ravenlunatic wrote:
Anyway, I think his point was as simple as this: People raised in a capitalist culture won't choose suffering and deprivation to save the environment -and these types of policies have lead to the view that environmentalists are "radicals" (my word...) and (bluntly speaking) deluded.
Environmentalism, to be completely honest, has nothing to do with deprivation or living without. It also has nothing to do with high costs and paying more for the same (in the long run, or with externalities in the mix). This has always been the rebuttal of opponents and a straw man argument by those who would call environmentalists "radicals" and "extremists." I'm still quite surprised that this rhetoric is still around.
Since Carter, environmentalism has moved out of the wings (as a fringe movement) and into the mainstream (much moreso than in the past). I'm not sure what evidence could be supplied to the contrary, but it would likely be very weak (or point to rapidly developing emerging economies, and places like India or China that do not yet have very strong, widespread, or powerful environmental controls or constituencies). And even that is changing with consumer behavior in those countries, and expansion of civil society, democratic accountability, and broader involvement of local non-governmental groups.
In the past, I've worked in my city on climate change mitigation programs in low income communities (in communities formerly dominated by steel mills), and the best argument that can be made has to do with immediate cost savings (that add up to major cost savings over the long run). People also understand the relationship between lower emissions from power plants, energy conservation, and renewables and better health for their communities, and lower asthma rates for their kids (which are off the charts in some communities). The oldest coal plant in our area is shutting down soon, and with it the storage and transportation of coal that blows contaminants (24/7) through these neighborhoods. The community has also been successful shutting down landfill expansion in the area (Southside was targeted for unprecedented expansion of landfills), and lakeshore development that benefits high end developers and not working class families. There is more greenspace in the Southside than anywhere else in the city (because of the buffer zones for the steel mills), and manufacturing is currently rebounding in the area (along with new businesses and ecotourism opportunities) in a better balance between jobs and environment. Manufacturing is environmentalism too, and it's heavy industry in the Southside that is leading investment in parks, environmental education, community health initiatives, job training, and youth services.
Ultimately, lower consumer costs, fewer externalities, fewer risks, lower taxpayer cost, and greater energy security and reliability are the main drivers for a cleaner and healthier environment. Oak Park Illinois has a
100% renewable electricity option (through energy aggregation contracts) for small business and residents, and the program costs less than electricity from conventional sources (saving consumers 15% on costs, or $4.5 - 4.6 million annually for ratepayers in the program). Chicago and Evanston are on the verge of voting for the same. And all of those squiggly light bulbs, terrific ways to save some money and lower your energy use.
This probably isn't the best site (because it is in euros), but Germany is leading in conservation efforts these days. Some estimated savings for a family of four paying $765 euro/year for 4,500 kWh of electricity: CFLs (9.7%), efficient household appliances (7.9%), modern heat pump (6.9%), no phantom loads (5.9%). More of the same for heat savings: insulation (35.7%), window replacement (15.8%), heating system (10.2%), consumer behavior (9.8%), and more. These are middle class households, not greenwashing for rich suburban homes. In neighborhoods with old housing stock, these savings can make or break a family, help pay down debt, or send a kid to school (and have lower impacts on the environment as well).
Not sure where Muller is coming from, but it doesn't sound like today's world to me. He still sounds like a industry funded bystander working his connections to get us all back on the fossil fuel treadmill counting each step to the next rate hike, fuel crisis, supply chain disruption, or international crisis. Basically asking future generations to pay tomorrow the price for the electricity we are unwilling to pay today. The status-quo is no foundation to build a cost-effective, sustainable, and credible energy system for tomorrow (and especially one that involves the planet as a whole, takes into account limited supplies of non-renewable resources, or has the environment as a dominant value or concern).