Position One: Let’s Solve the Climate Crisis With Renewables

The default position is one you may know well: the way to solve the problem of climate change is to move from fossil fuel-based energy to varieties of renewables such as wind and solar energy. Renewables are commonly claimed to be “key to fighting climate change” (Natural Resources Defense Council) and “climate-safe energy solutions” (International Renewable Energy Agency), so this position has a good deal of backing you can find online. Yet even these linked sources admit challenges, including (NRDC) a recent New York Times article pointing out how commitment to renewables is threatening nuclear power as an important bridge fuel (see Position Two), and (IREA) the admission that “…for one-third of the world’s anticipated energy use in the coming 20-25 years, no practical decarbonisation solutions currently exist.” Your challenge, then, is to promote renewables fully aware of their complexities.

One need is to clearly define renewable energy. Does, for instance, it include hydroelectric power (historically producing more than wind and solar combined), or biomass (the largest traditional category of renewables, yet one with potentially significant impacts). How does “renewable” energy compare, for instance, with “clean” energy?  Another is to work with accurate data about renewable energy trends: one good source, for instance, is REN21, e.g., their 2018 Global Status Report. Additionally, looking at whether renewable energy has potential in country contexts significant to climate change and policy such as China or India would be important.

In all such details, EcoTypes helps us note that many endorsements of renewable energy also implicitly endorse the small pole of the Action theme (e.g., micro hydro vs. larger hydro), yet this requires both convincing evidence (see e.g., Kirubi et al. 2009, as well as comparisons/critiques) and clarity as to defensible evidence why large-pole renewables are less attractive an option. You may notice other connections between renewable energy and EcoTypes axes (e.g., Technology, as noted above), and be prepared to defend your stance on these axes.

The final need is to make sure and be abreast of the literature, including well-regarded reviews (e.g., Edenhofer et al. 2011). Renewables are, for instance, one key element of the famous “stabilization wedges” argument (Pacala and Socolow 2004) that we have all the technologies we need to solve the climate change problem, but of the over 3000 citations to this article there are many critiques to consider. Then there are important dimensions to be aware of, including classic barriers to greater adoption (Painuly 2001), details on specific renewables such as biomass (Berndes et al. 2003), life cycle assessment (Pehnt 2006), equity (Newell et al. 2011), and storage (Weitemeyer et al. 2015). The list is almost endless!; but the good news is that this means there is huge interest and commitment to renewable energy.

Position Two: We Need Nuclear Power as a Bridge Fuel

There is one significant challenge to the default position favoring renewable energy: to some analysts (as noted in the NYT article cited in Position One) it seems implausible that we will be able to transition from fossil fuels to a carbon-free energy future using renewables alone. Many of these analysts argue that nuclear power, a zero-carbon source of energy that can in theory be deployed worldwide, will be a significant “bridge” fuel: a way to allow the price and technology of renewables to improve, thus increasing our use of them from their current fractional contribution, while at the same time dropping our dependency on carbon sources. The notion of bridge fuels has recently been dominated by natural gas, which (along with the Great Recession) helped significantly drop carbon emissions in the U.S. in the last decade (Biello 2015). Natural gas is arguably not a perfect bridge fuel, but nuclear could be.

So, who are these pro-nuclear environmentalists? Some may describe themselves as ecomodernists (Nisbet 2014): one good start is The Breakthrough Institute, whose ecomodernist platform generally includes support for nuclear power (example resources here). BTI also provides good overviews of the global energy situation (e.g., here), which offer a nuanced view of the role and challenges of nuclear. A much more focused organization, in some ways a spinoff from BTI, is Environmental Progress, which argues that “clean [nuclear] energy is in [political] crisis,” and lists numerous climate and conservation scientists supporting nuclear power.

There are also notable publications that broadly support nuclear power, such as the multi-scholar authored Hartwell Paper (Prins et al. 2010), and recent scholarly studies (e.g., Pielke 2018) suggesting that the climate challenge is even greater than typically assumed, thus demanding heterodox options such as nuclear. As admitted by Environmental Progress, one of the important challenges in nuclear power today is economic; see their economics FAQ and links to related publications charting the economic and political future of nuclear power, as well as this news article by their founder.

You may also utilize what could be argued to be an irrational fear of nuclear power, citing the Technology axis as relevant. As noted on the Science axis deep dive, one big difference between the scientific community and Americans concerns nuclear power, where significantly more scientists favor nuclear production. The irony is that people who oppose nuclear power generally think scientific evidence is on their side! A slew of studies of climate change perception (e.g., Leiserowitz 2006; Kahan et al. 2011) may reinforce this contradiction. Another interesting area of cultural perception research that may support consideration of heterodox solutions such as nuclear power concerns wicked problems/clumsy solutions (e.g., Verweij et al. 2006); the Hartwell Paper cited above adopts this broad approach to climate solutions.

Clearly, the pro-nuclear position supports the new Knowledge pole, and (in contrast to tendencies in Position One) the big Action pole: be prepared to defend both. And related axes abound as well, such as Future (Possibility pole), Technology (Technophilic pole) and Time (Future pole).

Position Three: Climate Change is the Crisis of Civilization

The third position departs from the first two in approaching climate change and climate policy from the position of old Knowledge. Look carefully at EcoTypes axes contributing to the Knowledge theme, and you’ll see in Old Knowledge not only a rejection of mainstream Science and a distrust of Technology, but an embrace of the ideal Domain, sacred Spirituality, and veneration of past Time.

Before getting into the application of old Knowledge to climate, you may first want to understand  how these axes define a distinctive approach to environmental issues, as this approach will be the basis for Position Three. Consider, for instance, this interview extract with Prince Charles:

The idea that there is a sacred trust between mankind and our Creator, under which we accept a duty of stewardship for the earth, has been an important feature of most religious and spiritual thought throughout the ages.… It is only recently that this guiding principle has become smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism.

The quote implies a major concern with modernity and progress. As applied to climate, then, Position Three sees our current crisis as the result of civilization as we know it. Consider this quote from Derrick Jensen, in a post titled “The Myths of Renewable Energy“:

This culture will not act to stop or significantly slow global warming. This culture will sacrifice—read kill—the planet rather than question the socioeconomic system that is killing our only home.…all of their solutions prioritize this way of life—industrialism, industrial civilization, capitalism, colonialism.

Jensen’s publications, such as Endgame (volume 1, The Problem of Civilization, 2006) and How Shall I Live My Life?: On Liberating the Earth from Civilization (2011), spell out this argument in much greater detail, and venerate indigenous knowledge and spirituality—old Knowledge—as the wisdom traditions upon which any solutions would be found. Position Three’s unabashed veneration of old Knowledge and disparaging of new Knowledge, then, would be at the core of your argument.

Jensen’s position resonates with what is known as anarcho-primitivism: a rejection of modernist institutions. While not addressing climate alone, anarcho-primitivism and related environmental movements cite climate change as a clear indicator of civilization gone awry, and anarcho-primitivists such as John Zerzan (2005; 2015) have produced a prodigious number of writings you could use.

It would be important for Position Three to carefully delineate how climate change is actually worsened, not aided, by new Knowledge (e.g., renewable technologies or nuclear power). It would also be important for this position to differentiate itself from eco-socialist critiques that reject both capitalist civilization and what they may view as a naive veneration of the past; these critiques would not reject new Knowledge entirely. Thus, for instance, the writings of Naomi Klein on climate change (e.g., This Changes Everything, 2014) lean more toward a socialist modernity than a primitivist premodernity, critiquing capitalism vs. human civilization. Finally, there are sympathetic critics of modernity (e.g., Beck 2010) for whom climate change offers insights into more nuanced underlying problems than “civilization” or “capitalism” writ large, so Position Three must be aware that it is painting reality with a very big—possibly overly big—brush.

As noted in the comprehensive bibliography here, all EcoTypes references are stored in a group Zotero library. Those below are the ones cited on this page.