(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
UKR Sebastopol attack may be beneficial, but dismissal of environmental concern is not. [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2023-05-02
UKR Sebastopol attack may be beneficial, but Mark’s dismissal of environmental concern is not.
Saturday, I read Mark’s post on the Ukraine war as I do my best to read them all (along with Kos’)
to keep up.
www.dailykos.com/...
In it he describes the destruction of fuel reserves at the Port of Sevastopol, which services the Russian fleet in the Black Sea.
For a brief moment my spirits lifted when I read this: “On social media this morning there are frequently expressed concerns about the environmental damage caused by the reported Ukrainian attack.”, as I had hopes that Mark was going to constructively address the environmental damage wrought by this strike.
But unfortunately I was immediately brought up short when I read on: “While the towering column of black smoke does look apocalyptic, that's what happens when 300,000 barrels of petroleum products gets burned. This oil was always going to be burned. Russia’s plan was just to burn it a little at a time, powering their warships around the Black Sea. Ukraine changed that plan.”
…and then this disheartened me: “For now, just enjoy the scene, which is available from dozens of different vantage points around the city. Perhaps pull out a Deep Purple (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwEIt9ez7M) album while you watch. Seems appropriate.”
This I found this deeply distressing.
As I am environmentally well informed, I find waste of any kind disturbing and I minimize my own vigilantly. So reasoning that, because this fuel was going to be ‘burned’ anyway, it’s OK to sit back and ‘enjoy’ watching it create environmental destruction, as if it’s a computer game, floored me. Musical accompaniment not only doesn’t make it palatable, it actually heightens the surreal dystopian horror of it all as it unfolds before me.
Just suggesting this is a manifestation of desensitization and that’s a major part of our problems as a species. World-wearied numbing of concern, such as this, fosters cognitive dissonance, which greatly inhibits our ability to address climate collapse.
Mark’s conclusion regarding the environmental impact of this destruction is so illogical it should be indefensible, but judging from the comments thread, this appears not to be the case.
‘Sun dog’ left the first comment and was on the right track:
Sun dog
“Not gonna lie. I really can’t enjoy watching all that oil burn dirty right into the atmosphere. I mean, I get it as a strike in the war but it really is horrific. And purely Russia’s fault. Everything that happens in this war is ultimately on them. “
philS replied first and took it further in the same direction:
philS re Sun dog
“Sun dog — I agree. The war’s environmental damage to Ukraine is incalculable, as Mark wrote in a previous post. I too get upset when people seem to be looking at the war like they’re watching 4th of July fireworks. I won’t point fingers but, folks, even if Ukraine wins and the crazy Russians loose, which I sincerely hope happens, Ukraine will never be the same again. In fact the world will never be the same.”
However, his ‘crazy Russian’ remark sent the thread off in a new direction and it wasn’t until much further along the topic of environmental damage was picked up again by Torta:
Torta re Sun dog
“I know what you mean. And yet Mark’s counter argument (all that oil was always going to burn and end up in the environment, just not so dramatically) is also true.”
…to which jjohnjj replied
jjohnjj re Sun dog
“Same here… but the greenhouse gas in that fuel was going to be released eventually — from the engines of Russian ships, vehicles and aircraft. The particulates in the smoke are less of a problem.”
…followed with this from Denver11
Denver11 re Sun dog
“As noted by Mark, it was gonna burn somewhere, somehow. I have no idea if there is any marginal difference in the amount of CO2 released by this kind of burn vs a jet engine but I imagine any difference, either direction is fractional.”
What follows, with few exceptions is a long thread of fuel consumption vs environmental damage rationalization wrapped up as ‘analysis’.
What’s being missed here, by nearly everyone, starting with Mark, is that ultimately twice as much gas and oil will be consumed, as that which was destroyed in the attack will need to be replaced.
The fact that burned fuel was going to be consumed anyway does not negate the net loss and the extra damage to the environment.
It doubles the amount to be consumed for the same logistical results, which results in double the amount of ‘burned’ fuel, releasing double the amount of CO2, methane and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
Furthermore there will be more loss incurred by the necessity of rebuilding the storage facilities. I fully get that this is ‘the cost of war’, but that doesn’t aid me in accepting the collateral damage done to the environment as incidental and non-consequential.
The reasoning offered by Mark to ‘move along now’, which appears to have been accepted by most of the commenters, is a common form of rationalization grounded in denial and cognitive dissonance.
Recently I had a conversation with someone who had just returned from Europe. When I mentioned that I was limiting myself to one trip involving air travel each year (it’s actually turning out to be less) he wanted to know why. When I explained that air travel was highly damaging to the environment, he responded this way: “If I didn’t fill that seat, someone else would.”
This rationalization does not hold up, because that is simply not the way filling seats works. In the majority of cases another seat will be provided or when that’s not possible, the traveler may opt for an alternative airline. Occasionally a trip may need to be rescheduled or canceled altogether, but it seldom comes to that.
That hypothetical ‘other’ person will usually manage to book their flight and the airline will do whatever they can to accommodate both my acquaintance and his ‘replacement’.
Not flying does create a debit and incrementally contributes toward less flights.
In many ways the same applies to the waste generated by the Sebastopol explosions. In both cases ‘pat’ answers are employed to avoid an inconvenient reality, which ‘make sense’ so long as they’re accepted whole cloth and not questioned.
Had the explosions not taken place, that fuel could have been used, ultimately lessening the total amount consumed by the war.
My purpose here is to clarify this dissonance generated confusion and amplify it as a post.
To the severe detriment of all of us, denial and cognitive dissonance still rule DK.
My intention is not to ‘bash’ anyone for it, least of all Mark, whom I retain a high regard for, but rather to expose the effects that denial is having on a major portion of DK members.
Denial is an important tool in our survival tool-box, but in its present form, denial is a shapeshifting, brain ‘parasite’ that masks its symptoms. I am constantly on guard trying to defend myself from it and I am empathetic when I see the effect it has on others.
However, I also recognize it as ‘public enemy #1’ when it comes to environmental pro-action.
If this site is to ever fully manifest its mandate to address the most critical political issue of our time, we must first become aware of the ways in which denial and cognitive dissonance are successfully blocking this effort.
Or, we can wait for climate collapse to plow down this barrier and drive us to action with a barbed whip, by which time it may be too late.
__________________________________________
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/2/2167090/-UKR-Sebastopol-attack-may-be-beneficial-but-Mark-s-dismissal-of-environmental-concern-is-not
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
