Read the first article here.

The first article in this series was about how some of the people in the environmental movement are it's worst enemy. People that are insulting, smug, abusive or know-it-alls simply turn people off of the whole green movement. The first article tried to argue that people who are primarily concerned with the environment should make it the primary focus of their energy and leave out arguments about socialism, gay rights, atheism, and animal rights. This piece attempts to clarify some of those points.

The point which some readers seemed to miss was that mixing these issues with environmental issues alienates some portion of people that would normally be sympathetic. Individuals in the environmental movement should feel free to have whatever beliefs they want; however people that want to become leaders or speak for everyone that wants a better planet should refrain from alienating potential allies.

To give a specific example of a self proclaimed environmental leader, Al Gore, has stated publicly[1] that global warming is a moral issue. The problem with this is that when one makes it a moral issue someone that disagrees with your data or your conclusions is no longer just wrong, they are a bad person. There are some very intelligent people that disagree with the data in support of global warming being caused by CO2 emissions from human industry. Personally as a computer scientist I'm very skeptical of the computer climate models that are used to predict warming trends. The mathematical models used are complex and the algorithms are often shoehorned to fit data and current predictions with little or no scientific rational.

Some reading the above paragraph would immediately call me a climate change denier. Someone that is to climate change what holocaust deniers are to Jewish people who went through the holocaust. The problems with that characterization are many. First being skeptical does not imply denial. Second good science requires skepticism. Third being skeptical of specific conclusions or methods does not mean that one doesn't want to work for positive change, such as reducing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Finally one can even agree with the models, the science, but disagree with the results of those conclusions.

The environmental movement has to be about more than global warming. Global warming is undoubtedly important but is not the only thing that needs attention. Recycling is important, many of our natural resources are scarce and should be conserved. Animals and animal habitat are also important. Conserving the natural environment and not filling every available piece of land with housing developments is important to many.

Many in the green movement either from a subconscious guilt or because of a profound lack of imagination insist that we as a group must live below our means in order to not destroy the planet. Some even argue that capitalism is inherently destructive so socialism needs to be embraced. Either system, socialism or capitalism, can be both good and bad for the environment depending only on peoples awareness of the issues and willingness to make either government or business accountable. One could argue instead that everyone on the planet could have a better standard of living than they currently do while still being better stewards of the environment than we are now. Building a huge house that uses solar heating and wind/solar power, that will last for generations, has to be more sustainable than a prefab piece of junk housing unit that will fall apart in 20 years and have to be rebuilt.

In computer science one learns to optimize code only when necessary. When one does optimize code one does not go through ever single line of code in a program looking for a slightly faster way to write that line instead one analyzes the code to determine which portions run the most frequently, then one optimizes only that code. The same thing should be applied to environmental arguments. Personal transportation is the most important and easiest to change piece start there.

Several solutions exist to solve the current problems with using fossil fuels for transportation. First where possible provide mass transit systems. Second cars should be electric. Biofuels can be a stop gap measure but the goal should be electric cars. The infrastructure for electricity delivery is already in place. Even if most electricity is currently generated using coal it would still be better to have electric cars. One advantage is that after moving to an electric transportation system any type of energy generation can be used, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, biomass, nuclear, and fusion.

After the internal combustion engine has been eliminated the focus can be shifted to clean generation of electric power. Luckily several green solutions already exist including the ones listed above.

With the right leaders and the right vision the problems that exist can be solved without drastically changing peoples standard of living. People that choose to live in a more simple manner should feel free to do so, but without judging those that are optimistic enough to believe that one can be environmentally benign yet still enjoy the benefits of a good life. Individuals should be able to have whatever opinions they want and express those opinions. People that want to be leaders of a movement, that has a chance of success, should choose their battles and not alienate potential allies.

References:
1. NPR – Al Gore Sounds Global Warming Alert