Talk of the Natural World.

 

 

TALK OF THE NATURAL WORLD.

I do not feel the exaltation which more joyous persons than I have felt and feel from nature. Rather, I appreciate nature most when I see it mingling harmoniously with the crafts of man. Niagara no doubt is impressive, but I think I prefer the cascades at Blenheim Palace. To know that I should be in splendid and historic grounds, the product of artistic genius and national pride (which seem to be mutually dependent, as Kenneth Clark of Civilisation observed, at least historically) would comfort me. To be in Antarctica doubtless would startle and amaze me with naturality, but again I say I would plump for Blenheim. That is not to imply that I think one is to be preferred above the other, but if I am to indulge the common isolation of one from another, I must say that I think more of architecture than of flowers. Perhaps however, on consideration, I feel more from nature, but that is doubtless irresistible, Nature being infinite; not however such as parlance appropriates for nature. For if nature truly be defined as it ought to be: the totality of existence's environment, then of course we are as much a part of it as the mud and the rhubarb, and no really essential distinction of category should be made betwixt the clay and the claymore.

   Indulging however (as all communication of language must be so to do) the flawed and the common presumptions for the sake of a purpose, I will record my opinions on the great social questions of this imperfect notion of nature, since it dominates thought (too much) at the present day in the western world. Well, what is there much to record except I am weary, along with many others, of being told that the end is nigh? I was kindly presented at the age of 11 with a copy of Albert Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and I watched with emotion the film Armageddon, so that I was nicely conditioned for the general existential dread of the present time. I even made a presentation at primary school of poor Polar Bears (who are some of the finest swimmers) precariously perched on melting ice (as ice tends to do in the summer, especially in Greenland, which thaws and freezes in due season each year), and many other environmental worries, all to the music of Armageddon. I am still proud in memory of the emotional effect of that presentation.

   I am not a rotund and cigar-smoking oil magnate, patting my clinking coin purse, and presently deliberating which poor cow I should blast with my ever handy shotgun, nor am I a leaf-eating and herb-experimenting pale face, who thinks an oven can run on a weather vane and a motorcar on an AAA. I see these archetypes represent the two ends of folly and of sense. I abhor those who throw litter about the environment without a care in the world as to the two thousand years it will take for it to decompose, I think that industrialisation in its works is almost always ugly and illness-aggravating, but does that mean I am persuaded that industrialisation has not immeasurably raised society up in every respect, and that I should put woad upon my face to join an undignified march? Consider this, if a large group of people gathered outside your house Sir or yours Madam with witty banners telling you to do the opposite of something, of watching Only Fools and Horses suppose, and blaring forth chants about how stupid and horrible you and Only Fools and Horses really are, do you think you would be persuaded of their point of view? Or do you think rather that you would be hardened both in your love and appreciation of Only Fools and Horses, and your determination to continue a'watching it?

   Furthermore, I have observed the psychological tendency in mankind to indulge (might I even say relish?) fears in order to bolster hopes; perhaps not even hopes, it may be merely to prop up arguments whose main purpose is to provide a personal sense of importance. So gradually I have come to accept, even after being disillusioned with Albert Gore's terrorising but visually appealing book, that the temperatures of the earth are being affected by our industrial activities. As to climate generally I am not sure we can pass judgement. Climate depends on a vast number of factors other than temperature; geography, plate movements, solar activity, planetary movements, animal habits, and many other things of which I am doubtless ignorant. An example I have read of is that Antarctica is rather paradoxically one of the most volcanic regions on earth, and that there is a gigantic magma chamber underneath doing its fair share of ice melting itself. Such reflections tally with basic reasoning. Here is the syllogism: i. Earth has been here far longer than we have. ii. Earth has evidently had massive climate changes millions of times in its history. iii. Therefore climate change on Earth happens without us. Aye, that is satisfactory, but we are quickening it doubtless - doubtless. Pass the port.

   Pass it, for it is clear there is nothing, short of a startling, genius, and thoroughly improbable, energy development, which is going to stop human industrialisation. It is like ordering bees not to make honey. Industrialisation is happening and will continue to happen on a larger and larger scale because it brings prosperity, it is thoroughly ugly in its environmental effects, but it is almost completely beneficial in its social effects. I do not blame the Africans, the Asians, or the South Americans, living with darkness and disease, for not worrying too much about an extra degree here or there, and wanting the advantage of things we already have. No matter how much already industrialised countries attempt to retard those of the third world, we have no moral right or practical excuse to forbid them the advantages we presently enjoy. If we are to say to them, 'wait till solar, wind, and battery power, have come along', we say to them, 'continue in darkness, continue without healthcare self-maintained, but rely on our generosity (aren't we generous? We shall sleep well to-night in the duck down), food parcels and first aid kits will come every Red Nose Day'. I once had an interesting encounter in a Cornish bookshop with a man who proclaimed he was a communist. I told him I was not, he said, 'helping people is the best and most satisfying thing you can do, it's better than making money, it's better than anything else.' I agreed, 'but how do you help people?' I asked.

   We are altering the climate for the worse it seems. I think it is altering itself as well, and perhaps the only way to know to what extent would be to stop all industrial activity for a decade and see what happens, but that trifling experiment would mean causing the little old side-effect of human civilisation's collapse. I do not like hot temperatures, I do not like oil refineries, but people are not going to accept power outages. I often daydream about living on candles and blankets, but in reality I think the romance would wear thin. What then are the answers?

 

'SOLAR PANELS! EVERYWHERE! 

ON EVERY ROOF! 

WIND TURBINES IN EVERY SEA!

BATTERY POWERED CARS EVERYWHERE!'

 

   I realise solar panels have become the present century's equivalent of a chimbley, but I am sorry, I hate them visually. They are turning historic cities into an awful faux vision of the future; and it is clear they are not reliable enough nor efficient enough to come even remotely close to satisfying the world's energy demands. Maybe they save some people money, maybe they satisfy some shallow consciences, but they are ugly and they are flawed. If they really were the answer they would not be installed on rooftops, they would be in concentrated areas away from residential homes, easily generating our necessary supplies. Instead, they are tacked onto buildings to pay for a half-board half-holiday to Gran Canaria after the span of a decade or two.

   Wind farms look like an invasion of tripods from The War of the Worlds. They fill me with depression, because they ruin so many views out to sea. We cannot even go to the coast now without being reminded of the period in which we are living. That would not of course matter if they were the answer, but again, they are seasonally dependent. They can store energy in batteries but battery technology is antiquated and is decimating the earth's supplies of lithium. These batteries run out in a matter of years and cause much toxic waste. New batteries are being developed it seems, but I doubt the success of those ventures. Because of this, wind power is not the answer, though I recognise it is more substantial than solar power. The blades wear out and are not recyclable (along with most things, despite claims to the contrary). They also, along with most other renewable energy supplies, depend for their manufacture on the fossil fuel economies of the world, especially Asia, so that the entire myth of them reducing our impact on the planet is exploded. It is clear, if the entire world were fully equipped with solar panels and wind turbines, in the stead of all other forms of energy, we would almost immediately run out of power. Geothermal mining upsets the planet's innards, tidal methods upset the fish and sea lanes, the situation is hopeless without nuclear energy. Obviously that is the solution. Hopefully it will become less expensive and complicated to safely use, because it is clearly the most reliable, efficient, and extensive, energy supply which is not a fossil fuel. I realise its waste is a problem, but I am sure it is not an insurmountable problem.

   Of course, it will take time for nuclear energy to become safer and more affordable to use, therefore the western world will continue to use its ugly landscape-blotting alternatives (manufactured with the kind sponsorship of Asian fossil fuels, 't is a farce) while the rest of the world patently ignores all urge to caution. I am worried of course at this prospect, but I am not living in dread like some. It has been said that not all the effects of such warming are negative. The plants enjoy the extra carbon dioxide, and many deserts are now becoming fertile. This aside however, I simply do not accept that the human race is really in threat of extinction through climate change. Evidently there are fewer climate related deaths these days than at any other time in recorded history. Much of that is due to science, much of science is due to industry, and most of industry is due to fossil fuels. I do not want the world to be much warmer (or much colder for that matter) if we can help it, and so logically I look to nuclear energy and its developments. Somehow, I doubt fusion will ever be properly developed, but fission I think should admirably fulfil all needs. I also think that bio-fuels are a much better answer than electric motorcars (which are far more wasteful than combustion motorcars, for they wear out in a decade at most), and doubtless the technology for exhaust absorption will continue apace. Maybe hydrogen will fill the void, maybe not, but lithium strip mining is a horrifying business and I do not know why it is tolerated.

   But I am bored by this subject I must admit. I think all political discussion on it is futile, as the debate will be decided by science and industry. Doubtless industrial carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase at larger quantities and for greater periods of time than most would like, but there is no amount of political posturing will stem that tide, only scientific and engineering prowess. However, I do not think the world will implode due to these emissions Sir David, in ten years or a thousand. The earth has been here in one form or another for billions of years.

   By far the larger threats to the habitats of life are due to other problems which, in my view, are ignored due to the distraction of the red herring which is the greenhouse debate. Terrible farming practices, littering, metal mining, and man's other encroachments, are the biggest threats to the natural world. Why is it that we still use disposable plastic bottles when we can use perfectly good (rather, better) reusable containers of glass, tin, and wood? Reusable I say, rather than recyclable, for I think that recycling is a terrible thing in general. It usually means recycling of synthetic materials such as plastic, which only facilitates the continued use of that material. It does not naturally break down for thousands of years, it is turning into microscopic particles which harm all animals, it is ruining our landscapes and seas. This is a greater peril far than global warming in my view. The rest is silence.