This post is (theoretically) part one of a three part series on deep green activism. Part one defines “deep green” and addresses my views on the various routes humans might take in trying to solve environmental problems. Part two will look at some problems I have with deep green philosophy. Part three will address the question of how to take effective action to solve environmental problems.
I saw If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front earlier this week, and it’s gotten me thinking a lot about where I stand in terms of activism and ideology. I’m also in the middle of reading Deep Green Resistance, which starts from the premise that civilization is inherently unsustainable and then discusses practical strategies for direct activism, including illegal resistance measures.
I’m conflicted about the deep green movement—I think their analysis is spot on in some cases but overly simplistic in others. If you’ve never heard the term, “deep green” is basically environmentalism based on most or all of the following premises:
1) The economy, our culture and all other institutions are dependent on the existence of ecological systems which can sustain us. This means that the needs of ecological communities and the planet come before the needs of any economic system, country, etc.
2) Environmental destruction, as well as social injustices, are caused by existing power structures (which usually includes capitalism and may include civilization, depending on who you’re talking to).
3) Most injustices are systematic and deliberate, and will not be righted without radical changes.
4) Without radical changes, people will destroy the ability of the planet to support life, both human and nonhuman.
5) Our culture will not make any voluntary transition to a sustainable way of living. Those in power will not voluntarily give up power; they must be forced to do so.
6) Solutions to environmental problems which do not question existing power structures will ultimately be ineffective.
7) Technology causes more problems than it solves, and will not “save” us from the consequences of our destructive behavior. This includes things like fuel efficient/electric cars, solar power, etc.
8) Protective use of force, including illegal actions, are justified in defense of our landbase. Depending on the group, this may include nonviolent illegal activities, such as barricades, or property destruction.
I agree that we’re headed in a very bad direction very quickly, and that existing solutions seem unlikely to solve anything. As I’m writing this, the State Department is going ahead with plans to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from Alberta’s tar sands to the Gulf Coast. Tar sands are probably the most environmentally destructive way you can imagine to extract oil—the processing releases way more carbon dioxide than conventional oil, and the extraction itself leaves land full of scars and carcinogenic chemicals which increase cancer rates in surrounding communities. This pipeline is an environmental nightmare, and in spite of tireless work by activists against it, it’s probably going to be built. This is one example, but I could list dozens of others. Our country and our civilization are not on the fast track to sustainability, even the pro-capitalist Al Gore variety.
The deep greens seem to think that without serious action, humans are going to kill off the planet and cause a collapse of civilization. The idea behind a lot of deep green stuff I’ve read is that by shifting away from civilization now, we can avoid the worst of the worst effects of this transition. Oil is going to run out, and the sooner we recognize that and start shifting to primitive, hyper-local, sustainable ways of living, the less sudden and violent the crash will be.
I’ve read and thought about this a lot, and I don’t buy the idea of a complete crash. I think we can continue on this destructive track for a while. We won’t get rid of capitalism or fix global inequality, obviously, but I think we’re smart and crazy enough to engineer our way to a world where we can (mostly) feed nine billion people, the rich are relatively comfortable, we have solar panels and maybe electric cars or high speed trains. Really, our only limiting factor is energy—water can be desalinized once it gets scarce enough for that to be cost effective, and I think we can figure out how to compensate for topsoil loss. I’m not saying the transition won’t be messy—people will die when we truly start running out of oil. I’m not saying this will be a good world, but I don’t think it will be completely awful either. It will be incredibly unequal, especially with the worst effects of climate change disproportionately targeting low income people in the Global South. But I think we can keep going as a civilization for a while, with a bit of new technology and some new sources of energy.
Here’s the thing: I don’t really want to live in that world. I got into being insanely liberal and radical because I love the outdoors, basically. But as I’ve read and learned more about global politics and social justice, I’ve come to realize how intertwined these issues are. That’s one of my favorite things about deep green philosophy—the recognition that the same sense of entitlement which enables men to rape women with impunity is also responsible for the violent seizure of indigenous lands for oil extraction. Poverty, slave labor, war, famine and rising cancer rates are not isolated problems—they’re inevitable consequences of the same destructive systems. If we don’t move to seriously address these issues by challenging existing power structures, we’re still going to have a very unequal world. Standards of living might keep rising, but the wealth gap isn’t going to close. And that’s a problem for me.
The other reason I don’t want to go the technology route is because I think I know how it ends. The endgame of technology is a world where almost nothing humans don’t directly need exists. There are about 200 species going extinct every day. Most of them are probably things we’ve never heard of. Most of them aren’t charismatic megafauna—polar bears, pandas, tigers and the like. People don’t really care about random species of lichen and beetles, and besides their potential pharmacological benefit, there’s no particular reason why they should. But I’m young and stupid and I love life and the world too much to say that that’s ok. I want biological diversity for its own sake, not just because it might be useful to us someday. I want land that exists for its own sake, not for us to drive and live and plant food on. I know we can do whatever the hell we want to the planet, and I know we will if it comes down to it. But I want a world where there are still spaces that exist for other things, and I don’t want them to all be carefully parceled “wilderness areas” delineated by Congress or some other governmental body. I want the wild, whatever that means. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Coming tomorrow (ish)—my issues with deep green philosophy and some thoughts on the construction of human, nature and wilderness. In the meantime, if you want to read more about Deep Green, check out Fertile Gound, an awesome organization based in Bellingham, Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment