Deep Ecology

[Patrick Shipsey]

I think we all know that nerdfighters tend to be environmentally active, some militantly so, so I think that this is a good way to get to the core of that discussion. The clusterfail of unproductive sophistry that was the toilet paper thread made me think about what the core differences between the two camps, both in the loo roll debate and in other environmental debates, are. Personally, I'll admit it. I balk at changing the material with which I clean my crack. But why is that? Why are some people perfectly willing to change their behavior and some people respond to that with knee-jerk sarcasm about how everything we do means "Bye-bye, trees!", or, "Oh, those poor penguins being fried by the ozone hole!" You know the kind that I mean. I think that the primary difference is a difference in what we value and a difference in what our mindset is.

If you really want to see what got me to ask the questions I'm about to asked, read the next paragraph. If you're the "tl;dr" type, skip the next paragraph. Choose Your Own Adventure on the Ning, bleeyotch.

Friends, I'm a debate nerd, and in the world of debate, we have an argument called the Kritik. You'll see where I'm going with this in a minute. Pinky promise. Kritiks were invented to call into question motivations behind a plan. The reason it's spelled with a K is that Bill Batterman (I think) invented it and he got the idea from reading a lot of German philosophy at the time. I once heard somebody say that another person had "learned too much from a deep reading of Emmanuel Kant," but I never realized that this was the kind of thing they were talking about. Anyhow, Kant held that a man could do the exact same thing two different times, and be morally right one time and wrong the other. The reason was his motivation- if the first man is opening the door for a lady in order to be a gentleman, and the second man is opening the door for a lady because he believes women to be too stupid to open doors by themselves, one is clearly in the right and the other in the wrong. (Feminists, I'm not trying to get into a debate over door-opening here, just illustrating a point.) So, there's a Kritik I'm reading a lot of literature about called "Deep Ecology". This is where it gets pertinent to the discussion.

So. Deep Ecology is a theory that says that the majority of ecology that we have is "shallow"-- that we only value the environment as far as it benefits us. Think about it. What's the most commonly-heard justification for action to fight anthropogenic global climate change? At least in the arguments I've heard, it's that it's going to kill a bunch of people. Now, that's certainly a good justification. But let's take a hypothetical. Let's pretend, for a moment, that climate change didn't hurt humans in any way. It's still occurring, it's just not hurting humans. Let's say that its impacts are restricted entirely to damaging the environment, mostly in the form of species loss. Let's also pretend that species loss didn't hurt humans either. In short, environmental destruction completely in a vacuum.

Would you still care?
Just at a guesstimation, about what fraction or percentage of the people who care about climate change that hurts humans would care about climate change that doesn't?
How bad did it hurt your eyes to see such a long sentence with only one comma?

If you wouldn't care in this hypothetical world, a lot of people would say that you're a "shallow ecologist"- someone who cares for the environment only as it affects humans. This is as contrasted with a "deep ecologist"- someone who cares for the environment, not only for its own sake, but on the same level as human life. This means that you would literally have to care for every tree that falls on the same level as a human death. And if you take John's <3 for imagining others complexly and apply that to deep ecology, then this business, ladies and gentlemen, has just gotten real. The gauntlet has been chucked, because this directly contradicts the philosophy that is most people's default, which is anthropocentrism, which says that man is special and should be valued above pretty much everything else. That's incompatible with deep ecology, but the thought immediately presents itself to me that basically any other kind of ecology would be dishonest.

So, Nerdfighters:
What are your thoughts on Deep Ecology vs. Anthropocentrism?
Are you a Deep Ecologist?
Are you an anthropocentrist?
Are you doublethinkish about it? (e.g., "I know I should be valuing the ecology as equal, but on a personal level, I just can't be bothered.")
What do you think the implications would be if all of our world leaders suddenly became deep ecologists?
On a scale of 1-10, how win is this particular chunk of brain crack?
Due to the nature of our society, is deep ecology even remotely possible anymore? I mean, can an American feasibly survive without endorsing shallow ecology in some form or another? I mean, how can we not contribute to massively overconsuming industries and society at large?
Do you think that President Obama, Al Gore, and other environmentally active politicians and public figures are deep ecologists in the true sense of the word, with all of its implications?
Do you think it's possible to REALLY be a deep ecologist, while living in a way that's inconsistent with it?

DISKUSS!

[Bumble Bee]

I try to be a real American but Schnitzel Mouse always says *Terminator accent*

"WE MUST CONSERVE ZE ENERGY, WE MUST SAVE ZE PLANET, IT IS YOOR FUTURE!, I VILL BE DEAD ANYVAY, VY DO i CARE?"

I'm very sorry, I try to do my bit.
Once I'm away from the evil witch, I shall get a Bugatti Veyron, und drive like theres no tommorow (Which there probably won't be).

[sabelmouse]

*
o

The global discussion on climate change has quickly degenerated into a north-south confrontation, for perhaps obvious reasons. On average, carbon emissions per capita in the developed world are about five times those in developing countries. Between some countries the differences are even starker: in 2006, the US per capita emission of tonnes of CO2 equivalent was 15.2, compared with 1.1 in India.

Obviously, the developed world has been and continues to be the basic cause of the problem. In the developing world the conclusion is obvious: rich nations must take on the basic burden of mitigation, consume less of the world's resources and reduce their contribution to global warming absolutely. That is why attempts to declare common goals of emission reduction across all countries are seen not only as unequal and unfair but even imperialist.

But the issue cannot be treated in simplistic terms. While they did not create the problem, the negative contribution of developing countries has been growing recently. Between 1980 and 2006, per capita carbon emissions declined slightly in developed countries (even the US), but they doubled in developing countries as a group, and nearly tripled in China. And the people of developing countries have a real stake in global action on this front, for they are already the worst affected by climate changes, as shown by the growing incidence of climatic shifts, especially in tropical and semi-tropical zones.

The problem is that the development project, in terms of ensuring basic needs to all the population, is still far from complete in many parts of the world – and certainly in India. Even without trying to replicate western standards of living, just to provide every citizen with the minimum decent standards of living that contemporary technology can offer, such as permanent housing, electrification, access to clean water, sanitation and sufficient food, will necessarily require more natural resource use and result in more carbon emissions.

To deal with this problem we need more imaginative responses in both north and south. First, GDP growth should not be an end in itself, since it is now widely recognised that it does not necessarily create more life satisfaction. It is not really clear why rich countries with falling populations need to increase their GDP, and why they should not focus instead on internal redistribution and changing lifestyles – which could in fact improve every citizen's quality of life.

Second, in the developing world, and especially in India, which is still a very low carbon emitter, there is now an opportunity to reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions: not just by changing energy sources at the margin, but also by emphasising cleaner and more public rather than private-based transport systems, better urban and regional planning and protecting and nurturing water and other natural resources. This also requires income distribution shifts and changes in socially created aspirations. This cannot be left to the market, because since the international demonstration effect and the power of advertising will continue to create undesirable wants and unsustainable consumption and production.

A dimension that is often missed is that CO2 emissions account for only about half of the global warming story. Ground-level ozone (from transport and biomass burning), black carbon (from motor vehicles) and methane production (from agriculture, cattle and wood burning) also play roles. And these are much easier to deal with in an overall growth framework using available technologies; indeed, reducing these should be an integral part of the development project because they are also human health hazards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/oct/01/clima...

[sabelmouse]

[sabelmouse]

what is wrong with the usa?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/01/india-us-climate-...

[feathers]

What is so wrong in this article? At least some progress is being made, if a bill is too heavy handed it would never pass. Baby steps are better than nothing.
America is used to being glutinous, it will take a while to wean off our over consumption habits. Sorry.

[sabelmouse]

it's to late for baby steps and it's not fair to ask poor countries who have not created this situation to cut back while we in europe and especially americans have created it and are creating it every second and are barely willing to take even the slightest cutback or inconvenience.

xox gave me this link and it's very usefull to understand the situation

http://worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy

[President Clive-φ-Davidson]

Baby steps are better than nothing.
Or are they? This really depends on how big the steps are and how fast the enviroment is catching up to us.

[sabelmouse]

I've been reading Ha-Joon Chang's book, "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" while watching the senate debate a US climate change bill (and various nations posture leading up to the UN's Copenhagen summit).

Chang explores the history of open markets and concludes that "virtually all successful countries use some mixture of protection, subsidies and regulation in order to develop their economies." This is no surprise. What was interesting to me was that the richest countries systematically "kick away the ladder" once they have climbed. Dr Chang asserts that the wealthy countries force free market policies on the poorer ones, essentially saying "do as we say not as we did". Trade policy is based on national economic interests, not social justice.

Will this be the case with climate emissions? Well, let's start by looking at automobile ownership: The US has 765 automobiles per 1000 people, France 490, China and India roughly 120 each, many African countries less than 10. What about electricity use? The US produces 14,000 kwh per capita, France 8,000, China 2,000, many African counties less than 200.

Can you see where this is going? The US has climbed to the highest rung on the energy ladder, and we don't want to climb down by much (20% according to the senate climate bill,while the world needs us to commit to 40%). The necessary extreme changes in consumption and energy policy - both how we supply and how much we demand - to descend further on the ladder seem to be well beyond our political reach. At the same time, we simply can't let others climb up without radical changes to the planet. The only solution is for the rest of the world to accept that our slice of carbon will always be the biggest. Is this possible?

For trade policy, the wealthy countries use what Dr Chang calls "The unholy trinity of the World Bank, WTO (World Trade Organization), and IMF (International Monetary Fund) to enforce open markets and economic status quo." These bodies hold all the cards, and the US is a highly influential member of each. For climate targets though, we seem to be all alone on our side of the table. Even the European Commission's ambassador recently asked, "Is the U.S. Senate really expecting all the other countries to make a serious effort on climate change in the absence of a clear commitment from the United States?"

But what happens if we call the world's bluff, and arrive at the UN meetings in Copenhagen with no concrete commitment in place?

Will Europe look the other way, as they did last time (Kyoto)? Will China, which holds 1 trillion dollars in US treasuries, use these holdings as leverage, or choose to protect them and let us have our way? Will China and India be content to delay a new agreement while their own footprints continue to climb?

Climate policy has turned into a high stakes poker game, and we seem to be gambling that the rest of the world will decide that some pie is better than none. Whether socially just or not, this strategy might work...or it might be disastrous. We'll see if anyone calls our bluff.

Read more: un, copenhagen, global warming, climate change

http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/ill-share-as-long-a...