"He's sued and written and organized with passion and prowess. But his 
op-ed on Cape Wind, with its (risible) fear that the windmills might be 
heard ashore, showed that he hadn't quite understood just /how/ critical 
the need to get the U.S. off fossil fuels really is."

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/01/12/mckibben/index.html

No More Mr. Nice Guy
Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge
By Bill McKibben
12 Jan 2006

The one and only time I ever saw my mother become aggressive in public 
went like this. We were out as a family for a weekend leaf-peeping 
drive, an impulse apparently shared by most of the rest of New England, 
because the traffic along New Hampshire's Kancamagus Highway was endless 
90-degree gridlock. Every once in a while, however, somebody would zoom 
happily by in the breakdown lane. We watched them with a kind of 
mounting zealous anger. It would never have occurred to my parents to 
emulate them -- that would have been wrong. But eventually my mother, 
sitting in the passenger seat, could take it no longer. She rolled down 
the window of our Plymouth, stuck out her head, shook her finger at one 
of the passing lawbreakers, and yelled ... "Unpleasant!"

I'm by nature a conflict avoider too -- if you're thinking of cutting in 
line at the supermarket, you couldn't ask for an easier mark than me. 
But twice last week I acted in ways entirely out of character. I signed 
a letter <http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/1/6/193649/7888> 
criticizing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his /New York Times 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>/
 
op-ed opposing the big Cape Wind project <http://www.capewind.org/>. And 
I wrote a few paragraphs 
<http://www.adirondackexplorer.com/aenviros.htm> disparaging the most 
powerful of my local environmental groups, the Adirondack Council 
<http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/>, for the way they'd worked on 
clean-air issues. Both criticisms were respectful -- I am my mother's 
son -- but they were also stern. I wouldn't have enjoyed being on the 
receiving end of either one (though a lifetime of book writing does tend 
to inure you to bad reviews 
<http://www.salon.com/books/sneaks/1998/12/21sneaks.html>).

They were also, at some level, divisive. In both cases, you could 
truthfully say I was willing to inflict a little damage on an important 
part of the environmental movement. It doesn't mean, I hope, that I'm 
growing a mean streak. I think it means something else: that the 
environmental movement is reaching an important point of division, 
between those who truly /get/ global warming, and those who don't.

By /get/, I don't mean understanding the chemistry of carbon dioxide, or 
the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, or something like that -- pretty 
much everyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist has 
reached that point. By get, I mean understanding that the question is of 
transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global 
civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced. That it's as big 
as the Bomb.

In The Same Vein
The Wind and the Willful 
<http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/index.html>
RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm
Do I think Bobby Kennedy Jr. 
<http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/07/13/griscom-kennedy/index.html> 
is a bad environmentalist? No, I think he's a great environmentalist. 
I've heard him convert 400 Republicans at one fell swoop in the 
auditorium of my Adirondack high-school gym. Hell, by helping establish 
the Hudson Riverkeeper <http://riverkeeper.org/>, the guy added a whole 
new /class of words/ to our vocabulary -- now there are baykeepers and 
airkeepers and summitkeepers. He's sued and written and organized with 
passion and prowess. But his op-ed on Cape Wind, with its (risible) fear 
that the windmills might be heard ashore, showed that he hadn't quite 
understood just /how/ critical the need to get the U.S. off fossil fuels 
really is.

In the face of that need, even possible damage to the livelihoods of 
commercial fishers is distinctly secondary. If someone were proposing to 
erect a giant blender in Nantucket Sound so yachtsmen could obtain 
frozen margaritas more conveniently, then Bobby would be right to 
object, and the rest of us would go along with him. Instead, they're 
talking about the nation's first big offshore wind complex, one that 
would in effect allow residents of Cape Cod to use electricity nine 
months of the year without emitting a single carbon atom.

If we had decades to burn, then he'd also doubtless be right that 
there's a better site for the thing, and a nicer developer. There's 
/always/ a better site and a nicer developer. But in the real world, 
according to Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, we have at most 10 years to reverse this trend. Which 
means we have to do everything quickly -- hybrid cars and solar panels 
and compact light bulbs and local food and tree planting. And windmills, 
lots and lots of windmills, just like off the shores of Europe.

In the best of all possible worlds, we'd do everything slowly and 
carefully -- but this planet is rapidly becoming the /worst/ of all 
possible worlds, a place that before my daughter dies may well see 
temperatures exceeding anything since before the dawn of primate 
evolution. A planet facing hundreds of millions of environmental 
refugees as a result of rising seas, with heat waves like the one that 
killed 35,000 in Europe becoming commonplace occurrences. I mean, we 
went through the usual hurricane alphabet 
<http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/09/12/katrina/> this past year, 
and got all the way to the Greek letter Zeta.

Spend Your $.02
Discuss this story 
<http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/1/13/111914/405> in our blog, 
Gristmill.
By the same token, the Adirondack Council has been extraordinarily 
useful over the years. I've worked with them in the past, and I hope 
I'll do so again. They have worked hard -- quite rightly -- to battle 
the acid rain that is killing our lakes and ponds in northern New York. 
But in those efforts in recent years they've been willing to undercut 
the rest of the environmental movement, working with the Bush 
administration on Clear Skies legislation that postponed the battle over 
regulating carbon dioxide. They were even willing to invite Bush for an 
Earth Day photo op 
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020422-1.html> in the 
Adirondacks a few years ago, just weeks after he'd reaffirmed that the 
U.S. was going to have absolutely nothing to do with Kyoto.

It's not that everyone needs to work on global warming around the clock. 
We desperately need riverkeepers and acid-rain activists and people 
working on water and endangered species and rainforest preservation and 
wilderness and all the other things that first got most of us into this 
movement. It's just that when those efforts come into conflict with the 
imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take 
second place.

Why? Because even if we win every other battle, if we lose this one, it 
won't make any difference at all. You can "keep" every river and bay and 
lake and mountain and wilderness, but if the temperature goes up 5 
degrees globally, it won't matter. The fish that live there won't be 
able to survive, the trees that anchor the landscape will die, the coral 
reefs will bleach and crumble. Even an Adirondacks whose ponds are the 
correct pH is a pretty sad place if it's an Adirondacks without winter, 
without hemlocks, without trout. Whatever the particular part of the 
world that we're each working on, it's still a /part/ of the world. 
Global warming is the whole thing.

None of this is easy. If you've spent your life fighting for birds, it's 
hard to say "some birds may die in this windmill" (and it's perfectly 
smart to work with turbine manufacturers and wind developers to minimize 
that possibility, as many people have). But what we need to say is: 
every bird, and everything else that we know, is fundamentally at risk 
in the next few decades. /In the name of birds/, I want that windmill on 
my ridge. /In the name of wild beauty/, I want that windmill out my window.

And in the name of doing something about global warming, I'm willing to 
be a bit of a jerk.


_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to