The latest impact of climate change: eco-anxiety.
Symptoms: Generalized discomfort and stress related to the future of the world and possibly your personal role in said future.
Ways to fight it:
- Blame "the media."
- Blame the IPCC.
- Spend lots of money on an "eco-therapist."
- Carry around minerals.
- Buy greener stuff to make yourself feel better.
From the Columbia News Service:
[A] growing number of people have literally worried themselves sick over a range of doomsday scenarios.
Their worry has a name: eco-anxiety.
And the latest report on climate change -- a United Nations panel warned Friday of increased hunger, water shortages, massive floods, avalanches, and species extinctions in various parts of the world unless nations take major action -- is not likely to help.
Melissa Pickett, an eco-therapist with a practice in Santa Fe, says she sees between 40 to 80 eco-anxious patients a month.
They complain of panic attacks, loss of appetite, irritability and unexplained bouts of weakness, sleeplessness and "buzzing," described as an eerie feeling that their cells are twitching. Pickett's remedies include telling patients to carry natural objects, like certain minerals, for a period of weeks. Making environmentally friendly lifestyle changes can also prove therapeutic, she says.
The fears of the eco-anxious are fueled by abundant media coverage of crises like global warming, collapsed fisheries and food shortages. A slew of eco-disaster movies are on Hollywood's drawing boards.
Insert ginormous eye roll.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Comments
View as Threaded
GreenEngineer Posted 3:48 am
10 Apr 2007
My personal solution was to change my career, from general mechanical engineering to green building and renewable energy. I may or may not be making a real difference, but at least I sleep well knowing that I'm trying. The unfortunate side effect, however, is that in my new career I necessarily learn more about just how screwed we are, in great detail. So it's something of a wash in the end.
Making environmentally friendly lifestyle changes can also prove therapeutic, she says.
I've often contemplated printing up a bunch of sticky labels, in a graphical style similar to the cheery "New, reformulated with more of X!" labels you see on products occasionally, and sticking them to products on store shelves. Except my labels would say "Now with 80% less liberal guilt!"
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:01 am
10 Apr 2007
By coincidence -- or perhaps it was subconsciously in connexion with DR's recent snob-o-rama Brooklyn adventure -- , I was thinking of that scene in "Annie Hall," in which the young Alvy Singer, depressed by what he has been told by the cosmologists, is brought to the family doctor. Of course, the doctor can tell him nothing reassuring, and so his mother shakes him, and cries, "Brooklyn is not expanding!"
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:46 am
10 Apr 2007
_
Depression only comes when you don't see a way out. (Either technological or political)
Me I see ways out for both.
Generally the way forward is to translate environmental logic into business-bottomline-speak.
It's all about being smarter with the way we spend our resources.
(Without needing to make the general public any smarter.)
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 5:31 am
10 Apr 2007
I have always been concerned about the environment and have felt that it's necessary to do as much as we can to try to keep the earth livable, but when I worked at the Department of Technology, Business, and the Environment at MIT my mood improved considerably. I saw that there were many things that could be done to improve products and manufacturing practices. It will take political will and consumer pressure to bring these innovations to bear...but it's reassuring to know that there are some solutions and partial solutions out there.
Of course one of the biggest environmental pressures is overpopulation. I don't understand why people don't talk about that more.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:14 am
10 Apr 2007
Mostly, I think, because acknowledging overpopulation as a problem strikes directly at a very powerful, biologically programmed drive to reproduce. If humans (and other animals) did not have the drive to breed under even (or especially) the most horrible circumstances, we would not have survived this long. But now that we have achieved technology and effective world dominion, that same impulse may yet kill us, if we don't learn how to manage or control it.
The other, possibly closely related reason, is that for most people, accepting that overpopulation is a problem is tantamount to accepting that coercive population controls are inevitable. That's simply unacceptable to most people, so they don't go there.
Personally, I find the idea of the government deciding who can breed horrific. Granted, there are lots of people who are parents who should not be. But who/how do you make that sort of decision in a remotely just and fair fashion?
Fortunately, I don't think it's ultimately necessary. Coercive measures are one approach. The other way to reduce fertility is to urbanize people and introduce television (and other distractions), and a high standard of living generally. Of course, doing it this way requires prosperity and a technological culture. If we lose that, coercive measures (and starvation) will be the only options left. Ugh.
Permalink
karenc Posted 6:37 am
10 Apr 2007
An ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk. -Vivekananda
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 6:56 am
10 Apr 2007
The idea of my village in Samoa drowning, in my lifetime, was horrific.
Of course I went back a few days later and reread the article and realized I'd misplaced a decimal or two. But the damage was done, I knew I cared.
Roz, did they at least let you eat the apple after the demo was done?
GreenEngineer, I like your story a lot. I'm trying to get my dad to switch, he is a (smart!) architect/engineer - specializes in hospitals.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:11 am
10 Apr 2007
The "conservatives" I interact with think I'm a commie liberal. The "liberals" I intereact with think I'm a selfish conservative. The solutions I support are viewed as too far left, too far beyond the bounds of traditional values, for conservative to embrace and too far right, too reckless for the neo-Luddites to embrace.
Neither the right nor the left is interested in compromise. Each is ruled by their own dogmatism. And for each it is matter of all or nothing. There is no way for someone like me to participate in finding solutions to our environmental problems in such a confrontational atmosphere... we're attacked from both directions.
So... I'm slowly and surely realizing that I should just take care of myself. Let the left and right beat up on each other. Hopefully, there will still be a significant sampling of Earth's ecosystems remaining after they've pummeled each other to death.
Then, the folks in the middle -- having witnessed and recorded the danger of extreme viewpoints -- can start repairing the damage and building a more-sustainable human society.
It is sad that vast numbers of species will die in the mean time, but I suppose it is a natural event. The human species is like an enormous asteroid striking Earth in slow motion. And, like an asteroid, we will clear Earth for new species to flourish. At least our species will not have tolerated gay marriage or tampered with too many genes during our brief reign. God will smile.
Happy Earth Month!
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:14 am
10 Apr 2007
http://imdb.com/title/tt0029030/
I am especially moved by the inability of the church to save people. Cf. the Donald Sutherland "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," of 1978, and the horrifying failure of the classic hymn "Amazing Grace" to save.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:21 am
10 Apr 2007
But wait, computers use electricity right?
Did I mention that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges busily refining uranium as we speak? Maybe they'll manage to blow us all up before we drown in a sea of our own eco-anxiety.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:27 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:31 am
10 Apr 2007
Not any more. Check out your 2006 tax return; that tax has been rescinded, and there's even an option to get a refund on it.
Anyway, I realize your statement was tongue-in-cheek, but you point directly at a very real problem: It is absolutely impossible to participate in modern society without having bloody hands. You can minimize your footprint but short of becoming a hermit, there is a limit to what you can do in that direction.
Realizing that is one of the things that drove m to a green career. I can't entirely stop doing damage, but I reduce my footprint and try to do some good in the meantime.
Permalink
bk racer Posted 8:34 am
10 Apr 2007
i'm a little curious about this urbanization and television assertion-- although television no doubt does get people to consume lots more junk and waste a lot of time, i'm not convinced it gets them to reproduce less. but i'd like to hear more on where that idea comes from.
the general wisdom last i heard (though i'm no expert) is that it's education foremost, and also socio-economic improvement, particularly of the womenfolk, that help people willingly choose to reproduce less. so that indicates a couple places the government can address overpopulation without being coercive... while some people do seem fundamentally opposed to the government doing anything good for poor people, at least poor people usually aren't opposed to becoming more educated and better off economically. what unfortunately many people are still opposed to, or at least ignorant as to the importance of, is the education and self-sufficiency of women.
oh yeah, and the gov't can also just teach people about birth control and family planning! oh but wait, that's too easy and makes too much sense, so of course the right is opposed to it. darn!
Permalink
naturenick Posted 8:48 am
10 Apr 2007
Whenever I feel the anxiety come on, I go and eat a vegiterian meal. It makes me feel better.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:03 am
10 Apr 2007
The take-home point is that prosperity is good for population control over the long term (and that appears to be demonstrably the case, though we do not understand the mechanism).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:07 am
10 Apr 2007
The stuff which merely gives people a nice warm feeling inside, but doesn't accutually accomplish anything.
Corn Ethanol, for instance, being an overly easy example.
Permalink
bk racer Posted 9:31 am
10 Apr 2007
let's get out of the western setting for just a sec-- many, many women have no choice, economically or culturally, but to become someone's wife at a young age and start making babies. forget access to birth control. also, a lot of people depend on their kids' work (yes, kids work in poor countries! who knew!) to put food on the table just to live.
i wouldn't call empowerment of women just huge--i would call it the prerequisite of population control.
also don't forget that technological society, aka the western world, is consuming the lion's share of the world's energy and resources!
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:09 am
10 Apr 2007
Yes that will cure your anxiety and start your blood flowing....
read "Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
All your worries will be over.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:19 am
10 Apr 2007
Like I could forget. Even for a moment.
My point is that simple environmental sustainability isn't enough. There is no such thing as sustainability, over the long term, without a stable population. We need to achieve global prosperity, sustainably.
Permalink
bk racer Posted 10:25 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:48 am
10 Apr 2007
Humans are not much worried about going extinct; that's not what drives our need to reproduce. More likely we are thinking about ourselves- about extending our own personal existence by having children. Children are reflections of ourselves- our precious rebirth looking back at us.
In fear of death we reproduce.
In love with life, we consume.
A dance we play with doom.
As time and space runs out.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:59 am
10 Apr 2007
Cf. Olympia Dukakis, in Moonstruck.
I do not know the answer, I am just asking. Anyway, thanks for the poem, Birdboy.
Interesting, that it goes "as time and space runs out," rather than "run out": i.e., as though time and space are a singular phenomenon.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:22 am
10 Apr 2007
A decision to have sex is not (should not be) a decision to have children- certainly we have sex for better reasons than just reproducing ourselves?
If there is no time for motion,
what is space?
If time stops, space shrinks to a point- a singularity.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:41 am
10 Apr 2007
I asked parents of large families in India and Indonesia, "Why do you have so many children?". I got the same answer every time across thousands of miles. "We have children so that some of them survive on the farm to support us when we get old." Having many children is premeditated and not due to the desire for sex nor entertainment. If parents had confidence in social services, which do not exist yet, then they would choose to have fewer children.
On population limits, solar energy (without subsidies) can grow endlessly with human populations. Energy and CO2 are not limiting factors.
My live-in therapist says situational depression is normal and makes me kayak 20 miles for stimulation. Cassandra says vigorous afternoon exercise raises your core body temperature and relieves sleep disorder.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:04 pm
10 Apr 2007
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 1:11 pm
10 Apr 2007
hmmm. Survivalism, millenarian anxiety about impending apocalypse, why does this remind me of BM07? I wonder, is Grist sending a team to black rock city in Sept for Greening Man? Try out some of these solar planes and battery powered bicycles on the unwashed, not-so-sober masses? Maybe pick up some tips and tricks from the other gear-heads the west coast has to offer?
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:36 pm
10 Apr 2007
I think I recognise the feeling - an extrapolation of the small, niggling feeling I get whenever I leave a room, that makes me swivel around and switch the light off. I prefer to call it 'having a conscience'. And I'd rather do a lot of hard work to help actually do something, before I'll pay a penny to a therapist to help cure me of my conscience.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:06 pm
10 Apr 2007
"On population limits, solar energy (without subsidies) can grow endlessly with human populations. Energy and CO2 are not limiting factors."
I'm curious if there's anything to back that up--- last I checked, solar energy was quite diffuse, and whether concentrated by living plants or by thin films or silicon cells or sterling engines, required a heck of a lot of surface area, which is surely limited. Moreover, as global heating pumps more water vapor into the atmosphere, we can expect a decline in incident solar radiation reaching earthbound collectors.
I presume that "endlessly" is hyperbole (is it?) and that sunflower is not actually asserting that there is no real limit on human populace ....
Lots of smart people have taken a crack at estimating a sustainable (i.e., solar powered) carrying capacity, and the estimates seem to top out at about 2 billion. I've certainly not heard anyone suggest that we can keep growing without mining past solar energy stores (a/k/a fossil fuels).
I think there are some responses to eco-anxiety that are helpful, but many are simply denial. (I note that, in this discussion, as in others, we blame the anxiety on the awareness of the problem created by our profound commitment to infinite growth economics, rather than on that root cause of our problem.)
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:29 pm
10 Apr 2007
One square meter, 1 m2, of collected sunlight is worth about one barrel of oil per year in sunny climates, about half that in cloudy climates. Solar energy can be used for heat, steam, ice, power, desalination, food processing, ... at similar conversion efficiencies of oil, gas, and coal. It would not take much land to supply all of humanity with the energy needed for business as usual. With efficiency, the transition to a solar economy can happen much quicker with trillions of dollars saved.
The land costs are 5% to 10% of solar hardware costs. Very high volumes of solar hardware supply will be required for a timely global energy transition. The requirements are much too large for effective subsidies and must be sustained by raw market economics.
<img width="527" src="http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/pvethanol.gif" class="blog" height="483">
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:29 pm
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:31 pm
10 Apr 2007
Think what that $350 billion could have done, if that Sad Damn Iraqi hadn't been more important?
That is also how much one presidential candidate, John Edwards, seems willing to spend (in the form of tax credits) over the next 19 years in order to achieve his proposed target for U.S. ethanol production: 65 billion gallons by 2025.
Assuming straight-line growth in ethanol production (exponential growth at current expansion rates would reach the target sooner), the $350 billion (actually, $348.8 billion) is arrived at by multiplying the $0.51/gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit x 19 years x [7 billion gallons +(65-7 billion gallons)/2]).
Permalink
shimona Posted 4:39 pm
10 Apr 2007
My point is that simple environmental sustainability isn't enough. There is no such thing as sustainability, over the long term, without a stable population. We need to achieve global prosperity, sustainably.
KEYWORD -- sustainably!! Prosperity as it is right now is NOT sustainable -- I'm so tired of seeing the developing world getting the burden of blame. As bkracer and GreenEngineer noted, it IS the prosperous developed countries (as well as the properous in developing countries) who consume more resources. I have a really hard time with Western environmentalists who are vegan, bicyclists, organic gardeners -- with kids! How on earth does this add up? I mean, asking one average American child consumes the resources that could support 60 average Indian children. Shouldn't population education and better family planning, then, be focused on the RICH? I thought it was pretty simple. Apple, Brooklyn, Maddox and all the rest of them, as well as the average well-fed suburban child being driven to school in the family SUV, worry me a lot more than some peasant with 8 kids trying to survive off the land.
Support VHEMT!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:34 pm
10 Apr 2007
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp
2. Roughly 2 billion square feet of rubberized mat roofing tiles are installed every year on commercial buildings.
When you have Thinfilm CIGs coextruded with rubberized mat roofing tile.
The installation is free
The mounting is free.
And the wiring can be done dumbsimple by using RFID scale microinverters. (Which also avoids degradation of a whole series of panels if just 1 gets shaded)
Also Geothermal is quite nice if you want something like nuclear.
6 mile deep geothermal could offer 10x the US grids demand for electricity.
http://www.geothermal.org/virtualgeo.html
There's quite a wide variety of options.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologie ...
_
Only thing you need to make it all work is energy storage. Most likely, pumped hydro being the lions share.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/63111/0928
Demand Response Making up the next mix
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=486
Plugin Hybrids Vehicle-2-Grid making up the next mix
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/
With Compressed Air, UltraCapacitors, and Flow Batteries making up the rest.
http://electricitystorage.org/technologies.htm
Permalink
lorayoh Posted 10:10 pm
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:16 pm
10 Apr 2007
In particular, Shimona, Birdboy and that great old prophet-pal Sunflower, with Cassandra at his side, have said some very impressive things.
Not that I agree with everything, and not even that I understand everything. E.g., I got lost on "Support VHEMT."
But the heart that is there, as I perceive it, I love. So, thank you very much.
Birdboy, I entirely agree with your thumbnail comment on the purpose of sexuality, which pretty much turns Catholic sexual ethics, for example, on its head. I was certainly not endorsing the idea that we have mortality and procreation in mind when we have sex. But your poem reminded me of that notion. And as I wrote, the wonderful Brooklyn/Manhattan/Toronto movie "Moonstruck" touches on the subject.
After all, connecting love and death is pretty much a cliche', no? A truism? A truth?
Mimi, I would not expect that that ancient classic movie "The Hurricane" contains much of value, regarding the anthropology of Pacific islands, or even regarding their climatic conditions. I was only saying that so far as the cinematic arts go, the storm sequence is very impressive.
Tico89, your take on "conscience" is lovely. I do not think it punctures Kate's original post at all; it seems to be expressing something that she originally had in mind.
JMG, Jesus-Mary-Giuseppe, you are invaluable.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
estark Posted 7:39 am
11 Apr 2007
People have kids for selfish reasons. He lists them all.
Not a day goes by that I don't feel ashamed to be a part of the human race. I also believe that if humans were to vanish from the planet tomorrow, there would not be an animal or plant (what's left of them) that would not breathe a sigh of relief.
The vast majority of Americans know exactly what they're doing to the planet and simply don't care. From my brother's writings: "It seems people have a blind spot called the Self: they seem to say, It's others who are to blame, I'm exempt; my heart's in the right place, so it doesn't matter how I actually live."
I think we all need to get outside ourselves and empathize with all the innocent non-human animals and others on this planet who are truly taking the brunt of our actions and choices.
The earth's population is supposed to explode to 9 BILLION in 13 short years. When it is already is such ruin, how can it possibly support 2.5 billion more??
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:17 am
11 Apr 2007
News flash? Anyone with a minimal understanding of biology is aware of this. How can anyone criticize something as natural and essential to survival of a species as having children? I'm afraid raising this as an issue demanding a solution seems rather pointless.
"Not a day goes by that I don't feel ashamed to be a part of the human race."
Why? Do you think beavers feel shame when they flood acres of land, changing the ecology of an area, all for their own selfish needs?
"I also believe that if humans were to vanish from the planet tomorrow, there would not be an animal or plant (what's left of them) that would not breathe a sigh of relief."
The chimps that have learned to hunt bush monkeys with crude spears would be especially delighted, as they would have a new niche to fill. Then, someday, they could feel ashamed about being chimps.
"The vast majority of Americans know exactly what they're doing to the planet and simply don't care."
I think they do care, but do not know how to cope. They are overwhelmed. They are not motivated to conserve when they see others still behaving badly. Someone has to set an example. But suggesting that voluntary extinction of the human species is a viable solution is not going to help. People will just roll their eyes and say, "There goes another nutty environmentalist."
"I think we all need to get outside ourselves and empathize with all the innocent non-human animals and others on this planet who are truly taking the brunt of our actions and choices."
I agree with this. But why do we have to hate the human species? Why do we have to be ashamed to be a part of it? Why aren't we just as important and worthy of preservation as any other species. This is another example of the extreme options generally presented to people. On one side there is the self-hating environmentalist constantly criticizing humans for being humans. On the other side is the happy-go-lucky right-wing wacko who insists humans have no effect on the planet, animals have no feelings, and everything will be okay.
How about a return to realistic solutions?
Forward!
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 2:23 am
12 Apr 2007
everyone join, follow their lead
i'll be right behind you, just going to hang out for a while
really, i'll be right with you
you go ahead and volunteer
say, that is a nice bit of land you have there
really, i'll be right behind you
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:14 am
12 Apr 2007
The VHEMT site is nicely written, even entertaining.
But I cannot be sure that the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is a real movement. If it is, then the only truly effective participants in it are sexually active women, who would prevent themselves from becoming pregnant, or remaining pregnant.
Still, even for those of us who are not sexually active women, there is a lot there of great interest. For example, I was pleasantly surprised by the Pagan/Wiccan statement that was quoted.
On beavers, etc.: I think it is fair to say that all non-human animals are without conscience, and conduct themselves strictly for self-serving ends, and those ends can involve the harm or death of other animals. But I do not know that they are responsible for coordinating mass deaths, as human beings regularly do when they fish with nets, or with explosives, or with long lines with multiple hooks, and in some other forms of hunting, such as those horrendous "buffalo jumps" that certain Native American groups used to engineer, once upon a time.
Because of their amazingly effective methods of reproduction, many insects, and other arthropods, can sometimes relatively quickly devastate large populations of other organisms. On some level, I suppose, it may be fair to consider that activity "evil" -- e.g., infestations affecting entire forests, and the inescapable swarms of biting insects in Arctic regions. But the individual arthropods can surely not deserve blame.
Are beavers evilly destructive? The impression that I have is that when they alter a hydrological system and create a wetlands environment, they are actually responsible for a much more diverse fauna and flora. And conversely, when European fur-trappers eliminated beavers from large parts of their ranges, so that rivers and streams returned to a more fast-draining state, this had the effect of impoverishing ecosystems.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink