Posted by Joe on: 04.28.2008 /
Warning: this post contains Doom and Gloom.
Friends, over the last few months you may have noticed I’ve not been around. I have mostly been educating myself about climate change. I have noticed that there is a dramatic split in the environmental movement.
On the one hand we have scientists stating that the situation is really bad. We have people, including the General Secretary of the United Nations, talking as if it is the greatest threat since WWII and that we need to mobilise on that kind of scale. Forget the War on Terror, future global instability is going to be caused directly or indirectly by climate change. Bear in mind that the negotiations which are half-heartedly taking place are based on a reduction in the rate of increase of emissions - whereas the best science suggests that a rapid fall is actually needed. If you want to be really scared, read this report (PDF) from Friends of the Earth Australia.
And on the other hand, we have a bunch of people saying that what we need to do to beat climate change is to change a few lightbulbs. Er… hello..?
In the last few weeks I have been discussing this with various theologians and Christians. Responses range from outright disbelief at the science - which is really rather worrying when we’re not prepared to accept a 0.01% risk of a nuclear power station accident yet are willing to dismiss a 20% risk of catastrophic global climate change. Even amongst those who accept the message, few are prepared to examine themselves and their lives in the light of the knowledge. Nobody wants to reduce their lifestyle by the necessary amount. Some just see climate change as evidence that the End is Near and sit smugly waiting for it to happen. Meanwhile, the poorest people are already feeling the effects of a food crisis, which promises to only get worse.
Sadly, I am forced to conclude that the message nobody wants to hear is the only one worth hearing: we’re not going to beat this thing. We’ve so screwed up this planet that it has already gone beyond the point of no return and we’re not going to get it back. And quite honestly, we deserve everything coming to us.
Meanwhile, a very small number of Christians are planning for the worst. Taking their cue from the brave souls who risked everything to dress the wounds of those dying during the Black Death (bubonic plague), these people are already thinking and planning how best they can minister to those most affected. How to plan for the changes we see in our own countries, so that when the changes happen and everyone is looking how to save themselves, there are at least a few people who dare to think of others. Planetary Hospice Workers as one radical theologian put it.
I’m sorry, this isn’t much of a way to end a post, but I can’t think of anything else to say.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Herb
1 04/28/08 7:10 PM | Comment Link |So who’s going to make the Kool-aid?
Comment by: Benjamin
2 04/28/08 8:03 PM | Comment Link |Considering the mood I’m in, I’ll volunteer =p
Comment by: Benjamin
3 04/28/08 8:06 PM | Comment Link |In case anybody tried the link before and it didn’t work, I’ve fixed it =)
Comment by: Benjamin
4 04/28/08 8:11 PM | Comment Link |I liked this quote from the report
Comment by: Martin Gugino
5 04/29/08 1:43 AM | Comment Link |I agree with the conclusion
but I don’t think the cause of the upcoming catastrophe will be climate change. Luckily, we are ignoring many other serious problems (peak oil, gm seeds, antibiotics for animals, criminal governments, and so on) so we are still “screwed” as you put it. Global warming may be caused by an increase in CO2, but the temperature can be lowered in ways other than reducing CO2 - for example: cover the Sahara with aluminum foil. No doubt, some plan “such as”* that will be tried.
Benjamin - isn’t it nice that the report had a hopeful, upbeat paragraph. So that means we are all going to be OK? I love reading the “happy chapter”, as it is called in “What A Way to Go”
–
*tip of the hat to Miss South Carolina
Comment by: Martin Gugino
6 04/29/08 1:53 AM | Comment Link |oops
Comment by: benjamin ady
7 04/29/08 3:46 PM | Comment Link |Joe,
Yeah I have kind of missed you around here. It sounds like a fascinating if … disenheartening project you’ve been undertaking. Was there some event or encounter that led you to jump into taking a closer look at climate change?
It seems to me that the requirement is a bit huge. We’re wanting the entire industrialized world to radically change our entire outlook. That kind of change just doesn’t happen all at once too often. Would you say that the shift has very much *begun*, at least?
Comment by: joe
8 04/30/08 1:19 AM | Comment Link |B - yeah, I got paid to write a regular blog about it for a company which enables businesses to sponsor low carbon schemes. Unfortunately I discovered such schemes are at best marginally important and at worst a complete sham.
I would say that there has been little or no real tangible shift. Most of what has happened so far has been a battle between powerful individuals and businesses, largely making out what they’re doing is really important when it isn’t at all.
As far as I see, nobody really wants to grab the nettle and admit that it is no solution to move to ‘clean coal’ or biofuels or nuclear or any of the other excuses wealthy people use to enable us to continue with our wasteful lives largely unaffected.
And that is really worrying.
Martin - I suspect those are all interlinked, but you’re right - even fewer people are talking about Peak Oil etc.
Comment by: Julie Clawson
9 04/30/08 5:43 PM | Comment Link |Joe - I admit that things like changing our light bulbs don’t make a huge impact in and of themselves, but don’t you think they are part of altering people’s worldviews? If people can start taking steps toward becoming aware and caring is that not a good thing even if those individual steps are just a drop in the bucket?
Comment by: joe
10 05/1/08 3:09 AM | Comment Link |Frankly, no not really Julie.
To [over]use an analogue, as the Titanic was sinking, it would have made a bit of difference if the crew had used the lifeboats to their full capacity.
But the truth is that a catalogue of errors meant the vessel was unsafe before it even left port. There were never enough lifeboats and safety equipment for everyone.
We need to understand that what we face is an emergency, requiring significant changes to our lifestyles. If by undertaking small changes we are lulled into the false impression that we are doing Something Great then we’re not really doing anything more than powdering our noses whilst the ship sinks.
Indeed, as I’ve already indicated, one of the only options left open to those of us who see the coming catastrophe is to think about how to organise a rescue mission.
Comment by: Julie Clawson
11 05/1/08 2:48 PM | Comment Link |I think my point was that we all start somewhere. The point is not that we are all heroes for changing a lightbulb, but that that is the place where a lot of people have to start before greater changes can be made. We are not going to get the average american to jump on board with big stuff right away, getting some people to care enough to change a lightbulb is a huge step. until those people start thinking differently I doubt huge cultural changes will ever be possible.
Comment by: benjamin ady
12 05/6/08 2:24 AM | Comment Link |Please see the fascinating note with regards to this subject on Joe’s blog. It touches on some of the questions raised here about what makes a difference and how do we get people to change?
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 05/6/08 2:25 AM | Comment Link |In fact, here’s a quote from that note:
Comment by: David H
14 05/6/08 7:40 AM | Comment Link |I don’t have high regard for politics or politicians, but this is one area where politicians could serve to reframe the issue. My parents and grandparents told me often of the rationing during WWII. I grew up in the midst of the US space race. In both instances amazing things were achieved because politicians outlined a big problem (one that might have been difficult to face, much less deal with) then put in place both the programs to achieve goals and the attitudes that made positives of both the achievement and related sacrifice.
The US could not only set a precedent for the rest of the world by unilaterally addressing this as event of the magnitude it appears to be (let’s face it, if we step up after years of obstruction that would be a powerful message), but we could create massive new industries from the things that would emerge from our research/development efforts. Yes it would be painful initially (and maybe for a long while), but dealing with that pain is largely a PR thing. The US has proved able in the past to not only control consumption but make such controls something in which people can take pride.
Now we just need some politicians who are not suffering from a guts deficit.
Comment by: joe
15 05/7/08 1:40 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin - the really scary thing for me is that even those in the forefront of the environmental movement are scared to address the issue. They are ahead of me in their understanding of the reality of the high risk of climate change, yet are paralysed and wary of articulating the truth clearly.
It seems to me that the politicians are not the only ones with a ‘guts deficit’.
Comment by: Benjamin
16 05/8/08 11:40 PM | Comment Link |Joe, David,
I’m wondering if you two have a feeling for the degree to which the fear of … speaking/acting as drastically as necessary is related to the … certain knowledge that one would start to lose credibility/power, and thus lose one’s ability to effectively speak/act, and/or the degree to which the hesitation/fear is just about the comfort of the leaders involved?
I mean … It’s intriguing, from a psychological perspective. Mr. Gore doesn’t seem to have lost out that much for his relatively bold statement/actions. Or has he, and I just missed it? Is there a puzzle piece I’m not seeing?
Comment by: David H
17 05/9/08 10:15 AM | Comment Link |I can only surmise. Weird thing is that I heard him being interviewed couple days back regarding his new book, “The Assault on Reason.” Given what is happening with the Democratic nominating process and how that could adversely affect any efforts to reform US environmental policy, I thought he might make some bold statements about changing the US political process. He avoided even the appearance of controversy, basically endorsing the process as it is. Unfortunately, the process as it is can’t be divorced from the lack of US will to do thing differently vis-a-vis the environment. Our current political process is about money. Our environmental policy is about money. The people making our environmental policy (lobbyists) are the same ones contributing millions to the election campaigns of every candidate.
So maybe you can make bold statements about what needs to be done and not lose much as long as you avoid the brass tacks of inter-related changes needed to actually accomplish any of these things.
As just a for instance, Gore talked about changing from work/wage taxes to carbon taxes. That is not nearly so bold as saying we need to eliminate lobbyists and all private contributions to politicians so that they won’t be unduly influenced by those rich corporations that are heavily invested in not changing US or world environmental policy. Perhaps Gore realizes he would lose his “voice” if he called for the latter.