Enjoy the view from the end of the world — cheer it on!
Raw Video: Huge Glacier Collapse in Argentina – YouTube.
And we’ve got a “truly exceptional” outbreak of deadly tornadoes. Weather on steroids. No, no one weather event can be attributed to global warming, but to ignore the broad context of these extreme events would be blind and stupid.
Ocean acidification (caused by CO2 dissolving in ocean water, creating carbonic acid) is increasing at the highest rate in 300 million years, with disastrous effects for ocean life and the food chain generally — and we may be on our way to a mass extinction seen only five times before in 540 million years of multicellular life.
And we’re in denial. Sure, the right denies that it’s real, which is mule-headed and monstrous. But give them credit — climate denial is a priority to them. On the other hand, the left simply fails to make it a priority. It’s not a main priority on the major lefty blogs — Kos, etc. The Occupy folks, who have done an immense amount of good, are mostly fixated on pocketbook/class issues,m and hardly mention climate. In calling for cleaner energy, the President doesn’t even mention global warming and its likely consequences — flooding, starvation, political instability (war), entire regions and industries decimated by drought or flood, and so forth.
We are in denial, in Massachusetts. The local effects of climate change will likely not be brought into our Senate race. Why? No one wants to hear about it. Too depressing. We want to hear about foreclosures and the middle class and the political horse races, because it’s pressing stuff, and maybe we can do something about it. The climate seems to fit into the important-not-urgent square, ie. the place to be ignored and pushed off: Too depressing.
I read that certain churches have suggested a carbon fast as a Lenten discipline. On one hand, it’s good to be made aware on a personal basis what one does with one’s carbon to get through the day. But I also think it misses the point. Personal virtue and atomized action will not prevent disaster, because personal evil didn’t cause the problem. It’s political dysfunction that’s driving us into the ditch: Capture of our politicians, our elections, and our public discourse by those whose revenue streams depend on the continuation and expansion of a fossil fuel economy.
On this blog, there are only a handful of people interested enough to blog or comment on these issues. Personally, I find it so discouraging that I can only bring myself to post on it every once in a while. That’s weak and unacceptable.
And sometimes I hear that screaming bloody murder about this issue simply turns people off. Change the subject to something more positive — like jobs, and clean energy. Gray skies are gonna clear up!
Sorry, I have no use for that line of reasoning. If the buliding’s on fire, I yell “FIRE”! I don’t suggest to people that it’s a lovely day outside and wouldn’t it be nice to go for a stroll? If my kid steps into traffic, I don’t try to coax him to come back to the sidewalk with soothing words. I don’t hear those who are concerned with terrorism or foreign military threats pulling their rhetorical punches in such a way. If something is dangerous, you damn well say so. That’s common sense.
Christ, do you you want your kids to grow up in a world of catastrophe and strife? The future gets here whether you’re prepared for it or not. We can’t control what happens or when; but we can decide not to go down without a fight — yes, one with a lot of [metaphorical] blood and teeth on the floor.
We need to wake the hell up.
stomv says
but what exactly should we be discussing in the threads that you do create on GHG emissions?
Charley on the MTA says
a concerted effort to make this a major issue for the center-left and whomever else gives a damn. The issue gets freaking *ignored* most of the time by the press, because they’re catering the prejudices (real or imagined) of their audiences, and a big chunk of the audience doesn’t want to hear it.
I want to hear how folks have bothered their electeds and candidates no end about this issue. I want to hear it be a salient, motivating, urgent factor in elections. I want the political pressure to do something to increase massively. I want to hear it brought up in candidate events, in letters, at protests.
I want it back on top of the agenda. Nothing less. All the economic stuff we’re going through — and it is real — is tiddlywinks compared to what we’re going to go through.
Have I done enough? Hell no. I don’t hold myself out to be a model for jack squat. But if I waited for myself to become perfect I’d never roll out of bed.
kbusch says
The recklessly low concern about climate change seems rooted in some kind of cognitive bias. We humans are more willing to be inconvenienced because of Al Qaeda than because of the threat that climate change will destroy agriculture.
kirth says
They collaborated in and validated the character assassination of Al Gore when he mounted a campaign to make climate change a priority issue. They persist in pretending that deniers’ opinions are just as worthy as the judgements of climate scientists, and ignoring the often vested interests of those deniers. Until the media stops doing those things, and actually displays some semblance of the appropriate alarm, the public will not demand action from their government. Given the control that the corporate establishment exercises over the media, a major event of some kind is required to break through their wall of fog.
Bob Neer says
I agree with you, but raging against consumption the way the mainstream environmental movement does is not going to change the paradigm. Even if it does in the US it won’t in China etc. and since the world is a closed system the net result will still be disastrous. The only constructive way forward is to make clean energy in people’s economic interest by creating a gold rush into the technologies through government action. That is what we should be pushing for.
kirth says
China’s efforts in the area of renewable energy actually exceed those of the US, and they have committed to accelerate renewable development. It’s true that they burn a lot of coal and suffer the consequences, but they are at least acting to change that to some extent. Until we put our own house in order, it’s not a good idea to point fingers at them.
kirth says
China spends US$50 billion a year on renewable energy
Charley on the MTA says
I don’t even necessarily disagree with this, but it’s not our job as activists. It’s the job of politicians to figure out how to respond. Our job is first and foremost to make a big stink, to make them pay attention and respond.
Again, if there’s a fire, you should scream FIRE!!! as loudly as you can — then show how to leave the building. No one will leave if they don’t think or know there’s a fire.
ramuel-m-raagas says
that glaciers do not hold up. My Framingham neighbors actually do cheer on… the near-extinction of snow. Anyway, please vote for me, Ramuel M. Raagas, tomorrow, Tuesday, March 6, 2012 and thirty-four (34) more on-the-ballot Democrats for our Town Committee.
bean says
I drive a Prius, subscribe to NStar’s green offering (more expensive electric rates for electricity purchased from wind farms), replaced our incandescent bulbs with more efficirnt CFLs, grow my own vegetables each summer, vote for the greener candidate when I get a chance, but these sorts of choices are just symbolic until enough people buy in to make systemic changes.
stomv says
I’m in the same sailboat you are… my family’s carbon footprint is extremely small*.
I guess all that’s left is to encourage and help your neighbors make the same kinds of incremental choices you make, and to force the issue politically. Ontario Canada has decided to eliminate coal fired power plants from their province, and are well more than halfway there in just a few years.** Do we have that kind of political demand in Massachusetts? We could…
* The single largest contribution is airplane consumption, which in 2012 will be rather large. It was quite small 2008-2011.
** They’re replacing the lost capacity with a combination of natural gas, upratings on existing nuclear power plants, hydro and wind and solar, and energy efficiency. In the short term, gas is the majority — but the plan is to keep pushing on those other things to move more and more of their electricity off of fossil. Ontario has more than twice the number of people as Boston, and Toronto metro is more populous than Boston metro. It can be done.
SomervilleTom says
Until we change the media, any attempt to emphasize climate change is suicidal. Yet it is suicidal NOT to emphasize climate change.
The media will and do characterize any attempt to act on climate change as left-wing politics. The right wing has succeeded at making the denialist narrative our political truth. That means that emphasizing climate change will not only lose this election, but will only serve to strengthen the anti-science and anti-intellectual sloth of the rabid-right (until we all perish).
The only alternative I see (and it is a terrible one) is to triage this (things that will happen anyway, things I can affect, things that won’t happen anyway, focus on the middle). While it is arguably the most important issue of our time, it is also the issue that I and we can do the least amount to change (at least between now and a year from now). If somebody else comes up with an approach that works, I will enthusiastically support it and them.
The beaker is boiling, and the smart frogs have already jumped out. We’re still well on our way to a nice pot of frog stew.
kirth says
but where did the smart frogs jump to? Are we talking survivalists here, or what? Frankly, I don’t think there’s anywhere to jump to.
SomervilleTom says
The US is virtually alone among first-world nations in actually denying the science of climate change. The rest of the world is, frankly, dumbfounded by our paralysis.
I really can’t imagine how this plays out, and it’s very hard to find scenarios that end well for America.
dont-get-cute says
We should be banning porn and spam over the internet, taxing internet use and movies and sporting events to reduce viewers and reduce how many movies and sporting events there are, prohibiting elective and unnecessary procedures like IVF and sperm and egg donation to stop those high consumers from being born and the energy being spent creating them, . Until we start showing we are willing to give up some of the things we demand, or at least pay a little tax on them, no one will take it seriously.
SomervilleTom says
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about or how this comment relates to climate change. Perhaps you’re tin hat needs adjustment.
dont-get-cute says
If the left isn’t willing to give up anything sacred to them then the right won’t either. IVF for SUVs, take it or leave it.
stomv says
nor should they
scout says
n/t
michaelbate says
Yes, the things you selectively mention are related to our energy use, but it seems to me that anyone who actually supports free markets should support pricing commodities, including energy, at their true cost. The price would include the cost of pollution and its effects: illness, premature death, oil spills, increased catastrophic weather events. The price of nuclear power would include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste (the problems in Japan were exacerbated by the fact that spent rods were stored on site).
We are not willing to pay these costs up front in the price of energy, because our economy has been based on cheap and readily available energy. So we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in many ways.
Sooner or later this is going to have to change. If we paid the true cost of fossil fuel energy, clean energy sources would be far more attractive, and our world would be far cleaner and more healthful.
michaelhoran says
Thanks much for pointing this out:
I’m reminded of Derrick Jensen’s As The World Burns: 50 Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial, which makes the case that changing our light bulbs and inflating our tires–“liestyle liberalism” isn’t going to do the trick. Jensen himself is something of an anarcho-primitivist, and his sympathies are with ELF-types, but the call for collective action is there nonetheless.
The discussion above is interesting. I know more than a few “collapsitarians” who seem to welcome the idea of system-wide collapse due the confluence of climate change + peak oil; they see, at the end of the tunnel, something like Bedford Falls reborn: localized economies, everyone bicycling to work, nothing but sustainable practices across the board. Not me. I see the war of all against all. And I’m not interested in biking to work in a normal NE winter, either. Nor do I think we win by admonishing folks to simply give stuff up; I leave changing the hearts and mind of our culture to others. In short, I don’t think evangelizing on behalf of the “no-growth economy” is going to win much support; I leave that to my former comrades among the Greens.
But “climate change” isn’t a phrase that politicians should eschew. I was heartened to hear President Obama use the exact term in the SotU; of course, the context was, “…is not something we can do anything about right now.” But I’d like to see more use of the bully pulpit by the President, whose performance in Copenhagen was dismal and whose support for any meaningful action has been desultory at best. The temporary ban on the Keystone pipeline was mildly heartening, but I don’t believe that the administration ever directly addrssed the real reason why the project shouldn’t get off the ground (though Harry Reid did in calling the Tar Sands an “”unsustainable supply of dirty and polluting oil”).
This is, admittedly, one reason why I’m disappointed in Elizabeth Warren. She strikes me as very weak on the issue. While I’m currently supporting Marisa DeFranco, I do wish Bob Massie had stayed in the race, if only because he did keep the issue at “the top of the agenda.” (Pleased to see yesterday that Massie was just appointed President of the New Economics Institute). In re charley’s challenge, I DO press my candidate–all of my candidates–to talk about this issue honestly and openly and forcefully; I really fear that the false dichotomy –“jobs/growth vs sustainability” — perpetuated by the deniers and the media is turning “climate change” into a third rail.
[BTW, not sure that “banning porn” is actually going to play well as a trade-off with the Right: “According to a nationwide study of anonymous online credit card transactions, Americans living in traditionally religious, conservative states consume more online porn than their godless liberal blue state fellow citizens, with Utah leading the way.”
kbusch says
Without giving stuff up, climate change cannot be slowed or arrested. And the longer we defer that, the more the atmospheric levels of CO2 rise and the more drastic the required asceticism we as a species will have to impose on ourselves.
Estimates are that a 4 degree centigrade increase will decrease the earth’s carrying capacity for humans to 1 billion. One shudders to think of what’ll happen to the remaining 7 or 8 billion. Milder asceticism now is better than more severe asceticism later.
stomv says
Buildings consume about 1/3 of our energy, mostly in the form of natural gas and oil fossil fuels. Building new and improving existing buildings to be more energy efficient doesn’t require giving up the building space. More efficient vehicles exist in every single auto class and size; we could drive ’em [and offer more effective mass transit, thereby *gaining* transportation choice]. Our electricity is currently about 45% coal. It could be 0% coal, replaced with solar and wind. The lights will still come on, and the long term cost of renewables is cost comparable with coal and gas and *cheaper* than nuclear.
There are efficiencies available all over the place. Same output, less input required. That’s not giving up stuff.