What If There Are No Politically Feasible Answers?

Political Realism vs Ecological Realism

At times, we are confronted with choices that demand us to pick between two undesirable alternatives, often known as a dilemma. The annals of history are brimming with such instances. When Hitler ascended to power in Germany and commenced his invasions across Europe, we were presented with the dire decision of either passively observing country after country succumb to Germany's might or intervening in the war to halt him by force. There was no solution that could be deemed politically feasible, at least not in the traditionally peaceful democratic sense. Sometimes, circumstances unfold just like that.

It appears we find ourselves in the grip of a similar quandary at present. We're forced to select from a set of distressing options. Some would present it as a decision between climate change causing widespread avian fatalities, or in their judgement, causing fewer with the installation of wind turbines and transmission lines and thwarting the climate crisis.

L.A. Times journalist Sammy Roth penned an article exploring the Audubon Society's endorsement of wind turbines and transmission lines, notwithstanding the escalating tally of bird deaths attributed to these structures. Roth expressed via Twitter that while the loss of birds may not be the optimal outcome, it could be a required sacrifice for the broader objective of addressing climate change.

The Audubon Society and many others, including Roth, perceive our options as a choice between renewable energy and climate change. However, in my view, they overlook a critical component that they, along with the majority, are reluctant to contemplate.

Our true dilemma lies in choosing between a habitable earth and maintaining our energy sources (such as fuels, electricity, etc.), most of which are not essential for human existence. There's a lifestyle and consumption rate that individuals are unwilling to compromise on. This is equally lamentable, given that such consumption doesn't genuinely bring anyone joy.

However, my viewpoint was met with dissent. My proposition was deemed absurd by advocates for renewable energy. They argued that reducing energy consumption isn't politically viable. Truth be told… I can't entirely dismiss their claim.

The Cultural Hegemony

The cultural hegemony, the perspectives and social norms deemed universal, necessary, and advantageous for all, are in reality the philosophies championed by those with power and wealth, serving their interests above all. This dominance of culture prevents people from challenging the status quo. Persuading them to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources like solar and wind itself proves to be a substantial endeavor.

How might we encourage individuals to voluntarily decrease their energy usage? Is it possible for us to influence legislators to enforce such a shift? The blunt truth is, we cannot. It simply isn't realistic within the constraints of our current cultural and political framework.

The Renewable Energy Transition Isn’t Feasible Either

The paradox is that their proposed solutions are just as impracticable, for a multitude of reasons. Consider the scenario of renewable energy stepping in to replace fossil fuels. We haven't even hit the peak of fossil fuel consumption yet. With the US consuming fossil fuels on a scale never seen before under Joe Biden's leadership, how is this making a dent in the climate crisis? There's hardly any sign of these trends reversing. Instead of replacing fossil fuels, renewables seem to be merely filling in the gaps, as the demand for energy consistently escalates.

More crucially, even if by some miracle, global political entities genuinely intended to decarbonize our energy supply (which they don't), satisfying current and future energy needs would necessitate a massive expansion of renewable energy infrastructure and supply chains. The necessary minerals might not even be available in extractable quantities that are practically feasible. Even if they were, we're looking at an unprecedented scale of destruction reminiscent of Mordor. It's highly dubious that the environmental damage at this scale is lesser than the harm we're trying to avoid due to climate change. However, that's the deception they're working hard to propagate.

Moreover, even if we managed to accomplish all that and it proved less damaging than climate change, the way we utilize that power is already driving us into a sixth mass extinction. The extinction rate is up to 10,000 times higher than the natural rate. This is solely due to human development and growth economics, completely independent of climate change.

Our Way of Life Isn’t Feasible.

The grand deception of our era is the portrayal of this shift towards renewable energy as a form of environmentalism. It simply isn't. True environmentalism is about conserving habitats. That requires a fundamental transformation of our lifestyle. But that doesn't seem feasible either.

That's the predicament we find ourselves in. It's referred to as a double bind. As described by Marilyn Frye, a double bind is "a situation in which options are very limited and all of them expose us to penalty, censure or deprivation.”

So, what do we do about it?

Stop Waiting For Something Feasible, and Start Fighting Back

Here's the bitter pill that nobody wants to swallow. Neither politicians nor energy companies and solar panels are coming to our rescue. The judicial system won't protect us. Prayers won't shield us. There's no savior within our societal or political structure.

The only solution lies in halting the human actions that are wreaking havoc on our planet. The situation is eerily similar to the dilemma faced by the United States in World War II, as discussed at the outset of this post. We are cornered with two choices, neither of them particularly appealing. We can either stand idle, witnessing the world being ravaged by our culture, or we can muster the courage to retaliate. That's the unvarnished reality. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deceiving you.

There are no assured outcomes, just as there was no guarantee that the Allies would overcome the Nazis. We operate on faith and courage, but most importantly, because it's morally imperative.

Ignore the Circular Arguments

This is the point where concerns may be raised about the potential loss of lives, or the disproportionate impact on the underprivileged. We come full circle to the fact that the alternative harbors even more dire consequences. It signifies extinctions, relentless habitat devastation, escalated climate change, increased pollution, and further human suffering and fatalities. We are annihilating our planet.

The argument that 'resistance is detrimental' is not lost on us. However, we also comprehend that passive observance is even more damaging.

I've experienced silencing on Twitter, with some individuals expressing that our dialogue was among the most disheartening they've ever encountered. I understand that. This isn't palatable news and it's certainly not what anyone wishes to hear. It's just that it's the harsh reality we must face.

I want to reassure you that there is a sense of satisfaction in resisting. There is contentment in pledging yourself to the protection of our Mother Earth, the entity that bestowed life upon us. There is happiness in upholding what is right.

If we are to have descendants in the future, how would we want them to remember us? As the generation who stood idle, merely debating energy technologies? Or as the generation who declared 'enough is enough'?

I earnestly hope you will join this vital struggle.