly, left-wing for quite a while). The worry is that the best run economy in South America will be turned into a Venezuela-style basket-case, which it has been before. It's not impossible; Castro and Che managed it in the Caribbean.
African's are already using "biofuels"--firewood and dung to cook with, and it causes terrible respiratory problems and leads to cutting firewood which damages the forest. "energy efficiency" is cited by Cavanagh, but that only works when you already have a grid of fossil fuel power.
Solar and wind are both high tech and expensive, a bad combination for a developing economy. His wish for "leapfrogging" fossil fuels is simply that, a wish.
dcardno: ‘Saying It is possible that Cavanagh does not know this…’
To your credit you have resiled from your previous certainty that ‘Cavanagh is deliberately avoiding a development path known to work…’
But you are still allowing yourself wriggle room in claiming that Cavanagh ‘is indifferent to the impact of what he argues for’.
You haven’t presented any evidence for that claim, which means you don’t really know whether Cavanagh is indifferent to the impact of his preferred policies, so your claim is dubious.
hunter: ‘It is almost as if you are looking for discussion of certain people or topics and are trying to hijack discussions in those areas of interest.’
When did you become blog monitor? The head – and the subject of this post – is ‘The inhumanity of the environmentalist’. So I am well on topic.
La Buena @ Jun 13, 2014 at 11:03 PM
So speaking out about the injustice of climate justice doesn't help?
And if US want to curb their CO2 production that's fine by me. I don't pay a single tax dollar to the US government.
BrendanH,
You just deny the topic, ironically.
And whine when confronted.
Sort of typical climate kook behavior, actually.
Now you are boring.
So long and thanks for the fish....
hunter: ‘So long and thanks for the fish....’
Happy to oblige, hunter. I try to offer value, even when it means casting pearls (although not, of course, in your case).
Remember that an argument is a series of connected steps leading to a conclusion. The steps are as important as the conclusion. The journey is as fulfilling as the destination.
Hope this helps.
Oh, dear, as soon as we get rid of one Concern Troll, another one pops up. Or perhaps is it the same two or three people under different names.
I can spot you from miles off, but the Bish insists on standards of civility and the benefit of the doubt that you don't deserve.
Rest assured, though, that I and others here can pick you within 2 or 3 posts, and will continue to call you out..
Johanna: ‘Oh, dear, as soon as we get rid of one Concern Troll, another one pops up.’
Johanna, while hunter has shown that he is concerned about many things, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to call him a concern troll.
A concern troll is someone who pretends to share the values of the blog and then expresses their ‘concerns’ that certain types of posts are detrimental to the reputation, wellbeing etc of the blog.
I don’t see where that applies to hunter, who I think genuinely shares the most of the values of this website.
hunter is well-known to many of us as being a genuine commenter, here and elsewhere, over a period of years.
You, on the other hand ...
Johanna: ‘You, on the other hand ...’
Just did a quick search and found this: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/7/victory-for-kiwi-sceptics.html#comment10098783
Looks like genuine comment to me. Also holds up quite well in retrospect.