the sky is falling

[aroraborealis]

So, I've always been what you might call an environmentalist. Having grown up in a community and a family with an active engagement with the natural world -- hiking, camping, climbing, skiing, etc -- I've basically always had a sense of responsibility with regards the world and my (and people's in general) place in it.

These days, though, it's hard not to feel like the sky is falling and that if we can't change our ways, the end of the world is nigh. On the other hand, people have been feeling that way for, as far as I can tell, basically ever, right? I mean, all the early Christians were excited about the return of Christ very soon after his death. They were pretty sure the world was going to end any minute. So, feeling that the world could end soon is pretty cliché, and, frankly, unlikely to be right.


On the other hand, I look at the science on climate change, and I look at the impact we humans have had on the planet, especially in the last century, and I think, well, shit, things don't look good. The world will make it (which, actually, I find very reassuring), but I'm not so sure about people. We depend on the global ecosystem for our most basic needs: food, water, energy. And while all of those things will continue to be available into the future, there's likely to be a lot less of them, and less predictably, and less reliably.

So I want to talk to everyone about how urgent it is that we begin to live in more sustainable ways. But when I step outside myself, I see this as problematic for two reasons. First, proselytizing is incredibly annoying, self-righteous, and generally unbearable. I don't want to be part of it. And second, I don't actually think it'll make a difference. The change I see us needing to make is so big that even if it makes me fret to see people driving more than they need to or buying plastic crap or not recycling aluminum foil or office paper, these are small potatoes.

This is part of why I'm studying policy; policy change may be one of the only ways to bring about systemic change, since so much of the problem is a tragedy of the commons type issue, and people just don't choose the common good over individual good more than occasionally. Even those of us who care a hell of a lot about this issue don't tend to choose the "right" way every time. As kcatalyst recently challenged me to consider: I fly places that I don't need to go, for example, and I'll admit that I'm not really willing to give that up as long as it is likely to feel like I'm depriving myself of something valuable and important to who I see myself to be (a traveler, a world citizen, someone with friends in far-flung places) and while that deprivation feels like such a drop in the bucket of a problem with a really, really big bucket.

I try to live in as low impact a way as I can, within the bounds of still living a basically normal life in North America, but all of our systems and structures are set up such that a basically normal life involves a fuckton of resource use. Which is depressing, and some days, it makes me feel like throwing in the towel, crossing my fingers and hoping I die before things get really bad. But that hardly seems fair or right, since it's already bad for a lot of people in the world, and I know I wouldn't feel good about it. But I'm still stuck sometimes not really knowing what to do when there's far too much to do.

Comments

[heinleinfan.livejournal.com]

When I start to feel some of this, I just think of the paper towels. David and I stopped using them about 2 years ago. Some people I've mentioned this too are just completely blown away, they can not imagine life without paper towels.

David and I aren't personally saving thousands of trees and oil use because of this. And our few dollars a month less revenue for Paper Towel Manufacturer, Inc. is so tiny as to be laughable. So it's not so much about the paper towels as it's about a life change. That little step, oddly enough, has led to the realization that life Can Be Different.


I do believe that major policy change must happen, but I also believe that every little thing I do is helping send the word that I *want* that change to happen. So yes, it's small potatoes not buying paper towels, but it's like any small step...just imagine what would happen if *everyone* stopped buying paper towels...and if I stop taking those steps I'm not part of the solution anymore, I'm just another part of the problem.

Heh, as for proselytizing...I know I do it. But I always try to explain my environmental choices to folks in an enlightening way, just, sharing what I do and telling stories. Sure, there's an unspoken "you could do this too" but I try not to be all YOU MUST DO THIS TOO about it.

[redbear07.livejournal.com]

The early Church also had a problem with new converts killing themselves in an attempt to redeem their eternal reward early. Encouraging people to ignore the reality of the situation and live in a dream world is never a good idea.

No, we're not going to prevent the Greenland ice sheets from letting go by taking away peoples plastic bottled water. But the issues do scale, and recycling is a good thing none the less.

I think for far too much of its history the environmental movement has tried to change the behavior of society by appealing to the better angels of peoples nature, and your comment about the tragedy of the commons would be all too apt in response to that. Things will change on a scale and in a time frame to do some good only when and if people can be shown that they can make money off of it. Or get the girl/boy or whatever their personal motivation for getting ahead and developing a large silver streak down their backs may be.

Tom Friedman wrote a good article from Bali about this recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html

Global Warming has been good for the environmental movement in an Apex Predator Strategy sort of way. People are now for the first time in Developed Western nations, directly linking environmental protection with their own preservation. Witness the recent defeat of Howard in Australia. So it does give me hope in a particular western linear thought process, that we may finally have an opportunity at real change.

Policy is critical, and lord knows Government Policy is a mighty big lever to pull, but have you considered a degree in Economics as well? All the cool environmentalists are getting one. :-)

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

have you considered a degree in Economics as well?

My rule is: one degree at a time!

But, no, an econ degree probably isn't on the list...

Tiny glints

[medyani.livejournal.com]

This post warrants a much longer response (conversation), than I am able to give at present. I'm suffering from much too little sleep, and alas, have to run. But empathy and words of hope from others often help me, and so I take this action (see below) and offer you these brief thoughts (and we've touched on some of this before):

Yes, people are always believing "the end is nigh," and often it's not, but SOMETIMES it is (some people saw the dark ages coming, and probably the last ice age, even, too) -- or variations on the theme. Which is to say, the world is quite unlikely to suddenly turn into a cinder. I, as you, find great comfort in that, and the fact that some semblance of nature will survive.

I do, however, feel great sadness, and at times great distress, over the impending demise of much of nature as we know it. Firstly, because I believe it (a bluebird, a vernal pool, a polar bear, a coral reef, a hemlock, a dophin, etc.) has intrinsic value, dignity, spirit and beauty, but also because while I don't think we can really know why we ARE, and what "importance" life has, my spiritual gut says it is essential to love, appreciate, and protect this beauty.* I think our species may be moving in the direction of recognizing this, but, alas, it MAY (I do hold out some glimmer of hope) be too little too late.

Overall, I'd say we're moving into an Octavia Butler- Parable of the Sower/Talents future (with some Oryx and Crake flavoring mixed in). Civilization(s) will radically change/deteriorate in the next 50 years, and largely because of our own doing, because we have been assaulting and destroying our world, not least by the sheer size of our current existence-- 6 thousand million people. (Sometimes I think there's only so much biomass to go around, and we have much too much of it right now.) Nevertheless, some humans, some nature, some kind of civilization will survive/evolve. And some of us will be part of that. And some of us can be the tree planters and the community builders, not the berserkers or the cannibals.

Further, while pedantry and proselytizing are detrimental, when you hit on effective and eloquent means of persuasion by action, example, art and word you do "make a difference." And we are not omniscient; you cannot know the way to transformation. And having the humility to know that you can't know this, can provide solace, too.

Believing. Doing. Tikkun Olam. Leading the conscious life. I really do believe in the Mead axiom: "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have." And sometimes when I despair, especially when I despair of my race, I think of some of the truly incredible HEROES in our midst on this very day: Jane Goodall. Wangari Maathai. David Attenborough. Alan Rabinowitz. Bernd Heinrich. And I only named a few. And I only named the ones who work specifically to save nature and the environment. There really are so many more Mary Olivers and Bill Moyers and Aung San Su Chis, and Dalai Lamas. If each of these people can get up every day and face all that they do, and still have hope, and still work as heroically and hard as they do, then I can, too.

And remember also that nature and the spirit are bigger than each tiny bit of it. Each tiny glint of spirit. Every good one and every bad one. And that would be every bird, and every beast and even the plants and the seeds. And that would each of us, too. We cannot know. So we must believe in hope. And on the days when we cannot, perhaps at least, believe in belief.


Phew. Okay. Not quite so brief. But I think about these questions A LOT (almost all the time), and so it is something I find fairly easy to talk about. Regardless, I empathise deeply with your feeling "anxious" and hope today, glimmers of hope have returned to light you inside.



*Actually, it might be more accurate to say I know in my core that a whale, for example, is beautiful -- it makes me cry for joy and sadness at the same time, for its beauty and spirit, and knowing that knowledge is of my core, I know that it is the most right thing in the world to try to cherish and protect it. And now I'm all teary eyed, because it does come from my core . . . anyway, gotta run . . .

[earthling177.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think it's that bad -- I've heard of lots of cases where a regular human being started something and got excellent results. For example, a friend of a friend in MN eventually got some building codes changed so that homes/buildings would have better insulation (the case in particular involved changes so that if you wanted large expanses of glass, you needed to upgrade the insulation, use high-efficiency HVAC equipment, etc).

Also, I would like to see not only better policies, but also better information. The "airplanes are bad, m'kay!" thing just irks me. Yes, people probably should avoid moving around unnecessarily (not just flying), but really. Here's the deal, and I'm not making this up -- I know an awful lot of aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers etc. Most airplanes use what is called a turbo-fan engine. Turbo-fan engines are among the most efficient combustion engines around. In fact, most modern planes are way more efficient than if everyone decided to take a car, particularly if they drive alone, which is often. The figures engineers quoted me basically mean if you chose to drive from coast to coast, with the same amount of fuel a plane uses for you, you'd me stranded in the middle of the country. Cars are *really* wasteful compared to planes, partly because a plane is basically transporting a bunch of people at once, and partly because turbo-fan engines are way more efficient. Unless people start taking trains, there's no better way to cross the country, and broadcasting that "planes rape the planet", like some people do, might actually switch an awful lot of people into driving alone, which is way worse. Flying per se is incredibly efficient considering how massive planes are (because they are built with materials that are very light compared to cars/trucks), all the fuel wasted happens basically on the ground, in the airport.

Which is *why* we do need better policies when it comes to flying -- there's an awful lot of waste due to stupidities like boarding the passengers way before the plane will take off, which wastes energy in the cabin AC/heat, for example, also the bad choices in the way the planes are defrosted, sometimes multiple times, while wasting energy with the passengers inside etc. We need better procedures to do things faster, better and more efficiently. Part of that involves what are probably the biggest changes, which involve convincing people to behave better: we need them to get in line by row numbers, so that we can load the plane back to front, no exceptions, each and every passenger can only have one carry-on bag to go under the seat and another to go in the overhead compartment, and they both need to fit in the space allotted -- all those changes are hard, people think they have a *right* to get in the plane with more than two bags and they all should fit in the overhead bin so they can stretch their legs and screw everyone else that behaved according to the rules and they all are now walking up and down the isles trying to stow their luggage, the planes miss their place in line for take-off etc. One of these days I would like to know what makes people in first class want to be the very first to board so they can get people in coach (like me) accidentally bump into them with their backpacks and I've seen people being bumped so hard that they spilled orange juice on their expensive garbs. If I was in first class, I would just want to be in the VIP room and be one of the last to board the plane in peace and quiet. I guess the way I see it, passengers should have the right to go thru security quickly, the airlines make sure *all* the passengers are there and they have five minutes to board everyone and take off. No reason to keep stuff running for nothing while waiting 40 minutes to take off or the last 3 passengers to show up. That and I think we need more trains, I love traveling by train. YMMV.

Anyway, just a few thoughts here. I'd love to chat about stuff like that some other time with you.