The fundamental unseriousness of the environmental movement
That so many environmental groups shoot themselves in the foot never surprises me anymore. Still, this letter sent out by 40 environmental groups is a sight to behold. It demands that the US essentially stop criticizing any action by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on, well, anything. Why? Because doing so prevents any cooperation with the CCP on climate change, which is an existential threat.
Needless to say, there are so many problems with all that. I find the idea of simply sacrificing concern for human rights and oppression of others at the hands of the CCP to be unconscionable. That is even assuming it would somehow result in more cooperation on climate change. As this article points out, that is not the case. China stands to lose much more from the effects of climate change than the US does. They have an estimated 600 million who live in areas that could be vulnerable with a changing climate. China has vastly more cities that are at risk of damage, too. In other words, it is very much in their interest to deal with climate change, regardless of what the US or others say about their bad actions at home and abroad.
By giving up criticism of the CCP’s atrocities, the US would be all but letting them off the hook. It would help the CCP in general and Xi Jinping in particular in their goal of complete domination of every aspect of life inside China. It would also effectively be telling them to continue committing genocide, oppressing Hong Kong and threatening Taiwan.
Looking at the letter itself, it goes from one nauseating paragraph to another. It starts by blaming the US for “anti-Chinese” rhetoric. You will be shocked to discover that it calls it racist, the go-to excuse by many of those on the left to dismiss any criticism of something they do not like. It blames the US for contributing the most to climate change. It omits the fact that US emissions have declined rapidly since 2005 and will likely continue to do so. China, in fact, is the biggest polluter in the world by a long shot and the air quality problems they are facing are massive. Again, curbing greenhouse gas emissions is in their own self-interest, no matter what anyone else does.
The letter actually says that the US and the CCP should work together on best practice standards for, among other things, human rights. Yes, that’s right. These groups think a government committing genocide right now is capable of best practices on human rights. I don’t know whether these groups are hopelessly naïve or incredibly stupid, but either way it is surreal that anyone could believe that.
To top it off, the letter all but blames the US for being the source of tensions with the CCP. That’s funny because last I checked, between the US and the CCP, only the latter is currently committing genocide, exporting censorship, crushing democracy in Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan and refusing a legitimate investigation into the origins of the CCP Virus. But somehow it is the US that is the cause of all the problems.
Bigger problems with the environmental movement
I have not heard of most of the groups who signed the letter. The groups that I have heard of though share two big things in common. One is that they are apocalyptic about the threat of climate change and believe it is a major crisis. The other is that they are opposed to every single solution to it other than a cult-like obsession with wind and solar (renewables). To put it mildly, those things are in major tension with each other.
Anyone who believes, as I do, that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, should be willing and eager to try every solution available. After all, if we really are facing an existential crisis, would it not be imperative that we explore every possible avenue for averting it? Unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, that is not how many of the environmental groups see it. It begs the question as to what they really want. It clearly is not about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I want to draw particular attention here to the Sunrise Movement. Never heard of it? I had not either until recently, but it has become influential in some circles. It is a very vocal bunch that does an amazing job of validating every awful caricature of environmentalism. It is mainly this group that has decided to protest against the infrastructure proposal being debated in Congress right now. That is despite the fact that some of the ideas put forth would actually accomplish some good things on the climate front even if they are not officially climate plans. You would think a group concerned about climate change would be happy about that and working to get it passed, but you would be wrong.
Even calling the Sunrise Movement an environmental group is kind of a misnomer. They are more like a hodgepodge of far-left ideas. Here is a thread from their Twitter account expressing support for Palestinians. Leaving aside the merits of that position, does it really make sense for a group claiming to be concerned about climate change to be taking a position on that? If climate change is so important, would you not want to build as broad of a coalition as possible to fight it? Similar to other left-wing groups who last year supported defunding the police (which the Sunrise Movement also supports), this is a great way to alienate a whole lot of people from your cause for no reason.
The lesson here is that groups like the Sunrise Movement are bad and should be ignored by all those who actually care about climate change. Why, then, did I just bring it up? Because even though that crowd should be ignored, that has not always been what candidates have done. There are Democratic candidates who seek out their endorsement. Candidates who do that inevitably will venture way out into left-field and make themselves toxic in all but the bluest places. The good news is that candidates endorsed by the Sunrise Movement outside of the bluest areas tend to not get nominated (see the Virginia governor’s race, 2020 presidential primary). The bad news is that there are many candidates with potentially great futures who squander them by making themselves unelectable (cough, Beto O’Rourke, cough) by treating activist groups like the Sunrise Movement as if they speak for any real voters.*
I also draw attention to them because they are one more example of a pernicious phenomenon that I write about fairly regularly and that is the problem of people in important positions of power and influence mistaking activists for actual voters. The reality is that climate change is something that can be dealt with, but not the way much of the environmental activist crowd wants to. It is not a high priority for most voters, which makes solving it all the more challenging and leaves less room for error. The massive lifestyle change required by trying to shift entirely to renewables, as many environmental groups and activists want, would be unacceptable to almost everyone, including environmental activists. If the only way to have a chance of solving climate change meant that those pushing for it would have to go far out into left-field, I would be understanding of that dilemma, but that is not the case. Catering to groups like the Sunrise Movement does, at best, absolutely nothing to help with climate change. Otherwise, it makes enacting anything vastly more difficult.**
If we are going to solve climate change, it is going to happen the old-fashioned way. That is to say it will be Congress passing legislation to deal with it. That will require building a broad coalition and satisfying many different players who will have concrete things at stake. Many of them will be people on the right and in the center and they will not be receptive to shutting down fracking or nuclear power. Threading that needle will be difficult and arduous and will require all kinds of compromises. That is how legislation is passed in the US and climate change will be no different. As The Mandalorian would say, this is the way.
Renewables alone are nowhere near enough
The idea that renewables alone will take care of every energy need we have is as detached from reality as QAnon. Just look at what has happened in New York since the Indian Point Nuclear Plant was closed in April. Shutting down the plant was championed by environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and by politicians like AOC. The carbon free electricity it produced has not been replaced by renewables, but by gas. The result? Greenhouse gas emissions are going up and New York will have a much harder time reducing its reliance on fossil fuels. Great job, everybody.
The phenomenon of nuclear being replaced by fossil fuels is not unique to the US. It has happened in Japan since they shut down their nuclear reactors after Fukushima.*** Germany also opted to phase out nuclear power around that same time. The result? More reliance on fossil fuels, which includes the building of a new gas pipeline from Russia, benefitting Putin. I could be out of touch, but increasing greenhouse gas emissions while also increasing dependence on Russia does not strike me as an optimal outcome. The lesson from all these episodes is simple: when you say no to nuclear, you are, at best, saying yes to gas. Otherwise, you are saying yes to coal.
The environmental opposition to nuclear power is the most mind-boggling thing there is on the issue of climate change. It is far and away the biggest source of clean power we have. If we are going to make a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions, there is no way, no how it will happen without nuclear power.
Not only should we be keeping nuclear plants open, but we need to be building more of them and fast. I’m sorry to say it, but Democrats have not been not great on this. More are beginning to recognize the need to keep existing plants open and support more use of nuclear power, but it does not seem to be a high priority. It is renewables, renewables and renewables. I really wish Biden would include a whole lot of money for expanding nuclear power in his infrastructure proposal. It would probably get support from many Republicans.
To be clear, renewables are not bad. Hopefully battery storage will become widespread, enabling them to go much further than they can today. But until that happens, renewables will be limited in their reach because they are intermittent and woefully inadequate to dealing with our energy needs. In the future, the demand for electricity will probably be up considerably, especially if electric cars become the norm. Unless we want to have coal-powered cars, we will need more nuclear power.****
Many of these same environmental groups are not content to just oppose nuclear. They oppose capturing carbon emissions, too. Once again, if we are serious about reducing and preventing future greenhouse gas emissions, everything needs to be on the table. Carbon capture is in its early stages, but if it works could go a long way towards allowing us to stop greenhouse gas emissions while we wind down fossil fuel use over many decades (which is the only way we will ever move past fossil fuels).
It is bad enough that environmental groups oppose carbon capture, but to see it coming from groups claiming to be about racial justice is really something else. I have real problems with trying to make climate change into a race issue. But if someone is going to do that, I would think that given that it is racial minorities who may suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change that such groups would be for doing everything possible to avert it. Of course, that would be wrong and is one more example of activist groups being completely unrepresentative of groups they claim to speak for.
*Julian Castro is another example. While he was never going to be nominated in 2020, he could have tried to distinguish himself in some way, i.e., embracing fracking being from Texas. Instead, he went way out into left-field and now is going to be spending his time on MSNBC. I joked in 2012 and 2016 that most of the Republican presidential candidates running were just trying to get attention so they could get a gig on Fox. It looks like the same can be said of some of the Democrats who ran in 2020, just on MSNBC.
**It is bad enough that the Sunrise Movement wants to ban fracking, shut down nuclear plants, opposes capturing carbon and opposes what Biden is trying to do on infrastructure. What makes them even worse is their opposition to building more housing in places like San Francisco, which would be an environmental boon. Scott Wiener, a state senator who has been on the front lines in trying to get more housing built was challenged by a NIMBY who was endorsed by the local Sunrise chapter.
***Few things drive me off the wall more than hearing people oppose nuclear power because of Fukushima. Guess how many people died from the radiation? One. That’s right, one, which happened 7 years after the disaster. Yes, all the panic and all the shutting down of nuclear plants for what has killed one person. In contrast, the earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 20,000. I don’t have a PhD in math, but I’m pretty sure one of those numbers is a lot bigger than the other. How many lives will be lost because of the greenhouse gas and other emissions from coal and gas plants replacing nuclear plants? I don’t know, but I’d bet it’s a lot more than one.
****If anyone reading this is concerned about climate change and still opposes nuclear power, please do everyone a favor and stop complaining about climate change. If you are going to oppose nuclear power, that is your choice, but you forfeit all right to complain about climate change. If you are opposed to what is far and away the biggest and most reliable source of clean energy you don’t get to say you’re worried about greenhouse gas emissions and you definitely don’t get to say you follow the science. If anyone reading this supports nuclear power, but maybe has some questions about its safety, check out this link.