"Elite, white American environmentalism"

Who's this "we", white-man?

*Checks "down there:"

Female.

*Checks skin color:"

Kinda brown. Kinda white.

*Checks diploma:"

Local community college.

*Checks bank account:"

*groan* Why the hell did I do that?

Environmentalist? You betcha. In my experience, enviromentalists tend to be lower-to middle class women (at least in my circle of friends). IMO, this guy is trying to engage in a racial-class war to get people away from the message that destroying the Earth for profit is not such a good idea.

Oh, and we (meaning my group of women friends who happen to be every color imaginable) educate people on the dangers of genetically modified food (especially for pregnant, nursing women and children) and highly encourage organic. Not one of us drive a gas-guzzling SUV. Because we have *no* public transportation here, we either car-pool or (GASP!) walk.

*rant mode off*

My 2 cents.... :)

:)

even if you are a kinda brown/kinda white, impoverished female with a college degree!

:toast:

My experience has been that the Sierra Club crowd is dominated mostly by affluent, white guys interested in preserving forests so they can GPS hike their way through them.

IMO, this guy is trying to engage in a racial-class war to get people away from the message that destroying the Earth for profit is not such a good idea.

That's ridiculous, and absurd, and insinuating that the concept of "the Earth for profit" has nothing to do with exploitation of indegionous communities, the existence of exploitation of the poor, and a bajillion others issues that ebb and flow and influence every other issue, particuarly environmentalism. Criticizing the author for pointing out that you can't be an environmentalist while upholding class and racial privilage is absurd, and is a problem of single issue ghettoization, or turning one issue into the ALL IMPORTANT one in the face of others.

Moreover his criticism of the funder driven , corporatized non profit structure that currently dominates environmentalism is pretty valid. The lack of grassroots movements and on the ground organizing has led to the idea of "limo liberals" and "private jet environmentalists", when in reality most people who are environmentalists are nothing of the sort.

Moreover I think the people heaping stuff on this guy is a crock o' crap, while most people push buttons on their keyboard, buy "organic", and drive hybrids and declare their "concern" for the environment. You can see on this very board with the rahrahing of hybrids/hydrogen cars (I laughed when someone said hydrogen would get "Big Oil" shaking in its boots, as if "Big Oil" doesn't transport and extract hydrogen), the inane debate and patter about the "need" for "nuclear power" and the stupidity of supposed "greenpeace twits" and "solar energy"(this amuses me to no end), and now this discussion, where people crap on a guy just because he points out the lily-whiteness of the environmental movement (and the guy does have a record of environmental organizing that I'm sure puts to shame most people on this board). This is ridiculous, and if this supposed to somehow be the Democratic alternative to Republican corporate greed, then we might as well jsut throw our hands up right now.

...he is trying to frame the issue as one that only priviliged white men care about, thus implying that other peoples do not care about this very important issue.

My other point, as an American citizen who is considered a "person of color" (Latina) and female, is that the activists are not just rich, white men. Groups like mine* may not get the media attention, but we are out there and we do good work. The "Sierra Club Crowd" as you put it is not the end all and be all of American Environmental activism in the United States. To simply dismiss those of us who care for the Earth and our activities (which I feel the author is doing) is pretty damned unfair, but then again, my group and the thousands of people like us throughout the country, do not fit into the author's thesis.

*My group is made up of a small group of women, Black, White, Latina, some or mothers, others are not who are middle class to lower-middle class (the majority of us fall into that category). We educate the public over genteically modified foods, what the EPA is doing, how to make your own compost pile, and a whole range of other issues.

...he is trying to frame the issue as one that only priviliged white men care about, thus implying that other peoples do not care about this very important issue.

How can you suggest that, when the guy himself has years being involved in community, urban oriented environmental groups? And the whole point of the article is that the "Sierra Club"/Non-profit crowd defines itself almost entirely as the only relevent part of the environmentalist movement. You see this apparent in the original "Death" article, which completely glossed over the dozens of Earth First! groups, the influence of homesteaders/primitivists, and the work of many which isn't done under the greenwashed guise of the mainstream conservation groups. If anyone is guilty of making the issue seemingly irrelevent to non-white, non-rich guys its the Sierra Club crowde, not this guy.

What you're saying is essentially what the guy in the article is saying. That the environmental movement ISN'T all rich, white guys, and its high time the people in the mainstream conservation groups realize and also reflect that. I don't think the Sierra Club or even Greenpeace represent at all what I believe ecologically, and I am irritated by the lack of ANYTHING at all in the urban realm and amongst communities that are actually most affected. Their lack of positions and support for indigenous communities is glaring, and the lack of outreach to people in urban settings is ridicculous. I think what the guy says if for the most part, entirely true. If people have a beef with him its because he points out that the mainstream environmental movement IS dead, and should be discarded away as the ineffictive vehicles that they are.

And I stopped subscribing to PBS and NPR too.

I think as my wife and I started to live and work "closer to the trenches," in places where illegal immigrant farm laborers live in cramped in illegal apartment conversions and we often meet people who have truly been poisoned by agricultural chemicals, then the motivations of the affluent who support "mainstream" environmental institutions become less relevant to us.

In my early career as an affluent "do-gooder" I got a job as a science teacher in Los Angeles. The reality of that situation did not mesh with my very middle class liberal beliefs. Life for many people was much much harder than I thought, and their problems were not easily solved. I didn't have a lot to offer.

So I fled Los Angeles.

I'd been an anti-nuclear activist, so I was very pleased when I had the opportunity to live briefly with Indians who had worked in the uranium mines of the southwest. Their point of view was very different from what I'd imagined. Outsiders who came to "help" them were not respected. My bad experience in Los Angeles had taught me to expect that, so I stayed out of trouble. I'd learned to listen to people.

I hate to say this, but I do think much of the "mainstream environmental movement" in the United States is dead inside, trapped within walls of pleasant abstraction.

The road between the plush gated communities of Southern California and the Yosemite Wilderness is empty; as the miles tick by in your Prius you listen to your music...

as he doesn't have to make any sacrfices...just you and me.

I really don't see the big deal about offshore windmills. We have the same controversy here in NJ. It's not like these are going to be massive structures blocking the view from the beach. My understanding is that they'll be visible offshore...like seeing the NY skyline/bridges from NJ's more northern beaches. So what!

Would we rather look at drilling platforms or reactor containment domes?

Just f'ing unbelievable...

I am so angry with these rich hypocrites who want to fight for the environment as long as it doesn't get in the way of their selfish pleasures.

They change wind patterns, kill birds, and many of them make incredibly loud noise. Seacoast wind generators can also change tidal patterns and kill off sea life. And any wind generation plant on the East Coastal seaboard will be vulnerable to hurricanes and nor'easters. So not only will capital investment be needed (and I'm sure some way will be found to make the ratepayers pay for it twice), but so will some big-ticket property-and-casualty insurance.

More education is needed about the downsides of alternative energy sources. They will be just as prone to mismanagement and massive screw-ups as the current sources of energy. I'm not convinced this is just all rich people with NIMBY agendas (though they always seem to crawl out of the woodwork).

--p!

This is junk science. Sources please.

Under-sea structures provide habitats for sea life. 57 million birds get killed by cars each year -- 97 million from flying into windows.

How many birds die from burning coal. Acid rain.

You mean like this Junk Science?

I thought it was a no-brainer that EVERY modification of the environment had a downside. Whether 154 million birds die or not from flying into cars and windows, some will still die from flying into the blades of a wind turbine, as sure as they die from acid rain. (And by the way, where are YOUR sources?) Where a wind farm is located can make a big difference.

Same with basing a wind farm in coastal shallows. Sometimes you establish a habitat, sometimes you destroy one. Have these issues been addressed? Clichés about rich people just don't allow that level of scientific discourse.

The Cape Cod residents have gone 3:1 for Cape Wind. Obviously, a few more people than just Kennedy oppose the project, although most of the residents support it. But when I read hotheaded bitching about the moral evils of those who take issue with the project, I sense a junk argument in the making. Kind of like, "you're either with us, or with the terr'ists."

I myself support alternative power development, including wind power, but I also used to live in an apartment complex that had stupidly been built on drained wetlands that was a bird rookery. Every spring through autumn, we were plagued by birds (and insects) expecting to find their ancient home, but instead finding an apartment complex AND an interstate highway in the way. It gave me a perspective on ecological reality that all the reading I had done had not. A little attention to detail by the developer (and the local zoning board) would have gone a long way.

The idea that alternative power plans should be subject to environmental impact analyses does not seem like "junk science" to me. If Cape Wind is being built in a flyway or rookery, the planners should consider moving it, if it is feasible. We are scarcely into the first generation of experience with these new sources of energy. We ought to at least try to get the next phase of development right.

--p!

which is here:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/deis.htm

Thanks for the link.

I can't promise I'll read it in detail, but I will look for the major findings and conclusions.

--p!

Given nirvana, I'd rather have no artificial structures jutting up from the horizon when I look out at the ocean. Certainly today's windmill farm does not have the classic beauty of the Dutch windmill. But we are faced with a very uncertain future. Windmills are much better than one alternative that comes up from time-to-time; drilling off the NJ coast.

I see windmills as a plus for sea life since these creatures seem to like artificial reefs. Bad for birds? Probably some unfortunates will be killed but like another poster said, many die from crashing into buildings. Nevermind the toll from cats.

Noisy? Maybe if you're nearby but then the wind is noisy in and of itself.

Interference with tidal patterns? Perhaps if the water is very shallow, I don;t know about this one.

Insurance costs? Oil rigs are certainly vulnerable to storms... hurricanes in the Gulf, North Sea storms. You build the structures to survive as much as possible.

There are downsides to all alternative energy sources. Hydropower causes immense environmental damage. Solar is rather benign except for the manufacturing process. Synfuels, bio, and corn-based fuels all require a lot of energy to create. Ethanol seems especially suspect since our agriculture industry is so oil-dependant.

The East Coast windmill proposals seem especially beset with NIMBYism. This is making environmentalists seem unreasonable and open to being slapped with labels by the anti-enviro crowd.

You're right about most of these points, by my point wasn't that wind energy was bad, simply that it had a downside that needs to be addressed wherever a wind farm is going to be built. The argument was made about what a rat bastard Kennedy is, when he was scarcely the only one questioning the deal. (And the original post in the thread was Ludovic Blain's ridiculous screed about white people.)

Of course a wind farm, even a poorly-planned one, is likely to be much easier on the environment than a coal-burning power plant. But why settle for poor planning, especially if you risk ruining an environment in the name of saving the environment?

You don't have to be anti-environmentalist to oppose something like a wind farm. Placing one in a flyway or rookery, or in breeding shoals, will cause significant environmental damage. (Also see my experience with living in an apartment complex hastily built on a wetland area.) If a wind farm is placed in a major flyway and on an area where birds breed, the number of dead birds could be enormous during breeding season.

Since rookeries and breeding shoals don't take up a lot of area relative to the coastline, finding a better area to place the generator(s) should not pose an insurmountable problem.

And NIMBY is only a problem when one's pet project is threatened. NIMBY was also invoked by the nuclear construction industry when their slipshod craftsmanship began to make people anxious. Alternative energy development is not likely to encounter much opposition at all providing that developers make the effort to minimize environmental and human impact. It is better that these issues get resolved now, than in the middle of an Olduvai-leading powerdown.

--p!

Bad decisions, poor (or more likely, lack of) planning can easily turn a good idea into something quite the opposite. I would hope, but shouldn't expect, that windfarms would be sited where they would do the least damage to migrating and breeding birds. But where profit is the underlying motive, and with government that puts business above all else, there is plenty to worry about.

However much of the windfarm opposition in both Massachusetts and NJ that I've read about is fixated more on the visual "pollution", tourist impact, and the like. NJ now has a 1-yr+ moratorium on construction while the various impacts on fishing, bird population, tourism, and other economic considerations are studied. Local enviro groups are split, Sierra Club for building, Clean Oceans against.

it is immediately clear that wind power has a risk minimized impact.

Coastal regions are ideally suited for wind power installation because there is almost always a thermal gradient in these areas, leading to convection - and wind.

It goes without saying that the installation of any structure at sea - from oil platforms to breakwaters to wind towers will necessarily involve some environmental impact. But we are not at all in a position to eliminate risk, we can only minimize it.

Now a disclosure about my own emotional biases: In my adult life I have never been a fan of the majority of the members of the Kennedy family - I am an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat and I note that Mrs. Roosevelt - like me - regarded the entire Kennedy clan with distrust and suspicion. Therefore my bias is to believe that Mr. Kennedy is behaving rather like his father and his uncle did, placing his personal and parochial concerns above those of his planet and his country.

Given that the planet's atmosphere is in danger of serious collapse, the Cape Wind project should be built as quickly as is reasonably possible. No one is saying that the Cape Wind project will be harmless or that it is perfect. All we are saying is that it is superior to any of its alternatives. We simply cannot afford delays.

Please note that I live in New Jersey, and frequently visit the New Jersey shore where I admire, among other things, the nuclear power stations there. It would also please me very much to see a wind farm off the shore. It would make me feel as safe and as secure as the Oyster Creek nuclear station does.

Opposition to nuclear power by the way, as is little understood, began with the idle rich, who were reacting to a plan by Lilco to build a nuclear power station on Lloyd's Neck on Long Island, one of the wealthiest areas on Long Island's North Shore. The plan to build this nuclear plant never got off the drawing table, but the movement that was founded lead to the ridiculous and frankly extremely dangerous opposition to the nuclear station at Shoreham, which was built but never operated.

The people who oppose nuclear power today are still for the largest part idle rich middle class and upper class twits who think that all energy comes from a magical place they don't have to think about or look at.

Opposition to wind power is almost certainly yet another example of the same kind of NIMBY thinking as characterized the early anti-nuclear movement; thinking which places manufactured specious concerns over very exigent realities. The world cannot afford to delay the installation of carbon neutral power of all kinds - in particular the two forms known to be the safest - wind and nuclear. There is very little time as the catastrophe is already upon us. If the atmosphere collapses all the birds, fish, and other creatures - including human beings - will be in far more danger than even the loudest wind turbines could possibly create.

I never would have thought that one man could handle a shovel as big as the one Mr. Blaine is using.

--p!