Well first you keep all existing nuclear plants running wherever possible such as Diablo Canyon in California. They you look to build new units at existing plant sites. In that sense you keep the physical footprint of production relatively small.
At times, I feel that the Left has taken everything I care for and made it hateful. That hasn’t moved me to the Right, it has dropped me in the middle of nowhere.
This is such shoddy, path dependent thinking. Of course it is possible to develop sustainable power sources without destroying ecologically sensitive areas. The choice is not an intact biosphere or decarbonization. It just requires more analysis and care than industrialists feel like investing in.
The Natural Resources Defense Council did not oppose a new clean-energy transmission line in Maine. The Natural Resources Council of Maine is a Maine-based environmental org which opposed the transmission and they are unaffiliated with the national NRDC group. https://www.nrcm.org/
I clicked through the same link and found the same thing and posted the same post above. Great minds. Yes this is concerning because I am interested to liberate myself from mainstream media and become one of the cool hipsters in the sub stack culture. This is a great reminder of the importance that big news organizations and the fact checkers play in ensuring we are getting the right story.
I am concerned that there is a material error in this piece that undermines the point. I do not believe there is a link between the natural resources Council of Maine and the natural resources defense counsel. Because you cite NRDC as one of the 3 big environmental organizations opposing carbon reductions this is a serious error. I am curious as to whether you know there is a link between the two because I could find no link on the web page of the natural resources council of Maine. Facts and fact checking are very important even in Blogostan.
Looks like the article has been quietly revised to go after NRDC on other grounds. I'm glad to see the revision, not so glad to see it made without acknowledging the previous error.
Right. Been edited to a generic non statement. This got my attention because I think NRDC is the most important and effective environmental group so curious to read about legit criticism. That said the general backlash against hypocritical elites is fair but I am hoping for truly well reasoned alternative perspectives on sub stack. This is a good reminder to be careful about where you get your news.
The revision says NRDC supported closing nuclear power plants in New York and California. That doesn't seem like a generic non-statement. Anyhow I'm an ignoramus about NRDC but know the Sierra Club well. The Sierra Club is, of course, a complex organization constantly pulled in multiple directions by its democratic structure and many local chapters and groups. All in all, I think it has transitioned to the climate fight remarkably well. I'm disappointed that this article doesn't even mention the Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
In many cases these groups are fighting what I call solar sprawl. We need to provide the economic incentives from state and federal government so that building on warehouse rooftops large parking lots and similar sites is as easy and economical as it is to build on a green field.
1) Subsidizing something doesn't make it more easy or economical; it just means that someone else is paying for it. There's a reason that building on a field is easier cheaper than building on a roof or over a parking lot, and no amount of government incentives will change that.
2) Could you justify spending more money to save a little land area? Where's the cost-benefit analysis?
3) A lot of the most productive solar locations are in the desert, where there aren't parking lots or warehouses to put panels. Not using these locations will necessitate putting more panels in less-productive areas. This uses more resources in production and more space in deployment. The panels have to go somewhere!
4) "solar sprawl" Jeez. I have to admit, that's pretty good hijacking of a word. Right up there with the "my body, my choice" anti-vaxers.
Your comments are almost a caricature of how neo liberal insanity is leading us to utter climate breakdown. If it’s not cost-effective then we don’t decarbonize and then life as we know it is gone. Your argument is like saying that it wasn’t worth defeating Hitler because it cost us 40% of GDP. Got it
Lol. What are you going to do next, say that I'm racist because I want you to show me some math? If you're wondering why it's proving hard to decarbonize, don't blame me; look in a mirror.
Why are most productive solar installations in the desert? I would have thought they were at the equator simply because the sun shines for longest there. It has nothing to do with jean, right - just the amount of sunshine. Or am I wrong?
The equator gets exactly the same length of daylight* as everywhere on earth (12 h a day on average). However, deserts --- almost by definition --- have fewer clouds and this more hours of sun. See for yourself, deserts win in the us: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg
* Other factors, like the angle of the sun, do matter tho, and those are position dependent.
What is the cost of small scale local installation + small scale storage vs big scale installation far away + transport lines of electrical power + large scale storage? It does seem like solar power is ideal for local power and local storage, relative to gas fired electricity plants.
Nice reply, but the biggest issue, from the perspective of physics, is storage. The cost would be staggering, if there were resources available to do the storage.
<sigh> It's not NIMBYism to want solar panels on your own rooftops, on your parking lots, and on top of your neighborhood buildings while not wanting to pave over wilderness outside of one's metropolitan area. In fact, it's the opposite of NIMBY. Look, none of these environmental groups oppose solar panels, but it matters where you put them. Let me tell you a story:
There's a town where there are a large number of children on the streets who have no home. The people of the town get together and say, "We need to build an orphanage." So, they contact a construction company and ask them to come back with a proposal for building the town an orphanage. The construction company comes back and says, "No problem, we propose that you give us the elementary school, and we'll convert it to an orphanage." The town says, "Where will the students learn?" The contractor says, "That's not in the scope of my contract. Do you want the orphanage or not?" The town says, "We're not giving you the elementary school."
So the contractor says, "Okay, I have a plan B. Give us the hospital and we'll convert that into an orphanage." The town says, "No, that's a horrible idea. We need the hospital. We have lots of vacant lots around that we think would be great places to build the orphanage. Why can't you use one of those?" The contractor says, "If we build there, it will cost you more money than if we convert an existing building, oh, and also our profit margins will be lower." The town says, "Building the orphanage doesn't do us any good on net if it costs us something else essential." Then Noah Smith farms out his Substack to someone who calls the townspeople NIMBYs.
Does the environmental left have NIMBYs? Yes. Are some of the examples cited examples of egregious NIMBYism? Yes. Is this something the environmental left should be introspective about and ask themselves about before they start protesting? Yes. However, not every battle against renewable energy is NIMBYism. It matters where we build this infrastructure. Carbon dioxide is a critical problem that we face, but it's not the *only* critical problem we face. We're also in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction, and paving our wilderness when we don't need to only makes that worse. We should put out the house fire we started, but not by crushing the house with a boulder. There are a lot of good places to build solar panels, and wilderness should not be our first choice, because we desperately need that. Will we need to build some solar sites in wilderness areas? Sure, but it shouldn't be our first choice when alternatives exist. Rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, and other damaged lands should all be preferential sites for siting our green energy production. In many places, it's not. That's worth raising a ruckus about.
Seriously, do you think everyone else is a complete lunatic like you?
Damaged land? You think anything human beings touch is a damaged land? Each living being is trying to make its environment more suitable for itself. With your logic, jungles are also damaged land since trees are changing the land. Beaver dams are also damaged land since obviously they changed the landscape. Tell me exactly why when trees or beavers or other living creatures change the land drastically is ok but if we Human do it then it's damaged land? By the way, don't tell me because they are nature and we are not. We are also part of nature, the biggest part of it in the last millennium.
Tell me why exactly paving roads in the desert and creating solar farms is wrong beside the fact that you don't like it. It's desert, have you been there, there is nothing of value over there. There is not much life beside some thorny plants so you really aren't disturbing anything.
It's a f. desert. We don't need this type of wilderness. We do need to preserve fertile plains and jungles but not a barren desert. It can become a solar farm for what I care.
I agree with the overall argument of this post that environmental groups are unreasonably opposing renewable projects due to baseless NIMBY complaints, but it’s not a well-argued point because the writer discuss the big, national environmental groups instead of solely focusing on the local groups or local Sierra Club chapters usually voicing opposition to renewable projects. Specifically, you cite the national NRDC, Audubon Society and the Sierra Club organizations as opposing renewable energy projects but:
1) As mentioned elsewhere, the Natural Resources Defense Council did not oppose the Maine transmission line. The Natural Resources Council of Maine opposed the transmission line and they have nothing to do with the NRDC.
2) The national Sierra Club organization is much more supportive of renewable energy projects than its local chapters.
3) The impact wind farms have on birds is largely overstated, but to the extent there is a legitimate basis for the idea that wind farms have a large impact on birds it’s because California stupidly allowed wind farms to be built in the Altamont Pass long ago and those wind farms have been devasting to local wildlife. The United States has plenty of land on which to build wind turbines, it is absolutely unnecessary to build them in the Altamont Pass. And I don’t think it’s fair to say the Audubon Society “lost the plot” by opposing a wind farm located in the Altamont pass.
If the article had just focused on how local “environmental” groups or how local Sierra Club Chapters are unreasonably and unnecessarily opposing renewable projects, the article would be spot on. But trying to drag in the major, national environmental groups makes the overall argument weaker.
There are tensions within the big environmental groups that lead them to take positions that are not the best positions to take if climate change is your biggest priority. But I think those situations have more to do with the point, well put by the author of this piece, that environmentalism is a broad term which encompasses a lot of policy positions which can be in tension with one another.
The point of this article might be valid in a narrow sense, but it seems like an exercise in missing the bigger point and punching left for the sake of it. Your counter points are well made. To add to that the Sunrise movement example the author cites refers to a local Amherst Massachusetts college group supporting what sounds like a non-binding moratorium on solar projects in Amherst, a place not known for sunshine.
There is a lot of noise about climate activists counterproductively pushing too hard, only achieving bad press, and so on. This article makes a different but similar argument that the activists are unserious and naive. I guess there is am implication that we need to trust the YIMBY/neoliberals, but I am not really sure if there is a point beyond slagging some misguided environmentalists.
In NY State there has been a lot of action this week on funding renewables in the state budget (https://twitter.com/publicpowerny). That may be misguided but I would like to see some commentary on why exactly instead of this tired genre of smug "look how silly these leftists are" post.
Also the author makes a connection between conservationism and conservatism, which might sound clever, but remember a main element of conservatism is support of hierarchy, especially man's dominion over the natural world.
A lot of the article is about the dynamics between the national group and the small, local, grassroots organizations that share the name. It argues that it doesn't make sense to separate them, unless the national organization explicitly disavows the actions of the a smaller org under its umbrella.
You see, that is the problem you have, is complete lose of credibility. Example, Altamont pass. Environmental people like us to believe that there are between 500-2000 golden eagles left in California, majority in southern California and Altamont pass wind turbine are killing 100 to 200 of them a year. You see why when someone consider these numbers, they would call B.S on it.
Combining that with the fact that every project anyone starts is another Altamont pass. Conservators oppose it for fear of unknown effects. Well, that is not a good reason in my book when the cost of inaction is this high.
There is some truth to the thesis of this article for sure. However, I feel like the author totally omitted concerns about biodiversity loss. Most of the examples provided here are of course silly, especially those preventing projects in or near cities. However, there is a real concern that projects in still-wild spaces could imperil endangered species. The article mentions in passing the tortoise species in question - the Mojave desert tortoise - is endangered. I’m glad that environmental groups were there to sound the alarm and bring attention to that fact, and work with the state to find solutions.
Sure, part of the answer may be encouraging a shift in thinking among conservationists. But I’m surprised the author didn’t discuss the importance of proactive land use planning that takes into account all the different concerns and perspectives. There will of course still be trade offs, but at least you’re making sure you are optimizing each space. Wind turbines might kill birds, but the type and number of birds killed depends on if you put them in a major migratory flyway or not. Climate change is also going to shift the ranges of many species, so it’s important to plan with an eye towards keeping some land open for them to move into.
One technical remark : it’s a great analysis and useful primer for liberals etc.
But the last sentence is unhelpful. I got no pity for garages and very little pity for petit bourgeois terrified of high rises. However, I do like tortoises and if we’re going to put up new wind or solar farms, is there really no other sites than somewhere endangered tortoises are using? Really nowhere else was possible? I somehow doubt it…
You’re wading into “I support renewable energy, but not (every project) for (some particular reason).” Trade offs have to occur. Another patch of desert may be home to a desert mouse, or so on and so forth because, excepting places like landfills and old industrial sites (which have other major costs associated with trying to place solar on them) something lives somewhere.
What this piece left out was much of the Nevada land was already disturbed from atv/off road use and a dumb “art project” that is just a series of trenches.
"Trade offs have to occur" cuts both ways, whereas I read you as using it to gesture towards "I support tortoises, but not (every colony) for (some particular renewable-energy facility)".
If one really believes in a binding tradeoff between X and Y, and puts positive value on both X and Y, one would presumably favor X over Y at least occasionally!
Trades off are fine. I’m not an expert but Nevada seems pretty big and not exactly over urbanized. It should be possible to build some pretty big solar farms while leaving enough space to whatever desert animal species we want… Endangered tortoises are, I assume, more problematic- as the qualificatif suggests.
But this emphasis on local NIMBY activism doesn't explain why climate change activists are often anti-nuclear as well? Like Greta Thunberg for example. Clearly her strain of climate activism is not locally rooted, so how come she has anti-nuclear intuitions?
Is there something in left-wing psychology that codes for opposition to nuclear, beyond just NIMBYism?
In Germany, the Greens have all admitted defeat over plans to build more windmills and transmission lines needed to reach their goals. Oddly 🔥 more coal is politically) more desirable than extending nuclear power plants.
We need stronger governance of these orgs at the national level. The local chapters become captured the same way local politicians do - the most selfish members complain the loudest when their view might be affected by a solar panel, then when that doesn't work, they start from the outcome they want (no "ugly solar panels in their view") and manufacture bad faith reasons to get the same thing.
The grown ups at national need to make the hard choices, explain them, and when needed, revoke charters of rogue groups. Otherwise, the whole brand of Sierra Club becomes damaged (as it already has) and effectively means nothing more than what a local crank wants to believe - with no real principles to hold itself together at all.
I am often amused by the knots that ideologues tie themselves in to pursue their single-minded objective. In this case, global warming alarmists want to silence the environmentalists because the environmentalists don't buy into the idea that climate change and carbon emissions are the only important environmental issue. At least, they want to silence the environmentalists doing actual work at the local level; they've converted the national leaders of the organizations. Warren Meyer at Coyoteblog has lamented that climate change has sucked up all the environmental energy, leaving things like air quality, water quality, and land preservation with short shrift. It seems that Mr. Smith and Mr. Nowinski lament that climate change hasn't yet sucked up all the energy.
My question to Mr. Nowinski, and others who think climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are so much more important than all other issues combined: How, exactly, do you determine that the problems from climate change are larger than all others? How do you balance the costs of immediate drastic action vs. the costs of slower action, or the costs of no action at all? Please don't cite the IPCC - the environmental damage projected under worst-case scenarios from the IPCC is rather modest, and the economic costs are very small indeed.
I understand that you have answered these issues to your own satisfaction. However, you should recognize that you have not convinced most of your fellow citizens. You may be able to get some projects implemented by appealing to Congress and the president, but if the projects start to impose real costs on large numbers of people, Congress and the president can be replaced.
I’m not sure how you can say the environmental impacts of climate change are “modest”. Entire coastal ecosystems will be destroyed by flooding. Drought and heat will create the conditions for massive forest fires (much larger than they would be naturally) that destroy whole sections of forest. Many native plants and animals will not be able to survive in their native ecosystems due to rising temperatures. Entire arctic ecosystems will be permanently changed. The list goes on and on.
I say the environmental impacts would be modest because the IPCC says that. Please give me one reputable citation that coastal ecosystems would be "destroyed", that forest fires would be "much larger than they would be naturally" due to higher temperatures, or any other devastating consequence you imagine.
> I say the environmental impacts would be modest because the IPCC says that. Please give me one reputable citation that coastal ecosystems would be "destroyed"
Conveniently, the IPCC produced a Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate not too long ago. Let's take a look at part B of the Summary for Policymakers (https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/). Specifically, sections B.5 through B.8, from which the rest of my comment quotes.
B.5.3 [...] In the Southern Ocean, the habitat of Antarctic krill, a key prey species for penguins, seals and whales, is projected to contract southwards under both RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {3.2.2, 3.2.3, 5.2.3}
B.6.1 All coastal ecosystems assessed are projected to face increasing risk level, from moderate to high risk under RCP2.6 to high to very high risk under RCP8.5 by 2100. [...] The decline of kelp forests is projected to continue in temperate regions due to warming, particularly under the projected intensification of marine heatwaves, with high risk of local extinctions under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {5.3, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, 5.3.7, 6.4.2, Figure SPM.3}
B.6.2 [...] Globally, 20–90% of current coastal wetlands are projected to be lost by 2100, depending on projected sea level rise, regional differences and wetland types, especially where vertical growth is already constrained by reduced sediment supply and landward migration is constrained by steep topography or human modification of shorelines (high confidence). {4.3.3, 5.3.2, Figure SPM.3, SPM A6.1}
B.6.3 Ocean warming, sea level rise and tidal changes are projected to expand salinization and hypoxia in estuaries (high confidence) with high risks for some biota leading to migration, reduced survival, and local extinction under high emission scenarios (medium confidence).
B.6.4 Almost all warm-water coral reefs are projected to suffer significant losses of area and local extinctions, even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C (high confidence).
B.8. [...] Long-term loss and degradation of marine ecosystems compromises the ocean’s role in cultural, recreational, and intrinsic values important for human identity and well-being (medium confidence). {3.2.4, 3.4.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 6.4}
Thanks for that cite. I think it provides an excellent example of how rather modest scientific statements are summarized in rather alarmist terms in the Summary for Policymakers, and then reported in apocalyptic terms in the press. I won't go through all your citations in detail, but I will take the first three:
3.2.3.2 ...there is a need to better characterise the nature and importance of indirect responses to physical change using models and observations. Important advances have also been made since AR5 in (i) identifying key variables to detect and attribute change in Southern Ocean ecosystems, as part of long-term circumpolar modelling designs (Constable et al., 2016), and (ii) refining methods for using sea ice projections from global climate models in ecological studies and ecosystem models for the Southern Ocean (Cavanagh et al., 2017). [In other words, more work remains before meaningful predictions can be made.]
3.2.3.2.1 ...Previously reported declines in Antarctic krill abundance in the South Atlantic Sector (Atkinson et al., 2004) cited in WGII AR5 (Larsen et al., 2014) may not represent a long-term, climate driven, regionalscale decline (Fielding et al., 2014; Kinzey et al., 2015; Steinberg et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2018) (medium confidence) but could reflect a sudden, discontinuous change following an episodic period of anomalous peak abundance for this species (Loeb and Santora, 2015) (low confidence). [In other words, recent changes may not be a long-term trend, may not be climate driven, and may be merely a return to normal levels from recent high levels.]
5.3 ...coastal ecosystems display regional complexity that can render the conclusive detection and attribution of climate effects uncertain...
Additionally, the high density of human populations on coastal land causes most of the adjacent marine ecosystems to be impacted by local anthropogenic disturbances such as eutrophication, coastline modifications, pollution and overfishing (Levin et al. 2015; Diop and Scheren, 2016; Maavara et al. 2017; Dunn et al. 2018) (Section 4.3.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9). [In other words, damage to coastal ecosystems has many anthropogenic causes, including pollution, overfishing, and construction. A diligent conservationist might think it worthwhile to investigate these different causes, so that conservation efforts can be prioritized rationally.]
5.3.6 ...Observational and experimental evidence since SR15 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018) supports its conclusions that kelp forests are already experiencing large-scale changes, and that critical thresholds occur for some forests at 1.5ºC of global warming (high confidence). Due to their low capacity to relocate and high sensitivity to warming, kelp forests are projected to experience higher frequency of mass mortality events as the exposure to extreme temperature rises (very high confidence). [In other words, current temperature increases have already caused big changes, and more warming will cause more changes. But, the next paragraph says:]
...New global estimates show that the abundance of kelp forests has decreased at a rate of ~2% per year over the past half century (Wernberg et al. 2019), mainly due to ocean warming and marine heat waves [In other words, 100% of kelp forests have disappeared in the last 50 years. This claim seems suspect. The source is not publicly available, but the abstract (https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128050521/world-seas-an-environmental-evaluation) does make this claim. Perhaps the 2% per year is compounded rather than linear - in this case, 50 years of reduction would only mean a 64% reduction. But, if we've really seen a 64% reduction in kelp forests over the last 50 years, I'd think someone would state that fact clearly - it would certainly be alarming. Fortunately, the next paragraph offers some clarification:]
...Two global datasets and one dataset covering European coastlines (Araujo et al. 2016; Krumhans et al. 2016; Poloczanska et al. 2016) identify large local and regional variations in kelp abundance over the past half century with 38% of these ecoregions showing a decline, 27% an increase and 35% no change (Krumhans et al. 2016). These data reflect the high spatio-temporal variability and resilience of kelp forests (Reed et al. 2016; Wernberg et al. 2018)....Despite a lack of data from some regions such as South America (Pérez-Matus et al. 2017), observational evidence since SR15 supports with very high confidence that warming is driving a contraction of kelp forests at low latitudes (Franco et al. 2018b; Casado-Amezúa et al. 2019; Pessarrodona et al. 2019) and expansion in polar regions (medium confidence) (Section 3.2.3.1.2) (Bartsch et al. 2016; Paar et al. 2016) [In other words, there have been both gains and losses; kelp seems to be decreasing in the low latitudes and increasing in high latitudes. To my untrained eye this may be significant, but it hardly equates to "coastal ecosystems will be destroyed by flooding.]
For the third quote, the conclusion is stated in the full report:
5.3.2 ...Globally, between 20−90% of existing coastal wetland area is projected to be lost by 2100 (Blankespoor et al. 2014; Crosby et al. 2016; Spencer et al. 2016), depending on different SLR projections under future emission scenarios. [However, the Blankespoor citation is based on a potential 1 meter sea level rise (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blankespoor,+B.,+S.+Dasgupta+and+B.+Laplante,+2014:+Sea+level+rise+and+coastal+wetlands.+Ambio&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart). Actual sea level rise has been consistent at 1 mm per year for the last 100+ years. Despite the warming that has clearly occurred over the last 50-70 years, this rate has not increased; there's hardly a reason to think it will increase by an order of magnitude over the next century. So, the premise of a 1 meter rise in sea level is not really supportable by clear science.]
I stand by my statement that projections of environmental damage are rather modest.
Unfortunately the clickbait media have been fear mongering for long enough that huge numbers of easily misled folk now believe an Armageddon is happening NOW… The Great Age of Emotion is upon us and the Age of Rationality is dead on the vine…
It's true that the clickbait media have been fearmongering, and some people accept the media summaries as representing "Science".
BUT.
Climate change has repeatedly ranked near the bottom of political priorities in public opinion polls in the US. Further, most people say they are unwilling to take virtually any action to prevent climate change, if it would involve any sacrifice at all on their parts - for example a $10 increase on their monthly electric bills.
This is why I'm convinced that maximal catastrophists like Mr. Smith and Mr. Nowinski are way out ahead of the public, and will mostly achieve none of their objectives in preventing fossil fuel use.
Thank you for attending to my citations. I started drafting a critique but realized it would be too long and unwieldy for a comment, so I've spun it off into a full-length write-up at https://splained.substack.com/p/do-ipcc-projections-anticipate-destruction — feel free to respond there or here (or both).
I was an unquestioning supporter of environmental groups for the first part of my life.
20 year ago, with a MSc in bio-engineering, and a second MSc in Nature Conservation from a South African university, I thought I was well equipped to contribute positively and rationally to "the cause". Although, red flags has emerged during my studies that the environmental topic is often an emotional one, I was still naive and not prepared for my first interview after graduating.
That interview was with the WWF, for a position in their European office in Brussels. It did not go well. Perhaps both myself and the interviewer had a bad day, but I left totally disillusioned.
The point of conflict was a follows: one of the questions i was asked was
"You have $100,000 in funds to use on one of two situations.
1. Save a penguin from an oil spill and create a big media event.
2. Buy 10,000 hectares of unexplored rainforest that may or may not contain a cure for cancer."
This to me seemed like an obvious answer, yet I got it wrong, as conveyed very mockingly by the interviewer with the comment that i clearly didn't understand the business they were in. To clarify, I argued to buy the forest land, but the "right" answer was to save the penguin because the associated media attention would be able to generate more donations, and their business was to "raise money"
My snarky " to do what? save more penguins?" was not received well and pretty much ended the interview.
I went home, cancelled my membership of the WWF and have never donated to any eco-activism groups again. Also, I switched my career to programming and never really regretted it.
Since that day, I've become very skeptical of idealistic groups since motivations are too often clouded by emotion.
Well one obvious solution is nuclear power.
I was gonna say:
Nuc(lear power) the environmentalists.
It is very much not obvious to me that nuclear power is an obvious solution to NIMBY opposition to clean-power development.
Much smaller footprint
Granted, though I'd guess that nuclear power has a far higher NIMBY-opposition-to-surface-area ratio than wind and solar too.
Well first you keep all existing nuclear plants running wherever possible such as Diablo Canyon in California. They you look to build new units at existing plant sites. In that sense you keep the physical footprint of production relatively small.
This is an excellent analysis and the author's candor is to be commended. And these issues aren't going to go away.
At times, I feel that the Left has taken everything I care for and made it hateful. That hasn’t moved me to the Right, it has dropped me in the middle of nowhere.
Yeah makes two of us (me coming from the right)
This is such shoddy, path dependent thinking. Of course it is possible to develop sustainable power sources without destroying ecologically sensitive areas. The choice is not an intact biosphere or decarbonization. It just requires more analysis and care than industrialists feel like investing in.
Of course it is possible. Just like you can make unicorns fly just by dreaming hard enough.
The Natural Resources Defense Council did not oppose a new clean-energy transmission line in Maine. The Natural Resources Council of Maine is a Maine-based environmental org which opposed the transmission and they are unaffiliated with the national NRDC group. https://www.nrcm.org/
I clicked through the same link and found the same thing and posted the same post above. Great minds. Yes this is concerning because I am interested to liberate myself from mainstream media and become one of the cool hipsters in the sub stack culture. This is a great reminder of the importance that big news organizations and the fact checkers play in ensuring we are getting the right story.
I am concerned that there is a material error in this piece that undermines the point. I do not believe there is a link between the natural resources Council of Maine and the natural resources defense counsel. Because you cite NRDC as one of the 3 big environmental organizations opposing carbon reductions this is a serious error. I am curious as to whether you know there is a link between the two because I could find no link on the web page of the natural resources council of Maine. Facts and fact checking are very important even in Blogostan.
Looks like the article has been quietly revised to go after NRDC on other grounds. I'm glad to see the revision, not so glad to see it made without acknowledging the previous error.
Right. Been edited to a generic non statement. This got my attention because I think NRDC is the most important and effective environmental group so curious to read about legit criticism. That said the general backlash against hypocritical elites is fair but I am hoping for truly well reasoned alternative perspectives on sub stack. This is a good reminder to be careful about where you get your news.
The revision says NRDC supported closing nuclear power plants in New York and California. That doesn't seem like a generic non-statement. Anyhow I'm an ignoramus about NRDC but know the Sierra Club well. The Sierra Club is, of course, a complex organization constantly pulled in multiple directions by its democratic structure and many local chapters and groups. All in all, I think it has transitioned to the climate fight remarkably well. I'm disappointed that this article doesn't even mention the Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
In many cases these groups are fighting what I call solar sprawl. We need to provide the economic incentives from state and federal government so that building on warehouse rooftops large parking lots and similar sites is as easy and economical as it is to build on a green field.
1) Subsidizing something doesn't make it more easy or economical; it just means that someone else is paying for it. There's a reason that building on a field is easier cheaper than building on a roof or over a parking lot, and no amount of government incentives will change that.
2) Could you justify spending more money to save a little land area? Where's the cost-benefit analysis?
3) A lot of the most productive solar locations are in the desert, where there aren't parking lots or warehouses to put panels. Not using these locations will necessitate putting more panels in less-productive areas. This uses more resources in production and more space in deployment. The panels have to go somewhere!
4) "solar sprawl" Jeez. I have to admit, that's pretty good hijacking of a word. Right up there with the "my body, my choice" anti-vaxers.
Your comments are almost a caricature of how neo liberal insanity is leading us to utter climate breakdown. If it’s not cost-effective then we don’t decarbonize and then life as we know it is gone. Your argument is like saying that it wasn’t worth defeating Hitler because it cost us 40% of GDP. Got it
Lol. What are you going to do next, say that I'm racist because I want you to show me some math? If you're wondering why it's proving hard to decarbonize, don't blame me; look in a mirror.
Another way to put it is that you’re clearly one of those folks who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing
Why are most productive solar installations in the desert? I would have thought they were at the equator simply because the sun shines for longest there. It has nothing to do with jean, right - just the amount of sunshine. Or am I wrong?
The equator gets exactly the same length of daylight* as everywhere on earth (12 h a day on average). However, deserts --- almost by definition --- have fewer clouds and this more hours of sun. See for yourself, deserts win in the us: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg
* Other factors, like the angle of the sun, do matter tho, and those are position dependent.
You've run through the economics?
BTW, do you realize how much new solar and wind we'd need to fully decarbonize (and how many parking lots there are)?
What is the cost of small scale local installation + small scale storage vs big scale installation far away + transport lines of electrical power + large scale storage? It does seem like solar power is ideal for local power and local storage, relative to gas fired electricity plants.
Nice reply, but the biggest issue, from the perspective of physics, is storage. The cost would be staggering, if there were resources available to do the storage.
What’s your point?
That your response isn't based on evidence/facts/logic.
And what is wrong with "solar sprawl" beside that you don't like it?
It's solar farms in deserts providing some shades for animals. Win, win, win. What's your problem with that?
<sigh> It's not NIMBYism to want solar panels on your own rooftops, on your parking lots, and on top of your neighborhood buildings while not wanting to pave over wilderness outside of one's metropolitan area. In fact, it's the opposite of NIMBY. Look, none of these environmental groups oppose solar panels, but it matters where you put them. Let me tell you a story:
There's a town where there are a large number of children on the streets who have no home. The people of the town get together and say, "We need to build an orphanage." So, they contact a construction company and ask them to come back with a proposal for building the town an orphanage. The construction company comes back and says, "No problem, we propose that you give us the elementary school, and we'll convert it to an orphanage." The town says, "Where will the students learn?" The contractor says, "That's not in the scope of my contract. Do you want the orphanage or not?" The town says, "We're not giving you the elementary school."
So the contractor says, "Okay, I have a plan B. Give us the hospital and we'll convert that into an orphanage." The town says, "No, that's a horrible idea. We need the hospital. We have lots of vacant lots around that we think would be great places to build the orphanage. Why can't you use one of those?" The contractor says, "If we build there, it will cost you more money than if we convert an existing building, oh, and also our profit margins will be lower." The town says, "Building the orphanage doesn't do us any good on net if it costs us something else essential." Then Noah Smith farms out his Substack to someone who calls the townspeople NIMBYs.
Does the environmental left have NIMBYs? Yes. Are some of the examples cited examples of egregious NIMBYism? Yes. Is this something the environmental left should be introspective about and ask themselves about before they start protesting? Yes. However, not every battle against renewable energy is NIMBYism. It matters where we build this infrastructure. Carbon dioxide is a critical problem that we face, but it's not the *only* critical problem we face. We're also in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction, and paving our wilderness when we don't need to only makes that worse. We should put out the house fire we started, but not by crushing the house with a boulder. There are a lot of good places to build solar panels, and wilderness should not be our first choice, because we desperately need that. Will we need to build some solar sites in wilderness areas? Sure, but it shouldn't be our first choice when alternatives exist. Rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, and other damaged lands should all be preferential sites for siting our green energy production. In many places, it's not. That's worth raising a ruckus about.
Seriously, do you think everyone else is a complete lunatic like you?
Damaged land? You think anything human beings touch is a damaged land? Each living being is trying to make its environment more suitable for itself. With your logic, jungles are also damaged land since trees are changing the land. Beaver dams are also damaged land since obviously they changed the landscape. Tell me exactly why when trees or beavers or other living creatures change the land drastically is ok but if we Human do it then it's damaged land? By the way, don't tell me because they are nature and we are not. We are also part of nature, the biggest part of it in the last millennium.
Tell me why exactly paving roads in the desert and creating solar farms is wrong beside the fact that you don't like it. It's desert, have you been there, there is nothing of value over there. There is not much life beside some thorny plants so you really aren't disturbing anything.
It's a f. desert. We don't need this type of wilderness. We do need to preserve fertile plains and jungles but not a barren desert. It can become a solar farm for what I care.
I agree with the overall argument of this post that environmental groups are unreasonably opposing renewable projects due to baseless NIMBY complaints, but it’s not a well-argued point because the writer discuss the big, national environmental groups instead of solely focusing on the local groups or local Sierra Club chapters usually voicing opposition to renewable projects. Specifically, you cite the national NRDC, Audubon Society and the Sierra Club organizations as opposing renewable energy projects but:
1) As mentioned elsewhere, the Natural Resources Defense Council did not oppose the Maine transmission line. The Natural Resources Council of Maine opposed the transmission line and they have nothing to do with the NRDC.
2) The national Sierra Club organization is much more supportive of renewable energy projects than its local chapters.
3) The impact wind farms have on birds is largely overstated, but to the extent there is a legitimate basis for the idea that wind farms have a large impact on birds it’s because California stupidly allowed wind farms to be built in the Altamont Pass long ago and those wind farms have been devasting to local wildlife. The United States has plenty of land on which to build wind turbines, it is absolutely unnecessary to build them in the Altamont Pass. And I don’t think it’s fair to say the Audubon Society “lost the plot” by opposing a wind farm located in the Altamont pass.
If the article had just focused on how local “environmental” groups or how local Sierra Club Chapters are unreasonably and unnecessarily opposing renewable projects, the article would be spot on. But trying to drag in the major, national environmental groups makes the overall argument weaker.
There are tensions within the big environmental groups that lead them to take positions that are not the best positions to take if climate change is your biggest priority. But I think those situations have more to do with the point, well put by the author of this piece, that environmentalism is a broad term which encompasses a lot of policy positions which can be in tension with one another.
The point of this article might be valid in a narrow sense, but it seems like an exercise in missing the bigger point and punching left for the sake of it. Your counter points are well made. To add to that the Sunrise movement example the author cites refers to a local Amherst Massachusetts college group supporting what sounds like a non-binding moratorium on solar projects in Amherst, a place not known for sunshine.
There is a lot of noise about climate activists counterproductively pushing too hard, only achieving bad press, and so on. This article makes a different but similar argument that the activists are unserious and naive. I guess there is am implication that we need to trust the YIMBY/neoliberals, but I am not really sure if there is a point beyond slagging some misguided environmentalists.
In NY State there has been a lot of action this week on funding renewables in the state budget (https://twitter.com/publicpowerny). That may be misguided but I would like to see some commentary on why exactly instead of this tired genre of smug "look how silly these leftists are" post.
Also the author makes a connection between conservationism and conservatism, which might sound clever, but remember a main element of conservatism is support of hierarchy, especially man's dominion over the natural world.
A lot of the article is about the dynamics between the national group and the small, local, grassroots organizations that share the name. It argues that it doesn't make sense to separate them, unless the national organization explicitly disavows the actions of the a smaller org under its umbrella.
You see, that is the problem you have, is complete lose of credibility. Example, Altamont pass. Environmental people like us to believe that there are between 500-2000 golden eagles left in California, majority in southern California and Altamont pass wind turbine are killing 100 to 200 of them a year. You see why when someone consider these numbers, they would call B.S on it.
Combining that with the fact that every project anyone starts is another Altamont pass. Conservators oppose it for fear of unknown effects. Well, that is not a good reason in my book when the cost of inaction is this high.
There is some truth to the thesis of this article for sure. However, I feel like the author totally omitted concerns about biodiversity loss. Most of the examples provided here are of course silly, especially those preventing projects in or near cities. However, there is a real concern that projects in still-wild spaces could imperil endangered species. The article mentions in passing the tortoise species in question - the Mojave desert tortoise - is endangered. I’m glad that environmental groups were there to sound the alarm and bring attention to that fact, and work with the state to find solutions.
Sure, part of the answer may be encouraging a shift in thinking among conservationists. But I’m surprised the author didn’t discuss the importance of proactive land use planning that takes into account all the different concerns and perspectives. There will of course still be trade offs, but at least you’re making sure you are optimizing each space. Wind turbines might kill birds, but the type and number of birds killed depends on if you put them in a major migratory flyway or not. Climate change is also going to shift the ranges of many species, so it’s important to plan with an eye towards keeping some land open for them to move into.
One technical remark : it’s a great analysis and useful primer for liberals etc.
But the last sentence is unhelpful. I got no pity for garages and very little pity for petit bourgeois terrified of high rises. However, I do like tortoises and if we’re going to put up new wind or solar farms, is there really no other sites than somewhere endangered tortoises are using? Really nowhere else was possible? I somehow doubt it…
You’re wading into “I support renewable energy, but not (every project) for (some particular reason).” Trade offs have to occur. Another patch of desert may be home to a desert mouse, or so on and so forth because, excepting places like landfills and old industrial sites (which have other major costs associated with trying to place solar on them) something lives somewhere.
What this piece left out was much of the Nevada land was already disturbed from atv/off road use and a dumb “art project” that is just a series of trenches.
"Trade offs have to occur" cuts both ways, whereas I read you as using it to gesture towards "I support tortoises, but not (every colony) for (some particular renewable-energy facility)".
If one really believes in a binding tradeoff between X and Y, and puts positive value on both X and Y, one would presumably favor X over Y at least occasionally!
Trades off are fine. I’m not an expert but Nevada seems pretty big and not exactly over urbanized. It should be possible to build some pretty big solar farms while leaving enough space to whatever desert animal species we want… Endangered tortoises are, I assume, more problematic- as the qualificatif suggests.
But this emphasis on local NIMBY activism doesn't explain why climate change activists are often anti-nuclear as well? Like Greta Thunberg for example. Clearly her strain of climate activism is not locally rooted, so how come she has anti-nuclear intuitions?
Is there something in left-wing psychology that codes for opposition to nuclear, beyond just NIMBYism?
Probably... just look at Germany and the greens there...
In Germany, the Greens have all admitted defeat over plans to build more windmills and transmission lines needed to reach their goals. Oddly 🔥 more coal is politically) more desirable than extending nuclear power plants.
We need stronger governance of these orgs at the national level. The local chapters become captured the same way local politicians do - the most selfish members complain the loudest when their view might be affected by a solar panel, then when that doesn't work, they start from the outcome they want (no "ugly solar panels in their view") and manufacture bad faith reasons to get the same thing.
The grown ups at national need to make the hard choices, explain them, and when needed, revoke charters of rogue groups. Otherwise, the whole brand of Sierra Club becomes damaged (as it already has) and effectively means nothing more than what a local crank wants to believe - with no real principles to hold itself together at all.
I am often amused by the knots that ideologues tie themselves in to pursue their single-minded objective. In this case, global warming alarmists want to silence the environmentalists because the environmentalists don't buy into the idea that climate change and carbon emissions are the only important environmental issue. At least, they want to silence the environmentalists doing actual work at the local level; they've converted the national leaders of the organizations. Warren Meyer at Coyoteblog has lamented that climate change has sucked up all the environmental energy, leaving things like air quality, water quality, and land preservation with short shrift. It seems that Mr. Smith and Mr. Nowinski lament that climate change hasn't yet sucked up all the energy.
My question to Mr. Nowinski, and others who think climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are so much more important than all other issues combined: How, exactly, do you determine that the problems from climate change are larger than all others? How do you balance the costs of immediate drastic action vs. the costs of slower action, or the costs of no action at all? Please don't cite the IPCC - the environmental damage projected under worst-case scenarios from the IPCC is rather modest, and the economic costs are very small indeed.
I understand that you have answered these issues to your own satisfaction. However, you should recognize that you have not convinced most of your fellow citizens. You may be able to get some projects implemented by appealing to Congress and the president, but if the projects start to impose real costs on large numbers of people, Congress and the president can be replaced.
I’m not sure how you can say the environmental impacts of climate change are “modest”. Entire coastal ecosystems will be destroyed by flooding. Drought and heat will create the conditions for massive forest fires (much larger than they would be naturally) that destroy whole sections of forest. Many native plants and animals will not be able to survive in their native ecosystems due to rising temperatures. Entire arctic ecosystems will be permanently changed. The list goes on and on.
I say the environmental impacts would be modest because the IPCC says that. Please give me one reputable citation that coastal ecosystems would be "destroyed", that forest fires would be "much larger than they would be naturally" due to higher temperatures, or any other devastating consequence you imagine.
> I say the environmental impacts would be modest because the IPCC says that. Please give me one reputable citation that coastal ecosystems would be "destroyed"
Conveniently, the IPCC produced a Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate not too long ago. Let's take a look at part B of the Summary for Policymakers (https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/). Specifically, sections B.5 through B.8, from which the rest of my comment quotes.
B.5.3 [...] In the Southern Ocean, the habitat of Antarctic krill, a key prey species for penguins, seals and whales, is projected to contract southwards under both RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {3.2.2, 3.2.3, 5.2.3}
B.6.1 All coastal ecosystems assessed are projected to face increasing risk level, from moderate to high risk under RCP2.6 to high to very high risk under RCP8.5 by 2100. [...] The decline of kelp forests is projected to continue in temperate regions due to warming, particularly under the projected intensification of marine heatwaves, with high risk of local extinctions under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {5.3, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, 5.3.7, 6.4.2, Figure SPM.3}
B.6.2 [...] Globally, 20–90% of current coastal wetlands are projected to be lost by 2100, depending on projected sea level rise, regional differences and wetland types, especially where vertical growth is already constrained by reduced sediment supply and landward migration is constrained by steep topography or human modification of shorelines (high confidence). {4.3.3, 5.3.2, Figure SPM.3, SPM A6.1}
B.6.3 Ocean warming, sea level rise and tidal changes are projected to expand salinization and hypoxia in estuaries (high confidence) with high risks for some biota leading to migration, reduced survival, and local extinction under high emission scenarios (medium confidence).
B.6.4 Almost all warm-water coral reefs are projected to suffer significant losses of area and local extinctions, even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C (high confidence).
B.8. [...] Long-term loss and degradation of marine ecosystems compromises the ocean’s role in cultural, recreational, and intrinsic values important for human identity and well-being (medium confidence). {3.2.4, 3.4.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 6.4}
Thanks for that cite. I think it provides an excellent example of how rather modest scientific statements are summarized in rather alarmist terms in the Summary for Policymakers, and then reported in apocalyptic terms in the press. I won't go through all your citations in detail, but I will take the first three:
To take your first citation, quoting the full report (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/07_SROCC_Ch03_FINAL.pdf):
3.2.3.2 ...there is a need to better characterise the nature and importance of indirect responses to physical change using models and observations. Important advances have also been made since AR5 in (i) identifying key variables to detect and attribute change in Southern Ocean ecosystems, as part of long-term circumpolar modelling designs (Constable et al., 2016), and (ii) refining methods for using sea ice projections from global climate models in ecological studies and ecosystem models for the Southern Ocean (Cavanagh et al., 2017). [In other words, more work remains before meaningful predictions can be made.]
3.2.3.2.1 ...Previously reported declines in Antarctic krill abundance in the South Atlantic Sector (Atkinson et al., 2004) cited in WGII AR5 (Larsen et al., 2014) may not represent a long-term, climate driven, regionalscale decline (Fielding et al., 2014; Kinzey et al., 2015; Steinberg et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2018) (medium confidence) but could reflect a sudden, discontinuous change following an episodic period of anomalous peak abundance for this species (Loeb and Santora, 2015) (low confidence). [In other words, recent changes may not be a long-term trend, may not be climate driven, and may be merely a return to normal levels from recent high levels.]
To take the second quote, again referring to the full report (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/09_SROCC_Ch05_FINAL.pdf):
5.3 ...coastal ecosystems display regional complexity that can render the conclusive detection and attribution of climate effects uncertain...
Additionally, the high density of human populations on coastal land causes most of the adjacent marine ecosystems to be impacted by local anthropogenic disturbances such as eutrophication, coastline modifications, pollution and overfishing (Levin et al. 2015; Diop and Scheren, 2016; Maavara et al. 2017; Dunn et al. 2018) (Section 4.3.2.2, Cross-Chapter Box 9). [In other words, damage to coastal ecosystems has many anthropogenic causes, including pollution, overfishing, and construction. A diligent conservationist might think it worthwhile to investigate these different causes, so that conservation efforts can be prioritized rationally.]
5.3.6 ...Observational and experimental evidence since SR15 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018) supports its conclusions that kelp forests are already experiencing large-scale changes, and that critical thresholds occur for some forests at 1.5ºC of global warming (high confidence). Due to their low capacity to relocate and high sensitivity to warming, kelp forests are projected to experience higher frequency of mass mortality events as the exposure to extreme temperature rises (very high confidence). [In other words, current temperature increases have already caused big changes, and more warming will cause more changes. But, the next paragraph says:]
...New global estimates show that the abundance of kelp forests has decreased at a rate of ~2% per year over the past half century (Wernberg et al. 2019), mainly due to ocean warming and marine heat waves [In other words, 100% of kelp forests have disappeared in the last 50 years. This claim seems suspect. The source is not publicly available, but the abstract (https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128050521/world-seas-an-environmental-evaluation) does make this claim. Perhaps the 2% per year is compounded rather than linear - in this case, 50 years of reduction would only mean a 64% reduction. But, if we've really seen a 64% reduction in kelp forests over the last 50 years, I'd think someone would state that fact clearly - it would certainly be alarming. Fortunately, the next paragraph offers some clarification:]
...Two global datasets and one dataset covering European coastlines (Araujo et al. 2016; Krumhans et al. 2016; Poloczanska et al. 2016) identify large local and regional variations in kelp abundance over the past half century with 38% of these ecoregions showing a decline, 27% an increase and 35% no change (Krumhans et al. 2016). These data reflect the high spatio-temporal variability and resilience of kelp forests (Reed et al. 2016; Wernberg et al. 2018)....Despite a lack of data from some regions such as South America (Pérez-Matus et al. 2017), observational evidence since SR15 supports with very high confidence that warming is driving a contraction of kelp forests at low latitudes (Franco et al. 2018b; Casado-Amezúa et al. 2019; Pessarrodona et al. 2019) and expansion in polar regions (medium confidence) (Section 3.2.3.1.2) (Bartsch et al. 2016; Paar et al. 2016) [In other words, there have been both gains and losses; kelp seems to be decreasing in the low latitudes and increasing in high latitudes. To my untrained eye this may be significant, but it hardly equates to "coastal ecosystems will be destroyed by flooding.]
For the third quote, the conclusion is stated in the full report:
5.3.2 ...Globally, between 20−90% of existing coastal wetland area is projected to be lost by 2100 (Blankespoor et al. 2014; Crosby et al. 2016; Spencer et al. 2016), depending on different SLR projections under future emission scenarios. [However, the Blankespoor citation is based on a potential 1 meter sea level rise (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blankespoor,+B.,+S.+Dasgupta+and+B.+Laplante,+2014:+Sea+level+rise+and+coastal+wetlands.+Ambio&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart). Actual sea level rise has been consistent at 1 mm per year for the last 100+ years. Despite the warming that has clearly occurred over the last 50-70 years, this rate has not increased; there's hardly a reason to think it will increase by an order of magnitude over the next century. So, the premise of a 1 meter rise in sea level is not really supportable by clear science.]
I stand by my statement that projections of environmental damage are rather modest.
True.
Modest.
BUT.
Unfortunately the clickbait media have been fear mongering for long enough that huge numbers of easily misled folk now believe an Armageddon is happening NOW… The Great Age of Emotion is upon us and the Age of Rationality is dead on the vine…
It's true that the clickbait media have been fearmongering, and some people accept the media summaries as representing "Science".
BUT.
Climate change has repeatedly ranked near the bottom of political priorities in public opinion polls in the US. Further, most people say they are unwilling to take virtually any action to prevent climate change, if it would involve any sacrifice at all on their parts - for example a $10 increase on their monthly electric bills.
This is why I'm convinced that maximal catastrophists like Mr. Smith and Mr. Nowinski are way out ahead of the public, and will mostly achieve none of their objectives in preventing fossil fuel use.
What Age of Rationality?
Thank you for attending to my citations. I started drafting a critique but realized it would be too long and unwieldy for a comment, so I've spun it off into a full-length write-up at https://splained.substack.com/p/do-ipcc-projections-anticipate-destruction — feel free to respond there or here (or both).
I was an unquestioning supporter of environmental groups for the first part of my life.
20 year ago, with a MSc in bio-engineering, and a second MSc in Nature Conservation from a South African university, I thought I was well equipped to contribute positively and rationally to "the cause". Although, red flags has emerged during my studies that the environmental topic is often an emotional one, I was still naive and not prepared for my first interview after graduating.
That interview was with the WWF, for a position in their European office in Brussels. It did not go well. Perhaps both myself and the interviewer had a bad day, but I left totally disillusioned.
The point of conflict was a follows: one of the questions i was asked was
"You have $100,000 in funds to use on one of two situations.
1. Save a penguin from an oil spill and create a big media event.
2. Buy 10,000 hectares of unexplored rainforest that may or may not contain a cure for cancer."
This to me seemed like an obvious answer, yet I got it wrong, as conveyed very mockingly by the interviewer with the comment that i clearly didn't understand the business they were in. To clarify, I argued to buy the forest land, but the "right" answer was to save the penguin because the associated media attention would be able to generate more donations, and their business was to "raise money"
My snarky " to do what? save more penguins?" was not received well and pretty much ended the interview.
I went home, cancelled my membership of the WWF and have never donated to any eco-activism groups again. Also, I switched my career to programming and never really regretted it.
Since that day, I've become very skeptical of idealistic groups since motivations are too often clouded by emotion.