Rattlesnake Hill WMA

There are really two kinds of schools of thought around conservation and environmentalism more generally. There are the back-to-earth types, and more high-tech oriented ways of doing things, emphasizing technological solutions to environmental problems like solar panels, lithium ion batteries, heat pumps, electric cars, etc.

The technocratic environmentalists are often pushing for top-down solutions that use the latest in research to provide solutions to human needs and wants that use advanced materials to reduce per capita carbon emissions. They often look at per capita emissions, multiplying them out by population, and have bold hopes that with the right technologies we as a society can be less polluting and less destructive to the earth. Their much touted-solar and wind farms sound great on paper, but what does it mean to the environment and landscape when a lot of our energy comes from them sprawled out over millions of acres?

In many ways, they seem hopelessly naive. For one thing, many of green things in aggregate are less green, especially those who which use heavy metals like cadmium-infused glass for solar panels or various rare-earths for magnets or even more natural materials like timber or farm crops rather then plastics. Often people are sold on things being compostable, even though they are quickly used and discarded to a landfill which is largely sealed from air, bacteria and water to speed biodegradation. Many material collected for recycling ultimately have no value and end up being landfilled. There definitely is a lot of scams surrounding the green-living, high-tech environmentalism put forward by some.

On the other hand, you have the back-to-the-land homesteaders, the off-griders, and country folk who produce a lot of their own needs from the lands they live in. While their per capita emissions might be higher — not everybody can live on 20 or 40 or even a 100 acres of land — in many ways they are living much closer to the earth. Where they raise and harvest their own meat and vegetables without plastic packaging, generate their own power on-site largely using renewables, manage their own waste by composting, burning, reuse and off-site recycling. Rather then consuming 10.3 MWh of fossil-fueled grid power electricity per year and 400 therms of gas per year, and having bins full of trash weekly trash-haul, they are much more self-sufficient.

Technocratic environmentalists often look down at homesteaders. All ruminants from cows to sheep burp methane when they breakdown hay and grass in their stomachs. Off-grid and farm living often means hauling large machinery and water tanks, which means fuel-hungry pickup trucks. Wood stoves and burn barrels produce noxious smoke at levels far above the urban-dweller who relies on gas or electric heat and uses a municipal landfill or incinerator to dispose of waste. Livestock produce manure and make mud which can run-off and is smelly. Even regulated hunting and trapping consumes animals, even if it’s below levels that significant impacts the environment. Remote locations often require longer commutes both for work and purchasing things.

I am not fan of feel-good environmentalism. Certainly I am willing to embrace green technology if it actually improves sustainability, reduces emissions and protects the environment but it can’t be like so many of green technologies popularly sold today to “do your part”. I do respect those who live close to earth, be it homesteader or farmer, who rejects technology and mass-media crass commercialism. That life might be more enviromentally-impactful on a per capita basis, but better for local environment and certainly the person who lives such a life.