Just read through the comments. I think everyone agrees we’re in deep denial regarding widespread ecological destruction and we need major change. In my view, we need to get rid of money as a system of exchange and value. So what would we replace money with? I know it may sound simplistic and stupid, but I would replace it with the virtues. This means that being a good human being, as measured according to criteria to be established by a United Nations of Indigenous Elders, is more valuable than being rich or famous. Rationing of the resources humans need for a happy life would be based on a person’s “virtue rating.” Education and culture must be built around the natural world as a precious gift that it is our duty to honor and respect. Each individual would receive early and extensive training on Earth systems and afterwards go through a ceremony, basically a marriage ceremony, where they become one with our planet and its life forms as a living entity. In this ceremony, the vow, as in a marriage ceremony, is to love, cherish, honor, protect and obey these natural Earth systems. This ceremony can be known as the Heiros Gamos ceremony, the Sacred Union.
Thanks, Vero. With civilizational collapse, it might come down to something like that. Otherwise, I can't imagine how such could come about. I'm much less confident that a good future is possible for life on Earth by perfecting humanity than in vastly scaling it down through design or collapse.
Glad that Elisabeth Robson clarified her revulsion to the declaration. Good intent is worthy, but the devil is in the details, and the green energy boom doesn't look good for Mother Nature, no matter how one tries to package it. This pig may never be a silk purse and all that sort of thing. She sounds battle weary and realistic, so I can see how a short "grand scheme" would feel naive and offensive. She knows nothing of your/our battles and is clearly kindred spirit, so good to see her reflections. Don Quijote visions fall short when you are battling the dark knights. Still, I am 100% behind the declaration in spirit and intent.
This made me laugh. "Society must ensure that the energy transition does not further harm life, given the worsening plight of the natural world."
This sentence could have been written only by people who don't have a clue what materials and materials processing are required to build the "energy transition".
And any text that includes the words "no-net-loss" can be immediately dismissed. It's a nice euphemism for human supremacy.
No, I will not be signing. This is just ridiculous and not based in reality.
I appreciate the motivation and sentiment behind some of it, but my goodness, anyone who's spent time being a serious grassroots activist knows this is just laughable.
Hi Elisabeth, I’m having trouble understanding your comment. You laugh at our statement that "Society must ensure that the energy transition does not further harm life, given the worsening plight of the natural world." Is that not a worthy goal? At the same time, you dismiss the idea of holding back further losses to wildlife and nature by ensuring “no-net-loss.” That's an approach “based in reality” given that a global energy transition is impossible without sacrificing life in many places. Maybe I read your comment entirely wrong, but are you suggesting that society should not pursue alternative energy and stick with fossil fuels, or simply stop using energy? Honestly, I just don’t get what you’re saying.
I do think stating one's goals is always good to do - so I very much appreciate that.
I think of no-net-loss as "we're willing to sacrifice this wetland over here, if we save this forest over there". It treats nature as tradable commodities. Given how little we understand ecosystems, this is both hubris, and also objectifying living beings and communities.
I definitely agree that "not further harming life" is a worthy goal, but having spent the past few years working to understand in-depth the harms that so-called "renewables" and other so-called "clean energy" and "clean technology" systems cause on the natural world, there is no way the "energy transition" - at least as I understand that term - will not worsen the plight of the natural world. And not by a little; by a lot!
You're not reading my comment wrong: I am indeed suggesting that society should NOT pursue alternative energy, and should simply stop using energy. Obviously this would require a plan that would be implemented over time (because to do that suddenly would be a disaster!).
I helped to write this page at Protect Thacker Pass on "Solutions" which outlines (at a very high level) what such a plan might look like. https://www.protectthackerpass.org/solutions/
And obviously I think that plan is as unlikely as agreeing to not further harm the Earth or actually passing Rights of Nature laws. So you can feel free to laugh at me right back :-)
Unfortunately, we did not (and didn't expect to; it's essentially illegal for BLM to refuse mining permits if the companies jump through all the hoops). Thacker Pass is being destroyed right now. There are many other mining claims and planned mines for McDermitt Caldera for lithium and uranium. The entire area will be destroyed if things go according to plan, primarily for EVs and grid storage batteries for "renewable" powered grids.
What we need is mass revolt. We need thousands of people to go to McDermitt Caldera and put their bodies in front of bulldozers; enough people so that police can't possible arrest everyone.
I get it. That mining law is from 1872 or some such ancientness, too. Now you know what West Virginia went through with the coal companies. Direct action like facing down bulldozers makes good headlines, can drive more resistance, but like you say few are willing to do it. Wishing you the best. Decompress regularly.
p.s. Speaking of coal, I laugh ruefully when people call for a "transition" and don't seem to understand how coal is required and used to make pure silicon for the many thousands of microchips used in EVs, smart grids, and the silicon wafers for solar panels. Probably because most of the work is done in China (some by slave labor, no less!) so out of sight, out of mind and most people have no idea how things are made.
Thank you Dusti, and yes, it is horrific what happened in W. Va with the coal companies. I used to live in KY and have driven through the wreckage of W. Va and it's just awful. Although still a beautiful state.
I absolutely get your distrust of "no-net-loss" language as its actual purpose can be easily corrupted by the powers that be. Th Declaration speaks to no-net-loss of habitats, meaning that one can 't simply grow a patch of forest to compensate for destroying a wetland. Apples for apples, oranges for oranges if that's the best we can get society to do.
Under the prevailing pro-growth mindset, I agree there's no way the energy transition will not worsen the plight of life on Earth. That's why the emphasis (points 2 and 3) on cutting consumption. A revised Declaration might go further and specifically call for degrowth. I'd like to hear more from others on this point.
I appreciate hearing about your admirable efforts in defense of life. It's no small matter to be taking on the industrial monster! I'll subscribe to your newsletter.
Thank you for this discussion! Take care and all best wishes.
And apologies for sounding a bit harsh in my first response; I have just spent 4 years fighting EVs and the devastating ecological impacts of them for "transitioning" the transportation sector; and am now fighting offshore wind and tidal industries planned for the area I live in which will also have devastating consequences to the marine environment. I'm just so over "the transition". These words, like "transition" and "green energy" and "clean technology" are used to greenwash hugely impactful industries, horrific environmental harms, and human rights abuses that I can barely wrap my head around.
Just read through the comments. I think everyone agrees we’re in deep denial regarding widespread ecological destruction and we need major change. In my view, we need to get rid of money as a system of exchange and value. So what would we replace money with? I know it may sound simplistic and stupid, but I would replace it with the virtues. This means that being a good human being, as measured according to criteria to be established by a United Nations of Indigenous Elders, is more valuable than being rich or famous. Rationing of the resources humans need for a happy life would be based on a person’s “virtue rating.” Education and culture must be built around the natural world as a precious gift that it is our duty to honor and respect. Each individual would receive early and extensive training on Earth systems and afterwards go through a ceremony, basically a marriage ceremony, where they become one with our planet and its life forms as a living entity. In this ceremony, the vow, as in a marriage ceremony, is to love, cherish, honor, protect and obey these natural Earth systems. This ceremony can be known as the Heiros Gamos ceremony, the Sacred Union.
Thanks, Vero. With civilizational collapse, it might come down to something like that. Otherwise, I can't imagine how such could come about. I'm much less confident that a good future is possible for life on Earth by perfecting humanity than in vastly scaling it down through design or collapse.
Glad that Elisabeth Robson clarified her revulsion to the declaration. Good intent is worthy, but the devil is in the details, and the green energy boom doesn't look good for Mother Nature, no matter how one tries to package it. This pig may never be a silk purse and all that sort of thing. She sounds battle weary and realistic, so I can see how a short "grand scheme" would feel naive and offensive. She knows nothing of your/our battles and is clearly kindred spirit, so good to see her reflections. Don Quijote visions fall short when you are battling the dark knights. Still, I am 100% behind the declaration in spirit and intent.
Good points.
This made me laugh. "Society must ensure that the energy transition does not further harm life, given the worsening plight of the natural world."
This sentence could have been written only by people who don't have a clue what materials and materials processing are required to build the "energy transition".
And any text that includes the words "no-net-loss" can be immediately dismissed. It's a nice euphemism for human supremacy.
No, I will not be signing. This is just ridiculous and not based in reality.
I appreciate the motivation and sentiment behind some of it, but my goodness, anyone who's spent time being a serious grassroots activist knows this is just laughable.
Sorry.
Hi Elisabeth, I’m having trouble understanding your comment. You laugh at our statement that "Society must ensure that the energy transition does not further harm life, given the worsening plight of the natural world." Is that not a worthy goal? At the same time, you dismiss the idea of holding back further losses to wildlife and nature by ensuring “no-net-loss.” That's an approach “based in reality” given that a global energy transition is impossible without sacrificing life in many places. Maybe I read your comment entirely wrong, but are you suggesting that society should not pursue alternative energy and stick with fossil fuels, or simply stop using energy? Honestly, I just don’t get what you’re saying.
I do think stating one's goals is always good to do - so I very much appreciate that.
I think of no-net-loss as "we're willing to sacrifice this wetland over here, if we save this forest over there". It treats nature as tradable commodities. Given how little we understand ecosystems, this is both hubris, and also objectifying living beings and communities.
I definitely agree that "not further harming life" is a worthy goal, but having spent the past few years working to understand in-depth the harms that so-called "renewables" and other so-called "clean energy" and "clean technology" systems cause on the natural world, there is no way the "energy transition" - at least as I understand that term - will not worsen the plight of the natural world. And not by a little; by a lot!
You're not reading my comment wrong: I am indeed suggesting that society should NOT pursue alternative energy, and should simply stop using energy. Obviously this would require a plan that would be implemented over time (because to do that suddenly would be a disaster!).
I helped to write this page at Protect Thacker Pass on "Solutions" which outlines (at a very high level) what such a plan might look like. https://www.protectthackerpass.org/solutions/
And obviously I think that plan is as unlikely as agreeing to not further harm the Earth or actually passing Rights of Nature laws. So you can feel free to laugh at me right back :-)
Great "Solutions" write up. https://www.protectthackerpass.org/solutions/
Did you guys defeat the mine? Bright Green Lies is an excellent book, too!
Unfortunately, we did not (and didn't expect to; it's essentially illegal for BLM to refuse mining permits if the companies jump through all the hoops). Thacker Pass is being destroyed right now. There are many other mining claims and planned mines for McDermitt Caldera for lithium and uranium. The entire area will be destroyed if things go according to plan, primarily for EVs and grid storage batteries for "renewable" powered grids.
What we need is mass revolt. We need thousands of people to go to McDermitt Caldera and put their bodies in front of bulldozers; enough people so that police can't possible arrest everyone.
Unfortunately, few are willing to do that.
I get it. That mining law is from 1872 or some such ancientness, too. Now you know what West Virginia went through with the coal companies. Direct action like facing down bulldozers makes good headlines, can drive more resistance, but like you say few are willing to do it. Wishing you the best. Decompress regularly.
p.s. Speaking of coal, I laugh ruefully when people call for a "transition" and don't seem to understand how coal is required and used to make pure silicon for the many thousands of microchips used in EVs, smart grids, and the silicon wafers for solar panels. Probably because most of the work is done in China (some by slave labor, no less!) so out of sight, out of mind and most people have no idea how things are made.
Thank you Dusti, and yes, it is horrific what happened in W. Va with the coal companies. I used to live in KY and have driven through the wreckage of W. Va and it's just awful. Although still a beautiful state.
Wishing you the best also.
I absolutely get your distrust of "no-net-loss" language as its actual purpose can be easily corrupted by the powers that be. Th Declaration speaks to no-net-loss of habitats, meaning that one can 't simply grow a patch of forest to compensate for destroying a wetland. Apples for apples, oranges for oranges if that's the best we can get society to do.
Under the prevailing pro-growth mindset, I agree there's no way the energy transition will not worsen the plight of life on Earth. That's why the emphasis (points 2 and 3) on cutting consumption. A revised Declaration might go further and specifically call for degrowth. I'd like to hear more from others on this point.
I appreciate hearing about your admirable efforts in defense of life. It's no small matter to be taking on the industrial monster! I'll subscribe to your newsletter.
Thank you for this discussion! Take care and all best wishes.
And apologies for sounding a bit harsh in my first response; I have just spent 4 years fighting EVs and the devastating ecological impacts of them for "transitioning" the transportation sector; and am now fighting offshore wind and tidal industries planned for the area I live in which will also have devastating consequences to the marine environment. I'm just so over "the transition". These words, like "transition" and "green energy" and "clean technology" are used to greenwash hugely impactful industries, horrific environmental harms, and human rights abuses that I can barely wrap my head around.
I agree 100% about this obfuscating language!