Some Decisions To Protect Our Environment Are Symbolic, But Is That Wrong?
In one of yesterday’s posts I wrote on the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline: “My viewpoint is that rejecting the pipeline was symbolic, but that it was an extremely important symbol.”
In response, a reader remarks: “That would appear to be what’s important to the more extreme in the environmental movement: “symbolism.”
That’s one, albeit smug and cynical, way to look at it. Here’s mine:
In our quest to reform our global energy policy before our planet ceases to be able to support the kind of life that we’ve enjoyed since the dawn of the species 200K years ago, we need a combination of substantive and symbolic acts. Along the way, certain decisions won’t move the needle in the real world, but they’ll be quite meaningful in transforming public consciousness in the direction of caring about our environment and the role that “new” energy plays.
The actions that we in the U.S. take have especially pronounced repercussions all over the world. As an example, our Congress’s summary rejection of the Paris climate agreement sent enormous shock waves around the globe. As colleagues of mine told me at the time, “Thanks for making it clear: the U.S. puts its own wealth and might in front of the health and safety of our civilization.”
That’s true, and, as we all know, the truth often hurts. It’s not where we want to be.
The rejection of the pipeline, and I freely admit that it was symbolic, sent a message to the 200 nations of the world that we actually care.
Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, there’s something to be said for that.
Recycling plastics when the fuel burned to haul them to a distant reprocessing plant is greater than the fossil fuel input required o make virgin polymers is another example of symbolic gestures that only an extreme environmentalist can rationalize. Reduce, reuse and recycle but only when it makes sense.
Craig,
My response wasn’t intended to be either “smug” or “cynical”. It more accurately could be described as sad or frustrated at those within the environmental movement who prefer symbolism to tangible results.
The left, along with many environmental activists, make the mistake of confusing themselves (and fellow travelers) with the majority of the populace.
Because the US Congress didn’t ratify the Paris agreements, the “entire planet” didn’t experience “enormous shock waves around the globe” . The vast majority of the planet’s population (even governments) either didn’t care, or were not surprised.
The majority of people have more commonsense than you believe. If asked the simple question, “Do you think it’s a good idea to transport oil in :-
1) A safe manner with a minimum of risk in a pipeline?
or
2)In a dangerous, pollutant and possibly lethal manner, exposing tens of thousands of innocent people (including children) to risk and disaster by rail.(but making an obscure symbolic gesture)?
Now I maybe wrong, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of the world’s population wouldn’t applaud your admiration for symbolism !
I would imagine they would conclude anyone advocating such nonsense was irresponsible, selfish and deluded.
(Yes, I realize that the keystone issue wasn’t that simple, most issues seldom are, but the point I’m making is still valid).
I realize that you see environmental issues in the context of a “Grand Plan ” a “noble crusade”, where symbolism, even at the cost of lives, is justifiable.
I don’t agree. I believe that such “symbols” may excite ardent activists, but alienate far more ordinary folk.
In contrast, researchers like Harvard’s Daniel Nocera’s and his “artificial leaf” project cost no lives, create no disruption, need no ardent activism, no grand crusade, no vilification of ‘enemies’, no questionable ‘symbolism’!
Daniel Nocera needs no fierce crusade to aid the environment. His technology speaks for itself. Positive technology gains wide support from even the most humble of the world’s population.
As I type I’m waiting in the British Airways Concorde Room at Heathrow Airport as my flight is delayed. I’m thinking of a client who travels with his own corporate jet, and probably doesn’t experience delays.
For a lot of people, my client represents all they hate and despise. He’s certainly very wealthy and indulges in conspicuous consumption. Yet, he’s a willing investor in Clean Tech technology and a very influential supporter of practical environmental action.
Craig, you have a great gift which I admire, for this reason I implore you to consider prioritizing your precious time and talents. Forget “Grand crusades”, and empty symbolism, instead do what you do best! Concentrate your voice in support of smaller, but more viable technologies and environmental targets.
Help identify worthwhile clean tech technologies, encourage investment and rally widespread support (as only you can) .