Heruka wrote:at the end of the day its about who controls resources and who decides about shutting that down in the name of sustainability. Its about ideaologs cherry picking and directing the science instead of the science directing policy,
if science directed policy, then we would have continued with the transistion to alternative energy begun in seventies, reserved the Alaska and North Sea oilfields (rather than glutting the market with the cheapest oil (adjusted for inflation) in history).
im afraid at the heart of the green movement is just more power grabing in the name of telling others what is good for the earth means austerity for you.
Well, I agree with you because the present green movement in general works from the principles set out by the social ecologists i.e communalism. While I have no problem with people who want to live together in such a way, I do not. Bookchin writes:Property, in this ethical constellation, would be shared and, in the best of circumstances, belong to the community as a whole, not to producers ("workers") or owners ("capitalists"). In an ecological society composed of a "Commune of communes," property would belong, ultimately, neither to private producers nor to a nation-state. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... cecol.html
Deep ecology in general does not support the notion that it is proper to own nature in any sense. This is one difference we have with social ecologists. But we live in a society governed under an inherited Roman Jurisprudence. Even so, though people think that there is such a thing as private property, in reality all people have a lease.
That is also true about insider crony captalism.
its classic pressure from above and pressure from below.
You and KTD often complain of regulation. Naess writes:
"Private industy is, in spite of its official "free and competitive" nature, shot through with internal regulations, mostly unknown to the general public, but no less coercive for all of that. The smaller unit industry of green societies will, because of less hierachichal power structure among other reasons, need less regulation
. Much depends on the change of mentality: the less mental change in the green direction, the more regulations." (Ecology, community and lifestyle: Naess, Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1989)
What Naess is arging here is that with the fundamental shift in ethical priorities, the need to regulate of industrial harmful side effects (pollution, deforestation, etc.,) will be ameliorated through culture change, just as less and less people smoke and drink these days, just as attitudes towards race have shifted dramatically in the past 50 years (even despite some reactionary back lash) towards egalitarianism), in the same way, cultural transformation will render these discussions we are having obsolete. Just as it is more or less second nature for most people in the US these days to avoid smoking, likewise, when we wean our culture off the crystal meth of oil, someday the idea that we would need regulation to make sure that people did not pollute the water or the air, or cut down vast swaths of forest for short term profits will seem unthinkable.
The ecological society of the future will not be a choice. The ecological society that emerges after this one, however, can scarcely be imagined. But we cannot continue the way we are moving as a civilization.