Blind Spots in the Climate Movement
www.resilience.org
In the media and in activist circles, Climate Change is generally presented as a problem with one cause—carbon emissions—and one solution: a “green energy transition.” But this narrative is far too narrow, and unless we expand our collective perspective and responses, the already grievous consequences will worsen.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/31120082

A very long essay, but I think worth a read - for solarpunks especially - even if you end up disagreeing with the anti-growth and anti-renewables conclusion.

Tldr: the first blind spot is that land disturbance (such as, for example, turning forests into agricultural land) is the “other leg” of climate change: it disrupts the water cycle, making some areas drier and some areas wetter, leading to, eg, crop failures and natural disasters.

Why don’t we hear more about land disturbance as the other leg of climate change? Because capitalism demands growth. Capitalism can “solve” emissions with “green growth” - replacing old fossil fuel power plants with shiny new solar panels, and making a bunch of companies and developers richer in the process. But capitalism can’t make more land. It can’t solve the land disturbance problem by growing - it can only solve it by not growing. And that capitalism cannot do.

And the second blind spot is the tremendous ecological, environmental, and human harm done by the capitalist growth of “renewable” energy - from the slave children digging rare earths in the Congo to the pristine deserts paved over for giant solar projects. But because we are so single-mindedly focused on cutting emissions, we think “at least renewable energy doesn’t produce carbon dioxide, so that’s better, right?” And we put a nice green coat of paint on the world-destroying von Neumann machines of capitalism.

So what’s the solution?

That being said, personally I propose: Let’s start with the goal of no new energy infrastructure whatsoever from any source, make do with what we have now, and shut down infrastructure from there as we eliminate frivolous use. This is an attainable goal. What are examples of frivolous use? Here’s a few candidates: AI, next day shipping, cheap plastic shit from China, cut flowers imported from South America on airplanes, perishable food shipped halfway around the world, commercial air travel, weed-free mown lawns, streaming movies and music, fast fashion, video game consoles, big screen TVs, f’ing single-use coffee pods, and the list goes on and on and on.

  • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
    66·
    19 days ago

    Hold on, let me quote that section:

    the disposal of waste and eventual retirement of the infrastructure Windmill blades are notoriously difficult to recycle because they are made of composites that can’t be easily separated into their constituent parts. Lithium batteries contain reusable materials that it’s possible to recover, but due to expense and logistics, the practice is not widespread. Most solar panels are currently land-filled because of high costs and technical difficulties. With all these, yeah “they’re working on it” but so far progress is slow.

    Windmill blades being hard to dispose of is one, true, and two, just one example of one aspect of the environmentally unfriendly production, management, and disposal of renewable energy equipment.

    Which is environmentally unfriendly because all industrial production is environmentally unfriendly.

    And one of the big points of this article is how environmentalists don’t want to talk - or even think - about that.

    • matsdis@piefed.socialEnglish
      12·
      19 days ago

      Lifting waste disposal of windmill blades to the same level as atmospheric CO2 does seem like a bad-faith distraction.

      The article talks about real problems, but problems that can be fixed within a generation. Atmospheric CO2, on the other hand, will screw up humanity (food production, etc.) for thousands of years, as far as we know without a way to undo.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      18 days ago

      Sure man.

      Now talk to me about how easy it is to recycle the constituent parts of a coal or gas fired power plant. Oh, also notoriously difficult? Laughable to even ponder, maybe? Huh.

      This kind of finger pointing and pearl clutching is just an attempt to muddy the waters and ultimately delay action. Which is exactly what the entrenched energy company leaders want.

      • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
        32·
        18 days ago

        Of course we need to act quickly. But we also need to act correctly.

        Green capitalism wants us to believe the only problem is greenhouse gas emissions. That if we replace fossil fuel engines and power plants with solar panels and batteries, we can continue burning energy and consuming resources like “normal” and still save the Earth.

        This is a bad solution because it ignores all the other environmental harms of unchecked growth. It puts a bandage on one symptom - greenhouse gas emissions - but does nothing to cure the disease.

        The solution is not to replace one energy industry with another while we unsustainably consume the world. The only real long term solution is to use less energy.

        • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          18 days ago

          Green capitalism wants us to believe the only problem is greenhouse gas emissions.

          False. It’s just the biggest and most dangerous one so it’s what’s getting most of the attention. And people like you and other petroleum shills are trying to prevent that with disingenuous arguments.