April showers have been quite heavy here. Yet, I recall just 4 months ago Christmas caroling with friends in warm sunny Boston, when the joke soon became, “Christmas was so much more fun before we started celebrating it in September!” The weather sure has gotten freaky (especially over these past six years).
Linking unseasonably strange weather directly to the impacts of Global Warming, although common among my friends, is still taboo among mainstream media in the United States. In Europe, making such observations during the weather report has been a routine practice for a decade or more. And it shows in the sensibility of Europeans, most of whom are acutely concerned with human-induced climate change.
Meanwhile, back here at home, our emissions have increased about 16 percent since 1990 and our government still refuses to send the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification. Agency scientists’ reports are routinely screened by government managers before being released to the public (and not just within the U.S. Geological Survey – EPA staff have complained to me and my colleagues of censorship from the Bush administration, specifically when it comes to issuing reports on CO2 emissions). Outside of government, the National Science Teachers Association is so heavily influenced by oil industry donations that it refuses to distribute free copies of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to its member science teachers. But it willingly distributes “teaching materials” designed by the American Petroleum Institute. The list of such industry sponsored corruption of the public discourse on global warming is quite long.
Again the story is quite different across the Atlantic. In England, for example, HM Treasury’s release of the Stern Review of the economic impacts of climate change was front page news. This report has been groundbreaking in policy circles for producing conclusive economic analysis showing that the price of inaction on climate change is far greater then the costs of taking action today. While such conclusions may appear somewhat intuitive to environmentalists, the Stern Review deserves to get greater attention than it has received if only because it debunks – in the conventional language of policy and economics – the previous analysis of the influential Copenhagen Consensus, which said taking action on climate change is not cost-effective.
While commendable, the Stern Review falls short – according to many scientists, including my colleagues at the Tellus Institute – because it fails to communicate the full implications of our responsibility to reduce carbon emissions over the coming decades. For example, achieving climate stabilization could require world average carbon emissions to be reduced by 50 percent from current levels by 2050 (a conservative estimate according to some studies; e.g., the Stern Review suggests a 70 percent reduction is needed to stabilize at 450ppmCO2e). Under this scenario, as energy systems expert Rich Rosen points out, the U.S., which emits about 5.5 times the world average on a per capita basis, would have to reduce emissions by over 90 percent! Rosen concludes, “This level of reduction would truly revolutionize the U.S. energy system, and the overall economy as well…this level of reduction would not be achievable without major changes in American values and the American way of life.”
Given the urgent need to begin making changes now, we certainly can not afford to ignore the behavioral and lifestyle shifts that are required. We need supportive public policies. Just as people are more likely to recycle when the city has a recycling program in place and delivers big plastic bins to its residents, greater numbers of people will make lifestyle adjustments if policies support their doing so. However politicians will not step out on a limb and suggest policies likely to be unpopular. Until the political will for change is vocally demonstrated, we should not expect significant leadership on these issues from our elected officials. A massive social movement is needed. As Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and former head of the U.N. Sustainable Development Program, asks in his letter to the New York Times a year ago, “The globe is warming – why aren’t we marching?”
The terrifying thing, to me, is that if we don’t make lifestyle changes here in the west, those in the developing world will suffer all the more …
Deborah
It’s sad that so many people are wondering who is going to do it. Who is going to set things right, set us on a course to solve some of these problems. The politicians could so greatly improve our prospects, but there is little political will because the rewards are not immediate.
But ultimately, the solution lies not in the hands of the politicians, but as you indicate, in a change in our thinking, everyone of us. Unfortunately, most people want to take the easy way out and wait for someone else to do something, but in this situation,t here *is* no easy way out. We all gotta give! Thanks for the blog and I hope it gets widely read.
Humanity’s ingenuity, engineering and problem solving has been some of the primary reasons we humans have grown to a population of 6 billion . With this perspective, I’ve often wondered why we’re not, as you say, marching towards solutions now.
The leaders and elected officals of society are provided for so well that I wonder if there comes a point in human nature that glutoney breeds procrastination. That it’s not until we’re hungry (if not for food then for something) that we begin to act.
And let us not forget the importance of greed in our thinking. Immediate financial gain often seems to be the only motivation for making policy decisions in government and business. There is little to no regard for the health and well-being of future generations. As a new father, this blindness to the world our children and grandchildren will have to live is incomprehensible.
piece by piece, the challenges seem daunting, onerous, improbable. luckily, the core changes we’re seeking can become deeply synergistic when groups of people (small or large) start making holistic shifts. for example: depression, loneliness, frustration are routinely mobilized to motivate consumption. consumption distances us from the natural world (even when we’re in it), reducing our ability to recognize ourselves as related to the nonhuman. so: as we start joining together in communities that are rooted in a deeper experiential (dare i say spiritual?) relation with the earth, our self-interest shifts to become more relational, the urge to consume uselessly recedes, and our mental and emotional well-being improves, creating a positive feedback loop.
this happens. it requires not so much an individualistic bootstrapping heroic wrenching sacrifice (this is sometimes the rhetoric), and rather the growth of accessible opportunities for people to address their existing values and desires for community, meaning, usefulness, love, respect, etc., within contexts that support collaborative effort connected to the earth.
ie.: we can do this.
blessings,
.b
Don’t blame the politicians. We have a competative evolutionary system that gaurantees a certain type of leader… the kind whose primary concern is getting elected. Any other type of leader… wouldn’t get elected.
If politicians start acting courageous in situations where it is politically damaging then they won’t be politicians for long. Sure they can do it here and there on the margin, when the political costs of fighting for good are about equal to the benefits.
But don’t ask them to do it when the benefits don’t match the costs. Then you are just asking them to give up on being a politician. And we need good politicians in office. Even though they only do good when its politically expedient, at least they do it then. There are plenty of politicians who don’t even do that.
In my opinion the more reasonable focus is on the cultural conditions that make it politically costly for politicians to do good: voters deluded my religious ideology.
How do the republicans, in election after election, consistently convince half the country to vote against their own financial self interest? Against their own earth and air, and their childrends future?
As far as I can tell, there is only one really compelling answer: the massive delusion called Christianity. If you believe the apocolypse is coming in your life time global warming doesn’t much matter.
There is no way to have a reasonable conversation with people who are so deeply confused about the nature of reality. As long as they are suffering their religious nightmare the country, and the world, will be suffering from an accute inability to face its problems. Regardless of what those problems are.
Always here to offer a little religious intolerance.
Love,
Zac
I believe in the internet as a force for good in the world! Just as we need it, it has come into being to connect us all …
Bravo Orion,
I enjoyed your blog. As a psychologist, I believe the challenges to sustainable progress are partially the result of a failure to distinguish and speak to differences in values memes (See Beck & Cowen’s “Spiral Dynamics” or a visual http://www.formlessmountain.com/collage.html or if you are a member of the Integral Institute read Ed West’s paper “Communicating Sustainability More Effectively With the Insights of Developmental Psychology”).
While there is some groundbreaking work being done in biomimetic, radical eco-efficiency, (pax-scientific.com) and cradle to cradle urban planning (greencentury.org), global warming presents no perceived cost to many Americans at conventional levels of psychological development. My fantasy is that during the democratic debates tonight (7p.m. eastern MSNNBC) one of the democratic presidential candidates would support a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions and present a visionary plan for sustainability. One of the challenges of our time is how to link and integrate the massive, but fragmented social movement idly present in our world. So far we seem to have failed, (www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4424&PHPSESSID=6066025f9e321fd74efb70b34207026b) perhaps developmental psychology can be a useful tool for such an integration.
Take care,
David
Orion makes a cogent argument for making important lifestyle and behavioral shifts that will usher in a new public policy. I would add one more potent ingredient to the mix. Technology. It is definitely what got us into this mess, but it just may be what can get us out of it, too. Global warming is only one of a multitude of threats facing humanity.
What makes it so compelling as an argument for raising consciousness is that energy consumption is intimately tied to carbon emissions. Does it need to be this way?
If carbon emissions are simply a result of using petroleum, then what viable alternatives to this energy source exist? In the same article that Rich Rosen points out how much we would need to reduce our energy usage in order to become carbon neutral, Ruth Weiner points out that Nuclear Energy already comprises 20% of our electricity, and it would not be hard to increase that percentage, provided that “procedures for disposal of nuclear waste and assurance that weapons-grade nuclear material can be kept out of the hands of terrorists.” That’s it, folks. You meet those two requirements, and our global warming crisis is averted.
What other energy sources can provide carbon neutral emissions? Biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but the source of carbon came from the atmosphere, not from the ground. Therefore, these are carbon neutral sources, provided petroleum was not used as an energy source to extract the biofuel from biomass.
Solar, wind power, hydroelectric, etc are all potential alternative energy sources, but major research and development must take place before they become viable energy sources. Orion may be correct in asserting that major policy shifts, as well as grassroots lifestyle and behavioral changes will be necessary to adequately fund the basic research into these areas.
Even though so much is so scary in the world — I believe that collective action, talking, thinking, working together can have enormous impact. I agree we are global citizens and we all need to take on the responsibility of “citizenship.” (Molly Ivins has a great piece on this) And it’s important not to get too defeatist, even while sounding alarms. Hope carries enormous energy
Thanks for the comments everyone! I am glad we are all engaging in this conversation — so many important points have been made,
Deborah, you are right that if we don’t make needed changes here in America, those bearing the brunt of the burden will be the poor in other countries — i.e., those least responsible for creating the situation. Personal responsibility is such a cherished American value, so hopefully that will motivate us to clean up our act and not force our mess onto the innocent (such as those yet to be born).
I agree with Billy and Jeremy and everyone celebrating humanity’s ingenuity, the advent of the Internet as one example, we definitely have the technological prowess to overcome today’s challenges. However, misuses of technology is part of what has created our modern dilemma. The key is to harness technology in service of our values and the world we want to create — to invest resources in developing good technologies (such as renewable energy) and recognize that just because something can be done, doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it. Technology is not the solution in and of it self, but surely it is part of the solution.
Yet, only if we can shift our mindsets, as Brush so eloquently put it. Shawn, Billy, Zac have all pointed out major challenges in human psychology — greed, complacency, delusion. All of these are significant obstacles, which have been with us for centuries and aren’t going to leave our species any time soon. Yet, I want to highlight what Brush said so well:
And this transformation in how we derive meaning from life goes to core of the systemic transformation needed to create a life-sustaining planetary civilization. David and Ginny are right about the power of collective action, and David’s call for greater unity among disparate social movements is critical. I believe we must understand all our individual efforts as part of common project — we are global citizens creating a global society. We must demand that the newly forming planetary society support our values of human well-being, equity, and environmental sustainability.
Orion-
I too enjoyed reading your post, and was particularly surprised to read that the NTSA won’t distribute Al Gore’s movie. So, I followed your link to find more info; I found a post on http://www.truthout.org/ with which I’m not familiar. I guess I expected some sort of press release or statement on the NTSA website on the topic. Do you have that reference?
The need for an organized response, a movement, is paramount. As Zac pointed out, delusional ideas prevent facing reality and taking effective action, even if those ideas are only shared by a minority that is well organized and mobilized. (About 1/3 of Americans are evangelicals, and note that Bush’s support never goes below that figure.)
Speaking of showing “An Inconvenient Truth” to students, a Seattle school board would not allow it. Here you can watch Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Jason Jones examining this issue. It ends with evidence of the real cause of climate change: http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/323
Peter,
Here is a link to the NTSA’s discussion board, where you can read member’s responses to the NTSA decision not to distrubute Al Gore’s movie: http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php?p=2890
The truth out article is quite good, worth the read. That’s the best I can do to find sources, happy hunting.
Orion — it’s great that you’re starting this blog and can point out the injustices behind the scenes. It seems to me that there’s an understanding among most Americans that global warming is a problem. I’ll bet people are ready and willing to do something about it, but aren’t sure what to do. Even Gore’s movie, which did a great job building the evidence of global warming in terms for us non-scientists to understand, got us all riled up about the danger we’re facing. But where was it that he told us how we could make a difference? IN THE CREDITS!!! He saved the most empowering part of the movie, the part that could encourage Joe American to make a difference in his lifestyle, for the part of the movie that most people don’t watch.
I think it’s great that you’ve got this blog. And it would be great if you could share some things that everyday people can do to help the cause. I’ll bet that there are a few folks out there who are willing to make lifestyle changes, but aren’t sure which ones to make. Right now Walmart has us believing that all we have to do is buy new lightbulbs.
Looking forward to reading more!
Marcy
strange weather is a fact of the planet we live on. im sure that if we could look back on any other period we would simply blame the gods. how do you think gods were pleaded with and sacrifices were made to in the first place come about?as far as al gores movie goes, i watched bigfoot in the 70s and was scared to death but hey! no big foot. also, and far more importantly,movies are ,at times, given the subtitle(based on a true story) well heres a story, i woke up went to work and while at work saw a ufo. that was based on a true story. i really did wake up and go to work. but the rest of reationary, knee jerk, nonthinking, america belives that i saw a ufo
p.s. anyone who submits a comedians views of climate change should also attempt to understand comedians are trying to use simple skills to make a buck and cannot be relied upon for sage advice.
I find it frustrating that there still seem to be these supply of people who can create scientific-y looking presentations with bar graphs and data charts seeming to prove that global warming is all a big hoax. There was a guy like that presenting at UVM recently.
For my $, it has always seemed reasonable to me that if you dump all this crap into the atmosphere, the earth will eventually respond in ways which won’t be beneficial to humans. But you do have to trust the experts … (one of which is you).
Al Gore says it’s a “myth” that the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus. Then you some MIT/economist guy saying Al Gore’s “myth” is a “myth.” Then you hear Bill McKibbon say, in a very intelligent way, that that guy is an idiot. I guess as a layman, you have to trust your instincts … and they certainly seem to point to reality of this stuff for me. Still I wish all these scientists would just get on board the same boat.
Rich
I love your blog. YES, we MUST do this… this what?
This shift/ change/ revisioning/ rebuilding, re BIRTH ing
We run the rat race daily as a set of beings that dominate all of the other beings and each other, yet we deny our absolute Desructive & Constructive POWER
We are the earth enders and the earth tenders, and we need to make our choices now for all Earth’s sake.
What is happening to the Bees? Anyone?
What, do we expect that humanity will hand pollinate every bit of genetically-engineered corn and wheat..? I dont think its possible to feed our current population, and certainly not with hand- or machine-modes of pollination - as the Bee dies, so do we..
from smallest to largest, we are all tied up in the great web of life.
O, are friends in JP thinking of getting beehives? It might be a good idea for all of us who have a rooftop or back yard and can learn to keep a hive to do so, in case it can help.. but I am hearing that the real problem might be cell phones and GPS interfering with the bees natural homing instincts or magnetic mapping abilities. Are we “libral” “progressive” “grfeen” folk willing to give up computors or GPS or Cell phones if it will save the bees and our flowering crops? I wonder if we can do this. I hope we can if it is needed.
love and PEACE,
Amatul
Orion,
Thanks for the revealing article. Were you named for the constellation?
Bruce
peninsular indians in florida,about lts say, 500 years ago were most likely hit with a hurricane(pick any area) and they instantly thought,…we have done something wrong. go outside and with a preconcieved notion think what the weather should be like and relize as with the butterfly effect that all weather is abnormal. that is why it cannot be acuratly forcast weeks in advance.
or look at a pysics book and learn of the example of the unstable sandpile. one more grain can cause a collapse that cannot be forecast by any science. this validates the thought of global warming at the same time that it disproves the current panic. i simply believe deborah is correct that mankind cannot help but effect the environment. i have faith that enough people care about the big picture to slowly change it. but before anyone poo poos this, remember that we are here until we are not, and that one should not dwell on it until it causes an ulcer.people will do what people do. i live in a state of constant and i mean…constant weather change. i have lived here 40 of my 40 years and nothing is predictable. but while i think about it i remember that when i grew up in pensacola it rained alot…and it still does…here in central fla it is up in the air as to where the rain will fall weekly.we all have to understand we affect the environment. we cannot do otherwise and progress as a society, but we also must realize the answers are coming. most would state in a knee jerk comment that(but will it come soon enough)…whaaaa…while you cry know that earth can dispose of us renew itself and produce intelligence 2.0.im not saying forget it all and go to sleep im saying have a better outlook and while thinking about the problem and trying to educate others realize the higher mind will always prevail
Thanks Amatul! I like the idea of keeping bees in JP, I wonder what it would take to make it happen?
Bruce — yes, my parents named me for the constellation. Instead of inspiring me to take up astronomy, I spent hours as a kid reading mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Celt, Hindu, Japanese, etc.)
Sam — isn’t Florida facing a major water problem? That’s what I’ve heard anyway.
Despite what my brain tells me and my eyes show me, I believe with every “fiber of my being” that there is no way God intended for a species, gifted as Homo sapiens is, to ignore good science of global warming and, consequently to inadvertently destroy itself and likely much of the world as we know it……by its own ‘clay’ Hand.
The 11th Hour
http://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/
Will the 11th Hour be our finest hour so far or the final hour?
Do any of you know what HAARP is? The US Navy has the tech to control weather, and fear is on the agenda.
A link to an unusually incisive article follows,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/books/review/Schuessler-t.html?8bu&emc;=bu
http://growthmadness.org/2007/10/22/the-folly-egoism-and-dangers-of-climate-geo-engineering/#comments