I’m not much of an admirer of the current “Climate Change” fever that has politicians and popular personalities of all stripes singing and dancing for massive change. My much vilified university professor, Tim Ball, taught us to be skeptical, if not downright hostile, to the doomsayers of Climate Change, and though I am no-one’s toady or disciple I will admit that my skepticism continues in the face of considerable public sentiment to the contrary.
The earth has seen massive climate change before the industrial age, and in all likelihood it will see such changes again in future eons when our species is no longer dominant. It is possible that the carbon we produce so much of these days is a significant factor in the Earth’s warming, on the other hand, no-one is sure what the weather will be like next Wednesday, so who’s to say what really causes weather, and what doesn’t. Climate scientists may claim to know what is going on, but the priests and sages of eras past have spoken with as much authority only to be debunked.
However, to me the most interesting thing about our current green obsession is not what we believe is happening to our earth, but the way in which we frame how we will make changes to prevent disaster.
For instance, we insist that there must be other ways to produce energy efficiently and are so eager to believe this that we invest in dubious technologies like bio-fuels. Currently bio-fuels consume tremendous amounts of farmland and tax dollars to produce a negligible benefit. Perhaps in time we will master the extraction of fuels from plant-life, but so far it has proven to be a wasteful and expensive dream. Nonetheless bio-fuels remain a portent myth in the race to solve the climate change riddle.
The one, most obvious, solution to this problem however gets very little ink, and virtually no sound-bites. It is an idea that is as old as civilization itself, something that has been practiced by people of all times and ages whether by choice, or far more often, by necessity. It is called: living with less. Whereas virtually every argument one reads for the adoption of green technology contains some nod toward sustainable growth there is barely a soul alive who would propose that we move toward sustainable shrinkage.
The orthodoxy of modern economics posits that a civilization, in order to be successful and relevant in global terms, must continue to grow at all costs. Even as populations shrink in the nations most guilty of carbon spewing (with the noted exception of the United States) we continue to obsess over how we can go green and keep growing.
Here’s a radical thought. Why don’t we see what it would be like to not be so fixated on our status. How about we build homes that are affordable to heat and cool rather than massive, energy sucking monuments to our own perceived greatness and success. What if we had say one vehicle per family that reflected our needs rather than our annual salaries. Could we get by without lettuce in the dead of winter, and extravagant trips to foreign climbs? If we made more of an effort to live within our means would we still feel the guilt and doom of a future with no polar ice-caps and a prolonged hurricane season?
Like so much of what appears to be relevant today Climate Change is a product of hype and is mired in hyperbole. I am all for changing the way we live on Earth, for using less, working more on ourselves and less for our economies and for spending more time getting to know this fabulous biosphere we call home. But I don’t want to do it because jet-setting millionaires like Al Gore, Bono and Leonardo DiCapprio think it’s a good idea, and I don’t want to do it so Ford can sell me a new car that runs on rabbit food. I want to do it because I believe that our lives are about more than what we have owned when we die, and because I believe that a good, moral life is worthwhile despite the presence or absence of God(s), contrite politicians, Hollywood celebrities or speculative science.
I want to do it because I believe future generations have the right to enjoy the bounty of this planet, but should do so believing that the greatest imperative is take what is necessary and not more. If global warming continues to happen apace it will probably be the most valuable lesson we could learn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So it seems you aren't so much against change as the type of change. This is important because if you don't recognize human impact on the environment you're making a mistake. Skepticism (and hostility) have their place, like with emails offering you millions of dollars from Nigeria ( I got one tonight), but the method of change, not the issue of climate change itself should be doubted. The way I look at it is, if we doubt the human impact on climate and we're wrong the result is pretty gruesome. If we believe it and make changes then at least we did something, although I also prefer your idea of using less, I think that is a significant part of most "green" campaigns. Sure there are some assholes who will try to turn this crisis into a money making scheme, but that's no reason to throw the proverbial future generations baby out with the rising tidal bathwater. Preists and sages may have got a few things wrong when it came to predicting future events, but for a large part of their actions they were like you, promoting moral standards and responsibility (save for an inquisition here and there. A lot of the morals we have today come from minds of the past). Also comparing them to modern scientists is unfair, its archaic papyrus waving apples and comprehensive data oranges. Certainly this is one lesson we'd be better off to learn before exam time. A massive loss of human life would be a pretty crappy way to 'get it', but yea, I get what your saying, bio fuel might not be the answer. Of course if we used that idea and the 'use-less' one we might get somewhere. One more thing, I think we are overlooking good old fashioned pollution as an issue. Even if we manage to avoid catastrophic weather changes, it won't do us much good if the water and air is poison. So those are my thoughts on the matter. I know its quite different than the "horay!!" I usually give your writing, but I felt compelled to interject.
Your lengthy, and critical interjection is much appreciated. It is precisely why I wrote the article; expressing thoughts based on my thoughts is the greatest of complements. This article is published in today's Free Press, and I would love to see it generate some letters like yours Dave.
Although I agree that changes must be made to the way we live and consume, I still cannot completely agree with the science behind Climate Change. That global warming is happening is irrefutable. But there are many theories as to why.
My comparing scientists to priests and sages is more of a device by which I hope the reader will question his/her adherence to the scientific orthodoxy of our age. Although scientists use a certain method that is supposed to be beyond bias and superstition, they are nonetheless theorists with an ax to grind, and not one of them has all the answers, no matter how many letters come after their names. As an artist you know a whole other world that most scientists could barely fathom. In a sense science is blinded by its methods and it's mission, and though it has brought us into an entirely new age in less than 300 years it is by no means infallible or omnipotent.
On the other hand it is a philosophy and profession that modern Western humans understand and sympathize with (and indeed are in awe of) far more than any religious or secular moral philosophies. And sometimes I wonder if a powerful possibility as expressed by scientists that will lead to a positive change in human behaviour is not a good thing, irregardless if it is entirely true or not. Not many people are likely to change their way of living because of what I (a Winnipeg writer according to the WFP by-line) have to say. But they listen to the men and women in white coats, and the jet-setting Hollywood types who are the mouthpieces for the current cause celebre. So yeah, I'm not sure if the method matters as much as the result.
But as a writer one's job is to question the unquestioned and find a way to engage people, and help them look beyond what is merely expedient or just good enough. Shaking their trees a little often produces a desirable result. Hell, that's what DADA was all about, wasn't it.
Being one of your most frequent visitors, you must understand that I find your words to typically be very intelligent, well-reasoned and thought-provoking. Accordingly, you have provoked my thoughts.
Let me start with the kudos:
• I completely agree that people must start living with less. Less materially, but also less in terms of other expectations. I predict and fear the time, likely sooner than we think, where the idea of eating avocadoes in December or jetting off to Machu Picchu on an “ecotourism” jaunt simply won’t be realistic options for anybody. So whether we choose to live with less, or wait until we are forced to, I believe it is in our future.
• I also believe that we could have avoided this sorry state had we built a society that mimics nature’s cycles and interconnections. It has always been possible, but discovering all this liquid gold beneath the earth’s crust has thrown us off track for a little while.
• We’ve now created an “economy” that actually requires continued overconsumption, lest it collapse. We measure economic success in terms of GDP growth, yet we also understand how that is often completely at odds with true well-being or success, particularly for this earth. As an example, the cleanup activities related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill all contributed to GDP. The intensive treatments and drug purchases required to treat a child with terminal cancer all contribute to GDP. As such, using this indicator as a measurement for success is inherently flawed.
Now, some of the not-so-kudos:
• To even start your article referring to the Bush-speechwriter-coined term “climate change”, as opposed to the originally-coined term “global warming” displays a bias, unconscious perhaps, towards the issue. However, that’s no biggie…
• You focus on Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, and Boner, but blowhard celebrities have always tried to be the face of social consciousness. African people were starving long before Bob Geldof gave a shit about it, and have continued to since. I’ve never viewed their plight any differently based on my perception of Bob Geldof. You shouldn’t allow the new generation of green queens to do that to your perception either. Of course they’re blowhards. That’s part of the reason they got to where they are.
• Instead of focusing on whatever science Gore espouses, what about reviewing the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? As our new friend Wikipedia tells me: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions. A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.”
• Tim Ball is a bit of a lone wolf in this area. He flits around on privately funded tours, speaking to such open-minded think tanks as the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (not trashing it – some of my beloved relatives are heavily involved there), and suffice it to say, has some self-interest in having his controversial opinion heard. OF COURSE many celebrities on the other side also profit personally. Even if Al Gore hasn’t technically taken one dime for himself (which I don’t believe he has actually claimed), he is certainly enjoying an incredible renewed notoriety and calls for him to take the helm as the leader of the free world. Can’t be too hard on the old ego.
• I just can’t think of any other scientific question that has such incredible consensus (with the exception of the law of gravity), so to read my intelligent friend suggesting that there is still some measure of uncertainty is shocking. An eminent legal mind of days gone by once stated something to the effect that, “We can longer ignore, as jurists, what we, as reasonable men, know to be true.” Skeptics will always be able to find a Tim Ball or a George Bush to hang their hat on. At some point, we need to stand up and say “Holy fuck, enough is enough. We’ve studied enough. We’ve tested enough. I’ll never know anything in my life with 100% certainty, but this is pretty fucking close.”
But to bring it all home, I think we can reconcile these things towards a brighter future:
• Dependence on oil is ill-advised, regardless how you slice it. We’re running out. We’re fighting wars over it. It is clearly not sustainable. By scientific definition at present, only those processes that rely upon the sun can ever approach sustainability. It is an awful idea to continue to promote and maintain a societal infrastructure that depends so heavily upon it. Forget about global warming --- imagine Winnipeg in January when natural gas suddenly becomes unavailable? Then the real shit show begins. We HAVE to get off this addiction, even if one doesn’t believe one iota of the global warming “theorists”.
• Again, apart from global warming, there is the continual poisoning of the earth on every level. The plastics created from crude oil contribute devastatingly to dioxins in the environment, and again, who will care about global warming when everything we eat is toxic, and all of our children are succumbing to terminal cancers at age 10?.
Bear in mind, I may have swung a little farther in my response than I might have normally. I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about everything I take in. I would just suggest that, if one were to pick their battles with which to be skeptical, the “theory” of global warming is not a great candidate.
With much love and respect,
MJ
Hey,
If you have the time, I would really like you to view this:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
Like any TV show, there's spin there. But tell me if you don't feel a little ill about referring to Tim Ball in support of further denial.
Always looking for converts,
MJ
Thanks Mike, I'll check it out (even though it's only available in a tiny thumbnail version.) As a matter of semantics, please note that I do not deny the existence of global warming, but rather question the veracity of the science that puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of humanity. Having said that I will be glad to view the CBC story (slanted as it likely will be) with an open mind.
Post a Comment