I think that a lot of confused thinking is going into this issue. Aside from
the recurring question of whether ecologists and environmentalists are the
same, I think we need to distinguish between personal and professional
footprints. Most ecologists I know live quite modestly and are not wasteful.
However research is demanding. How do you survey a large savannah without an
airplane, or at least a 4x4? How do you conduct marine research without
ships, and ships burn a lot of fuel?
Other fields face even more drastic contrasts. The search for low-impact
energy through fission or the use of high-temperature superconductors
requires research that consumes a tremendous amount of energy.
There is also a political issue here. If we follow some lines of reasoning
then ecologists/environmentalists would not fly to meetings or use energy
guzzling computers, we would communicate by mailing letters to each other
and hand-deliver press releases to the media by bicycle. The "bad guys"
could of course take full advantage of modern technology to shout us down.
How effective would we green people be in that case?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lesley Campbell" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
While I'm more than happy to agree that the amount that ecologists
travel (relative to the average earth resident) is an outrageous
disaster,...
