Joe, thank you for this long and detailed post. I know you said you didn’t want to know about Peanut the Squirrel, but you really should. This story exemplifies the incoherence of the Magats. Briefly,NY sent a SWAT team to confiscate a wildlife rehabbers pet squirrel and raccoon. The squirrel panicked, bit someone, and was put down. The raccoon cub was also killed. The rehabber was apparently in the process of getting the correct licenses when this happened.
It was awful, and I feel bad for all the innocents involved. But the Magats are screaming that it shows the danger of “big government” and that the democrats will invade our homes, kill our animals, destroy our freedoms, etc—while they, themselves, want the government to interfere in sensitive medical issues, deny women’s rights, and more. Absolutely incoherent.
Poor little Peanut’s death does not show the danger of “big government”, but the danger of militarizing the police—something the Magats are absolutely fine with when those police are turned against peaceful protesters and communities of color.
That really shows how fake their messaging is. The squirrel is everywhere, and I've seen the "big government" rhetoric. But never once do they call out the police, the ACTUAL group committing state violence.
Thank you for making this important point, which had not occurred to me: "Poor little Peanut’s death does not show the danger of “big government”, but the danger of militarizing the police."
I was not personally dismayed about my vote for president, which was for Stein/Ware. I was happy to go on record opposing the duopoly in general and the Genocide in particular. Every vote against the Genocide is a message to the Palestinian people that some of us here stand with them.
I was also happy to vote for Gabe Vasquez for Congress here in NM, in what is the most competitive congressional district in the US. His opponent, Republican Yvette Herrell was the incumbent in 2022 and lost to Gabe by just 1305 votes out of 192,000 cast. Herrell is one of these dominionists who want to privatize all public lands, which would be a horrific disaster. With such a close margin, this really is a contest where every vote counts.
All that being said, my central focus is the environment, and I definitely have dismay about it regardless of whether Harris or Trump wins. Each presents different challenges. Trump and Project 2025 would seek to dismantle environmental regulations, which would be disastrous. But if the previous three Democratic administrations are any indication (Biden, Obama, Clinton), the challenge under Harris will be getting people to see that no, everything's not going to be fine now, and we must hold her administration's feet to the fire to make it do the right thing. I don't relish either outcome. We have an uphill battle either way.
One of my main priorities is protecting wildlife habitat from development and extraction (which is to say, from Capitalism, and also Patriarchy). Unfortunately, one of the biggest threats to ecosystems in the US West is "green energy" development, both from the destructive footprints of the projects themselves (land bulldozed for solar and wind farms, and for the long corridors needed for transmission lines) and the additional mining needed for the projects (lithium for batteries, copper for building out the grid, etc.). It's already a big challenge getting people to see that "green energy" has its own significant environmental costs--often in places like our deserts and steppe lands that up til now had so far managed to escape the worst of industrialism--and that we must take a different path: one of *reducing* our overall footprint of consumption rather than expanding it. We shouldn't even be maintaining it at current levels.
If Harris wins, I will be involved with campaigns pushing back on her administration's plans to destroy western ecosystems, which will mean trying to convince well-meaning liberal people who believe they care about the environment that opposing Harris is necessary. If Trump wins, it's ironic but such "green energy" projects will likely go ahead at about the same pace if his last administration is any measure, because this development isn't really about sustaining the environment, it's about sustaining Capital. Some of the aforementioned liberals will continue pushing for that development, and will cast me as a Trump supporter for opposing it.
So yeah, dismay is certainly a prominent emotion for me right now!!!!
I've covered the topic in my own writing and podcasts a few times and I'll dig up some links for you, and also some links from other sources.
In the meantime, I'll mention:
1) industrial-scaled solar and wind developments that destroy habitat. The deserts of the Southwest in particular have been suffering from such projects. The sites are first bulldozed, which wipes out all plant life, and also the burrows and nests of all the animals who live there. In the popular mind, deserts are empty wastelands but this is very much not true. They are very biodiverse places with some species who live nowhere else, like the endangered Desert Tortoise. I've spent a lot of time in the deserts of Southern California and have seen the beauty myself. It's heartbreaking to see it bulldozed and built over.
Also, for these sites that are built out in the wilderness, transmission lines must be built back to the cities and wherever, and these routes are also bulldozed and kept clear. Typically a road will follow the whole route and this fragments all the landscape it goes through.
2) Lithium mining, like all mining, is terribly destructive. First there's whatever huge hole they make in the ground. Then there's the chemicals that are used to separate the lithium from the surrounding rock, which typically requires sulfuric acid and a sh1t-ton of water. The Great Basin region is where many of the lithium claims are, and the area is quite arid, so drawing down the water is quite harmful. I've also spent a lot of time in these areas, including the proposed lithium mine sites, and again it's heartbreaking seeing these beautiful places destroyed.
Perhaps you've heard of Thacker Pass? That's a well-known lithium mine in Nevada which had a protest encampment for awhile before they got kicked out. You can definitely find info on Thacker Pass through a web search.
Those are examples in the US. Overseas, the mining of rare earth minerals in various countries is also quite destructive. Additionally, there are labor issues, including child slavery.
I really could go on and on about this but will leave it there for now. Again, I'm glad to hear you're interested in learning more. I appreciate your posts here.
What I am not seeing here is any mention of the environment, protection of wildlife, and the future of protecting public lands, etc. With the election of Trump and his agendas Joe Biden appointed Deb Haaland will be replaced by Trump Jr. If you don't think this is important then you are mistaken.
I certainly think that's important! Trump's "plan" to let corporations build housing on previously protected land is absurd and destructive. I don't mean to minimize or overlook that.
Joe, thank you for this long and detailed post. I know you said you didn’t want to know about Peanut the Squirrel, but you really should. This story exemplifies the incoherence of the Magats. Briefly,NY sent a SWAT team to confiscate a wildlife rehabbers pet squirrel and raccoon. The squirrel panicked, bit someone, and was put down. The raccoon cub was also killed. The rehabber was apparently in the process of getting the correct licenses when this happened.
It was awful, and I feel bad for all the innocents involved. But the Magats are screaming that it shows the danger of “big government” and that the democrats will invade our homes, kill our animals, destroy our freedoms, etc—while they, themselves, want the government to interfere in sensitive medical issues, deny women’s rights, and more. Absolutely incoherent.
Poor little Peanut’s death does not show the danger of “big government”, but the danger of militarizing the police—something the Magats are absolutely fine with when those police are turned against peaceful protesters and communities of color.
That really shows how fake their messaging is. The squirrel is everywhere, and I've seen the "big government" rhetoric. But never once do they call out the police, the ACTUAL group committing state violence.
Thank you for making this important point, which had not occurred to me: "Poor little Peanut’s death does not show the danger of “big government”, but the danger of militarizing the police."
Exactly.
Great essay.
I was not personally dismayed about my vote for president, which was for Stein/Ware. I was happy to go on record opposing the duopoly in general and the Genocide in particular. Every vote against the Genocide is a message to the Palestinian people that some of us here stand with them.
I was also happy to vote for Gabe Vasquez for Congress here in NM, in what is the most competitive congressional district in the US. His opponent, Republican Yvette Herrell was the incumbent in 2022 and lost to Gabe by just 1305 votes out of 192,000 cast. Herrell is one of these dominionists who want to privatize all public lands, which would be a horrific disaster. With such a close margin, this really is a contest where every vote counts.
All that being said, my central focus is the environment, and I definitely have dismay about it regardless of whether Harris or Trump wins. Each presents different challenges. Trump and Project 2025 would seek to dismantle environmental regulations, which would be disastrous. But if the previous three Democratic administrations are any indication (Biden, Obama, Clinton), the challenge under Harris will be getting people to see that no, everything's not going to be fine now, and we must hold her administration's feet to the fire to make it do the right thing. I don't relish either outcome. We have an uphill battle either way.
One of my main priorities is protecting wildlife habitat from development and extraction (which is to say, from Capitalism, and also Patriarchy). Unfortunately, one of the biggest threats to ecosystems in the US West is "green energy" development, both from the destructive footprints of the projects themselves (land bulldozed for solar and wind farms, and for the long corridors needed for transmission lines) and the additional mining needed for the projects (lithium for batteries, copper for building out the grid, etc.). It's already a big challenge getting people to see that "green energy" has its own significant environmental costs--often in places like our deserts and steppe lands that up til now had so far managed to escape the worst of industrialism--and that we must take a different path: one of *reducing* our overall footprint of consumption rather than expanding it. We shouldn't even be maintaining it at current levels.
If Harris wins, I will be involved with campaigns pushing back on her administration's plans to destroy western ecosystems, which will mean trying to convince well-meaning liberal people who believe they care about the environment that opposing Harris is necessary. If Trump wins, it's ironic but such "green energy" projects will likely go ahead at about the same pace if his last administration is any measure, because this development isn't really about sustaining the environment, it's about sustaining Capital. Some of the aforementioned liberals will continue pushing for that development, and will cast me as a Trump supporter for opposing it.
So yeah, dismay is certainly a prominent emotion for me right now!!!!
Interesting to hear how "green energy" is being used to destroy wildlife. Could you share any resources where I could learn more?
I'm really glad to hear you're interested. This topic is one of the two main subjects of my Substack here.
A great starting point for learning about the issues and also the individual projects is Basin and Range Watch: https://www.basinandrangewatch2.org/home
I've covered the topic in my own writing and podcasts a few times and I'll dig up some links for you, and also some links from other sources.
In the meantime, I'll mention:
1) industrial-scaled solar and wind developments that destroy habitat. The deserts of the Southwest in particular have been suffering from such projects. The sites are first bulldozed, which wipes out all plant life, and also the burrows and nests of all the animals who live there. In the popular mind, deserts are empty wastelands but this is very much not true. They are very biodiverse places with some species who live nowhere else, like the endangered Desert Tortoise. I've spent a lot of time in the deserts of Southern California and have seen the beauty myself. It's heartbreaking to see it bulldozed and built over.
Also, for these sites that are built out in the wilderness, transmission lines must be built back to the cities and wherever, and these routes are also bulldozed and kept clear. Typically a road will follow the whole route and this fragments all the landscape it goes through.
2) Lithium mining, like all mining, is terribly destructive. First there's whatever huge hole they make in the ground. Then there's the chemicals that are used to separate the lithium from the surrounding rock, which typically requires sulfuric acid and a sh1t-ton of water. The Great Basin region is where many of the lithium claims are, and the area is quite arid, so drawing down the water is quite harmful. I've also spent a lot of time in these areas, including the proposed lithium mine sites, and again it's heartbreaking seeing these beautiful places destroyed.
Perhaps you've heard of Thacker Pass? That's a well-known lithium mine in Nevada which had a protest encampment for awhile before they got kicked out. You can definitely find info on Thacker Pass through a web search.
Those are examples in the US. Overseas, the mining of rare earth minerals in various countries is also quite destructive. Additionally, there are labor issues, including child slavery.
I really could go on and on about this but will leave it there for now. Again, I'm glad to hear you're interested in learning more. I appreciate your posts here.
> One of my main priorities is protecting wildlife habitat from development and extraction (which is to say, from Capitalism, and also Patriarchy)
What does Patriarchy have to do with this? Genuine question.
I actually just posted an essay on this topic here a few weeks ago:
"Patriarchy is an Environmental Issue"
https://substack.com/@kollibri/p-150575809
What I am not seeing here is any mention of the environment, protection of wildlife, and the future of protecting public lands, etc. With the election of Trump and his agendas Joe Biden appointed Deb Haaland will be replaced by Trump Jr. If you don't think this is important then you are mistaken.
I certainly think that's important! Trump's "plan" to let corporations build housing on previously protected land is absurd and destructive. I don't mean to minimize or overlook that.