In an era when the info stream is running heavy on conspiracy
theories, fake news, and balderdash, it’s not unusual to come across stories of
green energy miracles. For example, we
might see that a progressive country somewhere overseas is now almost entirely
running on wind or solar energy. Oh,
really? In this era of deceptive “news”
releases, truth can be a slippery rascal.
Bright green environmentalism is a mindset that has big hopes
for a brighter future, and strongly advocates renewable energy. Their primary interest is preserving our
luxurious high-impact lifestyle and mega-profitable economy, while (hopefully) lightening
our eco-footprint a wee bit, allowing us to feel slightly less uncomfortable.
The cat is out of the bag with regard to approaching fossil
energy limits and the Climate Crisis. The
bad old-fashioned way of living has become unhip and embarrassing. It has to go.
Bright green is a brilliant marketing strategy. Look!
Here’s a new and improved way of living in the fast lane that’s friendly
to the birds and trees! It’s great for
the economy, and it’s great for the planet!
Imagine that! How totally
cool! (Um, the inconvenient truth here
is that, no matter how hard we wish, we can’t have both industrial civilization
and a living planet.)
Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert are the authors
of Bright Green Lies,
which enthusiastically reveals all the kinky and creepy aspects of the bright
green cult. The three wordsmiths are
apostles of a gospel called Deep Green Resistance, which passionately advocates
defending the living world, to the highest degree possible, without delay. (“No, that doesn’t mean killing all humans. That means changing our lifestyle
dramatically.”) OK!
Once I made it across the border into chapter three, I
suddenly became extremely excited! I
found myself exploring a fascinating, in-depth “birds and bees” discussion of the
unfortunate realities, drawbacks, and limitations of alternative energy — lots
of stuff they never taught me in school (and I wish they were teaching now).
My Admiral TV was made in 1946. It doesn’t have a screen the size of a barn
door. I’ve
never seen it work. Watching a dead TV
is boring. Reading is a lot more
interesting. When you spend 25 to 30
years studying ecology, anthropology, and environmental history, you can learn
a lot of stuff that mainstream folks don’t know — stuff more important than
football scores, soap operas, game shows, celebrity shenanigans, and so on.
Folks who have working TVs, and thousands of channels, are
often very well informed about countless subjects that are not especially
important. They are unlikely to be up to
date on difficulties of lithium recycling, or why Big Mama Nature loathes and
despises notorious bright green billionaires, or why the electric grid is so poorly
designed for effectively distributing renewable energy that is intermittent,
unpredictable, hard to control, and a pain in the ass.
They are likely to be blissfully ignorant about most of the
countless eco-impacts of their consumer lifestyles. The view outside their picture window is not strip
mines, clear-cuts, forest fires, methane craters, oil fields, toxic spills, chemical
plants, and landfills. Out of sight, out
of mind. Most importantly, they are
unlikely to understand why running today’s industrial civilization entirely on
renewable energy is absolutely impossible, and why attempting a transition would
provide little or no benefit — but a lot more damage to the planet.
Of course, everyone remembers William Jevons, who discovered
something very strange in 1865. In those
days, the steam engine industry was making big gains in efficiency. More work could be done with less coal. Instead of reducing coal mining, demand for
coal increased, because it was the greedy and profitable thing to do. Jevon’s Paradox asserts, “Increased
efficiency not only doesn’t generally reduce demand, but instead increases it.”
Bright greens still dance to the Jevon’s boogie. Richard York, a University of Oregon wizard, studied
data from 128 nations, and found that for every unit of “green” power brought
online, only one-tenth as much fossil fuel was taken offline. “Industrial civilization requires industrial
levels of energy, and fossil fuel is functionally irreplaceable.” Electric cars can’t be made without it. Nor can wind turbines, solar panels, planes,
ships, concrete, cell phones, etc. Oil
is incredibly energy dense.
Solar power pauses for sunset or clouds, sometimes for days. Wind turbines take a nap when it’s calm,
sometimes for days. Meanwhile, demand
for electricity expects the grid to always provide our every need immediately,
and demand can surge without warning.
This means that a conventional generation system (typically fossil
powered) must constantly be kept running on standby, to immediately feed the
grid when clouds pass, breezes calm, or demand suddenly spikes. Brilliant, eh?
While coal or oil is energy that can be stored for millions
of years, the grid delivers alternating current (AC) electricity, which is
impossible to store — use it or lose it.
Batteries can store direct current (DC) electricity, but high capacity
utility-scale batteries are not in common use.
There are other ways of storing energy, like hydro-electric dams, pumped
hydro, compressed air, thermal, etc. These
can be used in unique locations, not everywhere. Bottom line: “The grid was not built for
renewables.” Therefore, a new fantastically
expensive state of the art grid is needed.
No storage systems are made of harmless green fairy dust. All require a fossil energy powered
industrial civilization. In the world of
batteries, lithium-ion is the most efficient.
Elon Musk is working hard to design and build lithium batteries for
cars, homes, and industrial scale power storage. Exponential growth in demand for lithium is
predicted into the late 2020s and 2030s.
Some fear that staggering demand for lithium could drive
prices into the stratosphere, and close the gate to a beautiful green utopia. Even worse, some predict that “not enough
economically recoverable lithium exists to build anywhere near the number of
batteries needed in a global electric-vehicle economy.” This also applies to other gizmos that require
lithium. Oh-oh!
As a special bonus, readers are also taken on a naughty and
exciting tour behind the curtains, to get a shocking peek at the steamy world
of hardcore geology porn. In addition to
a long list of conventional minerals, “green” energy hardware requires exotic
minerals, like lithium and rare earth metals, which are found in limited
locations, and are not easy or “green” to mine.
The mining industry excels at creating enduring, toxic,
eco-catastrophes.
The book explores a number of other subjects — power
distribution grids, hydropower, recycling, green cities, biofuels, geothermal, and
so on. Near the end are 28 pages of “solutions,”
all of which consumer society has zero interest in. Consumer society wants to survive and grow
until the planet can no longer breathe.
The authors suggest a more interesting path.
Put the plows away forever and bring back the grasslands, via
holistic management (beneficial grazing).
Before long, the recovery of healthy wild vegetation will suck the
excess carbon out of the air, and turn some of it into organic grass-fed
meat. Grass will save our ass! Deal with overpopulation and
extinctions. Eliminate carbon emissions
in five years. Remove five dams per day
and stop building new ones. End logging. And on and on. In short, end the destruction, let the Earth
heal. Make America Walk Again.
Jensen has spoken to many audiences over 20+ years. He asks each group the same question. “Do you think this culture will undergo a
voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable society?” No one has ever said yes. This is exactly the point of his extreme
recommendations. There is no solution
that leaves our way of life intact. Our
way of life has some really big issues.
This book will help you better understand some of them. I liked it.
Jensen, Derrick, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert, Bright Green Lies,
Monkfish Publishing, Rhinebeck, New York, 2021.
10 comments:
Planet of the humans was another recent production the pointed out the denial and disconnect in conventional environmental thinking.
Mr. Moore got sent to the woodshed for that little questioning the narrative film.
I don't know if I will read this one, I'm pretty sure I already know how this turns out.
The book is useful for understanding the shit and shinola flowing down the info stream. I learned some stuff from it. It's not for everyone.
Wonderful, Rick!
Also see: We are Strip-Mining Life While We Drink “Bright Green Lies”: https://www.tree-of-life.works/bright_green_lies
as well as, "Between the Devil and the Green New Deal": https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/ and
Also, (note to @Steve Carrow, too), here are several really top-notch takedowns of the ecologically clueless critics of "Planet of the Humans"... https://youtu.be/P8lNTPlsRtI?t=2644 (watch for a few minutes and take notes)
Post-doom blessings,
~ Michael
Hi Michael! I sent Steve a 32 page defense of Planet of the Humans. HERE
What happened to yesterday’s comment? I moderate comments, because without moderation, 99% would be spam. Exterminators in Nowhereville, New Mexico will post ads. So will safety net manufacturers in France. If I let them appear, there will be six more tomorrow, 30 more next week, and eventually 666 billion. I check for messages once or twice a day. No smart phone.
I’m writing reviews of Jamail and Wadhams, then I’ll return to WFH.
This book praises Salatin. Fair enough because he popularises some great ideas, and soil is important.
However, I think it is worth noting that some of the regenerative agriculture movement has been colonised by the billionaires. It's better than what it replaces, but when practiced at scale it is just another bright green dream (cattle trucks, refrigeration, etc.).
Down the road from me, the Murdochs own the leading regenerative grazing property, and they sell their 'carbon credits' to Bill Gates. Woo hoo!
Further down the road, there's another bloke who seems to be on the right track with regenerative grazing, he says, "Eat less beef, but eat better quality." However, a common complaint is that his product is "too expensive". That may well be so.
This book praises Salatin. Fair enough because he popularises some great ideas, and soil is important. There are some problems however (https://www.motherjones.com/food/2020/11/joel-salatin-chris-newman-farming-rotational-grazing-agriculture/)
In the light of this, I think it is worth noting that some of the regenerative agriculture movement has been colonised by the billionaires. It's better than what it replaces, but when practiced at scale it is just another bright green dream (cattle trucks, refrigeration, etc.).
Down the road from me, the Murdochs own the leading regenerative grazing property, and they sell their 'carbon credits' to Bill Gates. Woo hoo!
Further down the road, there's another bloke who seems to be on the right track with regenerative grazing, he says, "Eat less beef, but eat better quality." However, a common complaint is that his product is "too expensive". That may well be so.
Quoll Quest, I really appreciated what the book said about alternative energy, resource limits, mining impacts, etc. The solutions offered were a wish list — big theoretical ideas that society is not eager to pursue. I was surprised to see them recommending holistic management, given their track record of opposition to civilization, a system built on a foundation of plant and animal domestication. Environmental history has no complaints about wild herbivores, but finds many problems with owning and managing herds of domesticated livestock — a system in which wild predators are not welcome to exist.
Post a Comment