I saw this clip on FB from Bernie Sanders about this Republican mayor and his town in Texas. I certainly felt good — great — after watching that clip and listening to this mayor say things like, "We're at a tipping point" and "I trust the scientists in their field" and so on.
Bravo for this guy and his town, who have decided to get right with science.
But there are also larger considerations that are pretty constantly overlooked by the talking heads.
I've driven past the wind farm in the Panhandle that helps supply this town with electricity. I've seen it 6 or 8 times when traveling to New Mexico (sorry — didn't linger — it's still Texas after all).
It's impressive, no question. In a way, it's a study in Capitalist Idealism — all those majestic turbines, turning and turning in the wind, rank upon rank marching to the horizon...and stuff like that. On one level, it's a great optic for the environmental movement in classic Modernist style. And far be it from me to stand in the way of a large-scale effort to at least address the worst of the climate change issue.
Except that it is not the worst way that Texans are contributing to the problem, and while it is good for the environment in the short term...a) I can understand why some locals resist them: oil was so much more...discrete; and b) it's ultimately just another way to make the unsustainable look sustainable.
Look, the science shows that the biggest single contributor to carbon emissions is not oil or energy production or the automobile. It's the beef industry. Hands down. It's responsible for around 40% of the carbon emissions globally (not to mention deforestation and its attendant impact on biodiversity, water use and the carbon-cost of transporting all that meat around the country and across the globe).*
And who is bigger on steaks than Texans? It's practically their nom de guerre. Can I hear an amen?
Moreover, it takes lots of resources to make those wind turbines and solar panels. Lots of stuff, like various metals and minerals (some of them mined in the developing world, which is not without complicated impacts on those places), and plastics (made from the very petroleum the windmill is trying to wean us off of!), energy that may or may not be produced "sustainably", and water. Lots of water, that then has to be reclaimed at further expense in resources.
And the t-bone of the steak: What does it mean to have "sustainable energy" propping up what is ultimately an unsustainable way of life? American (and, coming soon to your environmental neighborhood, Chinese) super-consumption is what is really really killing the planet.
Reliance on fossil fuels is merely one unsustainable Russian doll tucked inside a much larger one that itself is untenable.
Don't get me wrong: renewable energy sources are a huge step forward (whether it is in time to save a livable environment remains to be seen). But the bigger picture is the one that Americans are simply refusing to look at, the press are refusing to cover, and politicians are refusing to address. Talking about this is not merely forbidden, it is almost impossible, given the discursive power of Capitalist Idealism:
We cannot go on consuming 40%+ of the world's resources with just 5% or 6% of the world's population!
THAT is the definition of unsustainable. THAT is the issue that dwarfs all others in the contest over saving the environment. It's a killer, both politically and practically.
And I'm waiting for a politician or anyone in the mainstream of the fourth estate to take this up as a rallying cry.
Don't hold your breath. We're not there, yet. Will we get there in time?
Moreover, it takes lots of resources to make those wind turbines and solar panels. Lots of stuff, like various metals and minerals (some of them mined in the developing world, which is not without complicated impacts on those places), and plastics (made from the very petroleum the windmill is trying to wean us off of!), energy that may or may not be produced "sustainably", and water. Lots of water, that then has to be reclaimed at further expense in resources.
And the t-bone of the steak: What does it mean to have "sustainable energy" propping up what is ultimately an unsustainable way of life? American (and, coming soon to your environmental neighborhood, Chinese) super-consumption is what is really really killing the planet.
Reliance on fossil fuels is merely one unsustainable Russian doll tucked inside a much larger one that itself is untenable.
Don't get me wrong: renewable energy sources are a huge step forward (whether it is in time to save a livable environment remains to be seen). But the bigger picture is the one that Americans are simply refusing to look at, the press are refusing to cover, and politicians are refusing to address. Talking about this is not merely forbidden, it is almost impossible, given the discursive power of Capitalist Idealism:
We cannot go on consuming 40%+ of the world's resources with just 5% or 6% of the world's population!
THAT is the definition of unsustainable. THAT is the issue that dwarfs all others in the contest over saving the environment. It's a killer, both politically and practically.
And I'm waiting for a politician or anyone in the mainstream of the fourth estate to take this up as a rallying cry.
Don't hold your breath. We're not there, yet. Will we get there in time?
*
Image credit: https://medium.com/@ianaltosaar/how-i-ruined-my-thoughts-with-only-thinking-like-a-capitalist-d656b9a0f482
No comments:
Post a Comment