Our SciBlogging colleague William "Stoat' Connolley had to do come climbing down after a recent post tearing a strip off fellow Brit, enviro-activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot turned out to be grossly unfair. Most of the fuss was over Connelley's mistaken impression that Monbiot didn't know what he was talking about, but as anyone familiar with Monbiot knows, he attributes everything and is usually quite accurate when it comes to interpreting whatever piece of climate science he's discussing. But just as important, given recent events, is Connelley's failure to appreciate just why it is people like Monbiot get so worked up about people like George Bush.
Here's what Connelley said amounted to "goo and the dribble about Bush" in a recent Monbiot column:
George Bush is behaving like a furious defaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3000.
His backers - among them the nastiest pollutocrats in America - are calling in their favours. But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.
Is that rhetorical excess, or fair and reasoned comment? For the answer, one only needs only to review what the Bush administration is up to in its dying days in office. The most recent example in a lengthy list of intended executive orders to weaken environmental regulations involves mountain-top coal mining, From today's New York Times:
The White House on Tuesday approved a final rule that will make it easier for coal companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys.
...
The rule gives coal companies a legal right to do what, in the past, they could do only in exceptional circumstances, with special permission from the government.
And also:
The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to finish work on a rule that would make it easier for utilities to put coal-fired generating stations near national parks. It is working on another rule that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
Goo and dribble? I don't think so. Connelley's ultra-skeptical but scientifically grounded approach to climate change is a valuable check for anyone following the field. But it's good to remember that sometimes things really are as bad as they seem.
- Log in to post comments
Stoat has been a bit grumpy lately - his Hansen feud being a case in point. He backed down sharpish in this case though, and quite rightly too. Monbiot always references, and knows his stuff. He might be angry, but frankly, given the situation, we all should be.
Hi Jimmy! What are "WE" parroting about today? skwawk skwawk.
I'd like to see more scientific discourse here, like maybe posts on names you could use to call people you disagree with. skwawk skwawk.
Yes I agree with you take on things, however one thing that hasn't been pointed out is that the primary reason for George's vandalism, and many actions by others in his party (current and future)is to do as much damage to the in-coming administration as much as possible in an effort to make it fail. The welfare of the world is an ancillary consideration.
"Is that rhetorical excess, or fair and reasoned comment?"
[chuckle] Whose ox is getting gored? Most rural Westerners in the U.S. would consider it extreme rhetorical excess (those of them who can spell 'rhetorical' that is). But, those who criticize cutting down trees or mining essential minerals ought not (a) have any lumber or concrete in the houses they live in or the buildings they work in; or (b) any electrical wiring, plumbing, or any other glass/metal/ceramic items in their households - lest they sound like typical, shallow products of the dog-in-the-manger school of environmentalism. :-/
By the bye, how does a Brit enviro figure he is an expert on U.S. land-use issues??
Sorry, Scott, I can't take someone seriously whose grasp of logic excludes the vast middle ground between blind acceptance of what the extractive industries desire and their complete rejection. As a rhetorical device, it's among the most tawdry.
Last time I checked, Britain still had mines and forests and was still located on the same planet. The science involved in these issues is the same, and they actually have a lot of relevant experience.
"But, those who criticize cutting down trees or mining essential minerals..."
That's where you went wrong if you were wondering. Monbiot wasn't criticising that. He was criticising the stuff you read about in the NYT extracts. Hope that clears things up for you.
Love and kisses.
Hello Idlemind:
"... grasp of logic excludes the vast middle ground between blind acceptance of what the extractive industries desire and their complete rejection ... "
(shrug) To understand better where I'm coming from, Google up "The Wildlands Project". If the proponents of ideas like this ever actualize their dreams, it would indeed essentially amount to a complete shutdown of the hardrock (i.e. metals) mining industry in the U.S. Unfortunately, there is a vocal segment of the environmental community that recognizes no "middle ground" on the issue as you describe; hence my 'dog-in-the-manger' remark.
"Britain still had mines and forests and was still located on the same planet"
They still mine a little coal, but of course the activists are rallying to shut that down completely in order to alleviate AGW. Of the top ten industrial metals, I'm unaware that the UK has any significant mine production at all (they used to produce tin in Cornwall, but those mines were largely exhausted decades ago). Regarding forests, a quick survey of Wikipedia reveals a shire-by-shire list of wooded lands. In total, "forest" coverage in all of England in Wales isn't even 1/3 of that in a single Oregon county on the Pacific NW coast (and many English/Welsh "forests" appear to be plantations of imported species, not naturally regenerated woodlands native to the terrain). Mr. Monbiot is entitled to express any opinion he wishes about American forestry and mining issues, I suppose - but re: forests and mines very likely he's never been near either one. :-/
Hello Marc:
"...if you were wondering ... Monbiot wasn't criticising that..."
One lives in hope, but the quotes that James orginally offered, i.e., '... midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining ... binge of vandalism ...
(d)estruction is the ideology ...' --- these are phrases that sound like a blanket indictment and don't lend themselves to much appreciation of "middle ground" as recommended elsewhere in these posts. :-/
Therefore I tend to vote w/ Dr. Connelley on the "goo and dribble" issue. Hope that clarifies things for you. ;-)