Polarizing environmentalism

Observation via Robert Cruickshank at the California High-Speed Rail Blog:

There are two kinds of environmentalism out there. The older kind is a 20th century environmentalism that believes the automobile society is perfectly fine – the problem is when it encroaches on open space. This kind of environmentalist looks at you quizzically when you talk about carbon emissions or sustainable transportation, but gets very worked up about a proposal to convert open space to some kind of use. This kind of environmentalist is willing to oppose solar and wind power because of its effect on open space. They don’t ever really stop to consider the big picture, because they believe everything is just fine if we never build on open space ever again.

The newer kind of environmentalism is a 21st century environmentalism that understands the huge crisis we have placed our planet in because of our burning of fossil fuels. This kind of environmentalist knows that the status quo is killing species left and right – that even if we never built another thing on any existing open space, we’d still be fucked because we’re burning carbon like it’s going out of style (which it actually is). This kind of environmentalist knows that it’s worth trading some open space for sustainability, because it won’t do us or other species much good if we preserve open space and yet keep on burning carbon.

I tend to agree with Mr. Cruickshank, and am personally very excited for the opportunity to ride in style in HSR (as opposed to the 16 hours I spent on I-5 this past week). However, I always get a little skeptical when sentences begin "there are two kinds of [blank] out there." I for one enjoy open space and would not like to see the Grand Canyon or the forests near my house developed, but I also don't react "quizzically" when others talk about carbon emissions or sustainability. Indeed, readers of this blog will have to look hard to find a post about "open space," but I do still consider myself a conservationist.

And yet, I fall squarely into Mr. Cruickshank's second category of environmentalism as well, in that I grew concerned when NIMBYs stalled progress on Cape Wind in Nantucket, when a coalition of environmentalists sued to halt AB 32 in California, and when the German and Chinese governments pulled back on plans for advancing nuclear power generation. The non-trivial environmental challenges represented by alternative energy technologies must be weighed against the consequences of a sustained carbon economy, and anyone suspecting a negligible environmental impact by 21st century industrialism is fooling themselves.

So there is overlap in Mr. Cruickshank's simplistic analysis (i.e., me), and indeed, there are missing categories. I doubt very much, for instance, that many "open space" environmentalists would strongly identify with the Monkey Wrench Gang, Edward Abbey's fictional eco-terrorists, or their real-life counterparts. The point Mr. Cruickshank intends to transmit comes across perfectly well -- we should not block progress on environmental goals for the sake of small potatoes, NIMBYism or BANANA logic ("build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything"). But environmentalists of all stripes should stop short of polarizing each other. Disagreements may become far more bridgeable if opponents are friends, not enemies, and taking a complex system of overlapping and sometimes competing ideas and turning it into a two-sided coin weakens the debate, and it will weaken the outcomes.

Incidentally, Mr. Cruickshank argues that the welfare of desert ecosystems probably needs to take a backseat to the HSR train currently in the planning stage, because climate change is ultimately the larger threat to species and biomes. "Environmentalists need to keep perspective," he says, and I agree. But he needs to keep perspective as well (we all do). High-speed rail runs on electricity, and roughly 60% of California electricity comes from burning fossil fuels (46.5% natural gas, 15.5% coal in 2009). Almost all of the state's transportation sector is fueled by petroleum, so switching some vehicle miles from cars to the train would certainly be a step in the right direction. But HSR will be a stall at best in mitigating carbon emissions until alternative energy technology is competitive with the fossil fuels we need it to displace.

In the end, there are only two kinds of people in the world: people who believe the world can be divided cleanly into two groups, and people who don't.