#environmentalists

[ceevee5]

[radicalgraff]

"All Cops Are Eel Food"

Mural on a building in Luetzerath, Germany which has been seized by police.

The entire village of Luetzerath is slated for demolition to make way for the expansion of an opencast lignite mine.

Police from all over Germany have descended on the village as part of a massive operation to clear protesters who are defending Luetzerath from demolition.

[fuckyeahanarchistposters]

“Capitalism or the Ecosystem”

[thecosmicpunk]

On February 7th a vessel overturned causing a massive oil spill spanning 10 miles off the coast of Tobago 🇹🇹

Cleanup is in progress but this will have devastating effects to the environment.

[hubbyalh]

[womeninfictionandirl]

Wangari Maathai by Katherine Krizek

“Every person who has ever achieved anything has been knocked down many times. But all of them picked themselves up and kept going, and that is what I have always tried to do.”

The holistic approach to sustainable development that Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement, embodies embraces human rights and women’s right in particular. Her tree planting campaign empowered more than 300,000 women to plant more than 51 million trees, generating income for the rural women participants and promoting environmental consciousness in her native Kenya.

An accomplished scholar and a tireless political and environmental activist she was the first African woman to receive a Nobel prize.

Born 1940, Kenya

[teachersource]

Rachel Carson was born on May 27, 1907. An American marine biologist, writer, and conservationist whose influential book Silent Spring (1962) and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. Although Silent Spring was met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy, which led to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides. It also inspired a grassroots environmental movement that led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

[morlock-holmes]

The thing I don't get about opposition to nuclear is not the distrust of the experts who tell us it's safe, it's that it often comes from people who claim to believe that global warming could destroy human civilization.

But even multiple cases of ineptitude on the scale of Chernobyl wouldn't come even close to destroying human civilization, so isn't Nuclear power clearly still preferable even if you deeply distrust the experts?

PS - And honestly a bunch of Chernobyl disasters are really unlikely.

[commiepinkofag]

FBI Labels Anti-Fascists and Anti-Racists as Violent Extremists

Screenshot of various symbols listed in the Anarchist Violent Extremism section in the recently released FBI Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide.

Unicorn Riot | Arturo Dominguez | November 22, 2023 A recently released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) document titled “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” links common protest symbols to “terrorism” — another marker in a common theme of conflating militant protest for social justice with deadly terrorist violence within the United States. … History has shown that partnerships with local and state law enforcement agencies too often paint innocent civil and human rights advocates as violent extremists despite never exhibiting such behavior. From Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X to Black Lives Matter protesters in Ferguson, Missouri labeled as “Black Identity Extremists” and Stop Cop City protesters charged with mafia-style crimes, proof of targeting groups speaking up for civil rights and racial justice continues today — noted by the newly released FBI document. … The document includes sections titled Animal Rights or Environmental Violent Extremism, Anarchist Violent Extremism and Militia Violent Extremism. The FBI has established a category for MAGA extremists, noted former U.S. Army soldier William Arkin, in a recent Newsweek article. Yet, noticeably absent from the symbols guide was the branding of the far-right extremist Proud Boys which has known connections to Trump, FBI agents and local law enforcement all over the country. Many instances of police working in concert with known hate groups while federal authorities have allowed them to operate with impunity have been uncovered. … More >

Of course, they asterisk-censored BASTARDS in ACAB.

[project-greenbrush]

Who We Are

Hello! Here’s our blog: in it, we’ll discuss individual places, their background and history, the changes and problems it’s facing right now, and action items YOU can take to make a difference. Scroll through to learn more about various places around the world, or search the blog for specific places you’re interested in. If you want to contribute, reach out to us at https://www.projectgreenbrush.org/.

Who are we?

We’re a global student-run organization dedicated to conservation of the places around us that we love. Artists around the globe have come together to share their favorite places in nature, and we want to draw attention to those local places and how ecological issues affect those places, and how you can help. We’re focused on educating as many people as possible that climate change is here right now, in your backyard, but you can help save your own homes and loved places through bolstering local efforts, direct action, and reaching out to your neighbors. 

How do I volunteer?

It's easy! Just sign up at https://www.projectgreenbrush.org and fill out the application form. Volunteering can be a one-time art collaboration or acting as a long-term volunteer!

Header by @rutabug

[radicalgraff]

"Resist Climate Destruction! Strikeforce Let Ya Guard Down"

Blockade Australia tag in the Newcastle Port train yard. BA is an anti-colonial, environmental group which uses direct action tactics, usually blockades involving tripods, lock-ons, ect to prevent the transport and export of coal & other resources from Australian ports.

Last year BA activists & supporters faced a wave of repression aimed at dismantling the group, coordinated by Police Strikeforce Guard.

Despite the heavy repression the group was still able to launch a coordinated series of actions in recent days, blocking various ports along the east coast of Australia.

The Labor controlled NSW gov has responded to the recent blockades by proposing a ban on environmental activist groups using Facebook and other platforms to publicize their actions.

[princetonuniversitypress]

Enjoy a chapter of ...

Running Out: In Search of Water on the High Plain

Lucas Bessire

Finalist for the National Book Award An intimate reckoning with aquifer depletion in America's heartland

[importantwomensbirthdays]

Gina Lopez

Environmental and social activist Gina Lopez was born in 1953 in Manila, Philippines. In 1997, Lopez established the Philippines' first child protection helpline. She oversaw the cleanup of the Pasig River, and campaigned to save the La Mesa Watershed. Lopez is best known, however, for her brief tenure as the Philippines' Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, during which time she closed 23 mines and banned open pit mining. She spoke with the fishermen and farmers negatively impacted by mining operations, and established forums for consultations between her department and indigenous groups.

Gina Lopez died in 2019 at the age of 65.

[uboat53]

Okay environmentalists, we need to have a talk. Time for a LONG RANT (TM).

INTRODUCTION

Fair warning, I consider myself an environmentalist in the sense that I believe that we should pass laws and encourage behaviors that best protect and preserve the natural environment for future generations. Hopefully I'm talking to my own choir here because it's going to feel really weird if that's not what other environmentalists think. I'm also a physicist and engineer who's done a good deal of work examining both the mechanisms and the broader issues with various forms of power generation.

That said, we need to talk about nuclear power. Specifically, we need to talk about it in terms of the trade-offs we face as far as producing clean and/or carbon free energy (the two terms are not necessarily synonymous as I'll get into later) in order to power the global economy in general and the US economy specifically.

To put it bluntly, you guys need to stop campaigning to shut down nuclear power until after we deal with fossil fuels.

PRIORITIES

I'm not going to lie to you and say that nuclear power is clean power, it produces all kinds of nasty byproducts, some of which can take thousands of years to decay to a safe level. If we were starting an energy system from scratch I think we would quite reasonably say that this is not a source of power that we should invest in.

Unfortunately, we're not starting an energy system from scratch, we're trying to completely reconfigure an energy system that relies not just on inputs of nuclear power, but also power generated from oil, coal, natural gas, and renewables such as wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar power. Reconfiguring a system is a great deal more difficult than simply building one from scratch because you have to be careful not to upset the necessary outputs. Because of that, it's important not just to consider the end result, but also the order of operations.

In this case we can't simply consider the harmful outputs of a nuclear power plant and dismiss it as a power source, we have to compare its harmful effects to the harmful effects of other forms of power generation and triage accordingly which of them is to be dealt with first.

THE COMPARISON

According to Scientific American (2009), the nuclear reactors operated in the United States produce 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste per year. (1) On average, when looking at the standard fission reaction, a nuclear reactor produces about 0.00015 grams of waste per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (2)

By comparison, the EPA estimates emissions from coal power plants in 2010 to have been 2,221 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide. (3) On average, coal power plants produced 1.01 kg of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. (4)

For other fossil fuels, natural gas produces 0.41 kg of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (4) and petroleum produces 0.97 kg of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (4).

Of course, weight of emissions isn't the entire picture, but I think it's safe to say that the amount of waste produced by a fossil fuel plant is significantly larger than that produced by a nuclear plant. It's also important to point out that the waste produced by a nuclear plant is pretty much entirely solid and captured while the waste produced by a fossil fuel plant is largely vented into the atmosphere or captured in ponds of coal slurry that... well let's just say they don't have the best record of containment. Finally, with regards to the most immediate environmental challenge at present, climate change, nuclear power does not directly contribute to carbon emissions while coal and other fossil fuels contribute a great deal.

THE IDEAL CHOICE

I think we can all agree that the ideal choice would be replace all of these power generating options with renewables. Unfortunately, at least for the short term, it's just not a viable option. Despite the explosive growth of renewable power in the US over the last several decades, renewable sources only account for just over 20% of electricity generation and just over 12% of electricity consumption. (5)

That gap between generation and consumption highlights one of the biggest challenges with renewable power, being able to store the power from the time it is generated until it's needed, but we can also see that it provides only 1/5 of the power that our country generates at this time. Even if we were to assume that the current growth rate of renewables (42% in the last decade (6)) were to be maintained over the long term and the storage issues were to be resolved, we're still looking at four or five decades of needing additional sources of power.

THE REALISTIC CHOICE

Over the next few decades, we're going to need to take fossil fuel and nuclear power generation offline and replace it with renewable power generation sources. I don't think this is controversial. However, we are going to have to choose what order we take power plants offline and I think it's fairly reasonable to say that nuclear power plants, in general, should be left operational until the last fossil fuel plant is replaced with renewables.

Yes this will produce additional nuclear waste, but not a substantial increase over the scale of the problem we already have, and it will also allow us to more quickly eliminate our carbon emissions. Remember, for whatever its faults, nuclear power does not directly emit carbon dioxide or any other significant greenhouse gasses such as sulfur dioxide or nitrous oxide.

And that's the trade-off that I think is reasonable, an increase in the amount of nuclear waste that can be measured in the size of an American football field (total nuclear waste generated in American history would cover one to a depth of 7 yards (1)) for a significantly faster draw-down of carbon emissions.

A FEW ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

Now, none of this should be taken to preclude greater regulation and enforcement of regulation for nuclear plants. Quite honestly, very few countries have taken safety seriously and I feel like it's largely luck that we haven't had more disasters like Fukushima in the last few decades. We can and should demand that those who profit from generating nuclear power put the appropriate investment into the safety of their power plants.

I also acknowledge that this is a value judgement and that people can come to different conclusions. I feel like I've justified this one pretty well so, if someone would like to disagree, please be sure to be specific in where and how you disagree.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, given the current reality of the world economy and our configuration of energy production, I don't think there are any perfect choices with regard to the transition to entirely renewable energy generation. Given the choices before us, though, I think that the most environmentally manageable choice is to prioritize the decommissioning of fossil fuel generators over nuclear generators.

In the long-term, of course, we will want to eventually decommission our nuclear power plants as well in order to end the production of long-lasting and dangerous nuclear waste but, if given the choice between that or a huge amount of carbon (and other) pollution over the next few decades, I'd rather try to find ways to safely contain and store a limited amount of nuclear waste than accept substantial additional warming of the globe in the period it takes us to completely reconfigure our energy economy.

I hope you found this argument interesting, let me know what you think.

(1) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

(2) https://www.quora.com/How-much-waste-do-nuclear-reactors-produce-per-kilowatt-hour

(3) https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/power_plants_2017_industrial_profile_updated_2020.pdf

(4) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

(5) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4

(6) https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/