Hakim Bey assesses anarcho-primitivism here.

As an aftermath of my personal history (I previously subscribed to the blackest of misanthropic environmentalist lines possible) as well as a consequence of my fathomless interest with esoteric leftist strands I feel some form of ken with the dedicated environmentalist left, but have never felt truly comfortable amongst them.

Perhaps the largest single factor in this is their incessant & utterly inane usage of the word “natural”.

I am fairly sure that all readers will be familiar with the usage of this propogated by such groups (and now the rest of society, since “green” ideology has spread from lefty councils to the pages of various Daily Telegraph magazines, with everyone from George Monbiot to Prince Charles outspoken advocates), but upon the off-chance: anything which has had prolonged or excessive contact with a factory is not natural. Something which has been grown in a field by a farmer who goes out of his way not to seem to much like a member of contemporary existence is natural. Pears are natural, Sunny D is not.

Now let’s be fair: this is hardly a definition confined to the left, or to environmentalists. It’s pretty widely accepted, despite being deeply wrong. It might not even have been coined by greens, I really don’t know. But the importance of this word to the neo-hippies is fairly obviously fairly massive, so their inappropriate usage is especially pertinent as an issue as they are the ones that use it most and they are the ones who use this concept of natural to prop up a significant section of their ideology. They rely upon the unnatural nature of humans: without it a vast section of their rhetoric and many of their positions would make no sense at all upon any level. For that reason it is of utmost importance that humans as unnatural is flawless.

I would have thought that the flaw behind it would have been fairly obvious, but seemingly I have to actually point this out: humans are not supernatural beings. We are natural creatures who operate within the natural world, pursuing natural aims using materials extracted from it and methods which function within its surroundings. We are the most sophisticated species but we are just another species all the same, just as a runner with the greatest achievements in this field of any Olympian upon the planet remains a mere runner. Humanity is natural. Our influence is as one part of nature in interaction with the rest.

And yes, this does mean that everything from hair dye to sodium pentothal is perfectly natural. Why would a being wish to die their hair? A series of natural motivations, of course. Most likely the desire to become more attractive, thus be in a position where you can impress your peer group and better attract a mate. What differentiates this from a bird building a nest of sticks or an ape using twigs to pry out tree-trapped bugs? Nothing save intricacy: humans have more complex problems and corresponding solutions, yet they never resort to the paranormal. Ultimately only someone who imagines humans to be non-animal would argue for us being un-natural.

Which is where things get really interesting.

So far as I can determine the only plausible source for this notion of humans as external to the natural world is to be found in Christianity, as well as similar religions. In Christianity humans are made in the image of God, a supernatural being. Jesus Christ, a second (or fused) supernatural being descended to Earth in order to save them and as a consequence of his supernatural bond allowed for a connection between the material and divine that would allow humans to reach a supernatural resting place. Interaction between the two occurred previously via the third of the trio, a totally disembodied spirit which touches the mundane with the divine upon special occasions, which theologians argue over the specifics of endlessly.

Humans are distinct from animal and from nature: animals have no souls and thus no supernatural nature or future. Humans have free will, something which animals are devoid of. In short, there is an inherent dichotomy.

This remnant is  a pretty substantial one. It is unsurprising that the environmentalist left are making extensive use of it, given that its not all that often you have access to something with such cultural heft. Let alone without anyone noticing…

Where the problems start to begin though is when we attempt to reconcile this notion with another usually posited by those who view little else as of greater importance than the naturality of consumed goods: vegetarianism. Vegetarianism largely depends upon the distinction between humanity as a species and those it presently devours being eroded and weakened. How can you argue in favour of animals being brought closer to humans in terms of rights while emphasising constantly the division that exists between humanity and other animals?

Environmentalists seek to emphasise the dichotomy of humanity and animal while also making efforts to disintegrate it entirely. It is perfectly possible to hold one position or the other (personally I would argue that humanism was a fantastic side, but we need to look into expanding the franchise) but to attempt both at once is clearly an example of intellectual incoherence.

I’m likely to avoid posting for much of the next 3 days; so, as a shortened form of holiday reading, here’s the hugely impressive Green New Deal, on which I’ll write a review in the very near future.

George Monbiot was featured on Newsnight last night, with the significant words “I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear”. His argument was that a new generation of coal power plants should be resisted, even if that meant advocating nuclear plants in their place. Coal is much less clean than nuclear power, and renewable energy sources cannot be created with the speed needed to fill the gap created by soon-to-be decommissioned nuclear plants. New nuclear plants are the most sensible option.

The argument has split the green movement. Traditionally opposed to nuclear power as a great unknown - carbon damage is calculable, but potential nuclear fallout is not - green campaigners have long advocated pouring resources into renewable energy. In classic Stern Report mentality, if we had started investing sensibly in renewable energy when the green movement was in its infancy, we would not be in the current quandary. Like Stern to combating climate change, the potential economic cost to becoming self-sufficient with renewable energy is rising all the time. So we have to think sensibly before we begin throwing more money (and several more decades of use) at non-renewable technologies.

If we accept that we will, one day, run out of fossil fuels, then we accept that it is in our interests to invest in renewable technology. But this is a slow process: it should have begun long ago, and it should certainly begin now, but it cannot possibly meet our demands in the meantime. Something has to fill the gap.

Coal is not the answer. Even new “clean coal” power stations are heavily polluting, as a constant stream of carbon is pumped through inadequate filters into the atmosphere. This is not the stuff of 100 years ago, but is certainly far from clean.  Coal is not a 21st Century answer to a 19th Century problem.

So it seems to me that we need to invest in renewable resources as a first priority, but also that we must meet demand with the least worst option until renewable energy is a practical solution.  The least worst option is nuclear power: its effects on the environment are nothing to those of coal, and its potential as a clean fuel source have not yet reached their full potential.  On simple grounds of sustainability, we should pursue a policy of renewable sources, with nuclear filling the gaps where necessary.  Coal power stations have no place in the UK today, and we certainly should not be building any more.

If the green movement takes itself seriously, it will actively support nuclear power over coal.