We need a new shade of green | Mining Action Group

We need a new shade of green
Jeff Gibbs

We live in a lite-green time. And it’s not working.Despite corporations, politicians and quite a few citizens being obsessed with going green our national, regional, and personal emissions are going up, up, and away. Every nation that signed Kyoto, including — yes, the supposedly eco-friendly Europeans — are headed in the WRONG direction: their greenhouse gases are rising. Indeed, the renewable energy revolution is so not working that Europe is rushing to build dozens of coal and nuclear-fired power plants.
We were told that if environmentalists got into bed with corporations, that if we all just did our one little thing, that if we changed our light bulbs, bought a hybrid car, and supported alternative energy, that things would begin to turn around. It hasn’t, and it won’t. If every person in the country did every suggestion in Al Gore’s film, it would only achieve a 22% cut in greenhouses emissions—and some scientists say we need a 90% cut to save ourselves.
The lite-green time is full of hope and talk of sustainability, opportunity, “positive solutions.” “Green is the new green” they say. We CAN have our planet and eat it too! There is “no conflict between the economy and the environment.” Well news flash: all that stuff you consume comes from SOMEWHERE on planet earth. And all the pollutants spit out when the stuff is made, transported, consumed, and thrown away, go somewhere on planet earth.
When we eat sushi, endangered blue fin tuna die.
In a day’s worth of flying, your seat on that plane consumes more fuel than an SUV driver does in an entire year.
Every time you flick on a light switch, fire up an iPod, or turn on your computer to write, a mountain in West Virginia is dying so that we might have the miracle of electricity.
So there is indeed a conflict. We can’t have it all. We can save the planet or our lifestyles—not both.
So what is it that keeps us from leaping into action given the dire environmental dilemmas we face?
One strong factor is the mixed messages of the lite-green movement. When Al Gore says change your light bulb while taking flight after flight and limo ride after limo ride—he is sending us a double message. I would prefer that my drug counselor not have a needle sticking out of his arm.
The lite-green movement plays on a basic human need. We all want to feel optimistic. But optimism at the expense of making a real plan to save ourselves is the opposite of hope. It’s ultimately suicidal. What is keeping us from robustly challenging the plans put forth that say we can sequester the carbon (unproven) offset of our flights (doesn’t work) or run civilization on windmills or ethanol? (Ethanol = food riots and gas is still double the price.)
For me, real hope comes from a full assessment of the mess we’re in. How else might we make a plan to save ourselves? You don’t say “I don’t want to know if I have cancer unless you have a solution” or “I am not going to turn around and see if my house is on fire unless you hand me a hose.”
Real hope also comes from community. By community I don’t mean “localization.” That’s good, but it’s not going to save us. For me the emotional, spiritual and mutually supportive aspects of community are what’s important. It is the coming together for mutual aid and support. It is the banding together to deal with a powerful threat–even if the threat is ourselves. AA comes to mind as quite good at this.
So instead of a lite-green movement, I propose a new shade of green: dark green. Healthy nature is dark green, not the pale green of trees struggling to survive in a dryer, hotter, more polluted world.
The first step on the path to recovery—of becoming dark green–is acceptance. Humanity is in a real mess and there’s a good chance we’re not going to get out of it alive. This really sucks and avoiding talking about it only makes it worse. Of course, those who really don’t want to give up their sushi or flights or electric toys or leaf blowers and weed whackers won’t want to hear any doom and gloom, because it might ruin their buzz and insert some guilt to that magical journey to India, China, or South America.
But through acceptance, and openness, and making plans to save ourselves that actually stand a chance of working, dark greens begin to transcend the doom and gloom, just as cancer patients report the freedom and hyper-reality that come from facing the disease square on and alcoholics in recovery find a heavy burden lifted and spirits soaring.
Earth First’s motto is that action is the antidote to despair. I think that’s right but the action must be paired with a full understanding of what’s called for in these times. And to the extent that our lifestyle is addictive (and it’s VERY addicting) ,we all need to get into a recovery program of sorts to even think straight about this. Otherwise our actions—whether spiking trees or ethanol or flying about the planet complaining that fossil fuel use is killing us—may be misguided or even make things worse.
Now I am not expecting tons of other folks are ready to be dark greens. The lite-green movement will not go down easy because none of us want this amazing ride we’ve had hepped up on fossil fuels to be over.
If so email me. We have to talk. Time for the dark greens to come out of hiding, stop being depressed, and help lead the way toward a real plan to save ourselves, or at least make what is waiting for us when the oil, gas and coal run out and the planet falls apart, more humane.
In crafting a way that we might survive this and save as much of this glorious, amazing, full-of-life planet we live on as possible, I find a deep amount of hope. And after all that is the only task before humanity, whether we know it or not: save the planet, or lose everything.

Jeff Gibbs is a musician and filmmaker from TC. Write him at JeffGibbsTC@aol.com.

2 thoughts on “We need a new shade of green”

Well, I found your article interesting. For a while now i have become frustrated with the mixed messages comming out of the supposed “voices” for the planet. I am talking about groups like National Geographic, Discovery Channel, and the like. I was recently watching an episode of one of those, “how it’s made”, or “modern marvels” type shows and it was all about the miracles of copper. It talked about all its amazing properties, its history, and the inginuity of mining operations. They actually described a process where they take very low yield copper ore, crush it and lay the rock out in a giant feild and spray sulfuric acid on the rock to pull out the copper. I stood there flabergasted by the fact that a channel that is supposed to be leading the way on environmental issues failed to realize the implications a system like this would have on the watershed, they were here proclaiming how amazing we humans are with our technology.

I have also been pretty sickened by the popularity of shallow and ignorant programming on these same stations. Although I would like to draw a contrast between a few of the specific shows. I see them falling in to two classes of annoying.

First there are shows like dirty jobs, where the entertainment aspect is little more than “Fear Factor” or shock porn. Then there is a whole other category of annoying shows comming from these cannels. Things like “Axe Men” celebrating deforestation and the “manliness” of being a lumber jack with a big ass chainsaw, or shows like “deadliest catch” which is cronicling the escapades of deep sea crab and lobster fishermen braving the north Atlantic, and simultaneously scraping the ocean bottom clean of every marketable scrap of meat they can find.

Now the real dilemma I am faced with is, it has always been my dream to be a documentary camera-man for one of these stations. The kind of guy that is ready to grab his gear on a moments notice and jump in a canoe to chase Steve Irwin down the Amazon river. My question is how do I go about using film to inspire the apathy out of people concerning humanitarian and environmental issues, when the industry leaders run commercials for corporate GIANTS making billions off of the suffering of not only the environmet, but the cheap labor forces overseas as well?

Well, back to the articles topic, I would definitly say that the issue isnt that we are buying the cheap, nasty, lead-painted products, rather than the “green” ones. The issue is that we are still brainwashed into the thought that the important thing is that we keep BUYING!!! We are being paid by a notoriously “non-green” White House with stimulous money that the country doesnt have to give away, all to shut up our griping and keep us spending, buying, CONSUMING. This is the issue. Consumption, even though I consider myself more ecologically minded then most, I still go out and find it necessary to spend money on things that make life just a little more convienient in the short term. I guess consumption is a big deamon to fight off, but I am pretty proud that through recycling and composting, I have managed to go four weeks without filling a single bag of trash for the dumpster. Brovo me…

What are some of the specific ways you or any other readers go about minimizing the impact they have on the environment?

Let me preface my comments by saying that I was also one of the people fighting the good fight. In my experience, people cared, people listened, people continue to do the same things and wait for someone/something to deal with it for them. But, god forbid that the ‘thing’ made people the least bit uncomfortable…

Anyway, this is a very interesting article, but I think the author is still espousing the old notions of the ‘green movement’ despite his premise of calling for a new perspective.

“Save the planet”? Rather a telling misnomer isn’t it? WE will SAVE the PLANET? Well, it seems to me that the planet will endure regardless of the effects of global warming, depleted resources, etc. The earth has been pummeled by meteors, flipped completely over, been covered by miles of ice, clouded by volcanic aresols for eons, ecosystems have come and gone, etc. The EARTH has and will endure.

Until eco-activists begin to realize their interests truly lie only in saving the human species, perhaps then we can begin to have a real discussion and devise real strategies and solutions.

At the heart of the pending global ecosystem crisis is a simple reality: there are just too many of us. This has nothing to do with just the transition of the developing world to an industrialized/western lifestyle. It goes to issues as basic as the dwindling supply of fresh water and the amount of energy and water needed to produce the food for us to survive.

Regardless of our efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle; regardless of our efforts to devise ‘clean’ energy–there will NEVER be enough energy to support the 6.7 billion (and counting) humans on this planet.

Population ecology–its a very basic concept in ecology. There are two types of species in this world— those that regulate their numbers to adapt to the environment’s carrying capacity and those that don’t.

Those that exceed the carrying capacity are the crash and burn species. Think bunnies in Australia. Once the environment no longer has the ability to provide the necessities for survival, the population dies off either to a size that can once again repeat the entire process or disappears completely. Other species regulate their reproduction to the availability of food.

Which type of species do you think homo sapiens are? People seem to imagine they live outside the laws of nature. As if they are excluded from the basic principles of life on the planet due to their superior intellect. We, as a species, are about to experience the brutal reality of nature.

Unless you imagine that somehow we will devise a fantasy clean technology to capture the energy stored in matter or emitted by the sun, the crash and burn principle will apply. If you imagine solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. will produce enough energy to support 6.7 billion people (and climbing), then you are ill informed. I suggest reading the May issue of Mother Jones. The table on p.34 is rather illuminating. Maxed out these technologies would supply 70% of our needs and their implementation is decades away and the population will continue to climb as well as CO emissions which are expected to exceed 500ppm by 2050.

Sorry to say, we’ve already lost the battle on global warming. I’m sure you’ve heard that the pH of the pacific ocean was found to have increased by 10%. pH is a log scale–do you have any idea how much carbon dioxide must be absorbed by the ocean to result in this change?? Over 10 billion metric tons. The pH in upwellings along the coast is a clear indicator that our carbon sink in the ocean has been overwhelmed.

Per the Oregonian “Given steep increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the 1950s, the long-term cycle means spring and summer acidity levels are likely to rise for another 50 years off the West Coast, he said, no matter what steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions now. The chemical signature of the carbon dioxide makes clear it is from fossil fuel combustion and not natural sources such as volcanoes, the researchers said…. This is where the train has left the station,” Hales said. “We’ve got 50 years worth of corrosive water on the way.” http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/
2008/05/carbon_emissions_carbonrich_wa.html

After seeing the bleached white dead reefs in Tulum Mexico this past May, I have to agree. The train HAS left the station.

So, since these technologies are not able to save us, then what?

So what to do….first, I suggest reading “The world without us” by Alan Weisman. There is some comfort in knowing life will go on without us. Second, greens need to be advocating for population control as well as a massive change in our civilization. The reality is after the famines and wars due to the energy/food/water crises to come, those that survive will likely have to adopt a pre-industrialized lifestyle in the future.

Travis on June 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm said:

Well, I found your article interesting. For a while now i have become frustrated with the mixed messages comming out of the supposed “voices” for the planet. I am talking about groups like National Geographic, Discovery Channel, and the like. I was recently watching an episode of one of those, “how it’s made”, or “modern marvels” type shows and it was all about the miracles of copper. It talked about all its amazing properties, its history, and the inginuity of mining operations. They actually described a process where they take very low yield copper ore, crush it and lay the rock out in a giant feild and spray sulfuric acid on the rock to pull out the copper. I stood there flabergasted by the fact that a channel that is supposed to be leading the way on environmental issues failed to realize the implications a system like this would have on the watershed, they were here proclaiming how amazing we humans are with our technology.

I have also been pretty sickened by the popularity of shallow and ignorant programming on these same stations. Although I would like to draw a contrast between a few of the specific shows. I see them falling in to two classes of annoying.

First there are shows like dirty jobs, where the entertainment aspect is little more than “Fear Factor” or shock porn. Then there is a whole other category of annoying shows comming from these cannels. Things like “Axe Men” celebrating deforestation and the “manliness” of being a lumber jack with a big ass chainsaw, or shows like “deadliest catch” which is cronicling the escapades of deep sea crab and lobster fishermen braving the north Atlantic, and simultaneously scraping the ocean bottom clean of every marketable scrap of meat they can find.

Now the real dilemma I am faced with is, it has always been my dream to be a documentary camera-man for one of these stations. The kind of guy that is ready to grab his gear on a moments notice and jump in a canoe to chase Steve Irwin down the Amazon river. My question is how do I go about using film to inspire the apathy out of people concerning humanitarian and environmental issues, when the industry leaders run commercials for corporate GIANTS making billions off of the suffering of not only the environmet, but the cheap labor forces overseas as well?

Well, back to the articles topic, I would definitly say that the issue isnt that we are buying the cheap, nasty, lead-painted products, rather than the “green” ones. The issue is that we are still brainwashed into the thought that the important thing is that we keep BUYING!!! We are being paid by a notoriously “non-green” White House with stimulous money that the country doesnt have to give away, all to shut up our griping and keep us spending, buying, CONSUMING. This is the issue. Consumption, even though I consider myself more ecologically minded then most, I still go out and find it necessary to spend money on things that make life just a little more convienient in the short term. I guess consumption is a big deamon to fight off, but I am pretty proud that through recycling and composting, I have managed to go four weeks without filling a single bag of trash for the dumpster. Brovo me…

What are some of the specific ways you or any other readers go about minimizing the impact they have on the environment?
Caroline Cadeau on June 21, 2008 at 11:35 am said:

Let me preface my comments by saying that I was also one of the people fighting the good fight. In my experience, people cared, people listened, people continue to do the same things and wait for someone/something to deal with it for them. But, god forbid that the ‘thing’ made people the least bit uncomfortable…

Anyway, this is a very interesting article, but I think the author is still espousing the old notions of the ‘green movement’ despite his premise of calling for a new perspective.

“Save the planet”? Rather a telling misnomer isn’t it? WE will SAVE the PLANET? Well, it seems to me that the planet will endure regardless of the effects of global warming, depleted resources, etc. The earth has been pummeled by meteors, flipped completely over, been covered by miles of ice, clouded by volcanic aresols for eons, ecosystems have come and gone, etc. The EARTH has and will endure.

Until eco-activists begin to realize their interests truly lie only in saving the human species, perhaps then we can begin to have a real discussion and devise real strategies and solutions.

At the heart of the pending global ecosystem crisis is a simple reality: there are just too many of us. This has nothing to do with just the transition of the developing world to an industrialized/western lifestyle. It goes to issues as basic as the dwindling supply of fresh water and the amount of energy and water needed to produce the food for us to survive.

Regardless of our efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle; regardless of our efforts to devise ‘clean’ energy–there will NEVER be enough energy to support the 6.7 billion (and counting) humans on this planet.

Population ecology–its a very basic concept in ecology. There are two types of species in this world— those that regulate their numbers to adapt to the environment’s carrying capacity and those that don’t.

Those that exceed the carrying capacity are the crash and burn species. Think bunnies in Australia. Once the environment no longer has the ability to provide the necessities for survival, the population dies off either to a size that can once again repeat the entire process or disappears completely. Other species regulate their reproduction to the availability of food.

Which type of species do you think homo sapiens are? People seem to imagine they live outside the laws of nature. As if they are excluded from the basic principles of life on the planet due to their superior intellect. We, as a species, are about to experience the brutal reality of nature.

Unless you imagine that somehow we will devise a fantasy clean technology to capture the energy stored in matter or emitted by the sun, the crash and burn principle will apply. If you imagine solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. will produce enough energy to support 6.7 billion people (and climbing), then you are ill informed. I suggest reading the May issue of Mother Jones. The table on p.34 is rather illuminating. Maxed out these technologies would supply 70% of our needs and their implementation is decades away and the population will continue to climb as well as CO emissions which are expected to exceed 500ppm by 2050.

Sorry to say, we’ve already lost the battle on global warming. I’m sure you’ve heard that the pH of the pacific ocean was found to have increased by 10%. pH is a log scale–do you have any idea how much carbon dioxide must be absorbed by the ocean to result in this change?? Over 10 billion metric tons. The pH in upwellings along the coast is a clear indicator that our carbon sink in the ocean has been overwhelmed.

Per the Oregonian “Given steep increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the 1950s, the long-term cycle means spring and summer acidity levels are likely to rise for another 50 years off the West Coast, he said, no matter what steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions now. The chemical signature of the carbon dioxide makes clear it is from fossil fuel combustion and not natural sources such as volcanoes, the researchers said…. This is where the train has left the station,” Hales said. “We’ve got 50 years worth of corrosive water on the way.” http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/
2008/05/carbon_emissions_carbonrich_wa.html

After seeing the bleached white dead reefs in Tulum Mexico this past May, I have to agree. The train HAS left the station.

So, since these technologies are not able to save us, then what?

So what to do….first, I suggest reading “The world without us” by Alan Weisman. There is some comfort in knowing life will go on without us. Second, greens need to be advocating for population control as well as a massive change in our civilization. The reality is after the famines and wars due to the energy/food/water crises to come, those that survive will likely have to adopt a pre-industrialized lifestyle in the future.