Stewart
Brand wrote his ecopragmatist manifesto a few years
ago. Others are talking about new environmentalism or green modernists. Do you have a preference?
“I call it rational environmentalism actually. But there's
no point in having a label. The point is to just have an evidence
based approach to diagnosing problems and thinking of solutions
rather than starting from an ideological position and than seeking
the facts that supposedly have to justify it.”
In
addition to those 'facts' aren't there also scientists like
Gilles-Eric Séralini who justify ideological positions?
“Scientists are all authority figures and we find
environmental NGOs using exactly the same tactics as climate deniers
in sponsoring and promoting their own very small minority of
scientific pseudo-experts. Séralini would be a great example because
he really does the poorest kind of pseudo-science that we could ever
imagine and he's promoted by green groups and the whole organic lobby
because of course he gives some plausibly factual basis for their
ideological positions.”
Can
we speak of a 'rational environmentalist' movement?
“I think it's just about having a kind of scientific
skepticism type approach to conventional environmentalism actually.
And in many ways conventional environmentalism is absolutely correct
and on the money. On things like biodiversity loss and climate
change. I don't have any problem with the diagnosis, it's the
proposed solutions which I have a very different viewpoint on.”
"In many ways gmo's and nuclear are symbolic of all the ways
the environmental movement has got it wrong"
Are
your differences with the environmental movement only about gmo's and
nuclear?
“In many ways gmo's and nuclear are symbolic of all the ways
the environmental movement has got it wrong by essentially becoming
obsessed with what I call the naturalistic fallacy, so the idea that
everything natural is good and everything human made is bad. And you
can more or less see the same debate in any area of contention.
Geo-engineering is another one. It's natural for us to emit carbon
all the time so that's not geo-engineering but it's geo-engineering
for us to remove carbon. Because that's some kind of intentional
human application. So it actually is completely irrational to have
that as your basic decision making tool whether something is natural
or unnatural. It doesn't make any difference to the fact. It probably
even makes the environmental outcome worse.”
I
don't see many rational environmentalists on the European mainland.
Where are they?
“I think the debate on nuclear power is simply not tolerated
in most mainland Europe. In Germany in particular you really cannot
make a pro nuclear case without being shot down and attacked, so I
think that just intimidates people. GM would be the same,
particularly in France. That really is the epicenter of irrational
fundamentalism. They have this sort of peasant-type national identity
which of course is entirely fictitious and imaginary. But anything
gmo, particularly if it's imported from America therefore has to be
subject to total bans forever.”
"Ngo's are like churches
in some ways in that the ideology
is bigger than the organisation and certainly bigger
than any of the people inside it."
is bigger than the organisation and certainly bigger
than any of the people inside it."
Is
it possible to change environmental ngo's (like for example the
organic movement) from the inside?
“The problem with the organic movement is that the
naturalistic fallacy is their entire guiding principle. So it's not a
rational basis to make a decision about what kind of agriculture to
use about whether it's natural or not. Essentially they are trying to
freeze technological developments in about 1950 for no good reason.
There's plenty of things that organic farming gets right and which
are useful and beneficial but there's a lot more which is simply
being ignored and which is actually environmentally harmful.
So
how can you change the ideological heart and soul of an entire
movement just because it happened to get everything wrong? Probably
that's a major
challenge. I think you can try to make these points internally but
ultimately you get rejected and pushed out. Ngo's are like churches
in some ways in that the ideology is bigger than the organisation and
certainly bigger than any of the people inside it. In time they are
always moving around and essentially are only temporary pawns in a
much greater and wider what longer established ideological pattern,
so changing that takes a very large amount of time and a lot of
bravery from a lot of people.”
“My wife always tells me I've been too confrontational but I
try to be nice sometimes, depending on who you are talking to but I
do try to at least maintain friendly relations at the private level
with people in Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other
organizations because ultimately I've got to persuade them as much as
possible that my concerns are worth taking seriously. So for instance
I recently helped organize kind of a coalition between the wind
industry and the nuclear industry and the ccs industry so they
released a joint statement pushing the UK government to have a
stronger decarbonisation target. To see the wind and the nuclear
people work together leaves the antinuclear lobby out of the equation
and forces the environmental ngo's to realize that they are both low
carbon options and both of them need to be promoted and you can't say
that your number one focus is climate change if your main approach is
to oppose low carbon power generation.”
Do
you still see the environmental movement as a force for good?
“I ask myself that question a lot. I don't think that you
can quantify it meaningfully (laughs). There's a lot of good things
that Greenpeace does on deforestation and overfishing. But obviously
they have done a lot of damage in agriculture and gmo's in particular
and they have done a lot of damage on energy and the fantasy of a
purely renewable future of wind and solar is just that, it's a
fantasy which has kept us on the fossil fuel treadmill for the last
thirty years.”
"First and foremost I am not rejecting the largest scale of
source of low carbon energy that human kind has ever invented, which
is nuclear."
Mark Lynas on climate change
Did
your views further evolve since the publication of The God Species?
“My views evolve all the time with new facts and figures
that are coming to us, but I wouldn't say I have had any major
conversion experiences since finishing the book though. If anything
I'm more pro renewables than I was then. I have written a couple of
pieces recently defending wind power from attacks by the anti wind
lobby who claim it doesn't reduce emissions and that's really not
supported by any of the data.”
What
are your thoughts on the 'Energiewende' in Germany?
“What's happening in Germany is of great interest because
obviously they are conducting an enormous experiment. They are
reducing their base load low carbon energy generation through nuclear
and are replacing it with intermittent low carbon energy generation
from renewables while simultaneously building more fossil fuel
plants. The environment minister recently opened a new lignite plant
burning brown coal which is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel in
Europe. Which is specifically configured to load-follow renewables
and that's not a pragmatic or cost effective or even environmentally
sustainable approach.”
So what
should happen to keep climate change below two degrees?
"It's not possible for climate change to stay within two
degrees according to the UNFCCC
process.
You need to peak global emissions by 2015 and there isn't even going
to be a new treaty until 2020. Its going to be between 4 and 6
degrees according to the latest reports. We are on one of the very
highest of the emissions
paths
which will take us into a
4
to 6
degree world,
but
we are only on a small part of the way up there so it can still go
down again.”
So
on what does it depend now?
“First and foremost I am not rejecting the largest scale of
source of low carbon energy that human kind has ever invented, which
is nuclear. And secondly on rapidly upscaling other low carbon
technologies at the same time including wind, hydro, solar power
where its cost effective and appropriate and also CCS, geothermal or
whatever resources happen to be available.”
This
is a short version of a longer interview in Dutch for the magazine
Seizoenen
(appears on 16 january 2013).
A recent speech by Mark Lynas at the Oxford Farming Conference received a lot of media attention. Watch it here:
A recent speech by Mark Lynas at the Oxford Farming Conference received a lot of media attention. Watch it here:
Downloads
- My review of The God Species in Dutch can be downloaded here.
