A Renewable Green Movement?
In a new documentary called “What the Green Movement Got Wrong”, Mark Lynas speaks about the dawning realisation that the Green Movement that he had dedicated his life to had been backing the wrong horse. This fascinating documentary acts as a sort of confessional for Lynas and some other well-known green campaigners to own up to what they admit have been some colossal mistakes in their thinking. The first sacred cow they wish to put out to pasteur is the forgone conclusion that nuclear energy is bad…It’s at this very point in the debate that we can choose to simply dismiss, discredit, or at least suppress any ideas that don’t follow the current ‘Green’ status quo, and thus let history continue to unfold as it has thus far…
If for whatever reason you’re already quite happy with the how the Green Movement has progressed thus far, or if you feel certain that things are going to be just fine…Then there’s no reason to click for MORE:
We could take a brave step forward, and move past our fearful reflexes to examine a much wider perspective. One that many notable Environmentalists have been trying to present to a larger audience despite the efforts of the very powerful Eco-PR machines that would have us continue to hold steadfastly to our hope in the Future potential of Wind and Solar power, while we continue to burn enormous amounts of deadly coal and oil here in the pervasive status quo of the Present…
This question starts with a personal choice to either consider a bigger picture, or to simply try and suppress and ignore what’s beyond our vision at present. Thus satisfying the desire of all those who profit from the status quo…The choice is yours, and we all share in this collective fate.
” It was a like a horrible dark secret you couldn’t share with anyone.” – Mark Lynas
Of course everyone would like to do whatever they can to help make things better, within our personal means. The trouble is that we live in a highly energy dependant Society, so even our most basic footprint is still very large because of those energy demands.
Even after factoring in much greater conservation methods, and much more austere reductions in consumption, the capacity of current and projected sources of alternative/renewable energy would still remain incapable of supplying the enormous baseload power requirements of our modern society. Thus, the inescapable need for large capacity low-emissions energy production will remain a fact of life as we know it, and expensive, unreliable, and very small scale solar and wind power are just not up to the task of meeting even greatly reduced demands. This is simply a fact, not a point for argument. Not until there is a radical breakthrough in a form of technology that isn’t even on our event horizon yet.
Curiously, many people who clearly identify themselves as Environmentalists are rarely able to see the direct correlation between an Anti-Nuke stance and the resulting implicit support for burning more fossil fuels to supply this inescapable and ongoing demand for power. Thus by actively promoting a fear of nuclear energy, the anti-nuclear Environmentalists have been effectively playing directly into the interests of Big Oil and Coal for decades now….Even as new nuclear technologies are being explored which offer the ability to not only greatly reduce byproducts and waste, but also burn up waste from older reactor technologies as well, it seems that most Environmentalists remain firmly attached to positions that were formed in the 70’s, and continue to simply serve the interests of Fossil Fuel Giants.
Denial leads to Destruction
By simplistically avoiding the complex issues and opportunities of nuclear energy, North Americans have continued to burn more coal and oil than ever before in history, with a level of environmental damage that is global and almost immeasurable in it’s long term impacts. In a rationale debate of the issue, the facts behind waste management and ecological damages alone would render the ‘fear mongering’ anti-nuke arguments irrelevant.
Yet instead, up until recently we see how many Environmentalists who spoke out in favor of developing Nuclear energy get labeled as turncoats’ traitors, and worse…All in an effort to discredit and suppress their voice it seems. It’s of no surprise that there’s alo no room in the Environmental debate to consider the political and business drivers behind large environmental groups, and why these large organizations would become so resistant to change. Yet facts will continue to present themselves of course, and evolutionary forces will simply promote new growth where the old becomes unable to adapt.
In the meantime, the question remains…Why isn’t nuclear seen as viable “green” alternative, and a zero-emissions short-term solution while Renewable technologies continue to be developed, rather than accepting our fate as a planet still enslaved by filthy fossil-fueled energy?
Hiding Behind Fears, and Dogma to Avoiding the Question…
” Opposition to the development of cleaner nuclear energy has hastened climate change, ironically, by spreading a fear that has kept the West addicted to fossil fuels” – Mark Lynas
So if some Environmentalists are unable to consider multiple view-points without becoming adversarial, much less recognize the inherent risks of self-limiting views, wouldn’t they also be at risk of being unable to evolve with changing circumstances? Unless such factions of the green movement are being artificially supported, wouldn’t they eventually become irrelevant in a Darwinian sense?
Perhaps there’s a sense of omnipotent moral authority that’s being derived from being seen as the very last bastions of anti-corporate resistance, that could be rendered obsolete in a climate of heightened Corporate Social Responsibility. What would then happen if the Green Movement were to ever start collapsing under it’s own under-supported weight? Is there a risk that an entire movement could collapse just because it can’t evolve past it’s anti-nuclear roots?
So how can things change?
Although Patrick Moore is a professorial who’s clearly taken a serious business stance based on his personal convictions…Mark Lynas is quick to point out how many other Environmentalists have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by takign a contrary stance on such issues. Although anti-nuclear zealots are eager to dismiss any opinion that has a financial backing, they all too conveniently forget the large budgets that are behind all the largest environmental groups as well. There are many others who are payed to maintain the status quo, and operate very large PR machines to feed the Media with fear-mongering content under the auspices of Environmentalism.
Perhaps it’s time for new Environmentalists to look deeper into the reasons why an anti-nuclear stance is is vehemently supported which clearly benefits nobody but some large Environmental Groups.. and of course the Fossil Fuel Giants that continue to profit from an ongoing Petro-Chemical Age.
CLICK to consider the environmental damages done by an Eco-PR Machine that serves the inescapable fate of those who follow self-imposed doctrines and rigid dogma.