Dot Earth Blog: Is There Room for Varied Approaches to Energy and Climate Progress?

Is there room for more than one approach to pursuing energy and climate progress? I'd like to think so.

On various choices related to America's, and the world's, energy and climate future, I have a different view from those of many good friends and relations. A longtime bandmate pushes hard to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in New York; I seek responsible oversight of gas drilling as an important step down the carbon ladder away from coal.

But we still play together.

My wife and I differ on whether the Indian Point nuclear power plant eight miles from our house should have its license renewed. My view was expressed here and here.

We are lifers, nonetheless.

And Bill McKibben, the author and activist who's been exploring humanity's two-way relationship with climate in parallel with me since the 1980s, has different ways of characterizing the climate challenge than I do, and has chosen a different path toward achieving a sustainable human relationship with the climate.

Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and credit his energy and passion.

But on the Keystone XL pipeline – which, if not blocked by President Obama, would carry the crudest form of oil from Canadian tar sand deposits to Gulf Coast fuel refineries — it seems there's little room for varied stances, at least according to some protesters.

As I wrote in 2011 (here, then here), a tight focus on Obama's decision over the pipeline could be counterproductive if the hope is to build policies that might someday reduce the need for oil, whether the source is Alberta oil sands, the floor of the Gulf of Mexico or the Niger River delta. (A solid review of the climate impact was provided by Raymond Pierrehumbert on Realclimate.org in 2011.)

But Wen Stephenson, a former Atlantic and Boston Globe editor who has become a climate campaigner on behalf of his, and others', children, sees little room for dialogue.

On Twitter yesterday, I engaged in some discussions of the pipeline protests with Michael Levi, who analyzes energy and climate issues for the Council on Foreign Relations, and Phil Aroneanu, a co-founder of 350.org (and, like me, a left-handed banjo player!).

Stephenson chimed in with this:

@Revkin @levi_m 50,000 people come out to fight for our kids' future, and you dump on it. You are what we're fighting. @philaroneanu
— Wen Stephenson (@wenstephenson) 18 Feb 13

I have developed a pretty thick skin in recent years, which is a requirement if you inhabit the bombarded no man's land between the poles bounding eco-political discourse. But I had to respond, musing on what appeared to be Stephenson's "my way or the highway" environmentalism. I added: "I thought progressives were about rainbow coalitions and big tents."

Luckily the Twitter conversation between Aroneanu, Levi and me continued productively, including a vow by the two of us who play banjo to jam sometime soon.

At the same time, Jason Mark, who manages the Alemany Farm in a tough San Francisco neighborhood and edits Earth Island Journal, asked this question:

.@Revkin: I would love to hear YOUR thoughts on best strategies for green groups. Wld make interesting Dot-Earth post cc @philaroneanu
— Jason Mark (@writerfarmer) 18 Feb 13

I answered with two suggested first steps:

@writerfarmer @philaroneanu 1. Watch '03 Smalley talk: http://t.co/TtmBGuTZ 2. Assess with Serenity Prayer in mind. http://t.co/pE4jEttW
— Andy Revkin (@Revkin) 18 Feb 13

Here's a direct link to the opening section of the 2003 lecture that I described in telegraphic fashion on Twitter — an inspiring talk given repeatedly in 2003 by Richard Smalley, the chemistry Nobelist who spent his final years on the planet speaking about the great opportunities that lay in pursuit of a durable energy menu:

I look forward to engaging with Jason Mark, Wen Stephenson or anyone else on the lessons that can be drawn from Smalley's talk and the Serenity Prayer (tattoo by Collin Kasyan).