I am a hypocrite. Yes, you read that correctly and it’s true. When you break it down to the most fundamental level, everyone involved in the global fight for intergenerational justice is guilty. Unless you live off-grid in a tree house built from downed lumber, grow all your own food, sew your own clothes from local materials, ride a bicycle made from recycled metals, never travel by air, and generate your own electricity from a homemade solar panel, (and have lived that way since the day you were born) then you are part of the problem. We all are. How could it have been any other way? Structure drives behavior and our modern system drives consumption behavior in one direction. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not down.
If you’re like me, you were born into an industrialized world and began your indoctrination into the church of consumerism from your very first breath. Surrounded by toys that had traveled 10,000 miles on a cargo ship, then a train, then finally a truck to the local Babies R’ Us, I began appreciating our collective industrial prowess before I could roll over. Fed by Gerber baby food that was the product of a bloated, unnecessarily global agriculture system, and clothed in garments that had made the same journey as my toys, I was already an unwitting participant of the global economic growth engine.
My parents had two cars and a house that was much larger than practically necessary. We bought food at a supermarket and everything else at a mall. We took long road trips from Minneapolis to Chicago. We flew all over the country; for a few hundred bucks, we could sit in an airplane and do in two hours what Lewis and Clark did in two years.
It doesn’t stop there. My passion for intergenerational justice and fear of a very different world for my unborn children led me to the Bainbridge Graduate Institute, where I’m working towards an M.B.A. in Sustainable Business. I live in Seattle and have three weekend sessions on Bainbridge Island per quarter (Bainbridge Island is in the Puget Sound, 30 minutes off the Seattle shore). So once a month I get in my non-hybrid car, drive myself downtown and onto a diesel-sucking ferry boat and drive off the other side on my way to sustainable business school.
I got married this past summer. My entire family flew into Seattle from all over the country to meet us. We took our honeymoon on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean, and we didn’t exactly kayak to get there. We recently traded in one of our cars and we didn’t buy a Prius. My wife and I frequently travel by air and land to visit friends and work on projects. I eat red meat and I love it. I drive up to the mountains to go skiing and honestly have the nerve to complain when the snowpack isn’t as great as it used to be. Like I said, I am a hypocrite.
Why am I divulging all of this discrediting information? If I actually expect my words to have weight shouldn’t I be living in one of those off-grid houses, eating homegrown vegetables, and riding a stationary bike to generate electricity so I can write this post on my (brand-spanking-new Apple) laptop? Shouldn’t I turn my life into a bumper sticker and be the change I wish to see in the world? A common criticism of those working to disrupt our fossil fuel-driven economy is that we’re all dependent upon (and indulgent in) business as usual so any interference would hurt society as a whole. Proponents of this school of thought would say that I am obviously a very active participant in our fossil fuel economy; therefore I have no right to seek to disrupt it. That line of thought could not be further from the truth.
The idea that I can’t live within the current structure and honestly seek to transform it from within is offensive. Where else am I going to live? My only alternative is to live completely outside the system like the tree-people I described above, which I’m not yet interested in doing. Sure, there are things I could do personally to reduce my individual footprint, but simply by living in the United States I’m guilty by association. The notion that our past behavior somehow limits our future ability to seek change disempowers us all. It’s like saying that because there was a time when nobody knew that smoking causes cancer, it’s okay to keep smoking given what we now know. There was this point in history where we didn’t know any better, so that should justify current behavior, right? Wrong. At this point we’re just prisoners of the carbon economy, and we know it. I certainly wasn’t consulted in its design. Were you? Structure does drive behavior so we had no choice but to behave within the structure we were born into.
We need to move past the stale argument that inaction is our only possibility because the alternatives are too hazardous to the global economic system. To the contrary, every year of inaction comes with a price tag of about $1.2 trillion. That’s trillion, with a “T”. This calculation takes into account the increasing costs of superstorms — like Hurricane Sandy— that are occuring with growing frequency around the world. Sandy will cost New York and New Jersey at least $70 billion. One must also consider the costs of infrastructural adaptions that will become increasingly necessary. But one of the largest costs associated with business as usual is… business as usual.
There’s a reason Shell is spending billions to set up shop in the Arctic Ocean. Ignore for a moment the overwhelming cynicism of a fossil fuel giant seeking to harvest territory that is only recently accessible because of the direct warming impacts of their business practices. There’s something else at work (aside from actually having access to these new territories) that we must all understand.
Shell wouldn’t be attempting to engage in deep water drilling in one of the harshest areas on Earth if there were still easily accessible gushers in Pennsylvania or Texas. Those days are over. In order for fossil fuel companies to keep providing “business as usual”, they must rely on increasingly expensive exploration and drilling techniques that require much higher consumer gas prices in order to be economical. These increased expenses are also figured into the cost of inaction. Doubling down on business as usual makes our economy more vulnerable, not less vulnerable. If the current energy delivery system relies on $100/barrel oil and suddenly we find ourselves in the grips of another global recession, we all suffer the consequences.
Again, structure drives behavior. It’s no surprise that we’re all so reliant on the current system since key players are spending vast sums to keep us all on the roller coaster just a little while longer. We all depend on this system right now and to expect that we’ll all be able to somehow move beyond it without a fundamental structural shift is foolish. But having benefited from the advantages our industrial economic system in the past doesn’t disqualify you from working to prevent the profound consequences of that same system from gaining irreversible traction.
Things are beginning to turn in a progressive direction and the structure is subtly shifting beneath our feet. Check out this collection of reports from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, which clearly outline threats to business as usual from climate disruption. Of note are the collections on Corporate Governance, Corporate Strategies, Insurance, Finance, Investor Resources, Clean Technology, and other sector-specific resources. These aren’t exactly fringe business concerns. Taken together, these issues make up the core of our current economic system.
I have lived and acted in concert with the system in which I exist. My hypocrisy serves to highlight our great challenge. How can I turn my back on something that has provided so much comfort, so many opportunities, such a rich quality of life? This is the model that I was given, so of course I use it. Fortunately, I’ve awoken to a new realm of possibility. I now see that there is a viable alternative to business as usual and I’ve chosen to commit my life to helping us all get there. There are millions more like me out there; bounded by the system as it exists, yet aspiring to recreate the system as it could be. Paul Hawken would call it our Blessed Unrest.
My hypocrisy is only visible in the light of the many alternatives that now exist. When I was young my parents didn’t know any better. It’s not as if they bought four tickets to the Carbon Economy Express, knowing that it would end in economic, social, and environmental devastation. They were simply living the lives that system constraints dictated. But now, finally, we know better. I know better.
Contextual hypocrisy is no excuse. And we are reaching beyond the boundaries of business as usual, whether we know it or not. Our one precious Earth has curated an autoimmune response to the disease that we humans have spread. We have no choice but to evolve as a species. My participation in business as usual up until this point does not disqualify me from recognizing the susceptibility of the way things are, and endeavoring to make them more resilient for future generations. I can’t change my past behavior, but I can look towards the future.
As with any self-destructive addiction, the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. So here it goes: My name is Mark, and I’m a carbon-aholic. Whew, I feel better. Now you try.
It’s not as if I had much of a choice in the matter either. I was like a baby born to a drug-addicted mother; the child that has no say in their dependency. The very first moments of my life were spent surrounded by the comforts of a carbon-enhanced world. Check out this Carbonaholics Anonymous website for recovery information. I just found this CA site as I was writing and it’s half funny, half sad, but all true. It will take an act of a Higher Power to remove humans from the perpetual drip of our carbon habit. The pull is too intoxicating. If we could commit to practicing the 12 steps of carbon recovery it would help us all.
In the problem, lies the solution. Our collective addiction is the most powerful reason to demand change. We don’t want to be addicted to the dirty needle of fossil fuels any longer. But there are myriad powerful lobbies that have a strong interest in keeping things just the way they are. Fortunately, as I noted above, it’s becoming harder and harder for them to perpetuate their antiquated business models.
I don’t want to be an addict any longer. All of the comforts I enjoy as a result of the current system will change dramatically as our economy moves away from dirty carbon energy. I’ll eat food that was grown closer to home, vacation regionally instead of nationally or globally, buy baby clothes from second-hand stores, live in a more reasonably-sized home, and rely much more heavily on transit systems or a bicycle for daily commuting. I would happily trade in my carbon-addicted life for this new vision of the future if it means snow in the mountains for my grandchildren.
I’m willing to make all of these changes, but I can’t do it as long as our economic apparatus still reinforces old behavior. This is the last time I’ll remind you that structure drives behavior, so if the system only supports a carbon economy then we’ll all remain carbon addicts until the last cubic meter of bitumen is extracted from the Canadian Tar Sands. Is this the world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? As long as the system requires it, I’ll be living in one world and working towards another. I’ll be a hypocrite until a new structure allows something else.
The first step is acceptance. My name is Mark, and I’m a carbon-aholic. Are you?
Last week I wrote about the World Bank’s recent climate report, which concluded we’re on track for a 4° C temperature increase before the end of the century. We’ve already raised the temperature of our one precious Earth more than 1° C and we have begun to experience the consequences: profound melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets; escalating sea level rise; prolonged droughts and wildfires; crop failures and food shortages; frequent huge rain and snow storms; an elongated hurricane season; ecosystem collapses; massive migrations due to food and water shortages; disease outbreaks in the aftermath of megastorms; and plummeting air quality, especially in the developing world. This is just a short list of consequences from a 1° C temperature increase. Still we do nothing.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference is wrapping up in Doha, Qatar this week. The COP18 Conference is ironically located, being that Qatar has the highest per-capita emissions of any county on Earth and they basically operate a one sector economy. A door prize to the first person who can guess which sector I’m referring to! The eighteenth UN conference on climate change comes on the heels of another wonderful report, this time from the Global Carbon Project (a joint venture of the Department of Energy and the Norwegian Research Council), which has measured a 3% increase in heat-trapping emissions in 2012. Almost all the attendee-nations in Doha agree that this number should be going down, not up. Yet, nobody is seriously expecting any forward progress to come out of COP18; the reasoning behind that collective apathy is beyond me to understand. Have we just given up? How could participants announce such a surrender, or worse, how could the United States actively work against a collective agreement? Disruptive climate change has never been more obvious to the naked eye. For decades scientists told us it was some far-off event that will impact future generations. But right now, today, we are beginning to experience our Earth’s wrath in real-time.
For more on the World Bank Report, please watch the following interview with the report’s chief author Bill Hare. Brought to you by Democracy Now:
Wen Stephenson is my new hero.
Seriously, Wen Stephenson is the man. For those of you who don’t have a feed of the local NPR broadcast going directly into your prefrontal cortex, Wen Stephenson was most recently the senior producer of NPR’s On Point, as well as an editor at The Atlantic and The Boston Globe.
Mr. Stephenson is also a former member of what he calls the MSM (main stream media) turned full-time climate activist. He recently wrote a piece that all but assured his role as a “former” MSM contributor will be a permanent one. The piece entitled A Convenient Excuse, WHICH YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST READ, is the story of one man’s desperate pleas for sanity falling on deaf ears. His desperation and sadness at the dimming prospects of a bright future should feel deeply personal to all of us, but they don’t. Wen thinks the mainstream media is complicit in our misconstruction. Wen is right.
Stephenson correctly understands how well positioned the mainstream media is to affect the urgency of our response to climate change. However, urgency has been all but absent from the tone taken by all of our major news outlets, including the “liberal lame stream media elite” at The New York Times, NPR, and PBS. To be clear, they have certainly covered climate change and global warming. Much more so than the folks at The Wall Street Journal or the National Review, but the coverage is topical instead of systemic. The MSM handling of climate change typically hones in on individual pieces of evidence like melting ice sheets, regional devastation from drought, or massive storms. This micro-journalistic view is completely inadequate; what we need is macro-journalistic coverage. We need cogent explanations of the systemic challenges our human civilization is currently up against. And we needed it like…yesterday.
If there’s one thing our modern media knows how to do, it’s sensationalize a crisis. That’s the type of coverage Wen is insistent upon and he won’t rest until he has convinced his former colleagues to oblige. Why? Well…the dispatches from sources of scientific consensus are becoming increasingly apocalyptic. Take this November 2012 release from the World Bank entitled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4° C Warmer World Must Be Avoided as the most recent example. The World Bank is not exactly a bastion of liberal environmentalism, but they clearly recognize the magnitude of the crisis at hand. They conclude that, “[We’re] on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.” Now that’s a headline!
“A planetwide temperature rise of 4 degrees C—and the report notes that the tepidness of the emission pledges and commitments of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will make such an increase almost inevitable—will cause a precipitous drop in crop yields, along with the loss of many fish species, resulting in widespread hunger and starvation. Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to abandon their homes in coastal areas and on islands that will be submerged as the sea rises. There will be an explosion in diseases such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever. Devastating heat waves and droughts, as well as floods, especially in the tropics, will render parts of the Earth uninhabitable. The rain forest covering the Amazon basin will disappear. Coral reefs will vanish. Numerous animal and plant species, many of which are vital to sustaining human populations, will become extinct. Monstrous storms will eradicate biodiversity, along with whole cities and communities. And as these extreme events begin to occur simultaneously in different regions of the world, the report finds, there will be ‘unprecedented stresses on human systems.’ Global agricultural production will eventually not be able to compensate. Health and emergency systems, as well as institutions designed to maintain social cohesion and law and order, will crumble. The world’s poor, at first, will suffer the most. But we all will succumb in the end to the folly and hubris of the Industrial Age. And yet, we do nothing.”
Can you imagine the ensuing controversy if The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times printed something like that? We need crisis-level coverage, because we’re up against the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. The World Bank (and virtually every other credible scientific institution) is telling us that we’re on track to completely wreck our atmosphere by doing nothing else but more of what we’re already doing. Business as usual is more than enough to ruin the greatest non-renewable resource of all: a livable climate.
So why isn’t this on the front-page every single day? Why is Hedges’ analysis the exception to the climate coverage rule? Is it too grim? If we believe the best minds the scientific community has to offer, Hurricane Sandy is but a harbinger of the world we’re creating for our children. Super storms like Sandy will be a common occurrence that will wash up on our shores more precipitously every year. Yet, for the most part reporting on global climate change stays focused on symptoms and not causes, on individual events and not systemic planetary shifts. Non-scientific reporters have a bad habit of pretending to be wonks. What the hell is 4° C anyways? It really doesn’t sound that bad. How could 4° C create the type of apocalypse I’m talking about? After all, here in the Pacific Northwest an extra 4° C would make for a pretty nice summer, right?
Let’s think about it another way in order to illustrate how truly horrifying 4° C is. The current global consensus, agreed to in the Copenhagen Accord and signed by countries responsible for 80% of global emissions, is that human civilization must not allow the global temperature to rise more than 2° C. Beyond two degrees, the climate scientists say, global physical/social/economic systems start to break down. Bill McKibben has more on 2° C in this landmark Rolling Stone article, where he explains the frightening math behind the challenge to keep warming to that level. So if 2° is the upper limit we’ve all agreed to, and we’re actually on track to double that by the end of this century, what exactly does it mean?
A healthy human body has a resting temperature of about 98.6° F or 37° C. The Copenhagen Accord allows a two degree Celsius increase; in other words we’ve all agreed that we’re comfortable with the climactic equivalent of a 102.2° F fever. It’s bad, but not life-threatening. You wouldn’t want to walk around with a 102° fever for more than a couple days but you’ll probably recover. Four degrees is a whole different story. At 4° C, it’s the same as trying to survive a protracted 105.8° F fever. A fever of 106° F requires immediate medical attention and left untreated can cause brain damage or death. Four degrees kills people, and it kills civilizations too. Your body and the Earth that gave it life are similarly complex, and similarly sensitive to small changes in average temperature. The amount of disruption caused by 4° C of warming would render our planet unrecognizable to generations of very recent history. The world my grandmother grew up in will be nonexistent if we continue with business as usual.
Here’s a question. How do you stay informed on local and global happenings? If you have figured out some sort of metaphysical trick to be everywhere on the planet in order to witness everything that happens, please don’t answer that question. If you’re like the rest of us, you get your information from the information givers. The news! Granted, there’s a lot more of them out there today; with online papers, magazines, independent broadcasts like Democracy Now! and blogs, our options are more stratified than ever. It’s wonderful because new media has given dissidents like Chris Hedges and Wen Stephenson a platform from which to broadcast. However the vast majority of Americans still get their news from television broadcasts or widely distributed newspapers. And television newscasts and newspapers aren’t willing to print the kind of real shit that Hedges and Stephenson are onto. They can’t or won’t tell you the truth about the climate disaster which as already begun to unfold.
Do you follow? It won’t be possible to catalyze a global movement to confront our greatest of challenges without a mainstream media that takes its journalistic responsibility to the public seriously.
Climate change is not a niche “environmentalist” issue to be covered in some below-the-fold ad hoc fashion. Just the contrary: it’s a headline, in your face, we’re all fucked unless we do something right now kind of story that is barely making Section A. What’s worse, the MSM journalists who are willing to “go there” are setting the pace and tone of climate change coverage going forward, and guess what, it’s a pretty tepid response.
If climate change were getting the type of coverage the non-scandal in Benghazi has had heaped on it, people might begin waking up and asking some very important questions. Perhaps they could see through the myth that disruptive climate change is some far off event. It’s here now; 2011 was the hottest year on record and 2012 is shaping up to be even hotter. Perhaps they wouldn’t be satisfied with the Associated Press’ brilliant conclusion that over half the United States remains in serious drought conditions, simply because it didn’t rain. No, it’s got nothing to do with climate change. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. This is just the new normal, and why wouldn’t it be? It turns out, if you’re 27 years of age or younger, you’ve never lived on a planet which has recorded a colder than average month. These are not new trends.
I beg of you, please read Wen Stephenson’s article A Convenient Excuse in The Phoenix. It’s too bad that the MSM doesn’t have the journalistic integrity to report in any meaningful way on climate change, or to take their responsibility one step further and advocate for a higher choice on behalf of all of humanity. If you’re a MSM journalist and you understand the high stakes of the Climate Craps game we’re all currently embroiled in, why aren’t you piping up? Why aren’t you advocating? Why aren’t you confronting your editors like Mr. Stephenson did? How can you look at your children or grandchildren and not feel as though you’re failing them on a very deep level?
Hear us loud and clear MSM: at this decisive moment in human history we don’t need your objectivity, we need your integrity. Give us the news, not the weather.
Talk about an Unnatural Disaster! Naomi Klein discusses Hurricane Sandy and disaster capitalism. If you’re unfamiliar with the term disaster capitalism, let me fill you in. During times of crisis, certain sectors of the business world and political class take advantage of our disorientation in order to push through policies favorable to them.
It’s happening again in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Less than three days after Sandy slammed into the Eastern Seaboard, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (which hosts distinguished fellows like John Bolton, Lynne Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle) was using the disaster to push the proliferation of WalMart stores in the affected area. According to Murray the slow recovery is, in fact, due to New Yorkers’ resistance to big box stores. Apparently Mom and Pop stores aren’t able to provide an adequate amount of supplies in the aftermath of a devastating storm. That’s probably because Mom and Pop are at home with their children or helping their neighbors instead of forcing their employees to work when they should be recovering with their families.
So the solution to Hurricane Sandy is…WalMart. Yes, that sounds like disaster capitalism.
If Hurricane Sandy isn’t a wake up call, then I don’t know what is. Naomi Klein discusses this and much more in the excellent clip below.
Hurricane Sandy v. Denialism (AUDIO)
As Hurricane Sandy barrels into the Mid-Atlantic seaboard, we’re being treated to a sunny fall morning in the Pacific Northwest. Out here it’s the sound of silence that prevails, something I desperately wish I could share with the folks in Sandy’s path. There is another type of silence that is as damaging to people here in Seattle as it is to those on the East Coast. This insidious silence affects families all around the world and generations yet unborn. I’m talking about climate silence.
Last week I wrote about the complete absence of a discussion on global climate change in our Presidential debates up until that point. Well, we had the final debate last Tuesday and once again neither candidate felt compelled to go off-script. They swept the debates like the Giants swept the Tigers. This is the first time since 1984 that climate change or global warming was not discussed as a major policy issue in the debate process. This week, Sandy is providing a reality check for both party platforms.
Hurricane Sandy is a hybrid super storm born out of an Arctic front, which made a mutant storm baby with a tropical storm that had proceeded across the Atlantic in the usual fashion. It is the largest storm ever to hit the eastern seaboard, and while it’s not as powerful as Hurricane Katrina it could easily be as significant. The storm stretches an unprecedented 525 miles from its eye, giving it a reach Muhammad Ali would covet. It has gathered historic volume over a record-warm Atlantic Ocean and amid the lowest pressures ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras. Don’t let “Category 1” fool you. It is, quite simply, a monster.
“But wait!” you say, “Climate change doesn’t cause hurricanes. This whole argument is bunk.” I concede. Climate change does not, in itself, cause hurricanes; tropical storm systems are naturally occurring events that would happen regardless of our atmospheric tinkering. What climate change does do is provide the conditions ripe for more frequent extreme weather events. Seems to me they should really rethink the name “hundred year” flood, drought, hurricane, or storm when they are happening every single year. This morning 350.org founder Bill McKibben warned Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:
Well, look, I mean, global warming doesn’t cause hurricanes. We’ve always had hurricanes. […] But we’re producing conditions like record warm temperatures in seawater that make it easier for this sort of thing to get, in this case, you know, up the Atlantic with a head of steam. We’re making—we’re raising the sea levels. And when that happens, it means that whatever storm surge comes in comes in from a higher level than it would have before. […] What really is different is that there is more moisture and more energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere. And that energy expresses itself in all kind of ways. That’s why we get these record rainfalls now, time after time. I mean, last year, it was Irene and then Lee directly after that. This year, this storm, they’re saying, could be a thousand-year rainfall event across the mid-Atlantic. I think that means more rain than you’d expect to see in a thousand years. But I could pretty much—I’d be willing to bet that it won’t be long before we see another one of them, because we’re changing the odds. By changing the earth, we change the odds.
So no, climate change doesn’t explicitly create new hurricanes. What it does do is juice up the ones that do form; it makes them bigger, stronger, more persistent, and more dangerous. Shortly before Mayor Bloomberg issued an evacuation order for almost 400,000 New Yorkers yesterday, there was a demonstration in Times Square that urged people to connect the dots and “End Climate Silence.”
It’s not just protesters urging anyone who will listen to take seriously the connection between anthropogenic ocean warming and freak storm systems. Two weeks ago the National Academy of Sciences —not exactly an activist organization—published a study that concluded that North Atlantic hurricanes are, “more of a danger when ocean temperatures are higher. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.” Convenient findings since we’re currently nearing the end of the warmest year on record.
Does everyone remember the hydrologic cycle from elementary school science class? Water evaporates more quickly in warm environments than cold ones. It’s that simple. I have no professional scientific training, but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand what is happening. When we warm the earth with heat-trapping industrial emissions, there’s more water evaporating into the atmosphere, therefore it’s more likely we will experience the consequences of that energy-saturated atmosphere in the form of extreme weather events. Every year we continue down the same path, we’re loading the dice even more.
Let’s pause and check my assumptions. 1.) Global climate change is happening. 2.) Humans emissions and impacts are largely responsible. 3.) Climate change increases the likelihood of a whole host of extreme weather events including hurricanes, droughts and floods. If all of these are true, it leads to the same obvious and enormous question that has been completely absent from our electoral process. Why isn’t the United States doing anything about it?
The percentage of U.S. citizens who believe in human-caused climate change has actually declined significantly from four years ago. In 2008 both major political parties devoted time to outlining their different plans to deal with global climate change. At the national level there was no debate over the importance of addressing this monumental issue. On the contrary, McCain and Obama sparred about who would deal with it more forcefully. This year the number of Americans who agree that humans are responsible for climate change has dropped to about 50%. We were not treated to a discussion of climate change mitigation strategies in the debates, even though a realistic discussion of our economy is impossible without acknowledging the reality we will soon have to confront one way or another.
Emergent confusion about climate change is the result of a highly orchestrated and well-funded misinformation campaign by organizations like the Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These “think tanks” (think is a very generous word) have one goal, create uncertainties in the scientific validity of climate science. They don’t even need to “win” the argument. Partly because it’s impossible for them to legitimately win with their bunk science, but mainly because the creation of doubt is their raison d’être. Introducing doubt where there previously was none is enough to slow down the response and keep things moving along nice and steady for their boosters. Speaking of funding, the financial support for these organizations and their kin is intentionally muddy; suffice it to say they are financed largely by fossil fuel lobbies, industry groups, and fabulously wealthy executives who benefit from the status quo.
The doubt they have sewed into the American consciousness is holding up progress in the rest of the world. The United States has the power to tip the scales in the response to global climate change, but as long as the political process remains beholden to fossil fuel lobbies and the Chamber of Commerce little can be done. Compared to the rest of the world the United States near the top of the list in terms of citizens who know about climate change, but is near the bottom of the list in terms of acceptance of human causation. Shame on us.
Please don’t take my word for it. I strongly suggest you watch this fantastic Frontline report entitled “Climate of Doubt” about the misinformation campaign currently being waged in an effort to keep us trapped in a fossil fuel circus. You’ll have to watch it soon; who knows how much longer the folks at PBS will last.
Contrary to what the Heartland Institute would have you believe, the science is settled. Their efforts on behalf of the fossil fuel industry have bordered on offensive. Check out this priceless billboard they put up in Chicago last year.
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. The fact remains that over 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is real and is accelerating. Both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA have issued numerous startling reports saying virtually the same thing. Don’t want to believe the scientists? Okay, that’s fine. How about the insurance industry? In early 2012 representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America met with members of the U.S. Senate to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change and plead for some sort of legislative action. It’s very possible the insurance industry as we know it will not survive the accelerating pace of “hundred year” weather events.
I can’t underscore the seriousness of our collective failure to act strongly enough. This blog is in part a chance for me to get on the record. It’s an opportunity to be on the right side of history. If we don’t confront this challenge I’ll have to explain to my children and grandchildren what was going on in the other Washington and why they didn’t act until it was too late. Check out this clip of Fmr. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC). In 2010 he lost his reelection bid in a landslide to a Tea Party candidate. His crime? He admitted that he agreed with 97% of climate scientists about the validity of climate change and that humans were likely responsible. Imagine that, a ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment listening to climate scientists.
Instead of addressing this issue head on, our elected leaders are putting their heads in the sand. Perhaps it more accurate to say that industry lobbies have dug the holes to make the head-putting easier, but ultimately it’s a failure of leadership. This failure to act is extremely significant. As Noam Chomsky recently observed, “Our response demonstrates an extraordinary willingness to sacrifice the lives of our children and grandchildren for short-term gain. Or equally remarkable, a willingness to shut our eyes so as not to see impending peril.”
I really hope that Hurricane Sandy spares everyone in her path. We used to live in Miami. I have been through hurricanes and let me tell you, they’re no fun. I earnestly pray that no lives are lost at Sandy’s behest. Being in the middle of that kind of storm is a humbling demonstration of the awesome power of nature. A hurricane does not negotiate and it does not respond to opinion polls. At the same time, sometimes the only way to encourage wholesale policy change is through widespread discomfort. Famed economist Milton Freidman said it best:
Only a crisis —actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.
The increasing frequency of extreme weather is an apt reminder of who is in charge. We are all subject to the whims of Mother Nature and if we continue to abuse her, she will continue to respond in ways we humans have no control over.
Want to get involved? Come to 350.org’s Do the Math Tour. They’re coming to a city near you. Get informed. Join the movement!!