As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Environmentalism] The Three Shades of Green
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
"Go Green" is a popular buzzword these days, but what exactly does it mean? It's of course related to environmentalism, but it doesn't really describe what methods an environmentalist should pursue to protect the environment. Neither does it specify the exact motivations behind protecting the environment.
It turns out there are many different environmentalist movements, and some have helpfully labeled themselves with different shades of green. In this thread I'm going to briefly summarize the different perspectives of environmentalism. Read these over, and then discuss which perspectives you most agree with and which ones you reject.
LIGHT GREEN - The birthplace of the phrase "Go Green", this shade of environmentalism is focused on the private actions of individuals, such as choosing to use reusable bags instead of plastic bags. The idea is that small changes in the lives of many individuals will encourage environmental responsibility and make the public more responsive to greater changes. Critics of the light green perspective claim that it overstates the ability of individuals to make a difference in a worldwide issue, that it is only feasible for those individuals that are wealthy enough to spend more money for environmentally-friendly products, that it ignores larger systemic environmental problems, and that the public may come to ignore demands for lifestyle change.
BRIGHT GREEN - This shade of environmentalism is based on the idea that environmentally-friendly technologies can enable human civilization to thrive without degrading the environment. Ideas range from clean technologies that prevent ongoing pollution to hypothetical nano- and biotechnology that could undo preexisting environmental damage. Critics of the bright green perspective claim that it assumes it is possible to create non-polluting versions of existing polluting technologies. I also encourage you to check out this website, which has a bright green focus: Worldchanging
DARK GREEN - This shade of environmentalism claims that existing civilization is inherently damaging to the environment and cannot become sustainable without massive systemic changes, such as a rejection of consumerism and an emphasis on the development of self-sufficient communities. The most extreme dark green environmentalists reject civilization and advocate a return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Critics of the dark green perspective claim that it is too pessimistic of modern civilization's ability to adapt to environmental challenges.
I myself identify the most with the bright green perspective, as the light green perspective is too small in scope and the dark green perspective seems to give-up on the idea of global fellowship.
It turns out there are many different environmentalist movements, and some have helpfully labeled themselves with different shades of green. In this thread I'm going to briefly summarize the different perspectives of environmentalism. Read these over, and then discuss which perspectives you most agree with and which ones you reject.
LIGHT GREEN - The birthplace of the phrase "Go Green", this shade of environmentalism is focused on the private actions of individuals, such as choosing to use reusable bags instead of plastic bags. The idea is that small changes in the lives of many individuals will encourage environmental responsibility and make the public more responsive to greater changes. Critics of the light green perspective claim that it overstates the ability of individuals to make a difference in a worldwide issue, that it is only feasible for those individuals that are wealthy enough to spend more money for environmentally-friendly products, that it ignores larger systemic environmental problems, and that the public may come to ignore demands for lifestyle change.
BRIGHT GREEN - This shade of environmentalism is based on the idea that environmentally-friendly technologies can enable human civilization to thrive without degrading the environment. Ideas range from clean technologies that prevent ongoing pollution to hypothetical nano- and biotechnology that could undo preexisting environmental damage. Critics of the bright green perspective claim that it assumes it is possible to create non-polluting versions of existing polluting technologies. I also encourage you to check out this website, which has a bright green focus: Worldchanging
DARK GREEN - This shade of environmentalism claims that existing civilization is inherently damaging to the environment and cannot become sustainable without massive systemic changes, such as a rejection of consumerism and an emphasis on the development of self-sufficient communities. The most extreme dark green environmentalists reject civilization and advocate a return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Critics of the dark green perspective claim that it is too pessimistic of modern civilization's ability to adapt to environmental challenges.
I myself identify the most with the bright green perspective, as the light green perspective is too small in scope and the dark green perspective seems to give-up on the idea of global fellowship.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Posts
Yes, with dramatic technological advances.
The problem, of course, is that we are sitting over here in our houses with our cars and appliances and stuff, telling those people "you can't have this, it will destroy the environment". They are unsurprisingly not very sympathetic to that.
But clean water, food, and safe home - sure, I guess. The thing is, having worked in developing countries where people have all those things, it still seems pretty primitive by Western industrialized nation standards. We are way, way beyond that and I doubt that most people would be willing to move very far towards that baseline.
There was an interesting study done where a utility company started showing users if they were using above, on par, or below the average usage for the area.
I forget the exact results, but there was a large group of people that, when they discovered they were using below the average, started to consume more energy to make up the difference.
Slowing population growth and even carefully lowering it would be remarkably useful and probably simpler overall. While China did a terrible job of implementing it, long term their policy will have helped out a lot.
I guess that people in wealthy countries would rather pay more money than have to unplug their appliances. :?
To be fair their computers are using negligible power. Computers are very efficient and even more so in suspension.
Where once there existed a prairie, or perhaps a forest of Redwoods, there now lies a city, a great big mass of asphalt and concrete and skyscrapers and pollution. What greater example of the ravaging and exploitation of the natural environment can there be? But ya know... it doesn't trouble me. I grew up in a city, went to schools built upon it, and met my friends there. It's sustained my parents and myself and millions of others. But perhaps we, meaning the architects of the city, wiped out some species living here before mankind decided to create this city. Perhaps it was some serene pond, with a school of iridescent fish living in harmony within its ecosystem. Or some owls with a unique arrangement of feathers. Perhaps that was how Mother Nature had intended for that spot of land to be used. Does that bother me, does that keep me up at night? No, no it does not. When I think back to what that city did for me and others, and how lucky I feel to have grown up in such a place, I don't feel pity for the damage inflicted on Mother Nature.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to decry Man's continued incursions into Mother Nature's green bosom, when I have enjoyed the fruits of/been a happy recipient of Man's dominance over this planet and all its creatures.
Maybe if we invent fusion power, I'll switch to bright green.
I believe that technology will close a lot of the gap (bright green) but I don't believe that technology alone will save us, but will have to be combined with changes in lifestyle (light green).
Those changes in lifestyle will have to be supported by law, policy, and economics, and may involve us having to give up some privileges that we're accustomed to (dark green).
However, I don't believe that lifestyle change necessarily implies a reduction of quality of life. In other words, it may not be feasible in the long-term to commute long distances to work by car. But if we can't do that, and we up, say, telecommuting instead, that is a change in lifestyle that may actually result in an improvement of the quality of life.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If we had begun mining Helium3 on the moon THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO LIKE WE PLANNED, we wouldn't have to deal with this shit, at all. It would be the last thing on our minds. Solar, Windmills, Bio-Willy, et all are half-assed half-measures that we shouldn't even be looking at. We have access to THE BEST OPTION, and we're going for the cheapest one instead.
You've got a lot of people, a lot of space and a lot of people living in fairly inhospitable locations compared to Europe. Leads to poor public transport and low population density so everyone has to travel more, then air conditioning and big houses probably makes up the rest compared to Europe.
My guess is that we'll just go right on polluting until climate change and resource scarcity forces us towards massive cutbacks in our lifestyle. So Dark Green it is. I think cheap air travel will be the first to go- that's only possible with cheap oil and a complete lack of concern for atmospheric damage.
Sure let's get right on that as soon as we figure out how to do cold fusion, a space elevator, and an oil substitute for plastics and fertilizer:?
Uh what? Inertial confinement fusion power doesn't work yet, as far as I know. It might work, but the problem is not a lack of access to fuel.
I don't think it's meaningful to talk about individual action to the exclusion of collective action (or vice versa, for that matter). If a thing is worth doing on an individual level, it's worth doing on a policy level (unless there's a good reason otherwise).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Doing things on a policy level works because it can avoid the collective action problems. There have been a lot of efforts to persuade people on an individual level to solve the collective action problems (like buy local, shop ethically, conserve energy) and as far as I know none of them have ever succeeded.
Plastics are derived, fundamentally, from ethene, which can be made by dehydrating ethanol which can be obtained from biomass.
Fertilizers are made principally from ammonia compounds, which are produced by the Haber process from hydrogen and nitrogen, one of which can be obtained cleanly from water, the other because it's god damn everywhere.
I mean, his point is silly, but we've had oil substitutes for non-fuel products for decades. There's no real problem there.
His overall point is right, just that we got scared off fission (by chernobyl and three mile island) rather than abdicated fusion.
The uranium we can mine would last for a century, or at least 50 years by the most pessimistic estimates. We use that time to set up the infrastructure to collect uranium from seawater. The technology already exists (read this great paper on it from a Japanese researcher) but it costs more than mining the stuff so it's pointless at the moment.
Because the fact is, Uranium is one of the most common elements in the Earth. And it's abundantly present in seawater. Digging it out may not be feasible forever but harvesting it from the sea will be. Using currents rates of tectonic activity and energy usage we'd run out Uranium around the same time the sun expands to consume the Earth, aka 5 billion years.
If we consider solar power a "renewable resource" then nuclear fission is in the same category, because it'll last as long.
Electricity wise we'll be fine, fission carrying the bulk and hydro/wind/geo contributing where locations permit them to. We'll just need fuel substitutes (for planes and cars, etc.) and a source of plastic (it's made from petroleum). My understanding is biofuels can be used for both, so...
I find it difficult to be concerned about maintaing our lifestyle. I wouldn't really consider myself "green" so much as "pro-efficiency" but if I had to choose one of the 3 I guess I'm bright green. What we should really be concerned about is how much extra heat all that power generation will add to the Earth once the entire world enjoys a first world lifestyle. We may need some kind of solar shade to reduce heat coming in from the sun.
The thing is building nuclear reactors costs a fuckload of money compared to the things we could be doing - like baseload solar power in Australia. Nuclear for us just doesn't make sense - we have tons of sunshine, tons of desert, and it's cheaper and politically expedient to go that way.
I suspect they are counting the electricity as a carbon emitter, which is a habit of too many sides on environmentalism. There is an enormous difference between CO2 emissions from a chemical process, and CO2 emissions from an electricity source (because it's completely, perfectly substitutable).
We could directly harness the sun and start vacuuming Jupiter, and we'd still fill the capacity out. Uranium might last thousands of years at current usage, but we'd find a way to use it up faster if we used it more than we do.
I know, and there's still more we can do to increase the efficiency. But using the reactors currently operating in the United States as the focus of your argument has served me well in these debates before. Once you start talking about breeders, liquid metal (sodium) cooled reactors, etc. people assume it's all science fiction and you might as well be talking about fusion.
I completely agree with you that different locales should take advantage of whatever is available. Some areas are fantastic for solar, wind, hydro-electric or geothermal. Most aren't. Even then you'd either need some kind of ridiculous energy storage to be able to cover peak loads or... have a reactor supplementing your green power.
Realistic arguments about dumping fossil fuels needs to be founded on nuclear fission.
Once we're talking about things lasting thousands of years or more I'm definitely going to just bank on "technological progress will provide answers" and dismiss the "problem".
Apparently a study was done which found we'd (Australia) need to invest about AUD$37 billion per year for 10 years to completely convert the country to renewable energy (zero CO2 emissions).
It equates to price of electricity increase of about 60%.
Thanks to privatizing our electricity industry, we've already had the price rise by about 60% anyway.
What I'm saying is, it makes no fucking sense at all why Australia isn't doing this.
EDIT: Also this thing is ridiculously comprehensive - they cover stuff like getting rid of the use of coking coal for steel production in it as well, which is a huge industry for Australia. So yeah, it's ridiculously doable.
"Oh that's a thousand years from now, it's not a problem."
"Oh that's 500 years from now, it's not a problem."
"Oh that's 100 years from now, eh, my kids might still be alive then, let them figure it out."
"Sir, the oil wells are dry and they've started sucking up Morlocks!"
"Dammit, why didn't someone start working on this problem sooner!"
1000 years is a really long time though. 100 years ago we hadn't even mastered flight.
Today we can send things into space, land on the moon, and comprehend the internal structure of the atom.
Like seriously: 1000 years from now we'll have so many grades of better awesome things.
He might read my response seconds after posting it.