Over on Worldchanging, Alex addresses a subject that's dear to my heart, namely what George Bush Sr. famously called The Vision Thing.
He rightly points out that the kinds of solutions being discussed fall absurdly short of what's needed to avoid the worst of climate change. Scientists now say we need to cut global GHG emissions by 70 percent in the next decade or so; Kyoto would cut them by 5.5 percent, and it's the best we've got right now, and the U.S. hasn't ratified it, and the countries that have aren't meeting its targets.
This is to say nothing of the "change a light bulb and properly inflate your tires" school of solutions one often finds in mainstream media outlets.
Why the gap? Alex suspects, as do I, that what's missing is a clear vision: a picture of what a sustainable world would look like. (Regular readers will be familiar with my obsession with this topic.)
Worldchanging being Worldchanging, they focus pretty heavily on technical solutions. And thank gawd somebody's bringing all that stuff together.
But I am equally fascinated by the psychology and sociology of change. How do people approach and think about large changes? What's the best way to "sell" sweeping, concerted change in a society that is, whatever its problems, at least for the moment rich and comfortable?
People must be able to visualize what they're fighting for before they will rise to the occasion. And I would add, they must be able to visualize a desirable future world before they can really absorb the scale of the problem. The mind's capacity for denial should never be underestimated. It's much, much easier to pretend the problem doesn't exist than to face the prospect that everything you've ever known is in danger of crumbling. That's why climate denialists have held on long past the point when science has made a mockery of their positions -- there's a hunger for what they're saying.
As I keep saying, I'm working on (i.e., periodically thinking and feeling guilty about) a series of longer posts about this stuff. But here's some general framing.
The "vision" people are offered will need to be context-sensitive, depending where they live and their own level of education and wealth. But any vision at all will need to be not incidentally but primarily about values.
Talk about values is hopelessly confused and narrow in this country. Lord knows I'm not talking about gay marriage or repressive sexual mores. All I mean is that people must be able to envision themselves, or their children or grandchildren, living a life of quality, integrity, and meaning. Our vision must be not only technically possible but resonant with people's non-material needs and desires.
Complicating matters is the fact that in times of change, people become more conservative in their values, not less. Anxiety prompts a reaching out for the familiar, for that which grounds -- family, community, and tradition. (This is behind the famed tendency of red states, where regressive economic policy causes the most dislocation and insecurity, to vote for the very "values candidates" that implement that policy.)
The scale of change required by climate change is extraordinary. There will be great anxiety involved. People will be reaching out for what grounds them. That's why I think the vision we ask people to fight for must not be framed as something radically new, a sharp break with human culture and history. It must be framed as a return, in many ways, to values that the hyper-charged era of cheap oil almost destroyed: Self-reliance. Rootedness in a place and a community. Mutual care.
Anyway, more on this, someday over the rainbow.
Comments
View as Flat
birdboy Posted 10:04 am
11 Apr 2006
I would say that people have to absorb the scale of the problem before they will be motivated to change. Whether they are currently in denial or are just shielded from the evidence of the problems, it is simply not important to them. People have to know what is wrong with today's world before they can visualize a world without those problems. They must know just how badly change is needed to be motivated enough to care. These days, too many people don't really care if Nature is forever changed, subdued, and sterilized. Diversity is not a part of their lives- so what if 80% of all species disappear from the Earth- they probably only knowingly interact with a few dozen species in their entire lives- many of those interactions being unpleasant. So what if habitat is shrunk and poisoned to the point where no wild areas can support diverse, healthy ecosystems- why should these people change their lives if they can't see how it affects them personally?
Most environmentalists, on the other hand, have a very clear vision of what's wrong- but a foggy view of what would be right. One reason for the fog is overpopulation- there are just too many of us to allow ANY realistic vision of a harmonious relationship with Nature. No matter how good your powers of visualization, seeing a favorable solution to overpopulation is tough, and nothing works for 6.5 billion people.
Dave says: "Our vision must be not only technically possible but resonant with people's non-material needs and desires."
Problem is, most Americans are totally absorbed with their material needs and desires- the substitutes for spiritual needs. Our spiritual needs can be satisfied in almost any view of the future- they are independent of how 'green' is our future. We can envision a horrible future with mutated insects dominating nature, catastrophic weather events every day, and still have a (sheltered) happy, thriving community of spiritually satisfied human beings (except for those who apparently needed the Kind Old Mother Nature to be happy- those folks died off in the storms). Any green future is likely to satisfy non-material needs- it's the material desires that cause problems with our 'vision'- giving up the luxuries that we've come to rely on (that also cause destruction of global proportions)- that's where the challenge lies. The real condition to satisfy is 'technologically possible but resonant with people's material needs and desires'
in order to please today's Dick and Jane with our vision. If all people cared about was whether their non-material needs were being met in our vision, this would be easy.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:09 pm
11 Apr 2006
"Self-reliance" is the most conservative-sounding of the three, resonating as it does with the American Protestant ethic and the cult of rugged individualism.
"Rootedness" in a place and community, on the other hand, is quite un-American; or, better, un-American relatively recently, when we have come to idolize our privacy, our lack of responsibility to our neighbors, and our freedom to transport ourselves and recreate ourselves elsewhere whenever we like. Clearly, "rootedness," in the way I think you mean, is essential in the path to virtue. Hopefully, though, you do not mean it to preclude our cosmopolitan inclinations, which are another important part of our non-material values.
"Mutual care" is the astoundingly impressive virtue of the Native Americans. Actually, to them it seems to come as second-nature, and they for their part have always been shocked that we Europeans have little appreciation for it. That is our disgrace. Lately, sadly, casino bucks have perhaps revealed some unfortunate divisions. The Indians are perhaps learning from us too well. That is our disgrace too.
Puer Avialis, aka Birdboy, makes some good observations, though he writes cynically and pessimisticly, as is his wont. He seems to fail to appreciate your appeal to understand the importance of non-material values; and so he places himself in the embarrassing position of seeming to endorse the post-World-War-II mindset of America=Suburbia, and material values are everything. Surely, though, he does not believe that?
There is a curious but rather muddy little piece in the Christian Science Monitor, about how you young folks seem, to our surprise, to be interpreting certain issues more and more in moral terms:
http://csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p01s03-uspo.html
It has long puzzled and, frankly, disappointed me that such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage are associated with "moral values," while health care and the environment are not. This article, with the accompanying poll, seems to suggest that you young folks are beginning to see the light.
Permalink
Stentor Posted 10:26 am
12 Apr 2006
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:52 am
12 Apr 2006
Not too long ago, foresters thought they had the forest thing all figured out by treating it as if it were merely just a big farm that could be harvested in perpetuity on a rotational basis. Of course, they couldn't have been more wrong! Luckily, the Forest Service has seen the light, for the most part but, "dinosaurs" still exist in the Agency's hierarchy.
Today, we have a parallel example of people who know, both deep within their hearts and completely entrenched in their heads that "preservation" of our forests will right all the wrongs of the past 100 years. While these ideas are not nearly as wrong as those foresters of yesteryear, they might be just as damaging to our western forests and the world's eco-systems, as a whole.
Now, to my main point. Just how many tons of toxic greenhouse gasses are spewed into our atmosphere by catastrophic wildfires? Just how long can people say that these wildfires are "natural and beneficial"? History tells us that cool wildfires were a huge part of nature, as much as wind, air, sun and water. It was an integral part of the world's natural cycles. Sure, these fires did spew some pollutants into the atmosphere but, the problem was not at all intense and was easily balanced by the increased growth and vigor of the surviving plants. Today's forests are not anything like those fire-adapted forests before the white man came. Fire suppression has allowed flammable species to flourish and negate the advantages that the old forests had. Selective logging of those thick-barked pines further pushed those forests toward today's unnaturally high flammability. Fire has allowed stands of trees to become grossly overstocked, compared to the available water. Perennial streams have become ephemeral and intermittant streams have become gulches. In the last 15 years, we've seemed to have reached the "tipping point", along with the seemingly documented climate change for the worse in the West.
Whether this is just a "warm spell" blip in the natural climate cycle or the big killer event that will impact the world in a very bad way, it will take active management and a colossal effort to reduce the intensity of these cataclysmic fires. This will also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from our burning forests and allow them to recover very quickly, making them drought, beetle AND fire resistant, just like the forests of old. We're not spending nearly enough to remedy the situation and spending WAY too much on putting out these fires. When will this vicious cycle end?!?
PS, unfortunately, we're now seeing eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and Idaho being impacted by these same issues and the amount of acres burned already this year is 6 times the record rate of a few years ago. (Granted, that many of those acres were not forested but, this year could be the third all time record in the last 6 years). Once again, I predict that this year will be one where fire suppression will be "stealing" funds away from projects that will reduce fire intensities and fuel ever-increasing fire salvage projects. Welcome to the Bush School of Armageddon Forestry!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:42 pm
12 Apr 2006
Nevertheless, there is more to it than that; and that, I think, is what Dave is trying to explore (with not much help so far; sorry, Dave). When our republic was in its worst predicament ever, Abraham Lincoln addressed all Americans, and made an appeal to "our better angels," in the cause of peace and reconciliation. He understood that it is possible to discover within human nature a desire to do good, a desire to do work for a common good beyond that of ourselves and our loved ones, and a willingness to endure hardship for the sake of that good. I think that is the direction that Dave is looking in.
Now that I have thought a little longer about what he wrote, I think Dave's suggestion is quite inspired: that positive change comes, not from preaching a new and alien vision, with little connexion to what we already know; but from a kind of nostalgic retreat into old-fashioned values. That is, we will be better prepared to do good things in the present, when we are reminded of the good things we remember about ourselves (vain imagination or not, it does not matter) in the past.
Best wishes, Dave; carry on.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:24 am
13 Apr 2006
Sure, it's gloom and doom but, with a small ray of hope for the future. It'll be painful but, humans are a plucky bunch and will find some way to survive.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:41 am
14 Apr 2006
http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-am-luckiest-girl-in-world.html#comments
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink