The mainstream environmental movement is unintentionally re-creating Dr. Strangelove, a cautionary tale about the perils of unexamined beliefs and one of the greatest films in cinematic history
Thank you for this important and well-argued critique of McKibben and his ilk.
Is the "Carbon Tunnel Vision" graphic yours? It's very good at illustrating the myopia of mainstream environmental narratives. All environmentalism has been reduced to climate issues and climate issues have been reduced to carbon. The other contributor to climate change is land use, but that gets left out because it can't be monetized, and addressing it would mean addressing industrial civilization. It's a big scam for sure.
Excellent article, as always. I was hoping you might have spent a little more time mentioning one other thesis that McKibben tossed into his article. That we need the same amount of energy as we are currently using. It is so important for those of us in the rich part of the rich world to accept that we will have to consume much less. We will either have degrowth soft landing or a hard landing.
Thank you, Jere. Yes, the idea that the level of consumerism and energy use in the global north is sustainable or morally justified is absurd. But I'm also wary of narratives that say that "catch-up" consumption is the answer to inequality between the poor and rich countries. The scholar Miriam Lang, who I mentioned in this essay, has done some very interesting work on this topic, exploring how the idea that degrowth in the global north needs to be paired with growth in the global south is misguided in regards to sustainability and well-being. As she has written, "It would be a huge mistake to think that while countries in the global north need to degrow, so-called developing countries in the global South need to grow. Abstract economic growth as reflected in GDP is not generating human wellbeing anywhere in the world, it is generating profit which is increasingly unequally distributed."
"Developing countries." What an inane and rarely-questioned term that is! Developing into what? That assumptive pinnacle of humanity that Bill Catton labeled, Homo colossus?
I'm a Native Burlington Vermonter, and I've heard Bill McKibben speak here in my current town at NRG Systems in Hinesburg (my ex-husband worked there). My daughter did field research at the Texas wind farms to determine bat deaths (and birds). Let's just say, the corpses were indeed there!!!! As far as McKibben? Check out the film, "Planet Of The Humans" (free on YouTube) and note his profiting. Please check out, https://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/wind-turbine-syndrome-pierpont/?var=wts and Esther Wrightman's fight against Nextera Energy in Canada and her videos of this "green" company ripping down, destroying endangered Bald Eagle nests with babies in them!!! And the endangered whales washing up dead on my northeastern shores due to seabed "exploration'' for massive offshore wind farms! Please watch this: https://rumble.com/v28ctko-web.html - I know about this; I did video-documenting for Sea Shepherd in 2017 in Taiji, Japan.
Fantastic. Love the cover photo. The one thing McKibben and the others will never admit to, is that CO2 isn't the only cause of climate change, so is land destruction. That's right, destroying habitat also destroys climate, because climate is a creation of the living Earth, not some physical accident. Great work.
Thanks for the article! McKibben's "But we’re at a hinge moment now..." is a classic case of an individual claiming some god-like right to speak for the "we" yet not defining that "we", and typically that's a privileged "we" that excludes so-called minorities and Indigenous/Original Peoples who are most prominent in the "21 examples" list. And the eugenicist hubris is shown with the quote, “master plan outlining what is good for other people”.
You're welcome, Mankh. Yes, McKibben's perspective doesn't listen to the communities which are saying "no." As I wrote, his only solution to opposition seems to be throwing money at them.
As one of the arrest participants with McKibben in the 2011 Tar Sands Action, it's beyond challenging to me to see his allegiance continuing to be with civilization instead of the wild world. His refusal to accept the reality of our global predicament is utterly confusing, as he definitely has to know the bright green lies he is pushing are only making everything worse. And, he has participated in causing deep division in the environmental movement, perhaps the worst crime of all. I really can't imagine the work he has to do each day to look at himself in the mirror.
Max! So good. I appreciate this piece for helping me clarify my thinking on some things.
I am one of those people who mostly read (often old) books, and I'm frequently behind the curve on public figures' latest pronouncements and thinking in their fields. My exposure to McKibben has been almost entirely through his books, which I've been reading for a long time, decades maybe. I've always liked the thought processes he shared there. Granted, I haven't read him in a few years, and I never pay attention to the "big green" orgs like 350, so I was kind of off in fantasy land regarding where he's gotten to, I guess. Anyway, I had no idea he'd swung so far in the direction of being an industrial energy booster. Ugh. That's a bummer.
When I ran the Pacific Wolf Coalition several years back, I remember complaining that all our grant funders suddenly started wanting to hear how our work benefitted the climate crisis in some way, as funding portfolios were moving away from pure wildlife work and toward climate work. If your program couldn't fit into the "climate adaptation" box, your funder would drop it. Now, most of the enviro funders are requiring nonprofits to also show how our work is benefitting human communities in some way. Human supremacy always finds a way in. So, we dodge and weave, and look for new ways to work on behalf of nature. Capitalism always finds a way in, too. If capitalism and human supremacy are not completely the same thing, then they are at least mostly overlapping, I suppose.
Long comment, sorry. Final thought: I'm noticing a trend of adults giving up their smartphones and going as low-tech as you can and still be reached by your loved ones (in the absence of functioning landlines). Lots of pieces being written about that lately. And of course the rising awareness of how harmful smartphone culture is to young people. I think/hope these may be the harbinger of some sort of voluntary simplifying away from all the energy-intensive and extractive devices and networks we thought we "needed" for life in the modern world. I for one am happier reading paper books after a walk to my local coffee shop, than I ever was scrolling a smartphone in line at Starbucks. And I am seeing that more and more in others around me. It's small yet, but I do think there are a growing number of people who don't want our bloated electro-civilization to continue as it's trending. It enshittifies our lives, and people are starting to get it. Whether that shift toward way less energy use will be voluntary in the long-term or not is debatable, but it's coming regardless. I just hope we have some functioning ecosystems left when it does.
Thanks again for sharing your thinking in this piece.
You're welcome, Rebecca! Yes, you're right: the human supremacy always seeks to worm its way in.
I daydream of someday living without any digital devices at all. I often visualize throwing my phone from a high cliff as hard as I can. It would make my organizing work impossible, it seems, but I wonder if even that is self-delusion.
Thank you, Rebecca for keeping this conversation going. I don't know why there seems to be some kind of unwritten rule (all over the internet) that we can no longer comment on posts that are like three days "old" or older. Even so, as I go deeper and deeper local, the proportion of my conversations with people that are in person, rather than on the internet, is becoming larger every day. And since I rarely go anywhere, those conversations pretty much can only happen here on the farm. I am glad to hear that more people are letting go of that imaginary "need" to be on those phones all the time. I only had a cell phone once, for about one month, back before "smartphones" came on the scene and I've never had one of those either. Fortunately, I've always had a landline in my house, which I also use very sparingly, and had one in my office before I retired, too. But I do have a computer and a tv. I think more everyday about giving up electricity and living the "unplugged" life. I did it once, for about six months, on a commune in 1970.
It takes epic arrogance and hubris to believe in and promote 'green energy' because you have to completely or more commonly silence the non-human and indigenous people who actually live there and who have managed to do just fine without all the 'magnificent bribes' that modern world seems to feel entitled to. This will not end well for anyone.
Thank you. I have much respect for this essay, and the sound critique. I appreciate your voice, and work. I assume this means you wish to avoid hypocrisy so offer “no master plan”, yet beyond NOPE, what do you propose — every homestead find their own way as we transition? Surely a few principles apply without needing to be a limiting, imposed “plan.” IE: If we’re accepting of the coming collapse (environmental, of course intertwined with “modern 1st world lifestyle) can you offer your thoughts on the key aspects of the transitions that will cause the least near future (and long term) suffering?
I remember a good friend of mine reading from McKibben's book, "The End of Nature," on the radio back in the late 1980s, and there were passages in that book so beautiful and full of love for the natural world that it sometimes brought tears to my eyes as I listened. Now, when I hear what has become of him, I cry different kinds of tears. I wonder how much money it took to buy him.
Thanks for another great and provocative piece of writing, Max. At some point in the near future we will need to talk seriously about the pros and cons of continuing to use electricity. It just seems that there is no safe way to continue with it. The more that I investigate the science and think about what ALL of the energy sources that humans use are doing to our only planet, the more I think that the whole modern industrial way of life needs to be abandoned. Humanity needs to become "unplugged." Many people will likely say to that, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water!", or, "We can just greatly reduce our consumption and live this way in moderation." Well, just considering the cultural conditioning of most humans, due to capitalism, advertising and the growth imperative, I don't see that happening. I think that the only thing that could stop the blazing momentum of Homo colossus is to hit the brick wall of scarcity, collapse, and an utter impossibility of living this way anymore.
George, I'd love to interview you sometime about that topic. It would make for a good conversation. I'll send you a message about it sometime — I hope you will consider it!
Thanks, Max, for talking truth to "alternative" power.
Here is renowned climate scientist/educator Paul Beckwith a couple of days ago pushing "renewables" in the belief that a transition to them is not only possible but necessary, not at all questioning International Energy Agency assertions made in its annual report. VERY dismaying.
You're welcome, Jeffrey. I don't follow Paul's work closely, but I've seen his name floating around for years. I'd be interested to discuss this with him someday.
Mr. Wilbert, what are your thoughts on reducing the birth rates (through cheap or free access to contraception and incentive programs for smaller family sizes) in developed countries (for example, the United States) where individual resource and energy consumption is high?
I think that's a really important part of addressing these problems. And technically, it's not a hard issue to address. About half of all babies born worldwide are unplanned. That's your population growth problem right there. Solve that issue, and we'll have humane negative population growth due to birth rates being lower than the normal rate at which people are passing away. Unfortunately, it seems we're heading in the opposite direction, with the fall of Roe v. Wade and the rise of pro-population-growth ideologues like Elon Musk.
It seems like humans and earths needs are completely compatible. It’s so curious as to why we’re still playing this crazy game of consumption which fuels sociopathy, destruction and pain- even for the wealthy.
I sure hope the global north can take a step back and choose a different direction. Maybe we can learn from the south, the indigenous wisdom that surrounds us, the people in our communities who are living in harmony.
Cheers, Amy. I think there are complex reasons behind it all, but in short, I think we're in ecological overshoot and industrial civilization (and probably 7+ billion people) have become dependent on drawdown of limited resources. So while I do think humans and earth's needs are compatible, I think we're looking at dramatically downscaling consumption, technology, and the sheer number of us on the planet to get to that compatibility. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real political or institutional momentum to address these issues collectively and collaboratively, which - of course - is why we're headed for collapse. It seems the 1972 Limits to Growth study was basically right. Either way, there's a lot of work for good hearted people to do to protect human rights and biodiversity as the dominant economic and political system slowly crumbles.
"This would entail a gargantuan expansion in solar and wind energy production (and electrical transmission lines to carry this energy), a wholesale shift from gas and diesel vehicles to electric cars, and the electrification of everything from steel and concrete production — both very dependant on fossil fuels and highly polluting — to the heating of homes and office buildings."
Wishful thinking anyway, trucks, construction vehicles and ships cannot be powered by electricity.
Max, do you mean communities saying "no" to green/renewables?
& "throw money at them" is one of biggest epidemics; but ya know, money doesn't grow on trees rather trees are chopped down to make paper money; further enviro irony or what?
Thank you for this important and well-argued critique of McKibben and his ilk.
Is the "Carbon Tunnel Vision" graphic yours? It's very good at illustrating the myopia of mainstream environmental narratives. All environmentalism has been reduced to climate issues and climate issues have been reduced to carbon. The other contributor to climate change is land use, but that gets left out because it can't be monetized, and addressing it would mean addressing industrial civilization. It's a big scam for sure.
You're welcome, Kollibri! Definitely.
My friend Beth made that graphic, based on some previous unattributed work floating around on the internet.
Excellent article, as always. I was hoping you might have spent a little more time mentioning one other thesis that McKibben tossed into his article. That we need the same amount of energy as we are currently using. It is so important for those of us in the rich part of the rich world to accept that we will have to consume much less. We will either have degrowth soft landing or a hard landing.
Thank you, Jere. Yes, the idea that the level of consumerism and energy use in the global north is sustainable or morally justified is absurd. But I'm also wary of narratives that say that "catch-up" consumption is the answer to inequality between the poor and rich countries. The scholar Miriam Lang, who I mentioned in this essay, has done some very interesting work on this topic, exploring how the idea that degrowth in the global north needs to be paired with growth in the global south is misguided in regards to sustainability and well-being. As she has written, "It would be a huge mistake to think that while countries in the global north need to degrow, so-called developing countries in the global South need to grow. Abstract economic growth as reflected in GDP is not generating human wellbeing anywhere in the world, it is generating profit which is increasingly unequally distributed."
"Developing countries." What an inane and rarely-questioned term that is! Developing into what? That assumptive pinnacle of humanity that Bill Catton labeled, Homo colossus?
Agreed. That term drives me nuts, George.
I'm a Native Burlington Vermonter, and I've heard Bill McKibben speak here in my current town at NRG Systems in Hinesburg (my ex-husband worked there). My daughter did field research at the Texas wind farms to determine bat deaths (and birds). Let's just say, the corpses were indeed there!!!! As far as McKibben? Check out the film, "Planet Of The Humans" (free on YouTube) and note his profiting. Please check out, https://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/wind-turbine-syndrome-pierpont/?var=wts and Esther Wrightman's fight against Nextera Energy in Canada and her videos of this "green" company ripping down, destroying endangered Bald Eagle nests with babies in them!!! And the endangered whales washing up dead on my northeastern shores due to seabed "exploration'' for massive offshore wind farms! Please watch this: https://rumble.com/v28ctko-web.html - I know about this; I did video-documenting for Sea Shepherd in 2017 in Taiji, Japan.
Thanks for sharing, Maura. Planet of the Humans is such a powerful film. I'll check out the other links you shared when I get a chance.
Fantastic. Love the cover photo. The one thing McKibben and the others will never admit to, is that CO2 isn't the only cause of climate change, so is land destruction. That's right, destroying habitat also destroys climate, because climate is a creation of the living Earth, not some physical accident. Great work.
Thank you, Rob!
Thanks for the article! McKibben's "But we’re at a hinge moment now..." is a classic case of an individual claiming some god-like right to speak for the "we" yet not defining that "we", and typically that's a privileged "we" that excludes so-called minorities and Indigenous/Original Peoples who are most prominent in the "21 examples" list. And the eugenicist hubris is shown with the quote, “master plan outlining what is good for other people”.
You're welcome, Mankh. Yes, McKibben's perspective doesn't listen to the communities which are saying "no." As I wrote, his only solution to opposition seems to be throwing money at them.
As one of the arrest participants with McKibben in the 2011 Tar Sands Action, it's beyond challenging to me to see his allegiance continuing to be with civilization instead of the wild world. His refusal to accept the reality of our global predicament is utterly confusing, as he definitely has to know the bright green lies he is pushing are only making everything worse. And, he has participated in causing deep division in the environmental movement, perhaps the worst crime of all. I really can't imagine the work he has to do each day to look at himself in the mirror.
Good for you, Karen. I have some other friends who were there for that action.
Max! So good. I appreciate this piece for helping me clarify my thinking on some things.
I am one of those people who mostly read (often old) books, and I'm frequently behind the curve on public figures' latest pronouncements and thinking in their fields. My exposure to McKibben has been almost entirely through his books, which I've been reading for a long time, decades maybe. I've always liked the thought processes he shared there. Granted, I haven't read him in a few years, and I never pay attention to the "big green" orgs like 350, so I was kind of off in fantasy land regarding where he's gotten to, I guess. Anyway, I had no idea he'd swung so far in the direction of being an industrial energy booster. Ugh. That's a bummer.
When I ran the Pacific Wolf Coalition several years back, I remember complaining that all our grant funders suddenly started wanting to hear how our work benefitted the climate crisis in some way, as funding portfolios were moving away from pure wildlife work and toward climate work. If your program couldn't fit into the "climate adaptation" box, your funder would drop it. Now, most of the enviro funders are requiring nonprofits to also show how our work is benefitting human communities in some way. Human supremacy always finds a way in. So, we dodge and weave, and look for new ways to work on behalf of nature. Capitalism always finds a way in, too. If capitalism and human supremacy are not completely the same thing, then they are at least mostly overlapping, I suppose.
Long comment, sorry. Final thought: I'm noticing a trend of adults giving up their smartphones and going as low-tech as you can and still be reached by your loved ones (in the absence of functioning landlines). Lots of pieces being written about that lately. And of course the rising awareness of how harmful smartphone culture is to young people. I think/hope these may be the harbinger of some sort of voluntary simplifying away from all the energy-intensive and extractive devices and networks we thought we "needed" for life in the modern world. I for one am happier reading paper books after a walk to my local coffee shop, than I ever was scrolling a smartphone in line at Starbucks. And I am seeing that more and more in others around me. It's small yet, but I do think there are a growing number of people who don't want our bloated electro-civilization to continue as it's trending. It enshittifies our lives, and people are starting to get it. Whether that shift toward way less energy use will be voluntary in the long-term or not is debatable, but it's coming regardless. I just hope we have some functioning ecosystems left when it does.
Thanks again for sharing your thinking in this piece.
You're welcome, Rebecca! Yes, you're right: the human supremacy always seeks to worm its way in.
I daydream of someday living without any digital devices at all. I often visualize throwing my phone from a high cliff as hard as I can. It would make my organizing work impossible, it seems, but I wonder if even that is self-delusion.
Thank you, Rebecca for keeping this conversation going. I don't know why there seems to be some kind of unwritten rule (all over the internet) that we can no longer comment on posts that are like three days "old" or older. Even so, as I go deeper and deeper local, the proportion of my conversations with people that are in person, rather than on the internet, is becoming larger every day. And since I rarely go anywhere, those conversations pretty much can only happen here on the farm. I am glad to hear that more people are letting go of that imaginary "need" to be on those phones all the time. I only had a cell phone once, for about one month, back before "smartphones" came on the scene and I've never had one of those either. Fortunately, I've always had a landline in my house, which I also use very sparingly, and had one in my office before I retired, too. But I do have a computer and a tv. I think more everyday about giving up electricity and living the "unplugged" life. I did it once, for about six months, on a commune in 1970.
It takes epic arrogance and hubris to believe in and promote 'green energy' because you have to completely or more commonly silence the non-human and indigenous people who actually live there and who have managed to do just fine without all the 'magnificent bribes' that modern world seems to feel entitled to. This will not end well for anyone.
Thank you. And of course, the same arrogance and hubris underlies fossil fuels as well.
Thank you. I have much respect for this essay, and the sound critique. I appreciate your voice, and work. I assume this means you wish to avoid hypocrisy so offer “no master plan”, yet beyond NOPE, what do you propose — every homestead find their own way as we transition? Surely a few principles apply without needing to be a limiting, imposed “plan.” IE: If we’re accepting of the coming collapse (environmental, of course intertwined with “modern 1st world lifestyle) can you offer your thoughts on the key aspects of the transitions that will cause the least near future (and long term) suffering?
You're welcome, John.
I discussed this in some detail here: https://open.substack.com/pub/maxwilbert/p/solutions-final
Stewart Brand, co-founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog", is another who would make a deal with the devil to get out of our self-caused climate demise.
Brand advocates nuclear power, in effect leaping from the oily frying pan into the nuclear fire.
But Walt Kelly, in his "Pogo" cartoon for the first Earth Day in 1970, identified the problem: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Unfettered rampant capitalism has caused the climate crisis (among others).
Capitalism will not save us.
We need to evolve a new socially responsible and ecologically accountable system.
The phenomenon of "environmentalists" supporting nuclear power is shocking and tragic.
I remember a good friend of mine reading from McKibben's book, "The End of Nature," on the radio back in the late 1980s, and there were passages in that book so beautiful and full of love for the natural world that it sometimes brought tears to my eyes as I listened. Now, when I hear what has become of him, I cry different kinds of tears. I wonder how much money it took to buy him.
Thanks for another great and provocative piece of writing, Max. At some point in the near future we will need to talk seriously about the pros and cons of continuing to use electricity. It just seems that there is no safe way to continue with it. The more that I investigate the science and think about what ALL of the energy sources that humans use are doing to our only planet, the more I think that the whole modern industrial way of life needs to be abandoned. Humanity needs to become "unplugged." Many people will likely say to that, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water!", or, "We can just greatly reduce our consumption and live this way in moderation." Well, just considering the cultural conditioning of most humans, due to capitalism, advertising and the growth imperative, I don't see that happening. I think that the only thing that could stop the blazing momentum of Homo colossus is to hit the brick wall of scarcity, collapse, and an utter impossibility of living this way anymore.
George, I'd love to interview you sometime about that topic. It would make for a good conversation. I'll send you a message about it sometime — I hope you will consider it!
That sounds wonderful, Max! I'll look forward to that.
Great!
🎯
Thanks, Max, for talking truth to "alternative" power.
Here is renowned climate scientist/educator Paul Beckwith a couple of days ago pushing "renewables" in the belief that a transition to them is not only possible but necessary, not at all questioning International Energy Agency assertions made in its annual report. VERY dismaying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2CvWSxktg
You're welcome, Jeffrey. I don't follow Paul's work closely, but I've seen his name floating around for years. I'd be interested to discuss this with him someday.
Mr. Wilbert, what are your thoughts on reducing the birth rates (through cheap or free access to contraception and incentive programs for smaller family sizes) in developed countries (for example, the United States) where individual resource and energy consumption is high?
I think that's a really important part of addressing these problems. And technically, it's not a hard issue to address. About half of all babies born worldwide are unplanned. That's your population growth problem right there. Solve that issue, and we'll have humane negative population growth due to birth rates being lower than the normal rate at which people are passing away. Unfortunately, it seems we're heading in the opposite direction, with the fall of Roe v. Wade and the rise of pro-population-growth ideologues like Elon Musk.
I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you!
It seems like humans and earths needs are completely compatible. It’s so curious as to why we’re still playing this crazy game of consumption which fuels sociopathy, destruction and pain- even for the wealthy.
I sure hope the global north can take a step back and choose a different direction. Maybe we can learn from the south, the indigenous wisdom that surrounds us, the people in our communities who are living in harmony.
Anyway, happy to have subscribed :)
Cheers, Amy. I think there are complex reasons behind it all, but in short, I think we're in ecological overshoot and industrial civilization (and probably 7+ billion people) have become dependent on drawdown of limited resources. So while I do think humans and earth's needs are compatible, I think we're looking at dramatically downscaling consumption, technology, and the sheer number of us on the planet to get to that compatibility. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real political or institutional momentum to address these issues collectively and collaboratively, which - of course - is why we're headed for collapse. It seems the 1972 Limits to Growth study was basically right. Either way, there's a lot of work for good hearted people to do to protect human rights and biodiversity as the dominant economic and political system slowly crumbles.
"This would entail a gargantuan expansion in solar and wind energy production (and electrical transmission lines to carry this energy), a wholesale shift from gas and diesel vehicles to electric cars, and the electrification of everything from steel and concrete production — both very dependant on fossil fuels and highly polluting — to the heating of homes and office buildings."
Wishful thinking anyway, trucks, construction vehicles and ships cannot be powered by electricity.
https://energyskeptic.com/2021/diesel-finite-where-are-electric-trucks/
and
https://energyskeptic.com/2024/off-road-vehicles-and-equipment-need-diesel-fueled-engines-for-power-mobility-and-efficiency/
and
https://energyskeptic.com/2024/prime-movers-of-civilization-diesel-engines-and-gas-turbines/
It's true. Jacobson, McKibben, and their ilk are often misleading about these technical limitations.
Max, do you mean communities saying "no" to green/renewables?
& "throw money at them" is one of biggest epidemics; but ya know, money doesn't grow on trees rather trees are chopped down to make paper money; further enviro irony or what?
Yup, thanks for catching that typo!
Well, today it's just bits and bytes, far worse for the planet than paper money.