Here's what there is a real shortage of: likes for this post, which deserves all the likes in the universe. Condescending progressive cultural imperialism is such an underappreciated problem, both for human health and long-run for the environment. This "progressive" punishment of developing countries for continuing to use fossil fuels reminds me of earlier efforts to ban effective pesticides like DDT in southeast Asia and Africa, but only after malaria had conveniently been eradicated in Europe and North America. Both also get tied up with flawed Malthusian reasoning about how the environment can't afford for the poors with their high birth rates using resources like developed Westerners do, ignoring the fact that birth rates are down everywhere, including in the developing world, and the key thing that drives birthrates down is that an increase in material well-being leading to more surviving babies. (Of course, declining birth rates is its own problem--but one that Team Climate Apocalypse seems unaware of.)
I will also note that this woke refusal the recognize that the climate concerns of a Malawian mother are different than those of Greta Thunberg basically pushes developing economies into the arms of China, which is much less judgmental about whether one uses cooking gas. Western progressives can have their moral purity in cutting off funding to places that use fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean that China will follow suit. Is that what Western progressives want: the same or more fossil fuel use as there would have been in developing economies, but with the added feature of those economies becoming vassal states of China?
Thanks a lot, Doctrix Periwinkle, much appreciated! You're right that I should've mentioned how our climate colonialism drives African countries into the arms of China. But of course they don't care. This sort of activism is always more about washing your hands clean than about actually solving some problems ("If the world goes down the drain, at least I will have a clean conscience!"). In many cases it exarcerbates the very problem activists profess to care about. It reminds me of all the litigation against fossil fuel companies like Shell, Exxon etc. If you wage a war against "our" western fossil fuel companies (the easy targets), but you don't do anything about the demand for oil and gas, what do you think will happen? The oil and gas will keep flowing, but this time it will fill the pockets of Putin or Qatar. The Netherlands have banned gas exploration in their own Groningen, under pressure from activists ("Great victory for the climate"!), as a result of which the Dutch started importing gas from Russia. Of course Putin doesn't give a rat's ass about the climate, or about methane leaks. It's so short-sighted that it's infuriating.
Interesting. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to hear about the prohibition on gas exploration in Groningen and its natural consequences, having witnessed incoherent Dutch eco-puritanism where I live, a Dutch Caribbean colony.* (*I’m using the word “colony” here because as a special municipality of the Netherlands, Saba cannot set its own laws as, for instance, St. Maarten can, and also we don’t really have representation in the Tweede Kamer, either.)
On Saba, the Dutch government constantly fusses at us about how we need to become food self-sustainable, i.e., we should grow enough food on Saba to support the population. (Never mind that this is not a standard that the European Netherlands holds itself to, recognizing the virtue of free trade when it comes to importing their own food.) However, we are also in the midst of a controversial Dutch campaign to eradicate “invasive species” that are “unnatural” on Saba, to “return” the island to its “original” state. What are these invasive species? Well, mainly goats and chickens, livestock that have been used to feed Sabans for hundreds of years. So we should be food self-sustainable, but not in a way that offends the aesthetic standards of having a “natural” island. So, uh, we keep importing factory-farmed meats from the United States, which are produced in a less eco-friendly way, and which have to be shipped hundreds of miles on boats.
I bitched further about puritanical Dutch animal management on Saba here:
I noticed only a brief mention of nuclear energy. Why is that? I mean, why not present nuclear as a viable alternative to fossil? I guess that's for another post?
Thanks for the reply and links to your previous writing on the nuclear topic. I'll read them soon. Regarding nuclear as a viable energy option, I guess each so-called developing country is also in the process of developing a robust humanitarian political/legal system. So access to nuclear technology might present issues about nuclear weapons.
Well-written, but I’d like to add some points of mild disagreement.
- While I agree developing countries have every right to want to develop as quickly as possible, the technologies available to them are also more advanced. I’d be surprised if solar had no role to play in their energy mix.
- The US has an emission profile that’s just not comparable to the rest of the world. If the US had emissions per capita comparable to the rest of the advanced world, the climate crisis would be well on its way to being solved. While not directly related to your point about how the West shouldn’t dictate the energy mix of developing countries, it’s not trivial in a discussion on who gets to lecture who. It feels a lot like they are using Africa to justify their own reliance on fossils, imo inexcusable for a country as rich as the US.
- Action on climate change does pose a coordination problem, if everyone acts in their own self-interest the collective will be worse for it. Usage of fossil fuels cannot just be evaluated in the immediate benefit to people’s lives.
Here's what there is a real shortage of: likes for this post, which deserves all the likes in the universe. Condescending progressive cultural imperialism is such an underappreciated problem, both for human health and long-run for the environment. This "progressive" punishment of developing countries for continuing to use fossil fuels reminds me of earlier efforts to ban effective pesticides like DDT in southeast Asia and Africa, but only after malaria had conveniently been eradicated in Europe and North America. Both also get tied up with flawed Malthusian reasoning about how the environment can't afford for the poors with their high birth rates using resources like developed Westerners do, ignoring the fact that birth rates are down everywhere, including in the developing world, and the key thing that drives birthrates down is that an increase in material well-being leading to more surviving babies. (Of course, declining birth rates is its own problem--but one that Team Climate Apocalypse seems unaware of.)
I will also note that this woke refusal the recognize that the climate concerns of a Malawian mother are different than those of Greta Thunberg basically pushes developing economies into the arms of China, which is much less judgmental about whether one uses cooking gas. Western progressives can have their moral purity in cutting off funding to places that use fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean that China will follow suit. Is that what Western progressives want: the same or more fossil fuel use as there would have been in developing economies, but with the added feature of those economies becoming vassal states of China?
Thanks a lot, Doctrix Periwinkle, much appreciated! You're right that I should've mentioned how our climate colonialism drives African countries into the arms of China. But of course they don't care. This sort of activism is always more about washing your hands clean than about actually solving some problems ("If the world goes down the drain, at least I will have a clean conscience!"). In many cases it exarcerbates the very problem activists profess to care about. It reminds me of all the litigation against fossil fuel companies like Shell, Exxon etc. If you wage a war against "our" western fossil fuel companies (the easy targets), but you don't do anything about the demand for oil and gas, what do you think will happen? The oil and gas will keep flowing, but this time it will fill the pockets of Putin or Qatar. The Netherlands have banned gas exploration in their own Groningen, under pressure from activists ("Great victory for the climate"!), as a result of which the Dutch started importing gas from Russia. Of course Putin doesn't give a rat's ass about the climate, or about methane leaks. It's so short-sighted that it's infuriating.
Interesting. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to hear about the prohibition on gas exploration in Groningen and its natural consequences, having witnessed incoherent Dutch eco-puritanism where I live, a Dutch Caribbean colony.* (*I’m using the word “colony” here because as a special municipality of the Netherlands, Saba cannot set its own laws as, for instance, St. Maarten can, and also we don’t really have representation in the Tweede Kamer, either.)
On Saba, the Dutch government constantly fusses at us about how we need to become food self-sustainable, i.e., we should grow enough food on Saba to support the population. (Never mind that this is not a standard that the European Netherlands holds itself to, recognizing the virtue of free trade when it comes to importing their own food.) However, we are also in the midst of a controversial Dutch campaign to eradicate “invasive species” that are “unnatural” on Saba, to “return” the island to its “original” state. What are these invasive species? Well, mainly goats and chickens, livestock that have been used to feed Sabans for hundreds of years. So we should be food self-sustainable, but not in a way that offends the aesthetic standards of having a “natural” island. So, uh, we keep importing factory-farmed meats from the United States, which are produced in a less eco-friendly way, and which have to be shipped hundreds of miles on boats.
I bitched further about puritanical Dutch animal management on Saba here:
https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/chickens-come-home-to-roost
I noticed only a brief mention of nuclear energy. Why is that? I mean, why not present nuclear as a viable alternative to fossil? I guess that's for another post?
Yeah, probably because I have been banging that drum too often already. ;-) See here, my very first post! https://open.substack.com/pub/maartenboudry/p/why-environmentalists-pose-a-bigger?utm_source=post&comments=true&utm_medium=web I totally agree that nuclear is a viable alternative, but if you're a developing country, you can't just leap-frog to nuclear at once. Fossil fuels are a great stepping stone to industrialize and then switch to nuclear.
Thanks for the reply and links to your previous writing on the nuclear topic. I'll read them soon. Regarding nuclear as a viable energy option, I guess each so-called developing country is also in the process of developing a robust humanitarian political/legal system. So access to nuclear technology might present issues about nuclear weapons.
Well-written, but I’d like to add some points of mild disagreement.
- While I agree developing countries have every right to want to develop as quickly as possible, the technologies available to them are also more advanced. I’d be surprised if solar had no role to play in their energy mix.
- The US has an emission profile that’s just not comparable to the rest of the world. If the US had emissions per capita comparable to the rest of the advanced world, the climate crisis would be well on its way to being solved. While not directly related to your point about how the West shouldn’t dictate the energy mix of developing countries, it’s not trivial in a discussion on who gets to lecture who. It feels a lot like they are using Africa to justify their own reliance on fossils, imo inexcusable for a country as rich as the US.
- Action on climate change does pose a coordination problem, if everyone acts in their own self-interest the collective will be worse for it. Usage of fossil fuels cannot just be evaluated in the immediate benefit to people’s lives.