So earnest it hurts.The new climate anthem is out—you know, the remake of “Beds Are Burning” that features such hip, 21st-century acts as Duran Duran, Bob Geldof, and Youssou N’Dour—and I can’t get it out of my head.
Actually, it left my head pretty much as soon as the 4:02 video ended. But I was struck by, and can’t stop thinking about, the fact that the modified language in the song goes like this: “The time has come/to take a stand/it’s for the Earth/it’s for our land.”
I expect this to resonate with exactly no one.
Right? Of all the ways to get people fired up about the urgency of the climate issue, is “land” going to get the job done?
This notion keeps surfacing in discussions at Grist—first when Obama gave his speech, and laid out the various reasons the U.S. needed to take action. (Not any plan for taking action, but some darn good reasons why we should think seriously about it.) Then with the debut of the latest Ken Burns documentary, the one on the national parks. Associated with that program has been a fair amount of press (and press releases) warning of the damage that climate change could inflict on our treasured parks—Glacier losing its glaciers, Joshua Tree losing its Joshua trees, and so forth.
Which is a bummer, to be sure—even tragic in some sense. But is it tragic to someone who can’t find a job? For that matter, is it tragic to someone who has a great job and all the comforts that go along with it?
There was a time when protecting land was enough to get environmentalists and their allies all fired up. That’s what got the movement going. And to be sure, there is still important work going on in that arena. But as a way in to the climate issue, I think we can do better.
How about drawing the connections to jobs, or health, or the despicable folk who run our slimiest corporations? How about saving money or protecting your children?
Or how about thinking of some shiny new ways to get people to “care” about the climate. How about making it a competition to see which country can lower its emissions most—winner gets free ice cream for every citizen! How about making a new reality show in which industries face off against each other, American Gladiator-style, for the right to emit? How about tying it to sex? Surely there’s a way to tie it to sex.
I think they should redo that video.
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
cyberfarer Posted 10:39 am
01 Oct 2009
The question is so steeped in the arrogance of humanity that it's truly stupefying. Why not ask does anyone care about "the water"? Unbelievable.
Permalink
landlover Posted 11:58 am
01 Oct 2009
If we don't care about the land, then what do we care about? What is it that makes you, Ms. Wroth, interested in environmental issues? Are you more interested in buildings? Recycling? A connection to the land is universal and apolitical. Ranchers, loggers, birders, and tree-sitters all care for the land. I can't think of a better commonality to rally people around.
If people have truly lost their connection with the land, as you imply, then we are in very big trouble. Land-less environmentalism is no more than a fad which will pass as quickly as it has become trendy. This disconnect is as scary to me as the worst predictions for global catastrophe.
Modern, urban environmentalism and sustainabilityism often reflect this disconnection from the land, neglecting the ultimate need for environmentalism, i.e. protecting, maintaining, and restoring the ecosystems that allow for human and non-human life to exist. Instead the focus among the disconnected has too often become mind-numbing recycling campaigns and the like which fall into the "re-arranging the deck chairs" category.
Take a walk people!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:05 pm
01 Oct 2009
If the climate cooks the earth's crust to a crisp, alliteratively speaking, the land will be as lifeless as the clouds of water vapor obscuring the sun. My 2 cents.
Erik, Orion Grassroots Network
Permalink
katmainomad Posted 12:29 pm
01 Oct 2009
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 1:03 pm
01 Oct 2009
This article and discussion underlines the absolute and remarkable disconnect between people and the very foundations of our existence on this planet.
Permalink
ohiopapa Posted 3:07 pm
01 Oct 2009
Try again, guys!
Permalink
tallgrass Posted 4:41 pm
01 Oct 2009
Jobs, health, corporations, and money are also dependent on protecting "the land"...none of this will matter much if we don't have food to eat or our ecological systems are in a state of chaos. We can't all live in a giant bubble without "the land".
With most people no longer living or working on "the land" or even knowing much about "the land" and how much they depend on it (including the author), I wonder where we as a civilization are headed regardless of climate change. Maybe we need more experience with "the land" to actually make a difference.
The "land" may not be very sexy, but it is crucial.
Permalink
tallgrass Posted 4:41 pm
01 Oct 2009
Permalink
tallgrass Posted 4:43 pm
01 Oct 2009
Permalink
craigp42 Posted 6:16 am
02 Oct 2009
Permalink
MarkAB Posted 7:53 am
02 Oct 2009
In a world where everything of "value" has been reduced to a 15 second sound bite and reasoning is not allowed to compete with brute visceral emotion, the message of why it is important to protect and work for something beyond ones immediately apparent self is obviously being lost. A thinking person does not need to be told that many issues are often complex, may contain numerous variables and actions often result in unforeseen and unintended effects.
But that's just it... we DO NOT live in a world where, for the majority, reason carries more weight than extremely short term self interest.
So, let's stop carping amongst ourselves, craft short, hard hitting, sound bites that in an overly simple fashion hammer home how it is in "my (their)" personal short term advantage to do this thing (whatever it is) and stay on message! We have to get real smart, real fast! Make no mistake, those who are arrayed against a sane environmental approach are, in fact, motivated by their perception of personal gain and are quite effective at exploiting emotion (primarily greed and fear) to manipulate others. That's what works and if you don't believe it just look at how much is spent on commercials and contributions (read bribes) to elected officials.
Permalink
johnthetreehugger Posted 12:44 pm
02 Oct 2009
Please redo your attitude.
You and urban, urbane, disconnected, people like you, are part of the reason why we have a climate/environmental crisis to begin with.
No connection to, relationship with, love for, "the land" = no defense of it, no understanding of it, no work to live with it in a more reasonable way.
instead of asking (and i can just hear the snide, valley girl, accent) "does anyone even still care about 'the land'"?
you should be asking HOW to connect yourself and the jobless you seem to be so concerned about to "the land".
"the land" is what keeps your ass alive. It filters your water, it provides space and nutrients for what soaks up carbon and gives off oxygen, it makes soil, it hosts a stunning array of critters big and small, it is beautiful, it is alive.
come down here to Appalachia. Most of the poor folks out in the mountains still have a connection to the land. We know (those of us not on Oxy or strip mining at least) that connecting with the land, caring about the land, using the land, are integral to our health, our jobs, and our children's future. And we know that people in suits who live mostly in cities either run or invest in the corporations that are wrecking "the land" and with it, the climate.
Most people will fight for what they love. Planet Earth, jobs and CEO's are essentially abstractions. My friends kids playing in Hick's Creek and me learning the varieties of trees and flowers on that watershed are not. I love that land and I will fight for it.
It is much easier to extend love for and defense of an entire planet if you start with your own backyard or favorite life-giving place.
If you want to keep yourself disconnected from that which gives you life, fine. Keep it to yourself. I come to this website to read quirky environmental commentary, not snide, urbane disses of concepts that have been central to the last 15 plus years of my environmental activism, and indeed the entire environmental/conservation/preservation movements since their inception.
And, just so you know, the environmental movement I joined in the early 90's was waaaay more fun, confrontational, creative, smart, and smart ass than what passes for activism these days. And most of those folks care about "the land", many of them were jobless, had kids and did NOT live in cities.
I'm still a little floored at your attitude. It is a sad sign of our collective failures as a movement and as a species.
Permalink
Katharine Wroth Posted 1:53 pm
02 Oct 2009
We agree here, name-calling aside, that there's a huge disconnect between many, many people and the land that sustains humanity -- which means in order to use it as the primary rallying cry on the climate issue, you'd have to first convince the disconnected to feel something about it. We don't seem to have time for that.
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 6:23 pm
02 Oct 2009
Thank you for wading in.
Whatever your intention, the implied message is that because there is a disconnect, the rallying cry for the climate fight ought to focus on what is relevant to the disconnected such as "jobs" and "a great job and all the comforts that go along with it".
But, you see, if we don't have time to reconnect the disconnected to the issue of land (and land is far more than parks), then we don't have time at all.
Take any of the comforts that come from a great job. If we view a Prius, as more than the sum of its parts, we can also see deforestation, plantations, monocultures, oppression, injustice, armed conflict, strip mines, smoke clogged cities, dispossessed indigenous peoples, chemical plants along rivers, coal fired power plants, and so much more and so much worse.
I would ask you to try to understand that a culture that fails to recognize that all aspects of its existence and wealth, public and private, comes from the land upon which it has unleashed a system of global and industrial extraction without regard for limits, equality, justice, or sustainability, is both a cruel and a doomed culture.
Permalink
dreamer Posted 8:40 pm
02 Oct 2009
Taking action seems difficult inspite of us having the information we need -we know how to build efficient cars, but many drive behemoths.
Not taking action is even more difficult for humans. If we love land, we could stop overbreeding; stop overconsuming; stop overbuilding; stop the perception that all growth is good.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:03 am
03 Oct 2009
Jobs, financial security, and national security are the practical points around renewable energy and electric transportation. No need for a game show, China has already taken over a commanding (permanent?) lead in green manufacturing.
Will we have US jobs exporting plugin cars, wind machines, solar, biogas, energy storage, and smart grid devices? Not unless we get going yesterday.
Forget talking about climate change. Jobs and recovery and restoring US manufacturing and technology leadership. That's what sells the new (fossil fuel free) energy economy.
Permalink
MarkAB Posted 10:11 am
03 Oct 2009
1. Identify The Problem – A lot of things have been mentioned: mountaintop removal mining, coal fired power plants, CO2 levels above 350 ppb, over population, sustainability, etc. ad infinitum.
However, it is my observation that a distinction has not yet been made between symptoms and causes. We often get distracted by the symptoms and so never rally enough energy to effectively combat the causes. We must remember the Causes are the Real Enemy! Symptoms are primarily useful in gauging success or failure in implementing strategy.
2. Identify Who or What The Enemy Is - general apathy, ignorance and a well funded corporate based opposition. Most environmental counter action seems to be focused on the first two elements and, are usually approached through various educational programs. This is good and must be continued.
However, it is the third element, the corporate based element that holds the purse strings of opposition to effective environmental success. This is the key. Part of the opposing forces rather successful campaign (strategy) has been to deliberately “muddy the waters” (as evidenced by the ongoing question in many minds… “is there even a global warming issue to worry about?”). While this “enemy” is certainly corporate based, we must be careful to distinguish between “good corporations” and “bad corporations”. The term corporation should never be used in the general but rather ID specific elements to target… i.e. the Fox News/Rupert Murdock funded elements, Massey Mining, Halliburton, other disinformation groups, etc. After all, we want as many corporations to join and support our side as possible… that is where many of us work and depend on. Make no mistake we do depend on them. We are not so rich in allies that we can afford to reject a potential friend.
3. Defining The Fight – up till now this has been poorly defined, ineffective and is obviously failing to accomplish a goal - any specific goal...
After having identified a (the) goal, an effective Strategy to fight the enemy must be established, allies identified, resources mustered, forces rallied. We are all in this together and yet if we are not careful, we will do little more than fight amongst ourselves (perfect for the enemy!). “United we stand, divided we fall” are not just pretty words. Let’s get together, make a stand, get smart about what we are doing and fight, Fight, FIGHT!
We all know the reasons to fight. Simply put The World That We All Know, Live and Depend On is being Threatened with Irreversible Destruction. May sound melodramatic but we are not talking about something like the temporary localized disruption that follows a bad hurricane but rather, an absolute, global and irrevocable destruction… kind of like EXTINCTION!
And remember, this isn’t rocket science but something we humans have been doing quite well for a long time… fighting for survival.
So, let’s get smart, focus on developing an effective Strategy, keep the “moral high ground”, fight a clean fight and, “Never Give Up – Never Surrender!”
Permalink
dreamer Posted 2:42 pm
03 Oct 2009
Permalink
MarkAB Posted 8:18 am
04 Oct 2009
There is an old adage that I believe is very applicable here: "follow the money". This is why those corporate interests fueling the misinformation campaign against the environmental movement are a Primary Target. If you can cut off the funding sources that are fueling the opposition, you will be attacking the enemy on many levels because, everything they try to do against you costs money. If you can keep them distracted by spending resources reinforcing their false arguments and ridiculous claims, they cannot spend it on fueling the fringe elements.
That's what they are doing to us... keeping us divided and fighting distractions.
As to tradition, isn't that what we want to foster? A new tradition in: regarding the environment as more than something to supply our every whim? Let’s use tradition to our advantage whenever possible.
Permalink
craigp42 Posted 3:36 pm
05 Oct 2009
Railing against religion is a pretty effective way to alienate a rather large number of people who believe in taking care of the planet. Even if this is only 10% of people who identify themselves as religious, (to borrow a random number from the string of posts here), that's a significant minority in the US. To illustrate the lack of cohesion in just the Protestant Christian community, imagine the most vile rhetoric you might hear from a rogue preacher, then consider that Wendell Berry, one of our finest writers on people and land today, is a Christian.
"Our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God’s gifts into his face, as of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them. To Dante, 'despising Nature and her gifts' was a violence against God. We have no entitlement from the Bible to exterminate or permanently destroy or hold in contempt anything on the earth or in the heavens above it or in the waters beneath it. We have the right to use the gifts of Nature, but not to ruin or waste them. We have the right to use what we need, but no more, which is why the Bible forbids usury and great accumulations of property. The usurer, Dante said, 'condemns Nature. . . for he puts his hope elsewhere.'"
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:15 am
05 Oct 2009
10% of us get it world wide. Maybe appealing to that committed group to reach out and do grass roots lobbying is an effective way to deal with corruption brought on by corporate cash.
If we accept the fact that only 10% of us will be interested enough to take the time to inform ourselves on green issues and care enough to promote them, the perpetual dissappointment of greens might be overcome.
If we make the natural spiritual treehugger argument along with the economic, foreign policy, and national security arguments, some will listen to the treehugging, but the large percentage of voters we need, another 45%, to get actual green change, are going to consider jobs and their family's financial security first.
Not to mention the actual life and death issue of these oil wars; when war is joined, those families lose children to them. No matter their politics, that simple brutal fact hits home. Renewable energy! No more endless oil wars! There's a bumpersticker.
As the rovians put it: "They have an essay, we have a bumpersticker". 10% of us will happily read/write essays, but we need bumperstickers to get the other 45% we need.
Permalink
MarkAB Posted 9:22 am
05 Oct 2009
Lowered expectations are exactly what's needed now. To the 10% you mentioned, the concerns traditionally voiced by the environmental movement just make good and obvious sense. This is why the general feeling and predominant approach has been to "point out the facts" and "educate them." After all... isn't so obvious? Well, the honest answer is No!, it isn't obvious to them... even after they have been told.
This is because, as you also pointed out, they are not "looking this way." They are concerned with keeping their job or, with their son fighting in Iran or, whether health care costs will overwhelm this months budget or, if the company will be able to match last months profit record!
Working to secure the support of the 45% is vital to ultimate success and the old approach will not do that. As has been said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". We had better wise up and fast.
This is why taking a Strategic position is so important. With only 10% of the "combatants" on the field, we are forced into fighting a gorilla war. And the difference between strategic and tactical actions are profound. Most environmental action to date has been fought on a tactical scale. Tactical actions are the "save the whales campaigns", or "fighting to save a grove of redwood trees", or, doing a roadside litter sweep, etc., etc., etc. All good and vital but these by themselves Will Not Win The War! We can not afford to fight in only tactical engagements.
Permalink
MarkAB Posted 9:32 am
05 Oct 2009
Lowered expectations are exactly what's needed now. To the 10% you mentioned, the concerns traditionally voiced by the environmental movement just make good and obvious sense. This is why the general feeling and predominant approach has been to "point out the facts" and "educate them." After all... isn't so obvious? Well, the honest answer is No!, it isn't obvious to them... even after they have been told.
This is because, as you also pointed out, they are not "looking this way." They are concerned with keeping their job or, with their son fighting in Iran or, whether health care costs will overwhelm this months budget or, if the company will be able to match last months profit record!
Working to secure the support of the 45% is vital to ultimate success and the old approach will not do that. As has been said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". We had better wise up and fast.
This is why taking a Strategic position is so important. With only 10% of the "combatants" on the field, we are forced into fighting a gorilla war. And the difference between strategic and tactical actions are profound. Most environmental action to date has been fought on a tactical scale. Tactical actions are the "save the whales campaigns", or "fighting to save a grove of redwood trees", or, doing a roadside litter sweep, etc., etc., etc. All good and vital but these by themselves Will Not Win The War! We can not afford to fight in only tactical engagements.
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 7:53 am
05 Oct 2009
Look, folks, when you can't get meaningful regulations on vehicle fuel and emissions standards, when you can't outlaw obscenities like Hummers, when parents will sacrifice their children to wars for oil, we are doomed. We have made our choice and it is short term gain for long term pain.
Permalink
alpine56 Posted 7:41 am
06 Oct 2009
By 2042, most U.S. metropolitan areas will have majority non-white populations. Anyone who studies the membership rolls of our major environmental groups will realize that we have not done a very good job of engaging non-white populations in any conservation issues over the past 50 years.
"For the land" is hardly going to resonate with people who have never walked in a forest or meadow or on a farm and who are dealing with very real, day-to-day issues around economic and social justice. To suggest that our urban populations are not having these outdoor experiences because they are apathetic is, well, ignorant.
There are many amazing organizations out there that are working to introduce inner city populations to the outdoors (there was just a major conference on this topic last week in Atlanta) and promoting green space in cities, whether public parks, greenways, or community gardens. But, until we start to see climate change from an environmental and social justice perspective, we will not make the major headway that we need in order to meet the 2050 point-of-no-return deadline regarding carbon emissions, a date that is barely a generation away.
So, rather than lash out at a writer who is simply trying to create meaningful discussion about the most serious issue that we face in the next 40 years, let's actually engage in that discussion, and start to develop real solutions to the problem of making climate change relevant to the largest number of people possible.
Permalink