Beyond Coal? Part two

Last week the Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" initiative took on another phase of activity. I attended both the screening of the anti-coal film, "Coal Country" and the 10-minute (you heard it right) protest outside of Twamley. The proclaimed goal of this initiative is to get the coal plant on campus (the source of UND's heat) shut down and to replace it with a geothermal system, thus reducing the coal pollution and making UND cleaner, and of course, "greener" (whatever that means).

The last time I wrote a column about this initiative I outlined some of the problematic features of the Sierra Club's initiative from the perspective of a bystander. This time around I want to highlight some problematic features of the Sierra Club's presence at UND as well as where this approach stands related to actual sustainability and how UND's campus is being used by outsiders as a point of leverage to push "clean energy" initiatives across the country.

My first problem is perhaps the obvious one. This initiative did not start with UND students, at least not the "Beyond Coal" initiative. The Sierra Club sent a paid organizer to UND to try and drum up support for this initiative. Why is this problematic? Because whoever the Sierra Club sends is not accountable to UND, the Greater Grand Forks community, or the state at large- they are accountable only to the Sierra Club. Although I certainly recognize that in the coming decades potential ecological collapse may become a reality and that, at the very least, where we get our energy from will be required (by the simple physics of tapped reserves) to find another source, I'm not convinced that these sorts of initiatives are any sort of solution. Now, I'm not going to argue about feasibility, or timeline projections, since I don't have the background to make those sorts of arguments. To be honest, it doesn't interest me. What interests me, at least at this stage of the game is why this is becoming an issue now, and where was the Sierra Club 20 years ago?

One could claim that such initiatives weren't "politically possible" (Liberal slang for, not worth fighting for) 20 years ago, thus one ought to put one's energies where the most victories come the easiest. I don't subscribe to this whitewash because I think it ignores the underlying political dimension of initiatives like this one. I'm not a Liberal, I'm a Leftist. Liberals are cynical opportunists, pursuing whatever issues come easiest as dictated by the facts on the ground.

In practical terms this means that Liberals are always the bedfellows and often times the PR people for Capitalists.

Whatever the market allows for, encourages, Liberals pounce on, like rats to a sinking ship. For example, regarding ecology, it has been well known for decades that modern (post)industrial societies have been speeding up the process of global warming, that pollution has been making drinking water sources unsafe and killing off species of animals for at least the last century.

But any talk of reversing these trends has generally been written off (in the mainstream at least) as bleeding heart, tree hugging hippie-ism, complaining about what they don't understand, i.e., our way of life (Capitalism) needs to exploit natural resources, so that's what we have to do. (Author's note: as a Leftist, I hate hippies as much as Glenn Beck, but for totally different reasons.

Hippies, and I'm talking those who call themselves hippies these days, are more interested in getting drunk and staying high than they are in radical social change; the hippies of the 1960's and 70's are a (somewhat) different story.)

Isn't it interesting that in the last two years or so, the term "Green" has been slapped on everything from shopping bags to gas pumps? Wal-Mart is even sponsoring environmental conferences, like the local pseudo-Leftists' beloved Powershift.

What happened? Did the Capitalists have a change of heart? Did they decide to get serious about the environment and stop their exploitative ways? I'm not convinced.

What happened was that Green became profitable. As the reports started pouring in from scientists and governmental agencies alike across the globe, it all of a sudden didn't look good to deny global warming anymore.

And Capitalism, being the great Worldless (to put it in the terms of Alain Badiou) economic system (in the sense that Capitalism works in, adjusts to, fits with any social or cultural system, from "Communist" China, to India, Europe, Africa, Argentina, it works anywhere and everywhere), adapted so quickly, it's as though we forgot that five years ago almost nothing was "Green" and global warming was still being denied by nearly everyone except some scientists and Al Gore (but no one was listening to him then).

And this profitability is the reason "Beyond Coal" is here. One might argue that this is progress- even if it is Capitalist, at least these issues are on the table, right? Though I will concede that these issues need to be addressed, my argument is that Capitalism itself is what needs to be taken into account as the missing factor here.

When Capitalism "goes Green," it's easy to forget where all the large-scale exploitation of natural resources started. So much like Naomi Klein's notion of disaster capitalism, as the floodwaters in New Orleans receded or the "Green Zone" was established in Iraq, the Capitalists are licking their chops, waiting for the feast of "emerging markets." The biggest and best is anything and everything "Green."

I don't trust it, one reason being that I don't think more "ethical" (i.e. guilt free) consumption ever means less use of resources. Do I have an alternative? No. I'm attempting to add to the formulation of a problem. Anyone who claims to have the solution is lying. In the case of the "Beyond Coal" initiative, I don't have an alternative, but if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Besides, I know bullshit when I smell it.