We just got a letter to the editor repeating what seems to be conventional wisdom among environmentalists: If Exxon would stop suppressing information about global warming -- if the facts got out -- people would demand an instant, total effort to combat it that dwarfed the "war on terrorism."
This faith -- if people just had the facts, they'd think like we do -- seems immune to refutation. Nothing seems able to dislodge it.
But it just ain't so.
The facts about global warming are all over the place. There's an endless cascade of stories in the country's biggest media outlets. Allegedly censored scientists are all over the papers and TV, screaming the facts from the rooftops. The facts are not hard to come by.
The facts alone just don't move people.
Why that is would be an excellent subject for sociological study. I'm sure it's complicated. But here's one thought: It is human nature to want -- nay, need -- human enemies. Evil people, who can be demonized. And tortured. And killed. And -- most importantly -- seen. People understand people. That's one reason terrorism has such an iron grip on both domestic and foreign policy, despite the relatively low risk anyone in this country has of being affected by it in any way. It fits easily into the natural human cosmology of territory and territorial threats. It goes straight to our lizard brains, our fight-or-flight instinct.
Global warming doesn't. It's vague, and large, and slow-moving, and the enemy is structural and pervasive, and we're all complicit. That kind of shit is just no fun to think about. It does not stir the blood.
I go back and forth on this, but at this particular moment I'm back to thinking that maybe the emphasis on global warming is overdone. We need to offer something closer, more human, more attainable. Some sort of intermediate steps. That is, in part, what the whole index-card thing is about.
Comments
View as Flat
Corey McKrill Posted 8:23 am
17 Feb 2006
And what the whole Poverty & the Environment thing is about. Environmental justice does way more to put a human face on vague eco-issues than RFK Jr. ever could.
Grist's InterActivist ... creating a one-of-a-kind portrait of on-the-ground activism.
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 8:49 am
17 Feb 2006
Permalink
OutdoorsPro Posted 12:44 pm
17 Feb 2006
Back in the seventies we were supposed to be worried about the pending ice age. Then we were suposed to see warming trends everywhere. Now, we have to deal with record cooling in some areas and record highs in others.
Sure, climate change is complex and of course there will be changes up and down around the globe with any climate change. It's just unfortunate that the reporters who cover the issue know nothing about climatology and atmospheric science and are only concerned with ratings.
Hype, hype, hype, from the reporters and scientists. And we wonder why the public is becoming less and less interested.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 3:43 pm
17 Feb 2006
How could environmental justice "put a human face" on wildlife and wilderness issues, which are the most important enviro issues by far? Do we even want to "put a human face" on these issues? Humans need to get over themselves and start respecting other forms of life.
And BTW, environmental justice is basically a social, not environmental, issue. Not that there's anything wrong with advocating that poor people shouldn't be crapped on constantly, but it does the Earth no good for the environmental movement to be hijacked by leftists.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 3:04 am
18 Feb 2006
How could environmental justice "put a human face" on wildlife and wilderness issues, which are the most important enviro issues by far? Do we even want to "put a human face" on these issues? Humans need to get over themselves and start respecting other forms of life.
First off, while one of your ultimate goals for changing the mindset of many people is to have them "start respecting other forms of life," it may never happen for many people, or at least take a very long time to make a significant impact. As I asked you before, if people don't care about the worst-off of their own species, how can we expect them to care for other species? Even you, Jeff, acknowledged that a solution for this escapes us. So what do we do now? Do we only focus on plants, non-human animals, water, land, and air? Or do we take a broader and more strategic approach?
With environmental justice, we're talking about a variety of issues, but one often comes to mind: many poverty-stricken communities are located near the freeway, a power station, landfills, oil refineries, nuclear-waste repositories, factory farms, etc. Of course, all of this not only negatively effects the human community, but also the local ecosystem. But whose plight do you think the majority of Americans today will most likely respond to? Some frogs and birds? Or fellow human beings suffering from health problems while barely making ends meet? Now I realize that many don't even care about the latter, but if they had to make a choice, which one do you think they would choose? What message would resonate with the average person?
And by helping improve the communities of the poor, with participation from environmentalists, a positive difference for the ecosystem could also result. Yes, perhaps not the same outcome if the primary goal was to improve and protect the ecosystem itself, but an improvement none-the-less.
To put it another way, we could have little to no change in the short-term and mid-term while hoping that some day in the future we crazy humans will lose our self-interest and begin respecting other species, or we could start a series of incremental changes (yes, with many being human-centric) that could potentially lead to the changes in perception and behavior that you seek.
So, by putting a human face on an issue, we could in fact help wildlife and wilderness.
Now, if it sounds like that I'm suggesting that the environmental movement uses poor people simply as a means to an end, that is not my intention. I personally believe that we should protect the Earth and all of its inhabitants, even the ones who are messing it up, and especially those who dearly need our help whether they be human or not.
Support Grist: http://www.grist.org/support
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 3:39 am
18 Feb 2006
In some ways I don't think it matters whether we love people more or non-humans/Earth more, because love is the solution. The important thing is putting the energy of love and compassion out there in the world. Consistently, every minute of every day. Somehow I believe this will make a difference. I believe that if enough of us act compassionately and keep love in our hearts and act from that, then there's hope beyond what seems "logical" -- for humans and, most especially, for the Earth/Gaia.
Permalink
Captain America Posted 4:30 am
18 Feb 2006
I always thought facts are immutable.
There are not differing opinions of "facts".
There are not two sets of "facts" that oppose another. Otherwise, they cannot both be "facts" if they do not align.
For instance:
It can never be a "fact", that Stalin was a reasonable man. This is not, and can never be a "fact".
It can never be a "fact", that millions were not killed under Communism.
It can never be a "fact", that Eric Clapton is the finest guitarist, because there is not way of establishing this "fact". Facts and opinions are not the same.
It has not been established as "fact" that U.S. consumers are causing "global warming".
- Captian America
.....
America First
The World Second
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 9:00 am
18 Feb 2006
That's possible. However, a more likely scenario is that environmentally destructive activities will be moved from areas that are already ecological disasters, where poor people live, to areas that were previously in good shape ecologically, which would be a very negative outcome ecologically. This doesn't mean we can't advocate for the poor and the environment, but as another blogger said, it must be a not-in-anybody's-backyard movement instead of a not-in-my-backyard one.
What caused me to comment on this in the first place is that I feel a lot of pressure, which I consider completely illegitimate, for enviros to become just another group of leftists. The Death of Environmentalism people are the ones who gave this idea a big voice, though I've also heard it elsewhere. Well, guess what? Those of us who are wilderness/wildlife advocates are not going to advocate for social issues, period! How would enviro justice or anti-racist activists like to be told that what they really should be doing is working for endangered species and ecosystems, because those things need help far more than humans, who are thriving as a whole?
A much better idea would be for those who want to work for social issues like enviro justice to do so, while those of us who want to work for non-human issues work on those. From those bases, we can make alliances. In some instances we can help on each other's issues (we'll demonstrate against the power plant in your neighborhood if you demonstrate against logging), but mainly we should stick to our own work. However, we can all SUPPORT each other politically, by both pressure and our votes. Even together we're still a pretty small minority, but we're a significantly larger minority together than apart. This type of alliance makes much more sense to me than badgering enviromentalists to work on issues to which they don't give as much priority, even if we're all on the same side on those issues.
Re whether to pursue strategies that advocate for changes that would result in "perhaps not the same outcome if the primary goal was to improve and protect the ecosystem itself, but an improvement none-the-less," my answer is an old Earth First! slogan: No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth! Period! Put another way, it's better to fight for something in which you believe and lose than to fight for something in which you don't believe and win. Everything non-human on this planet is so devastated by human overpopulation, overconsumption, and other human activities that I cannot, in all good conscience, fight for anything less than full restoration of species and ecosystems, as much as possible.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Stentor Posted 9:24 am
18 Feb 2006
I hope you're not suggesting that sociologists are so stupid as to not have ever thought to investigate this issue.
Your question isn't precisely my area of expertise, and answers have been elusive. But what I've gathered from related human-environment research is that what really drives people's actions is a vision of the kind of person they want to be and the kind of life they want to lead. If a fact provides a useful rationalization for a value-system, it will be grasped and acted upon. If not, it will hang in someone's head like an isolated bit of trivia, no matter how important it seems to be to those of us who find our preferred ways of life supported by it.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 10:16 am
18 Feb 2006
http://lowbagger.org/bigmountain.html
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:29 am
18 Feb 2006
We have just begun to explore the possibilities of the media.
I just posted notices on two climate change items:
"60 Minutes" on CBS will have a segment on climate change this Sunday:
http://energybulletin.net/12945.html
A three-hour documentary on Global Warming, narrated by Alanis Morissette and Keanu Reaves will start showing next month:
http://energybulletin.net/12947.html
Permalink