| BRIGHT GREEN LIES How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, & Max Wilbert Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Publishing Co., March 2021 |
Rating: 4.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-1-948626-39-2 | ||||
| ISBN-10 1-948626-39-X | 478pp. | SC/GSI | $24.95 | |
Since Teddy Roosevelt's day there have been those who advocated for radical protection of the natural environment — measures so stringent that they are effectively a return to the agrarian society circa the year 1800, when human population was under 1 billion — or even to an earlier form of living. The three authors of this book fall into that camp. They see a problem in our world. They describe that problem, and how to solve it, thus:
Industrial civilization is incompatible with life on the planet. That makes the solution to our systematic planetary murder obvious, but let's say it anyway: Stop industrial civilization. Stop our way of life, which is based on extraction. No, that doesn't mean killing all humans. That means changing our lifestyle dramatically. The Tolowa lived just fine in Northern California, just south of the Oregon border, where Derrick and Lierre live now, and they did so without destroying the place. Industrial civilization has been here less than 200 years, and the place is trashed. So, yes, stop civilization. – Page 433 |
This goal flows from their deep affection for the living creatures we are displacing or driving into extinction. They view environmentalists as coming in six flavors of environmentalism, and see only one as worth anything: the radical environmentalism which would abolish most industry, and would reduce human population to a fraction of its current size: a number it deems sustainable.1 The authors call this movement "deep green" environmentalism. They define the six flavors of environmentalism thus (pages xxi-xxii):
| DEEP GREENS | The living planet and nonhumans both have the right to exist. Human flourishing depends on healthy ecology. To save the planet, humans must live within the limits of the natural world; therefore, drastic transformations need to occur at social, cultural, economic, political, and personal levels. |
| LIFESTYLISTS | Humans depend on nature, and technology probably won't solve environmental issues, but political engagement is either impossible or unnecessary. The best we can do is practice self-reliance, small-scale living, and other personal solutions. Withdrawal will change the world. |
| BRIGHT GREENS | Environmental problems exist and are serious, but green technology and design, along with ethical consumerism, will allow a modern, high-energy lifestyle to continue indefinitely The bright greens' attitude amounts to: "It's less about nature, and more about us." |
| WISE USE / ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS | Ecological issues exist, but most problems are minor and can be solved through proper management. Natural resources should be protected primarily to enable their continued extraction and human well-being. |
| CORNUCOPIANS | The earth is made up of resources that are essentially infinite. Ecological problems are secondary. Technology and the economic system—whether free-market capitalism or socialism—will solve all ecological problems. |
| TECHNOCRATS / TRANSHUMANISTS | Humans should transcend biology by investing heavily in technology. We can also avoid the possibility of human extinction by leaving planet Earth behind, and we should ultimately move toward cybernetic enhancement and uploading human consciousness into machines in order to defeat death. |
In the book, they attempt to make a rational case for this plain wish to abolish industrial civilization. It's not clear what sort of civilization they hope would replace it, but probably this would be an agrarian society with perhaps one-tenth of the human population we have today. Needless to say, they will get some strong pushback on that. I do have some sympathy for their view. However, their arguments are flawed in a number of ways.
First, they treat all forms of renewables as just as bad as fossil fuels. They base this on the fact that renewables (like any facility for energy production) must be built from resources that are mined, and constructing them often involves the use of hazardous substances. Again and again they decry the scars on the land, the rampant pollution, the people and wildlife put at risk or killed outright. What's wrong with this view? The assumption that mining inevitably pollutes, and that hazardous chemicals will always be carelessly discarded into the environment. It is true that achieving such a state of responsible mining and construction will be logistically and politically difficult. That does not mean it is impossible. But the authors of this book don't care much about politics; they merely declare that the truth of their point of view must be obvious.
One thing I admire about the book is the depth of research the authors put into it. They tell us much about history, and about things going on in out-of-the-way places. This research is well-cited in footnotes. They are also not shy about using numbers, such as the numbers of birds estimated to be killed annually by wind turbines. They devote several pages to calculating that specific number, and arrive on page 134 at the estimate of 14 million birds per year. But here is the kicker: This estimate is for the hypothetical situation of Mark Jacobsen's plan for total U.S. reliance on renewable energy having come to fruition (a very bad thing in their view.) Later they do mention the number of birds killed by cats every year; but they minimize this larger number. All this points up the second major flaw in their approach: a tendency to pick specific plans or facilities and portray them as absolute disasters, with no acknowledgment that there could be changes which would mitigate the harm. They also demonize certain individuals, notably Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.3
The authors don't have a good grasp of reasoning with numbers. They admit as much on page 134 where they thank several people for help with some calculations. They nevertheless make some incorrect assumptions about numbers. I discuss these in the linked page "Deep Green Dunderhead Moves," named in accord with the book's title. There are a few other errors, which I discuss on my Errata page.
The book is well written, and I don't doubt that the authors' hearts are in a good place. However, it is far too wordy, and I found the way it is organized into segments of varying length separated by a stylized Earth globe symbol annoying. It has no index and doesn't use topic headings. Also, many of the titles referenced in the text are omitted from the list of resources at the end of the book. I consider it worth reading, but neither a must-read nor a keeper.
"Those of us who care about life will have to be the resistance. We start by rejecting false solutions. We have to coalesce around goals that will save the planet. We need massive movements to relentlessly impede the functioning of industrial civilization, using every tactic: political pressure, legal challenges, economic boycotts, civil disobedience, and whatever else becomes necessary. Standards of living will have to decrease in rich nations, but with the weight of gilded capitalism lifted, they will rise dramatically for the global poor." – Page 458 |
The bottom line is this: For all their noble dedication to a world of nature untrammeled, the authors of Bright Green Lies present a flawed case for getting us there.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.