Why I'm Not a "Climate Hawk"

Grist blogger David Roberts posed the question, "What should we call people who care about climate change and clean energy?"  and wrote an article for Grist in October 2010 announcing his selection of the name for members of the climate change/clean energy movement: climate hawk. Joseph Romm embraced the idea  on his acclaimed climateprogress.org.  

                  http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/26/2685/CFKUD00Z/posters/johns-chris-a-portrait-of-a-flying-hawk.jpg


So what's a climate hawk?

Roberts and Romms have been searching for something to call the growing group of people who don't identify with the traditional notions and implications of "environmentalism," which comes with a prescribed morality. A morality that works for a lot of people, which is why it caught on... but it doesn't work for everyone. So the people who don't want environmentalism's baggage deserve something to call themselves, something to unify them as a group that is smart, understanding, and ready to work toward solutions to mitigate climate change.

Climate hawks. 


It has a nice ring to it, in my opinion. I think it's an important addition to the today's movement, today's conversation on the future of the planet. But after some thought, I realized that climate hawk-dom is not for me. I'm an old-fashioned, crunchy, Mother Earth lovin' environmentalist. And I'm not ashamed of that fact.

The best demonstration of this is my stance on nuclear energy. I am anti-nuclear energy. I know what you're thinking. "She's irrational" "She's unrealistic, she doesn't understand the situation we're in." But I like to think that I am in fact a pretty rational person, and slightly more knowledgable than the average person in terms of climate change and energy issues.

But I'm still a believer in old-school environmental values. That means I don't believe in expanding our mining practices, which harms ecosystems and damages the landscape. We've damaged enough. I also don't believe in adding more and more radioactive waste that will remain highly dangerous, to people, animals, and plants, for some 10,000 years. I don't believe that it's sensible for us to devote efforts into a fuel source that is bound to run out in a couple of generations. The climate hawks are going to stand up for nuclear power, because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide, and thus doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect. And here's the key split between climate hawks and environmentalists:

Climate hawks are stopping climate change for the good of the human race. Environmentalists are stopping climate change for the good of the earth.

http://sacramentoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/earth-day-2009-sacramento.jpg

I care about the earth- about wildlife, about mountains and coral reefs, about herds of elk and redwood forests. I care about pristine wetlands, and the amazingly impeccable way nature functions without flaw. I want the earth to remain healthy, because it is beautiful and it deserves our respect. In my code of ethics, people should make sacrifices for the good of the earth.

So I care about climate change, about clean energy. Pretty passionately, in fact. But I care about it in a way that still puts me under the environmentalist umbrella, because I care about it in the "green" earthy way. I bet if "climate hawks" and "environmentalists" come together, we'll be pretty darn unstoppable.