We have met the deniers, and they
are us
Posted 4:59 PM on 10 Nov 2009
by Adam Sacks
James Inhofe.
Marc Morano.
Richard Lindzen.
Bjørn Lomborg.
George W. Bush.
Names of shame, ignominy, criminals against humanity, against planet
Earth itself. Agents of the lethal delays in our response to
escalating, accelerating, catastrophic global warming.
Yet, as deniers of climate change, they’re amateurs compared to us.
Us activists, environmentalists, scientists, and certainly Copenhagen
politicians.
Even though we’re believers, not skeptics, our denial is far more
insidious and subtle. So subtle, in fact, that we’ve managed to
convince ourselves that we’re not in denial at all. Quite the
opposite. Why, the thought is too absurd even to contemplate.
But it’s true.
We’re deniers every time we say “80 percent by 2050,” or even “80
percent by 2020”; every time we refer to tipping points in the future
tense; every time we advocate substituting “clean” energy for “dirty”
energy; every time we buy a squiggly light bulb or a hybrid vehicle;
every time we advocate for cap-and-trade, or even a carbon tax; every
time we countenance the mention of loopy
geoengineering schemes; every time we invoke the future of our
children and grandchildren and ignore the widespread suffering from
global climate disruption today.
Every time we say these things and more, we’re promoting denial of
dire climate reality, the reality that’s spinning out of our grasp so
fast that we conduct our frenetic climate “solutions” efforts in a kind
of stupor, obsessing with parts-per-million statistics, keeping
desperately busy to ward off our own utter collapse borne of despair.
The reality we’re denying? We’re denying that we’ve put so much
carbon into the atmosphere already that positive feedback loops are well
on their way to amplification hell.[1]
We’re denying that time lags between carbon emissions and their effects
are frighteningly relevant, and that the disastrous effects we’re seeing
now are from emissions of 30 years ago. We’re denying that non-linear
responses of physical systems cannot be calculated and therefore are
perilously ignored. We’re denying that our consumption and waste have
far exceeded planetary capacity, possibly irreparably so.[2]
We’re denying reality because we’re not talking about it; we’re
invoking fantasies and free lunches instead.[3]
Why do we act like this? Because just like the skeptics, we are
inordinately fond of our cushy lives. Because we don’t want to give up
our privileged, well-stocked existences any more than the skeptics do
(and enter the realms of unthinkable thoughts, to wit, go back to the
jungles? the caves? the starving, thirsting millions—or is that
billions?—never, never, never, not us). Because in our heart of hearts,
we want the skeptics to be right. We are brothers and
sisters. And so we join them.
But our denial is much, much worse, because we are the ones
presumably advocating for action on global climate disruption. And when
we fall short, who’s left to do the job?
Here’s an example, in a note from a friend of mine and fellow climate
campaigner:
I was quite disappointed by the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) presentation last night. The meeting title was “Roadmap to a
Carbon-Free Society” or something like that.
There was no roadmap discussed at the meeting. They showed a
bunch of charts and graphs showing how we could get to a 26 percent
carbon reduction by 2020 and a 56 percent carbon reduction by 2030
(from a 2005 baseline). All those carbon reductions were based on
changes to U.S. and state policy, it wasn’t clear what those
proposed policy changes would be, although they seemed to involve
some sort of cap and trade and a renewable energy mandate.
They were primarily focused on reducing carbon in electricity
generation. They had only 2 to 3 percent savings in carbon in
buildings. Their proposed savings in the transportation sector
seemed to focus on switching to ethanol (but not from corn).
There was absolutely no call to action.
There was no elaboration of priority.
There were no specifics regarding the changes that would need to
be made.
This was a U.S.-only proposal. When asked about global effects,
they basically said that was out of scope for their project.
I am looking hard for something I can do that will make a real
difference in the lives of my children and their children.
Mark
Here’s another example, from UCS again. I don’t mean to pick on
them—they have a lot of co-enablers—but they are real scientists, for
goodness sake! Yet they are as ensnared in the silencing trappings of
culture as any of us. They’re still on an 80-percent-by-2050 path
(below 2005, not 1990, levels), and they still imagine that
global warming is simply a consequence of greenhouse-gas emissions (“Global
Warming Crossroads: Choosing the Sensible Path to a Clean Energy
Economy”). As such, they avoid the lethal implications and
challenges of the impossible exponential growth that drives our lives
(more on this in my Aug. 23, 2009, post,
“The Fallacy of Climate Activism”).
After attending some of their mildly alarming but strangely
reassuring presentations, I have spoken with several UCS scientists
personally, and with hardly a tickle of prodding they quickly confess
how panicked they are. Why don’t they just state it outright, in
public? Because, they say (just like so many climate activists, with
such a uniform voice one might concoct a conspiracy theory), the
public can’t take it.[4]
People will shrivel up into their TVs and McBurgers and never come out
again. Then we’ll really be in a fix. (But I thought we already were?)
In December 2008, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), another
well-meaning house of denial, sponsored a forum aimed primarily at
climate activists, oddly entitled
“Taking Climate Change Seriously” (I guess they figured we hadn’t
done that yet). SEI folks are very nice, very smart people whom I like
personally. And they are working sincerely and hard on solutions
(which, however politically palatable, nonetheless carry very little
weight with the thunderous forces of nature).
A very bright, well-spoken UCS scientist opened the show by revealing
that she would speak frankly with us, in a way that she wouldn’t with a
general audience because they wouldn’t be able to take it. A cartoon
flashes onto the screen, showing the entrance to two different movie
theatres. One is showing “An Inconvenient Truth,” which has no
customers. The other, “A Convenient Lie,” has drawn a large crowd. The
implication, of course, is that the public (whom we chronically assume
is dumb) doesn’t want to know. She was pretty open about our dire
circumstances, however, with those of us who already knew it (remember,
we were there to take climate change seriously).
The irony of all of this is that her presentation itself is the
embodiment of the convenient lie: that it’s the public’s fault, despite
the fact that scientists and climate activists don’t tell them the
truth! How on earth are they supposed to know? No wonder the skeptics
hold such tenacious sway.
While An Inconvenient Truth was critically important as a
wake-up call, the title of the movie became part of the problem: Climate
change isn’t simply “inconvenient.” It’s lethal. Yet now that it’s
been branded as “inconvenient,” it’s not so bad, we can live with it—we
work around inconveniences, right? We do it all the time. Suppose that
just yesterday a CFL burned out and it was dark in the hall and I
stubbed my toe looking for my shoes and I had to bike to the hardware
store (I don’t own a car) and it was chilly and wet outside and my
glasses fogged up. That’s “inconvenience.”
Here’s how the public can come to know the truth about climate:
repetition. Learning and comprehension require repetition. Think about
repetition being used to learn multiplication tables, or in advertising,
or in political campaigns, etc. Certainly dire climate explanations
require even more repetition because it is difficult emotionally as well
as cognitively. But we haven’t yet even begun to tell that story, we
are so spooked by our own reactions and what we think others’ reactions
will be.
To reiterate, in order to elicit a response commensurate with the
problem, we have to start telling the truth about climate. We have
never actually tried it!
If we tell the truth, certainly some people will run away at first.
But we keep telling it regardless. Otherwise we engage in palliatives
as the world crumbles. There really is no other choice.
——-
Finally, I’d like to say a few words about the recent remarkable
350 day, Oct. 24, 2009, when thousands of coordinated demonstrations
across the world stated the climate emergency message loud and clear.
An unprecedented and truly impressive organizing effort. I attended the
local convocation of several communities meeting in Concord, Mass. We
were regaled by activist politicians, a playful tug of war between
costumed buckethead deniers and polar bears, post-hippie music,
brochures, and photo ops galore.
And generous dollops of denial. I found it all rather depressing.
People were enthusiastic about sending our banners to Copenhagen, as if
the “leaders” there would care (they would pretend, of course). The
clean energy revolution held center stage, as if simply substituting
windmills and solar panels now would make a difference to our
beyond-tipped-point physics, as if it were all just an energy problem.
But just scratch the surface and it was clear that we were grasping
at straws, and the sense of helplessness and hopelessness, bleeding
through the forced cheer, was pervasive. Perhaps we must confront and
embrace the depths of our despair before we can see clearly. Once we
do, however, the remarkable fact is that we can likely do
something about climate catastrophe, despite the necessity, for the
moment, of bypassing our globally failed political process. Very
briefly, local self-sufficiency and sustainability, steady-state
no-impact economics, eco-restoration, and rational birth reduction
(starting with but clearly not limited to “developed” countries, whose
impacts per capita are many multiples of third-world countries).
Sounds difficult or even close to impossible. The question is how
badly do we want it. Clearly not badly enough—yet. It will require a
dizzyingly quick cultural transformation, but the seeds have been
planted and are starting to sprout worldwide. We can turn this disaster
into opportunity and hope.
But only if we transcend our denial, and stop lying to the public.
And, especially, stop lying to ourselves.
—-
Article continues:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-10-we-have-met-the-deniers-and-they-are-us
|