Deleted from “My response to Christopher Horner’s book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and environmentalism)”

His objective seems to be to show how lacking environmentalists are intellectually and in terms of character. Exploring the philosophical and scientific issues related to Global Warming is not his main focus. He focuses little on any ecological problems. Instead he takes aim at environmentalists and environmentalism as being the problem in and of themselves.

Suppose that concerns about Global Warming result from a huge hoax and/or from highly-trained people being honestly mistake, and/or from power-hungry politicians manipulating the public. What does Horner and other people who reject concerns about Global Warming think about the other concerns that environmentalists say are important?

Suppose that none of the concerns listed above are valid. Let’s assume that all of the concerns listed above result from environmentalists conspiring to fool the general public as well as our policy makers.

Let’s suppose that environmentalists’ concerns have all been a big scam so that they can get more funding for research and more influence over our government and society, and that power-grabbing politicians are conspiring with them.

So then, after we’ve gotten rid of the nuisance and menace of the Peak Oilers and the environmentalists, which is , in this scenario that I imagine, not human-caused ecological challenges, but instead, environmentalism in and of itself.

So then, we’ve gotten rid of the dangers of environmentalism, so as to defend, as Horner seems to indicate, our national sovereignty and economic vitality, and our individual liberties.

What about the eventual, if not immiment, increased scarcity of petroleum and natural gas?

So, let’s imagine that we’ve joined with the people who think that rejecting environmentalism completely is the correct approach. From that point, let’s think about the United States, in terms of sovereignty, individual rights and freedoms, economic vitality, and the vitality of our democratic and open civil society.

I have yet to communicated with Horner or others who seem to completely dismiss environmentalism as being little more than a scam. I wonder what he has to say about investing in non-fossil fuel-based energy, as a way to prepare for the prospect of those fuels becoming increasingly scarce.

It would be one thing to write a book that calls into question the science and public policy proposals involved with concerns about Global Warming. But, as the book’s title suggests, Horner, it seems to me, rejects environmentalism itself.

In my mind, environmentalism and energy security and intertwined. But, let’s assume, as some people who reject environmentalism seem to suggest, that they are separate and competing issues.

Horner’s book includes ad hominem arguments and personal jabs such as a reference to Al Gore getting fat and a reference to the facial expressions of the researcher, Naomi Oreskes, or the hypocrisy of JFK Jr’s opposition against windmills along the shore of Cape Cod.

Point after point, Horner seems to suggest, if not state outright, that environmentalist are wrong about everything they stand for.

Let’s assume that the real danger we face is that which is posed by environmentalists trying to scare us so that they can institute a world government in which individual liberty and capitalism are abolished. Let’s assume that concerns about a Peak Oil- induced collapse of our human-made life support systems and concerns about ecological collapse are not valid.

——————————————————–

There has got to be something to unite people in this country that is better than the fear-based, post-9/11, fortress -America mentality, assuming that mentality actually united the people of this nation, and assuming that I am correct to think that such a mentality exists.

I am not exactly shouting “common people of the world unite!” But my guess is that ordinary people who make up the majority of people in our nation and in the world have many interests in common, but overlook those bases for common-ground as a result of focusing on socio-economic issues that divide us.

But then again, some people may dismiss the idea that people in this nation and in the world ought to have a sense of solidarity based on being ‘common people’. It seems that the idea of ‘common people’ pertains to socio-economics, that is, someone’s level of influence or power related to material resources but also to status that is not necessarily materially based such as someone’s scholarly reputation or someone’s prestige that comes from being regarded as having extraordinary moral stature.

To be honest with you, I wonder what exactly it is that I am talking about in this blog entry in terms of people becoming more involved in our communities and in politics, and recognizing common ground. Well, I will try to be more specific.

By ‘united’ , I am not talking about every person in the United States being culturally, politically, and philosophically lock-step with one another. Instead, I am talking about there being greater civic engagement on the part of so-called ordinary people.

This greater civic engagement, if it was constructively framed— that is, not based on having perceived outsiders and cultural minorities, or even elites, used as scapegoats —would involve ordinary people applying our ingenuity, so as to address community and societal goals.

But for those who are already involved in their communities, addressing one or two of the issues they care about, I keep thinking that there is unrealized potential in terms of such people- I include myself in this–working with people who are addressing different, but potentially compatible issues.

But, of course, the compatibility of causes may be in the mind of the beholder. I may suggest to a person that he or she may have common cause with someone whom he or she does not relate to or is working against currently, but beyond making that suggestion, I don’t know what else I would want to attempt.

Criticizing that person and claiming to know what is in her or his best interests more than he or she knows what is in her or his best interest is not something I would want to do.
—————————————————————
I think there are a lot of things people can be doing to address environmental issues, and that therein exist the opportunities for forming a broad-based movement. For example, there is a lot of potential in terms of people (1) addressing peak oil and climate change, via (a)carpooling; (b)growing food in front and backyards and turning abandoned lots into community gardens; (c) working with business and political leaders to ; and (d)working with business and political leaders so as to transition away, rapidly, from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, and toward wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy.

People such as John Bellamy Foster in his book Ecology Against Capitalism and people such as Van Jones of Green For All have helped me to think more about buidling alliances not only among environmental groups but also between environmental groups and groups that are addressing social justice issues.

I imagine that movement having a place for people who are not full-time, professional activists, but whose livelihoods involve a wide range of jobs. , whether they are teachers, cops, electricians, waiters, construction workers, physicians, porn stars, drug dealers, or prostitutes.

The issues that may be compatible with environmentalism are not limited to ‘domestic issues’ such as healthcare, access to jobs, access to formal education, and having a criminal-ju

stice system that protects the community while also protecting civil and human rights.

What do you think of the approach of thinking of the various needs/wants we have (ie food, water, shelter, transportation, physical security, sanitation, medicine, community, and so on), and, then from there, thinking of how we can attend to those needs or wants in ways that are beneficial, neutral, or less harmful to the environment, each other, and other sentient beings?

When I stop to think about the idea of meeting human needs in a way that is ‘beneficial ‘ or ‘neutral’ or ‘less harmful’ to the environment, each other, and other sentient beings, I wonder about how to (1) go about developing standards for setting environmentalist goals and about how to (2) develop standards for measuring progress toward those goals.

Many people have expressed the idea of ‘living off the interest of our ecological capital’, as opposed to drawing down the ecological capital. When I think of the goal of living off of the interest of our ecological capital, it seems like such an unrealistically high standard.

To what extent do you think ‘living off the interest of our ecological capital’
is feasible ? To what extent do societies have other options, such as merely reducing the extent to which we draw down our ecological capital?

But to be honest, I have less of a clear sense of specifics in terms of addressing social justice issues and how to tie that with environmentalism. I intend to learn more about that connection.

Not only do I not have a clear sense about how to connect environmentalism with social justice activism, I don’t have a sense of how to go about addressing the various non-environmental concerns that many people raise.

I am not sure what people who regard themselves as conservatives or neo-conservatives would cite as the nation’s or the world’s most pressing non-ecological problems, but whether an assessment of the world’s non-ecological problems comes from the left wing, the right wing, the beak or the belly of the bird, there are huge gaps in my knowledge about how to go about addressing these concerns.

By contrast, it seems to me that I have a clearer sense of how to go about addressing ecological concerns such as climate change, peak oil, and maybe some other ecological concerns.

Even though I don’t have as clear a sense of how to go about addressing the long list of issues I listed above as I seem to have concerning environmental issues, I somehow keep thinking that there is potential for forming alliances that environmental groups and social justice groups would comprise.

What do you think of the following idea?

Though addressing environmental concerns is a key issue in that all life depends on the Earth’s biosphere, environmentalism is part of a larger process of people working together in an attempt to improve our communities

So, in my opinion, there has got to be ways to connect what environmental groups are doing with what groups outside of environmentalism are doing.

When I think about the word ‘environmentalism’, ideas about attending to all of that which makes possible our existence and our quality of life come to mind. When I think about the various requirements I have for life, I also think about how logically connected various types of environmentalist projects are or at least ought to be.

To live and to have quality of life, we need good air, food, and water. Beyond those basics, our quality of life, of course, depends on a multitude of other services we get from Earth. I imagine the interconnectedness of humanity’s reliance on Earth’s services being reflected in the interconnectedness of the projects of the multitude of institutions, groups and individuals striving to achieve environmentalist goals.

In addition to the multitude of Earth’s services upon which humanity depends, are the multitude of services that we, as human beings, provide for one another. I use the broad term ‘community’ to denote the virtually countless ways that people depend upon one another, in addition to depending upon non-human living beings for our existence and our quality of life.

I mention the fact that human beings have social requirements for our quality of life alongside our physical requirements, so as to extend the analogy between, on the one hand, the interconnectedness of human needs, and, on the other hand, the interconnectedness of people striving, as institutions, groups, and individuals, to attend to those needs.

——————————————————————

Please comment on the following idea.

I would like to extend the idea of promoting alliances further. I am thinking not only in terms of alliances between environmentalists and social justice activists. Environmentalists may have at least some degree of common cause with people who are working on issues pertaining to national security and the global viability of the US economy. Maybe there are ways to find common cause between people working on those issues and people working on environmental issues.

It seems that I am talking about environmentalists and social justice activists forming alliances with a virtually limitless array of people working on other causes. Maybe it is here that I start getting confused.

Or maybe not: perhaps environmentalists can keep an open mind about forming alliances with almost any type of institution, group, or individual.

Please tell me what you think.

For the purposes of this topic, there are two scenarios that I envision. One is a mass social movement that directs societies’ efforts toward addressing ecological and social justice issues.

I would like to include other issues such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation, but I am not sure how they would fit in with environmentalism and social justice. However, whatever issue that I think of, it seems to me that what all of them have is common, as far as I am concerned, is that so-called ordinary people such as me ought to get more involved in decision-making processes.

Ecological and other resource issues are not the only issues that pose challenges to the well-being of our communities, our nation, or humankind in general.

For example, water scarcity or soil erosion or loss of biodiversity pose a risk to human welfare, and perhaps human survival. But there are risks that are not ecological such as the risks involved with nuclear proliferation, or some mass-scale usage of biological warfare. These other issues, like ecological issues, involve human beings facing challenges that we, as a species, unintentionally, played a part in causing.

Maybe the gist of what I am trying to get involved with is a process by which a person becomes more effective at attending to her or his well-being via forming community with others that is based on working with one another to address community and societal goals.

I suspect that there are issues that a wide variety of environmental and social justice groups could agree on. Regarding what may be preventing the formation of such alliances, John Bellamy Foster in his book Ecology Against Capitalism wrote that if addressing ecological issues is going to gain mass appeal, then people in the environmental movement have to combine social justice advocacy with environmental advocacy. Van Jones is one person who is taking this approach.

Foster said, if I recall correctly, that, in reality, environmental and social justice issues are intertwined. However, Foster said, if I recall correctly, that if environmentalists take the wrong approach, we may find ourselves , in situations such as that which occurred in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.

In the early 1980s, the issues became framed in the public’s min

d as the economy and jobs, on the one hand, versus, on the other hand, protecting the environment. More specifically, it was saving the spotted-owl versus saving the jobs of people in the logging industry, if I recall correctly.

Someone like Judi Bari, an activist with Earth First, sought to combine her environmental activism with activism to address the concerns of workers in the logging industry.

I agree with Foster. However, I wonder whether environmentalism, to gain broader appeal, has to also be understood as an expression of patriotism, civic pride, and morality.

(Deleted from “ What Motivates Me” )

I will tell a story about last night in an attempt to illustrate the idea I am trying to express. But before I do that, I will say to you a sentence that I told myself as I thought about this a moment ago: for most of my life, since the development of my ability to think abstractly in a sustained way emerged in my early teens, ‘chasing my dreams’ has been a big part of my motivation, and seems, as I write this sentence, to have been the main cause, if not the sole cause, of my frustration and lack of fulfillment.

Somehow, I think that telling you about what happened last night may illustrate some ideas I am trying to express.

Last night a friend and I had agreed upon going out to eat around 8 pm. When it was about 7:15pm and I knew that I had not much time left to get ready to go, the words on my laptop screen seemed comforting, alluring, and inspiring.

I considered telling my friend that I decided against going out to eat so as to spend more time writing. My guess is that she would have not been upset if I had told her that I wanted to simplify our plans by just going out around 11 pm for a quick drink at a bar she and I could walk to, instead of spending the 4 and ½ hours she and I spent at a restaurant and then at a bar called Blue Danube.

As I hesitantly got into the shower last night, I had the sense that following my conscience would involve me telling Trinity that I opted to not go out to eat not only so I could spend more time and energy on my writing, but also so as to avoid driving my car to and from the part of town where the restaurant is located.

Also, as I took a shower last night, I had the sense that by choosing to go out to eat instead of staying home to write for a few more hours, I was cheating myself out of what would perhaps be a productive writing session during which I would have creatively wrestled with my conscience in terms of information I have about environmental and social justice issues.

I had the sense that that sort of creative wrestling with my conscience would lead to me having enhanced satisfaction with my life, because of me thinking that that sort of awareness on my part is something that I can be proud of, and that it enhances my sense of self-worth in the sense of me thinking of myself as someone who has something worthwhile to offer other people morally and intellectually.

As I think about my choices about how to spend my time and energy last night, it seems that my thoughts and behavior indicated that I was motivated by various ideas about what it means to ‘enjoy the good life.’

For example, last night I paused from working on this essay to look up information about where to go for having a drink with Trinity in terms of the best views of the skyline or the city-scape from the vantage point of the bar or restaurant. I looked for bars and restaurants with scenic patios, intending to drive there and back if need be.

Looking back on how I spent my time last night, it now seems to me that Trinity would have likely been agreeable to me writing for a few more hours and then walking to a nearby bar for a drink, as opposed to driving, and actually spending less money than we ended up spending via eating out.

This morning I told myself that my frustration about how I spent my time and energy last night indicates for lack of a better way of saying it, that if I am upset, I am the victim of my own flawed ideas.

Despite what I have been writing about in terms of environmentalism, social justice, last night it seemed that I was motivated by the idea that I must drive my car, spend money, and ‘neglect’ my writing in order to ‘experience the good life.’