If we accept the worst, or precautionary assessment, then U.S. environmentalists have perhaps a year to avert cataclysm, and nothing we are doing now will work. We are dealing with this terrible situation in a very ordinary and human way: by denying it.
Our denial comes in a variety of forms: we believe that President Obama can and will solve the problem; we ignore Jim Hansen’s assessment and timeline; we concentrate on our jobs and organization agendas and pass over the big picture; we focus on the molehill of climate policy rather than tackle the mountain of climate politics; we assess our efforts by looking back on how far we have come and do not measure the distance still to be traveled; we scrupulously avoid criticizing each other, lacking conviction in our own courses of action and not wishing to invite criticism in turn; and we are irrationally committed to antique approaches that are self-evidently inadequate.
In our hearts we know that what we are doing is futile, but we do not know what else we should or could be doing. The constraints within which we work feel so intractable and out of human scale that we cannot imagine how to break them. Despite our best efforts, Americans just don’t seem to get it or they don’t care, and we are at a loss to explain this. Unable to influence our own nation, we are further dismayed by the far vaster challenge of altering the trajectory of China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world.
Nothing we now confront should be a surprise. We have known for more than thirty years that the world was bound to reach this state (with twenty years specific warning on climate). The purpose of environmentalism was to alter the self-destructive parabola of growth by introducing new values and sensibilities, which, as has been clear for some time, we have manifestly failed to do.
We are the ones who warned the world what was to come and we are the custodians of the only true solution, yet our current best ideas amount to no more than fiddling with the dials of corporate capitalism (cap-and-trade) and gussying up environmental policy as one item on the domestic progressive agenda (green jobs).
We do not seem capable of taking even the most elementary steps to extricate ourselves from the trap in which we find ourselves. Why, for example, have we never convened a general conference of environmental leadership to consider what to do, or formed an association bigger than the sum of our parts? Why do we not spend some of the billions in our control to experiment with new approaches and campaigning (or support those already doing so)? Why is there no internal debate or discussion other than a quarrelsome wrangling over the minutia of policy?
This is how humankind generally acts in the face of incrementally advancing disaster, it is true. We’re smart as individuals and successful as a species, but the very attributes which make us sociable and industrious tend to turn our societies and institutions rigid and dumb.
While this broad truth might suffice to explain why society at large has yet to come to terms with impending cataclysm, it does not explain why environmentalists are acting as we are. It is one thing for those engaged in running a business, or farming, or studying, or living on the margin to resist the awful prospects of abrupt climate change, but it is quite another for the only group of individuals whose job is to solve the problem to continue with business-as-usual in the face of overwhelming evidence that this road leads nowhere. Besides, environmentalism was intended as a system of thought to overcome myopia and greed and keep our eye fixed firmly on the big picture.
So how and why do we keep showing up to work every day with barely a ripple of disaffection? How can we have arrived a year or so away from a last chance to stave of cataclysm with no clue what to do and not be going nuts?
The best answer, relying on Leon Festinger‘s theory of cognitive dissonance, is that we are going nuts, and our increasing determination to act as if nothing were out of whack is a very ordinary, very human response to the crisis arising from conflict between our beliefs and hard reality.
What is the nature of our crisis? We believe that everything is going to work out, that the ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica will not slip off into the ocean and our shorelines will not be inundated even though all the evidence demonstrate that this is already underway.
The contradiction between our belief in deliverance and the reality of a rapid descent toward chaos creates within us the turbulent and distressing state Festinger called “cognitive dissonance.” Caught in a bind, we act unconsciously to ease our psychological burden in two ways: (1) by reducing the sources of conflict, and (2) by avoiding, rejecting or denigrating new information that would increase dissonance. As Festinger observed, these tendencies in individuals may reach mass acceptance, bolstering a catechism of erroneous beliefs. If everyone else thinks the same way, it is much easier to screen out contradictory information.
In order to maintain our personal belief that catastrophic climate change will be avoided, we downplay or disregard information emphasizing how dire the situation and display an unrealistic optimism over progress toward a solution. For example:
- Most U.S. environmentalists have yet to endorse Jim Hansen’s call for a 300-350 ppm bright line, continuing our record of trailing well behind climate science in our assessment of the problem. This is a most graphic illustration of our capacity to downplay the problem, particularly when compared with our record in areas other than climate, where environmentalists almost always stake out a precautionary position based on scientific data that is considerably more conservative than scientist’s own recommendations.
- We eagerly and endlessly share scraps of information that shore up our sense that momentum is building behind fossil fuel alternatives, but we scrupulously avoid putting that data into context. We want to believe that energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and so on are viable so we focus on phenomenal growth rates in those sectors, and in our mind’s eye a sustainable future appears possible. But this happy fiction can only be maintained by screening out evidence of the far more massive ramp-up in fossil fuel extractions.
- The emotional response to Obama’s win is one visible expression of our wish to believe that things will be put right, but the persistence of “cap-and-trade” as the U.S. environmental climate solution is the more important and pernicious example of unrealistic optimism. For all its market rhetoric, “cap-and-trade” is predicated on enforcement of emissions limits (the “cap”). If there is any one thing that environmentalists know with certainty, based on our extensive experience implementing the early milestones of U.S. environmental policy, it is that polluters escape emissions limits with ease. It took decades of vigorous enforcement campaigning and litigation to bring most states into moderate compliance with the federal Clean Air and and Clean Water Acts and even then key sectors and sources managed to loosen restrictions or get around them (as direct dischargers got around permit limits by tying into sewage treatment plants). To imagine that such a system can be imposed without massive governmental enforcement, and that it will work right out of the box with factories in Shanghai, Bombay, or Sao Paulo is a triumph of wishful thinking over hard-won experience.
The fact that political access, foundation funding, corporate and party affiliations, large membership bases and many other factors also drive organizations to downplay climate risk and engage in boosterism of solutions crafted to protect particular interests, is consistent with cognitive dissonance theory, not a contradictory explanation. We seek affiliations that encourage our tendencies to downplay the problem and overestimate the effectiveness of solutions because these relationships shore up our beliefs and reduce dissonance.
We feel better hanging out with upbeat corporate executives, because their story reduces our dissonance, even though it’s a lie, than we do paling around with climate scientists, who’s dismal narrative increases our dissonance because they tell the truth—but this may be changing.
Collapse of cognitive barriers. Our unconscious strategy for suppressing dissonance shows signs of crumbling, though it is by no means clear whether we will come to our senses fast enough to reshape our institution and reorient our approaches in time. Cognitive dissonance theory argues that escalating challenges to irrational world views tend to harden rather than weaken belief. Still, unusual pressure is beginning to build from unlooked-for directions:
Our children. The reality that our children and grandchildren will face catastrophic climate change, collapse of planetary ecosystems and disintegration of global society (if not civilization itself), is transforming from major emotional block to a driver of opening awareness. I’m not able to explain why this is occurring now—it may be no more complicated then the fact that there are more babies being born and kids are getting older and asking questions—but whatever the cause, there is a discernible breaking down of private barriers to awareness and a limited conversation on such matters as how best to prepare one’s children for the life they must now expect, is breaking into the open. Perhaps some evolutionary response to parenting in time of grave danger has begun to kick-in (which may also explain why so many still choose to become parents).
Next generation leadership. Control of our organizations is shifting to a new generation who are not the architects of our present approaches.
Sidelined. Environmentalists are being left in the dust in every area. Although we retain a commanding position in the broad public debate, we are increasingly irrelevant in the specifics. Climate scientists define the problem. Politicians, from Obama to Schwarzenegger, define the agenda. Public education is the province of journalists, educators, specialized media, and web centers. Mass communications is in the hands of consultants to Al Gore. Green building, the one sector where environmentalists did hold a significant share, is being swamped by giants in the construction and building materials businesses. Even critical areas of intellectual inquiry, such as the examination of the roots of climate denial, are underway in conversations between academics and pollsters without our participation, let alone leadership.
Growth areas. The most important climate action and environmental campaigning, like West Virginia’s Coal Spring Mountain campaign and the effort of Bill McKibben and 350.org, originate outside our mainstream organizations.
Personal crisis. The strain of living in existential hell is beginning to wear people down, even if it is mostly unacknowledged. It’s simply getting harder to deny reality.
Is U.S. environmentalism important? Why bother with trying to shift the current agenda if our organizations are increasingly irrelevant and superseded?
For one, climate will be decided by players now on the field and our major organizations and foundations must therefore be changed or they will stand in the way. The argument that climate can be addressed without the need to reshape U.S. environmentalism is based in the perception that U.S. environmentalism cannot be changed, but if we cannot adapt our own organizations and institution to meet the challenge for which they were founded, why on earth would we think it possible to shift the course of the nation?
Second, without environmentalists it is unlikely that there will be an environmental solution. Although environmentalism is now better expressed and advocated outside of U.S. environmentalism, from Jim Hansen’s scientific papers to the planning committees of architect’s trade associations, a comprehensive green vision is still unlikely to be conceived in any forum other than environmentalism.
Third, we are the only sector with the money, skill bank and international reach to undertake the scale of effort necessary to shift the course of the nation.
I have written elsewhere on the lessons to be drawn from U.S. history that argue such a transformation is possible, about conditions which might create a more fluid environment, and on the critical and singular role of the U.S. in driving global change. The odds of success are vanishingly small, but not so small as to be dismissed.
The less utopian argument for aiming high, is that doing so will reenergize U.S. environmentalism, bolster the wider forces behind green solutions, more effectively put our enemies on the defensive and gain better results in present political conditions. If we up accept reality and up the ante, in other words, we win more than we can now, elbow room for more fluid political conditions, and take a shot at winning the whole shebang. If we do not raise our sights and ambitions, then we are guaranteed to fail.
It’s a tough but simple choice and if we continue down our present road, we will leap from foggy thinking into pure madness, there being no other means of keeping reality at bay.
Comments
View as Threaded
kenny86 Posted 1:26 am
04 Mar 2009
All due respect, but dude, there seems to be a lot of projection in your post.
Who is the "we" that is in crisis and denial? I've been part of the environmental movement for over 20 years. The people I work with have never been more panicked about climate, never clearer about the inadequacy of our policy responses, and never more hopeful about the possibility of finally setting off in a better direction. We are trying to end the use of dirty fuels in 10 years. Not bold enough? Help us be bolder, and help us win.
Are some groups still fiddling with pathetically inadequate technofixes? Sure. That's not going to stop just because you wring your hands. Please talk them out of it.
The timing and tone of the "Nuts" post is off. The most powerful and popular person on the planet has just banished the most damaging paradigm for the last 30 years, environment vs economy. Two days ago thousands of students marched on a coal plant trying to get arrested.
Our movement has always had a strong dose of Gramscian pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the spirit. Is that nuts? Of course it is, but it's also the best attitude available.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:28 am
04 Mar 2009
I don't agree that enviros have their heads in the sand. Some do, some don't.
Some like W Berry and B McKibben have largely forsaken their usual paths and are doing nothing but talking and working on climate and coal.
Others continue to work to save wetlands which may be under 3 feet of saltwater in 15 years.
Some enviros have sold their cars, and aren't having kids. They see the writing on the wall.
They're getting into sustainable ag. Going local.
But all efforts for a better planet are part of a whole. Not everyone is ready to work solely on climate, and that's fine. Many more are. I'd like to generalize and say that of the new generation of envi activists, unlike mine, most are going into climate action.
Why aren't the green groups having pow wows to get on the same page and do something huge and meaningful about climate? Myriad reasons.
But to me, the biggest groups with the most cash and staff are more likely to be cap and traders, while the grassroots groups that advance more far reaching policies suffer from a lack of resources. The best ideas are largely on the grassroots level, unfettered by corporate board members.
So maybe we fiddle a bit while Rome burns. But not for lack of trying. McKibben and co are a good eg.
I interviewed someone for Orion magazine a few years ago about ambitious land conservation efforts, and she said that there's no way of knowing if what they're doing will have an effect, or that the government won't come and take it all for a military base, or whatever. But the point is the journey, about the story, of knowing you've done your best. Save the pieces, work for renewal.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
davedenali Posted 2:28 am
04 Mar 2009
You ask why environmentalists don't all get together. The reality is that environmental organizations have differing approaches and philosophies. Some groups -- including EDF, NRDC, Nature Conservancy and WRI -- are already promoting a US CAP proposal that flatly doesnt go far enough. One thing we must do is push Obama to raise the bar as high as we can get it on emissions cuts -- not lower it to get an empty win.
But climate disruption is an incremental problem. The immediate impacts on people aren't clear. We don't have millions of Americans galvanized and demanding action the way people did at the height of the Vietnam War. I wish we environmentalists knew how to make that happen, but I don't believe for one minute that there's a clear answer to that.
What I do know is Barack Obama just signed the largest renewable energy appropriation in history, appointed people like Chu, Holdren and Browner (who do get it about climate --- read what Holdren has said on the topic), asked EPA to consider regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and is moving towards legislation imposing carbon caps.
Is it enough? Will the reductions be enough to match what Hansen and others say is needed? Probably not. Until 2006, Republican Senate members made a guy who calls global warming a hoax chairman of the Environment Committee. The economic crisis makes a hard task much harder.
I hear where you're coming from, but what I plan to do this year is push as hard as I can for effective, science-based national legislation and regulatory action. And I think that is a very good use of our time -- even if that alone won't be nearly enough.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:29 am
04 Mar 2009
I mean, you could cap carbon at 50% below 1990 levels by 2015, and 0% by 2030. That would be wildly ambitious, right? Commensurate with the problem, right?
Yes, we're probably not going to do that, but it's not because any flaw in cap-and-trade, it's because we as a culture are not prepared to face up to the task at hand. It's not like advocating different policies is magically going to change that. If we get serious about what we need to do, there are any number of policies, including C&T, that could do it.
Your hostility to c&t -- and Hansen's -- just seems bizarre and misplaced. Policy weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
grist.org
Permalink
jestbill Posted 2:40 am
04 Mar 2009
Consider how long it took to get from when it was noticed that people who smoked tended to get sick to the Surgeon General's (tentative) action.
People don't change until they have to. Period. All the "environmentalist" propaganda so far has just spread the word that change might someday be necessary. When the S hits the F people will at least be reading the right book if not the right page.
Where have all the horses gone?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:42 am
04 Mar 2009
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich2
Not to mention, the issue that it's simply hard for people to comprehend issue.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:10 am
04 Mar 2009
I disagree with Kenny86's put-down. He's expressing part of the problem you've described. Which is fine! ... it takes all kinds, really.
I won't try to put any diagnostic tags on it. We have a myriad of both professional camps promoting interpretations, and popular self-help approaches. Those who are into the psych-nomenclature can try their hand ... but nobody's ever really nailed any of this down. Take what good you can see in the psych-talk, and leave the rest on the book-shelf.
We have had Prophets for millennia. I would not be surprised if they existed in various guises, back in the Stone Age.
Generally, prophets 'get no respect'. Usually, their prophesies are hit n miss, too.
It's nothing to take personal. You and other activists often don't see yourselves as 'corny old' prophets, but the role you are playing is the same ... just gussied up in science-studies ... and the 'occupational hazards' & exposure to negative attitudes are the same, too.
Ken, here's the basic truth: Disaster is something we have all faced, personally & collectively, pretty much all along. The fact that you & others 'see' a climate-disaster coming, simply is not enough to impress much of the population.
Older folks lived through the prolonged threat of Nuclear oblivion. We could have been horribly maimed, and the planet messed up. We lived it (and to a lessor degree, we still do).
Bird flu remains a real threat. National Geographic projects that 360 million could die. The U.S. government has published concerns that widespread withdrawal & hiding could so damage the economy, important parts of it would be very slow recovering ... or may never.
There is another important side to all this stuff, Ken, and that is, people - individually & collectively - respond far more competently & impressively, when there is actually a gun in their face; when they are actually standing hip-deep in mud; when the fires are actually roaring down the California canyons.
Ok - the oceans rise. Ok - the forests dry out. Ok - the floods wipe out towns. Ok - stuff happens, and folks are a lot better responding to it than they are at listening to warnings and modifying their lives, before hand.
If the concern is for the wildlife that will be imperiled, then focus on how to protect & save samples.
For how long have we known, Ken & all, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". It's a helluva lot tougher yet, to get people to do what you think is in their better interests.
Ain't gonna happen, Ken ... "Earth to Major Ken...". You know the deal: People are going to do & live as they damn well please. There is no argument on Earth, there is no special combination of words that will convince them to suddenly follow your advice.
You are doing you role as the prophet, the messenger, but the price of the role you have selected is that most of the time, you will find yourself & your warnings cheerfully ignored. That's the way it is, and has been all along.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:18 am
04 Mar 2009
A cap far out there will be "adjusted" according to the political winds. I would rather see incremental goals, say 3% efficiency/conservation gains per year in all GHG/energy sectors + 3% conversion to renewable energy.
Make it a yearly falling cap? Maybe that would be more effective with the CnT skeptics?
If we missed the yearly cap, then we could adjust the incentives and regulations. Increase mileage and building standards a bit faster, or increase subsidies into proven technologies, or build more bike trails and commuter rail.
A cap is hard to believe in. It's like a 10-year plan in the old soviet system, hehey. The corporate trader preffered method is a commie conspiracy? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:17 am
04 Mar 2009
We do not ask engineers to practice brain surgery or argue before the Supreme Court. Most environmentalist leaders have no engineering background. Why do people think a bunch of law school and liberal arts majors can solve the problem?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/how-is-gree ...
The heart of the problem is the failure of our education system to give children the information they need to create a successful civilization in a high tech world. It is like the old politically incorrect Tarzan movies, where the Europeans go to Africa and dazzle the natives with their technology.
But in this case it is folks like Amory Lovins dazzling high school graduates with the idea that windmills and negawatts can close coal power plants.
Focusing on the U.S. energy problem will not solve the global problem. We need to develop energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuel and mass producible. Big feed in tariffs for expensive intermittent sources will not do it. Massive R&D, heavy on the D, is the next step, but it is not in the Obama budget, a fig leaf yes, massive no.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
ids Posted 4:25 am
04 Mar 2009
see for instance
http://lessig.blip.tv/#1830681
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:02 am
04 Mar 2009
Being seriously concerned about climate certainly takes a personal psychological toll.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 6:00 am
04 Mar 2009
Setting aside where one sits on the spectrum of relative risk (I'll simply accept Hansen, but no one who responded above is going to argue that we're not in some form of crisis), those who complained about my doomishness do not answer the specific questions I posed about why US environmentalists have not taken elementary steps to marshal forces.
We're x years way from cataclysm and yet our major organizations can't form a council to coordinate what we do? I'm sorry, but I find this inexplicable - or did until I read more on cognitive dissonance.
We control billions of dollars in assets. Why isn't that money being put into one last effort before it is too late?
If we do less than this, does this not indicate something is awry? Do you who complained, not think that we might significantly improve our position and power if we shifting all our staff onto one joint effort and put, let's say, 10 times as much money into climate campaigning as we are now? Of course we would. And the fact that we were doing this would send a Mcluhan-esque message far more powerful that anything we actually said!
When our major organizations put aside organizational agendas, agree a coordinated campaign and liquidate assets to fund a massive, last-minute effort to shift American views and politics - then I would say that we have accepted reality and are acting appropriately. If we keep worrying about our 5 year organizational fundraising goals and run scores of programs other than climate, then, I submit, we have not accepted reality and cognitive dissonance is a pretty good fit.
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 104';l[40]=' 103';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 98';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 100';l[46]=' 114';l[47]=' 97';l[48]=' 119';l[49]=' 110';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 6:21 am
04 Mar 2009
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 104';l[40]=' 103';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 98';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 100';l[46]=' 114';l[47]=' 97';l[48]=' 119';l[49]=' 110';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:32 am
04 Mar 2009
However, your suggested strategy assumes that we know the future and the right repsonse, and thus we should put all resources into one effort.
I don't think that's the case. For example, right now, there are multiple interacting trends, such as peak oil, financial meltdown and impending political turmoil.
Responses such as corn ethanol, that we thought was so great, turn out to be flawed.
I don't know that a massively funded campaign will be that effective in shifting opinions in the US. I think that grassroots efforts like Transition Towns may be more effective than anything coming out of mainstream environmental organizations.
In situations that we don't completely understand, making all-or-nothing bets isn't a good idea.
Instead, I would argue for a broad coalition, with multiple voices and approaches. We need to keep talking and be ready to change course if conditions change.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:50 am
04 Mar 2009
California has built millions of houses and planted orchards that don't have water resources if we even hit drought levels experienced in the last 30 years. Global Warming caused droughts could make giant chunks of the state economic wastelands.
The internet is crawling with people who can link these little pearls of disaster on a string. The "mainstream media" is doing its' best to ignore them however because they earn their lunch money selling car ads.
We keep yelling out here. We just get shouted down by the people with the megaphones.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
kyan Posted 9:13 am
04 Mar 2009
In all the climate committees I've witnessed my colleagues participate, rarely can they arrive at an agreement that satisfies everyone because everyone has their own special interests and pet projects. It'll be a long long time before organizations agree on shifting their focus. However, it's much easier to start at the grass-roots level of education--where every environmental and social organization has an education program that draws clear connections for the public (esp. the youth) on how the climate and the environment is not a special interest issue but rather our issue, one that intricately connects to the organization's goals without supplanting their focus. If this type of specific project is what you're talking about in terms of promoting a paradigm shift in the public's perception, that I'm completely with you. Invest in our youth--you saw what happened in Powershift.
International Rivers (http://www.internationalrivers.org/blog-categories/783)
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 9:57 am
04 Mar 2009
First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to -- what they know and want, what they are doing and planning -- has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them."
The odds of Ken being right are high. Humanity is probably, almost certainly, fucked. By that I mean, a gargantuan degradation in quality of life for most and a population crash is in the offing. And that's not the worst case scenario. A major extinction event that takes out the last remaining hominid species is a possibility as well. But that word "probably" implies a chance.
We can argue endlessly and ignorantly about what those chances are but doing so would be pointless.
Our time would be better spent debating potential solutions.
To get people to stop sending the last of the biosphere into the atmosphere and to stop burning fossil fuels, we have to manipulate brains evolved to survive in the Pleistocene. That is where our attentions should be focused.
Greyfalcon's link explains why you can't get people to fear global warming.
Try as you might, you will never get the masses to accept the truth. Too scary. To get them off their couches we will have to use carrots.
From 30 Rock:
Priest: What brought you here?
Jack: What brought me here? What brings anyone anywhere? Why do men build bridges? Why are there jets? I was hoping to have sex tonight.
Priest: I need back up! Harvard did not prepare me for this!
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 11:51 am
04 Mar 2009
Where have I heard that?
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:53 pm
04 Mar 2009
I think we need to apply this basic human instinct to the problem. Hold out the hope of actual sex resulting from climate activism?
I know it sounds extremely unrealistic, but people buy jewelry, sports cars, and deoderant based on similar false hopes everyday. Let's go for it!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Sandwichman Posted 2:46 pm
04 Mar 2009
Struggle.
Sandwichman
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:12 pm
04 Mar 2009
Struggle with this. (just kidding sandman)
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:53 pm
04 Mar 2009
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
lgcarey Posted 11:03 am
05 Mar 2009
The point was not that lots of scientists rejected the existence of global warming (not true, obviously), but rather the more subtle point that even among scientists whose own work directly affirmed the existence of global warming, many didn't actually ACT as though they believe the obvious implications of their own research. Human nature being what it is, many simply proceed with their lives as before - they intellectually affirm the existence of climate change, but can't bring themselves to actually "believe" the real-world implications. Hence they adopt avoidance strategies, use clinical language discussing the topic and proceed as though it is merely another technical area of inquiry. Are environmentalists now doing something similar - are we "saying" global climate disruption is a crisis, but erecting psychological barriers to actually acting like it is (i.e., actually "believing")? It does kind of look like that is the case in some instances, with organizations still focusing on supporting dozens of individual initiatives and activities, all of which will be counted as minutia if climate change is not stopped ASAP.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:28 am
05 Mar 2009
While at a stop light coming off the exit from the highway, I was blaring The Guess Who's "No Time" playing on The Eagle ( http://www.977theeagle.com/ ), and I noticed in the left hand turning lane a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that said "Stop Global Warming" but the "Warming" had a red line through it and underneath it said "Bullshit"
This is why life rules!!
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 12:08 pm
05 Mar 2009
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:13 pm
05 Mar 2009
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:14 pm
05 Mar 2009
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:14 pm
06 Mar 2009
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:20 am
07 Mar 2009
Dada has its time and place, but this isnt it. Now is the time for clarity.
Permalink
CuttingEmissions Posted 10:07 am
09 Mar 2009
The problem, of course, is that we have very little time left, and the facts relating to 'global climatic disruption' are complex and confusing, and are easily manipulated by governments, corporations and individuals who want to keep doing what they're doing.
Grist does a great job sorting things out for us, and I for one, am very, very grateful.
Dorothy
Permalink