> Personally, I can't take the environmentalist movement too seriously on Keystone. If you really believe it's almost game over on climate, then simply opposing oil sands and pipeline development won't cut it. You have to seriously be pushing the construction of massive solar and wind generating facilities across this country (of course you should also enthusiastically support nuclear, but that's a separate matter).
But it's also kind of hard to take seriously someone who leads with "it's hard to take so-and-so seriously unless they agree with me." It's the difference between looking for positions and looking for allies. Everyone opposing Keystone on other than merely NIMBY grounds is an ally. You've also ignored buckets of caveats on nuclear, but I'm not inclined to engage that question given your sweeping aside, which suggests an unnerving degree of technophilic presumption. Enthusiasm? For nuclear? Srsly? I might buy something like "humbly and contritely terrified willingness" - but enthusiasm? Yikes. Watch "Into Eternity" if you haven't already.
> If solar is to work, you need hundreds of power plants on the scale of the 1000 MW Blythe project being developed today in California, both solar thermal and PV, but especially thermal, and you need them built today. I know environmentalist groups support their construction, but let's be honest - environmentalists are much more passionate about blocking the development of Keystone and oil sands then they are about the development of new solar plants. And I think that's because, in the end, as much as they support clean energy - they favor
> energy conservation (and as a corollary, a low growth technologically steady-state society) much more. I think that's a fundamentally wrong-headed and *moralistic* orientation on their part. But then, I also think growth is essential for the working class, especially once it has attained power.
>
> I agree with Hugo Chavez when he says (in response to strong 4.5% quarterly growth last year): “Well, steady growth once again started within our economy! Let’s push on everyone! Workers in the vanguard! We shall overcome!"
>
> Imagine if he said: "Well, no energy development, zero-growth, less industry, and fewer consumer goods for everyone". I'm pretty sure he'd not have lasted 13 years in office through multiple elections, a coup, and continual imperialist interference.
At the level of mid-term political tactic, sure, of course. But, longer term: "growth" made of what? Value doesn't come solely from productive labour: there's also that pesky, finite, irreducible thing called the planet. When do we open that conversation? And maybe more importantly, is the answer to "when" given in terms of chronological time, ecological time, political time, or what?