It’s a funny thing. A dangerous thing. A human thing.
I’m not above it myself. For example, I’m slightly in denial that we are nearing the end of 2015, and that in a month we’ll be ringing in 2016, an election year, the year I turn 25, a quarter-century old. It was a serious point of contention around the office today, when the co-worker across the hall asked, “is it too early to end an e-mail with Happy New Year?” Me and another office mate simultaneously/somewhat aggressively responded “YES.” (He went with “Happy holidays”.)
I can understand climate change denial.
Denial is rooted in resistance to change. We’ve all experienced it at some point or another. It’s inherent to being human. Necessary even. (Let’s talk about mortality salience, and the ultimate denial: right now as you read this, your getting a little bit older. Once you emerge at the other end of this sentence, you’ll be that much closer to ~~dEaTh~~. But you can’t think about that all the time. It’ll drive you crazy.)
Also, denial is also a sort of living in the past, an extreme form of nostalgia. Maybe hoping for a time when we knew less, and things were innocent and happy-go-lucky. A psychological rejection of all the responsibility of adulthood, and the need to make bold decisions and actions. A refusal to grow up (which, as a twenty something year old, I can definitely relate to.)
But the world is changing, regardless of whether or not we accept those changes. It’s changing all the time, it grows, and we get older, whether we like it or not. We can’t stay the same forever.
And besides, resisting change, staying the same, is no way to live.
What we need, as a species, is the opposite of denial—we’ve got to accept change, bite down, lean in. We need to act boldly. That takes grit, and above all, it takes courage. But I think we have what it takes.
I’ve learned a lot about politics and the environment over the past two months. And I’ve done my best to keep you in the know about the issues leading up to COP21. But something’s missing. An elephant-sized hole in the room.
What the hell are we, as individuals, supposed to do about any of this?
I hoped that as I wrote, some solution would present itself. Something aside from the staid advice we’re used to hearing—write a letter to your senator (that you never hear about again), take shorter showers (while energy companies continue to drain reservoirs of billions of gallons annually, with impunity.)
I wanted to share with you something that would empower regular, caring Americans to make a real difference in steering/accelerating the course of action taken by our government.
But after scouring the internet and poring over research, I’m left here sitting at my desk, with nothing.
This quote by Naomi Klein offers some honest insight into the situation:
“The hard truth is that the answer to the question “What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?” is: nothing. You can’t do anything. In fact, the very idea that we—as atomized individuals, even lots of atomized individuals—could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate system, or changing the global economy, is objectively nuts. We can only meet this tremendous challenge together. As part of a massive and organized global movement.
The irony is that people with relatively little power tend to understand this far better than those with a great deal more power. The workers I met in Indonesia and the Philippines knew all too well that governments and corporations did not value their voice or even their lives as individuals. And because of this, they were driven to act not only together, but to act on a rather large political canvas. To try to change the policies in factories that employ thousands of workers, or in export zones that employ tens of thousands. Or the labor laws in an entire country of millions. Their sense of individual powerlessness pushed them to be politically ambitious, to demand structural changes.
In contrast, here in wealthy countries, we are told how powerful we are as individuals all the time. As consumers. Even individual activists. And the result is that, despite our power and privilege, we often end up acting on canvases that are unnecessarily small—the canvas of our own lifestyle, or maybe our neighborhood or town. Meanwhile, we abandon the structural changes—the policy and legal work— to others.“
—Naomi Klein in a commencement speech at the College of the Atlantic (Thanks for the share, Tim!)
So I can’t think of what to tell you. I don’t know how you can help.
The way I see it, us concerned denizens of wealthy nations are caught up in bit of a catch-22:
Our government is designed to respond to political will, and political will is stirred up by malcontent on a personal level. (Think Indonesians working in deplorable conditions, or people of color subject to immobilizing racism.) But in countries like the United States, people are generally content.
And while most of us are vaguely concerned about issues like the environment, it’s not perceived as urgent when compared to the day-to-day demands on individuals (work, family, chores, etc.) So as it is, it’s really difficult to drum up the political will necessary to influence those in charge, those who are meant to serve the will of the people.
To complicate things, any swaying force by regular people would have to overcome the immense political will imposed by special interest groups and lobbies. So to make any leeway on issues like climate change, activists have to contend with those who have much louder voices and deeper pockets just to be heard. That requires a massive effort and collaboration.
I think a lot of concerned Americans sense this about our political system. The result is a frustrated and disengaged body of constituents.
What does it matter that scientists are predicting catastrophic shifts in the climate? If we can’t make a real difference as individuals, why make the effort at all? Why not leave the meaningful structural/political changes to others, those in charge even if those in charge are slow, and hindered by conflicts of interest/special interest groups? Why waste our time?
A democracy is not supposed to be like this. The power should be with the people. But I don’t think the people feel empowered. There’s a distinct lack of avenues for regular people to become engaged with politics aside from a glut of information on the internet provided by a myriad of both credible and untrustworthy news sources. Comments sections. Online petitions that are seemingly signed and sent into a virtual abyss.
And while it’s true that work is being done to confront climate change and environmental problems, progress is sooo slow, incongruous to the ultra-fast pace at which the world is developing and changing, further impeded by lobbies and conflicts of interest.
Work needs to be done to help constituents re-engage with congressmen and women, who are obliged to serve the people. And our Congress needs to be held accountable for their service (or lacktherof) of the common people. I think that need is being recognized, and as we speak, the work needed is being undertaken, in small, undetectable ways.
Until then, I’m here at my desk, with tiny solutions and an elephant-sized hole in the room.
I hope you’ll keep tabs on the goings-on at COP21 in the coming weeks. The outcome could be change the status quo, or affirm it, and it’ll be interesting to find out one way or another.
They get a bad rap. But I have to admit, I love perusing the comments section. It’s so great. So much drama. Check out some of these gems:
So much colorful language, i.e., boondoggle, and so many good comebacks, i.e “you should get a room in the fact hotel.” I’m totally going to use that one next time I’m in an argument.
Anyhow. I also like to look at the comments section so I can get a hand on the pulse of what the common man thinks about any given issue. And trust me, in the comments section, the common man will make his opinion clear.
There’s a common theme among the commenters against climate action and climate change skeptics—a mistrust of authority. A mistrust of either the science, or the government’s methods and motives for addressing the issue. Some even believe that the issue was manufactured as an excuse to levy taxes on the American people.
The last thing these guys want is more power to the government. They’re about individual freedom.
Ironically, a climate change scenario would force us to cede more authority to the government.
Think about it.
When is the government is given near-absolute authority? A: Disasters. During bad hurricanes, they can tell us to evacuate our homes, they’re in charge of rationing (for the most part), they rally aid from response organizations and hospitals. Total control. And in a future with increased frequency and intensity of storms, our reliance on the government and emergency response (FEMA, the National Gaurd, etc.) is likely to increase as well.
If we could take a few precautions right now, (yes, probably some taxes here and there) we could actually be protecting our individual freedom and curtailing our dependence on the government in the long run.
No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood. (Dec 2011)
Jobs will slump until our lifeblood–oil–is cheap again. (Dec 2011)
It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil. (Mar 2011)
Oil is the lifeblood of all economies. (Apr 2010)
Not super surprising. But let me tell you why it would be in Donald Trump’s best interest to change his tune on fossil fuels.
The Don is notorious for his aggressive policies/ideas surrounding immigration:
This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish. (Sep 2015)
We need wall on Mexican border, but OK to have a door in it. (Aug 2015)
Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)
Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)
Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)
However, if we continue to burn fossil fuels and ignore the warnings of scientists, you know what will happen? Lots of natural disasters and drought. You know what displaces a ton of people from their homes? Natural disasters and drought. You know what happens to people when they’re displaced from their homes? They become refugees and emigrate to the nearest land of the free/home of the brave.
Something to think about if you’re in the “we speak English here” camp.
Want to get educated? Broaden your mind? Check out these resources. They got me hooked on politics and the environment and humans and the Earth, and will make a great start if you want to become more informed.
Documentaries (All available on Netflix or Youtube)
1.)Mission Blue– great documentary about the oceanographer, marine biologist, and environmentalist Sylvia Earle. Can’t recommend this one enough. Totally inspiring and eye-opening. (Available on Netflix and Youtube!)
2.) Gasland – learn about the dangers of fracking. Watch a vigilante play the banjo beside one of Exxon’s private drilling sites. (Also available on Netflix and Youtube.)
3.) Food, Inc.– I regret that I haven’t talked more about food in the past 50 days. But, man, once you start reading up on it, you won’t be able to stop, because the way we produce our food is insane. Agriculture really can’t be ignored when discussing the environment. This documentary subscribes to the “vote with your dollar” mantra that I’m not totally sold on, but still worth the watch.
4.) Fed Up– This one’s also about food production, but focuses more on the public health side of things. I think it’s worth listing here because it demonstrates what industries are capable of, even at the expense of public well-being, when profitability is threatened. Super enlightening, and it’ll give you a whole new prospective on the obesity epidemic/fat shame.
5.) Cowspiracy – One last food documentary. This ones got a slant toward veganism. And it’s a little dramatic. But I don’t think that should totally discredit the message. A challenging watch, subversive, but interesting.
6.) This Changes Everything– I haven’t watched this one yet because it JUST came out, but it’s on my list. It’s based on a book by Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate (see below). From what I read, it’s not as good as the book, but if you ain’t got time to read 400+ pages of non-fiction, this will probably be your next-best bet. *Not yet available on Netflix or Youtube.
Books
1.) Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals – this book changed my life. CHANGED MY LIFE. Turned me vegetarian. I dare you to read it.
2.) Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate – a critique of Capitalism. Klein argues that our economic system is at the root of our environmental crisis along with other problems, like poverty and income inequality. Again, a subversive, challenging read. But compelling and definitely eye-opening.
3.) John Wargo, Green Intelligence – John Wargo is a professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science. He’s super smart, and mild-mannered. The book is a little academic for leisure reading, but I super trust his research as a non-biased analysis. If you’re feeling inspired, you can check out his course on environmental policy and law on Yale Open Courses. He’ll teach you a lot about nuclear bombs. [Another book on his reading list is A Question of Intent by David Kesler, which is supposed to be really good.]
4.) Naomi Oreskes, The Collapse of Western Civilization– This one is pretty cool and very short. It’s a work of speculative fiction backed up by current scientific research about a Chinese historian looking back at how we Westerners screwed up handling the environment. It’s all conjecture of course but it’s super haunting. Hear her talk about the book in this NPR interview.
5.) Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma – I’ve started and stopped this book a few times, but I ALWAYS see it referenced. Michael Pollan is the go-to authority on food politics, and this is his magnum opus. Good to have on your radar.
2.) I have a Google Alert set for the terms “COP 21” and “Climate Change”. Those usually yield some pretty interesting articles, and will help you keep your finger on the pulse of common thought/public opinion about the environment.
More speculative fiction! This one imagines a reality post-climate change in London, sort of War of the Worlds, radio show style. This podcast has won a ton of awards and accolades.
I feel grateful this Thanksgiving. As always. I’m a very lucky person.
A little bit too lucky, actually. Do you know what I mean? Like, I don’t know how I ended up with everything I’ve got. And I don’t know why.
I’m not even trying to be dramatic or inspiring or anything. It’s just a true fact. It’s like empirically true. Somehow, by completely random chance and circumstance, I was born into this particular family in this particular country, and as a result, I am educated, comfortable, supported, safe.
It’s great to reflect on that. But, man, when you’re a healthy, white, able-bodied American millennial from an upper-middle class family with a well-paying job and a virtually adversity-free life, that reflection gets slightly uncomfortable. This feeling creeps in. It’s hard to describe. Not quite guilt, but an uneasiness that rests right at the edge of your conscious thought.
And if you hold that feeling to the light, all sorts of ugly things become clear.
The other day I passed a man with no teeth, who asked me for money. I couldn’t understand what he was saying at first, as I scraped out whatever was in my change purse—an amount that was probably less than a dollar. After he repeated himself, I understood: “I haven’t eaten all day.”
I don’t think I’ve ever been unsure of where my next meal is coming from. And I don’t know if I could ever really understand what that’s like. But if I try really hard, I can imagine. Even on good days, when a passing stranger buys you a meal, it must be all-consuming, wondering where and when the next meal will be. It must be all you can think about.
No time for blogging, then.
Millions of people, right here in the United States, are “food-insecure”. Scores of people. Enough that a margin of error of ten thousand here and there is negligible. Another couple million Syrian refugees aren’t sure where they’ll sleep tonight. Aren’t sure where their children will sleep.
These are facts. Uncomfortable truths. Of course, they won’t stop me from sitting down for dinner with my family tomorrow, and snuggling into my bed, under linen sheets, like I always do.
I think this is the realest first-world problem there is. Because most of us know that we are better off than most people for no reason other than we got born into the right families, in the right countries, during the right times. We know other people suffer for no reason other than they got born into the wrong families, in the wrong countries, during the wrong times.
And we didn’t ask for any of that—if it were something we had control over, I don’t think we would ask for it.
(Aside: You and a friend are at a diner, awaiting a meal provided by an anonymous benefactor. The waitress brings you a heaping plate of pancakes and eggs, a tall glass of juice, a pot of tea, some home fries. She brings your friend nothing but a tiny side of oatmeal. You don’t let that stand, right? You share what you have with your friend, don’t you?)
Climate change exacerbates that divide between the fortunate and the underserved. Take a look at this map:
It shows the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. Notice that wealthy nations, those who thrived on petroleum economies who have emitted the most greenhouse gasses, are best poised to handle the effects of climate change, while poorer nations are most likely to suffer. (Read in: drought, famine, disasters, disease, unrest.)
This map brings on that uncomfortable feeling—that not-quite-guilt—like a punch in the stomach. It’s overwhelming to think about, and honestly, I don’t really know what to do with all of it. I’m just as stymied as everyone else.
But I want to do better.
Above all, I want to be the kind of person that deserves the life I got. As always, it’s a work in progress. But it’s Thanksgiving, and I think it’s a pretty good time to renew that vow.
Check out this grid that I usurped from Kevin Surace’s Ted Talk about climate change that he usurpef from a Youtube video that I couldn’t find.
It highlights something I have always thought about the issue. That is, let’s say we do act, and it turns out that climate change was nothing to worry about after all—sure we may have wasted some money, but in the meantime we would have invested in some clean tech and reduced our dependence on fossil fuels (of which supplies are dwindling even as you read this sentence rightnow.)
Consider the alternative—we don’t act, and climate change causes more damage than we imagined.
There’s a lot at stake. And 100 years from now, I’d rather my great grand children remember my generation as an alarmist group of dumb paranoid hippies than a negligent, irresponsible, greedy, shortsighted, and stupid.
Classy little “not” joke right there, eh? Eh?! Alright, I’m done.
I came across this video of an interview with Katie Couric and presidential candidate Carly Fiorina not too long ago on my Facebook feed. According to the video title, Carly Fiorina makes mincemeat of Katie Couric on the subject of climate change. Mincemeat! Well, I thought I’d go through some of the claims that she made, because you will hear them again and again from many different politicians. And if you keep up with this issue, it’s painfully, painfully obvious that just about everything she says is wrong.
(Keep in mind that Fiorina is known to have the most moderate stance on climate change of the Republican presidential candidates—that is, she concedes that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused.)
1.) A single country can make no discernible difference in combating climate change
This is true to an extent. Any single country (i.e., the United States) acting alone won’t be enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. But this claim only holds water in the unlikely scenario in which the United States completely turns around its energy policies while the rest of the world does nothing. For example, the US’s pledge for a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030 would result in about a 4-5% overall decrease in emissions world-wide.* Not nothing, but not enough either.
The truth of the matter, though, is that American leadership on climate change would very much affect the global response of other countries. These decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, and as a developed, wealthy nation that has both benefited most from fossil fuel energy and contributed most to world-wide pollution, it’s vitally important that we commit to doing our part. Other nations will notice if we do (China made a commitment with Obama not too long ago promising that they will do their part so long as we do ours, so our decisions do carry some weight.)
Taking action will send a powerful message to the rest of the world: EVEN THE U.S., HOME OF THE HUMMER AND THE KFC DOUBLE DOWN HOTDOG, IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, IT MUST BE SERIOUS.
So yeah, I mean, American action on its own might not bring down numbers significantly, but American inaction in the context of a global political landscape could be very harmful. We gotta do our part if we’re going to keep warming at target levels.
2.)Environmental regulations in California are destroying livelihoods
Cali is known for its ambitious stance on environmental policies. It boasts the world’s second least carbon-intensive economy, generating 23% of its electricity from renewable sources as of the first half of 2014. As a result of the switch to renewables, Californians have enjoyed a decrease in their average electricity bill. It attracted half ($5.7 billion) of clean tech global venture capital investment (2014)—second only to the U.S. as a whole, representing a 153% increase in investment between 2013 and 2014.
The state’s unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since 2007. Silicon Valley accounts for most of the drop. And while it’s true that outside this specific industry, unemployment rates have remained stagnant since the recession, I think it’s a stretch to say that the Environmental Protection Agency is to blame. (In fact, you know what’s killed about 21,000 seasonal farm work jobs in Cali? Drought. You know what will most likely continue/worsen if climate change isn’t addressed? DROUGHT.)
All in all, it’s not doing too bad, environmental regulations and all.
3.) Half of U.S.’s energy is generated by coal/”Clean coal” innovation is our best shot at curbing emissions
That is wrong. Only 20% of total U.S. energy was provided by coal. Coal accounted for 39% of the energy generating electricity in the United States, and that number is projected to drop in the future.
In fact, Goldman Sachs just sold a bunch of coal mines, citing a decrease in demand for coal world-wide after the natural gas boom/as wind and solar energy becomes more viable.
That’s not regulation. That’s free market economics, my friends.
On another note, clean coal innovation an oxymoron. Mark Twain boated a coal-powered steamboat down the Connecticut River while smoking a pipe and whistling zip-a-Dee-doo-da. Coal is always going to be filthy, no matter how innovatively you burn it. No, actually, coal is the opposite of innovation. If we’re going to focus our energies on “coal innovation”, why don’t we just all go back to using dial-up and analog cellular networks and watching T.V. on cathode ray tubes.
Carly, meet Elon Musk. Geesh.
4.) Wind technology kills millions of birds per year, birds people care about like hawks and eagles. They are also unsightly.
Aw. That’s really sad. Poor birds.
I actually checked up on that because I was concerned. As it turns out, wind turbines kill ~300,00-500,000 per year. You know what actually kills millions of birds? Glass windows. About 988 million annually. As a country we should really be reading the fine print for window technology, because glass is killing hundreds of millions of birds every year. Beloved birds like eagles as well as the rest of the birds that people don’t give a shit about, like the seagulls that steal your sandwich at the beach while you’re busy reading Cosmopolitan, or pigeons that crap all over iconic American statues of Revolutionary War figures on horses.
Also, I think wind turbines look cool.
5.) Solar energy requires large amounts of water
6.) There is no such thing as a perfect energy source. The American people can handle trade-offs, they’re pretty smart. Let’s tell them the truth about the science and let them decide what’s best.
This is true. This is all true.
So yeah, the truth. I think that would be a good place to start.
ONE WEEK LEFT TIL COP21!
Song of the Day:
* I did math. The U.S. produces 16% of GHG emissions, multiplied by .3 = 4.8%
This is a picture of a Pace College student protester at the first Earth Day rally in 1970, a little before the Clean Air Act was enacted. Pretty badass.
Environmentalism really took off around this time, leading to a dynamic body of laws that continue to protect us and from harmful pollution. (Fun aside; many of these laws were passed by Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, the most Republicany Republicans that every Republicaned.) The 1970s was a transformative decade for the environment and national policy.
Since then, though, the movement has gone soft. The last major amendment to any of these laws was in 1990 (which was 25 YEARS ago now. So weird.) In his fascinating op-ed, Josh Galperin, Professor of Yale Law School and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science, wrote that today’s brand of environmental leaders have resorted to “Desperate Environmentalism”.
In the face of corporate malfeasance, climate change denial, and staunch opposition from those who view enforceable policies as overregulatory and anti-business, Galperin said, today’s environmentalists have turned to a more moderate approach. One that appeases the world’s biggest polluters:
The environmentalists of old insisted on transformation not marginal gains. The Clean Water Act aimed to restore the integrity of all the nation’s waters by eliminating water pollution. Now we quantify whether such improvement is economically efficient, and we politely ask whether an industrial facility might consider reducing its discharge.
I’m all for moderation and compromise, but sometimes the middle-of-the-road approach just doesn’t work. For example, cap and trade, a “market-friendly” technique which imposes a legal limit on the pollution an economy emit per year, giving companies the opportunity to buy and sell pollution allowances as needed. Under this rule, companies can earn allowances or credits for good practices, such as destroying or capturing and repurposing greenhouse gasses.
It’s a bit of a convoluted scheme, and like most convoluted schemes, leaves plenty of room for loopholes—like companies that make more money from destroying pollution discharge and earning and selling allowance than they do producing their primary product. Or Carbon Cowboys, scam artists who make their fortune selling artificially generated allowances to companies through complicated trading schemes, “selling the wind”.
We know what works—making uncomplicated restrictions on pollution emissions. It’s not a sexy solution, and yeah, the effects of these restrictions might be felt in year-end earnings reports. But they’re necessary if we’re serious about protecting the Earth (and ourselves) from climate change.
I always think that people kind of get stuck in a box when writing up new policies and laws. Like why does it always have to be about taxes? I say we give every employee of companies who turn over to 100% renewable energy a nice big box of Katalina’s cupcakes. I suppose that’d still be about taxes, since we’d need to pay Katalina’s. But what a great incentive, though. Honestly there’s not much I wouldn’t do for a box of cupcakes. (http://www.katalinasbakery.com/menu/cupcakes/)
Obama’s ideas are pretty cool. He wants to reform power plants so that they produce less carbon. He also wants to beef up our disaster response programs to prepare for more frequent/intense storms, which after Katrina and Sandy seems like something that might be good for us anyways.
People have come up with a bunch of crazy ideas to help transition to clean energy. For example, a 1% billionaire’s tax could raise $46 billion annually that could be put toward a clean energy fund. If we axed fossil fuel subsidies, we could put $10 – $52 billion a year into generating clean energy jobs, or vamping up public transportation, or buying cupcakes from Katalina’s.
It’s kinda cool stuff to think about. Let me know if you come up with any ideas. xxoo ❤
Countdown to COP21 
